Railroad Forums 

Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a

 #56414  by Irish Chieftain
 
Somebody mentioned F59PHI's as monsters - were these junk?
Too tall for NJ Transit system (a whopping 15 feet 11 inches in height). AFAIK, NJT were looking at them, but EMD would apparently not do a redesign to accommodate low clearances. Hence the coming-soon PL42AC, which this thread is about.

I've heard about the F59PHI not having windshield washers, so if you get a dirty windshield, you can't use the wipers to clean it because of no washer fluid squirters. It's a wonder that the FRA didn't take them out of service until windshield washers were installed...

The original version of these locos, GO Transit's F59PH, are ready to be replaced after a mere 20 years of operation (they are rather falling apart)...compare that to NJT's fleet of Geeps, which date back to the late 1960s.

Any more questions about the F59PH and F59PHI, hit the EMD forum.

 #56529  by Zeke
 
Looking at those Euro locomotives I cant see how any one could call that a "design". Take a loaf of Wonder bread place trucks underneath, cut out a square on each end and we have a locomotive DESIGN? NOT. The ALCO PA that was a design. I hated the Genesis AMTRAK locomotives when they first came on the scene now I like them and I suspect we will grow to like the PL-42 eventually.

 #56654  by Irish Chieftain
 
Sometimes the handsomest "design" is not the most practical—I've heard about poor visibility out of the cabs of E-units; can't comment on the Alcos, but not too many of the streamlined diesels had great forward visibility, I have always been led to understand. If the PL42AC is engineer-friendly and affords them good visibility as wella as being a reliable and responsive road locoomotive, their looks are irrelevant.

 #57438  by BigDell
 
Looking at those Euro locomotives I cant see how any one could call that a "design". Take a loaf of Wonder bread place trucks underneath, cut out a square on each end and we have a locomotive DESIGN? NOT. The ALCO PA that was a design. I hated the Genesis AMTRAK locomotives when they first came on the scene now I like them and I suspect we will grow to like the PL-42 eventually.
Thank you Zeke, my feelings exactly. I have to disagree with the formidable Irish Chieftan on this one. A practical design need not be devoid of aesthetic sensibility. My goodness, is there NO ONE IN THE FREE OR OPPRESSED WORLD who can properly design an aesthetically pleasing locomotive that the engineer can see out of? Do we have to spend the next 20-plus years looking at this butt-ugly monstrosity of "compromise solution"? Its enough to make me yearn for the Amtrak Pooch!
;-)

Yes, BigDell is enjoying a Hendricks (from Scotland) Gin and Tonic right now, but the sentiments are sober and true....

 #57456  by Irish Chieftain
 
A practical design need not be devoid of aesthetic sensibility
Then you and others should donate towards a certain design that you put forward. Be pro-active. If you leave it to bureaucrats and their money, then you have abrogated your right to complain. JMHO...besides, in push mode, you don't get to see the power until you see the end of the train, so what's the difference...

 #57459  by Nasadowsk
 
BigDell wrote:My goodness, is there NO ONE IN THE FREE OR OPPRESSED WORLD who can properly design an aesthetically pleasing locomotive that the engineer can see out of?
And still meet FRA regulations and everything else? No. US passenger operators already pay a nasty premium for equipment, and that's without the good looks.

Much like today's automobiles, which are all bland, locomotives are all going to look more or less the same. It's pretty much what happens when the government gets in the design business...

 #57772  by GandyDancer
 
BigDell wrote:My goodness, is there NO ONE IN THE FREE OR OPPRESSED WORLD who can properly design an aesthetically pleasing locomotive that the engineer can see out of?
At 135 mph, it really doesn't much matter what the engineer can see, does it? He or she couldn't stop soon enough to avoid anything within visual range anyway. As long as grade crossings remain, so does the risk of collision. And increasing engineer visibility won't help much if at all.

Seems like the FRA regs for design are more aimed at insulating bureaucrats from liability and insurors from tort remedies than in advancing the industry or making my commute shorter.

I just got my first ride on the Maglev at Pudong airport in Shanghai and I respectfully submit to all here that before we argue anymore about how nice we can make an internal combustion-powered locomotive look, we ought to start wondering why this country still relies on 170-year-old technology to help drive its economy.

 #57833  by Nasadowsk
 
GandyDancer wrote:At 135 mph, it really doesn't much matter what the engineer can see, does it? He or she couldn't stop soon enough to avoid anything within visual range anyway. As long as grade crossings remain, so does the risk of collision. And increasing engineer visibility won't help much if at all.
Well, yes. But it's still possible to provide reasonable grade crossing prtection and decent visability.
Seems like the FRA regs for design are more aimed at insulating bureaucrats from liability and insurors from tort remedies than in advancing the industry or making my commute shorter
Bingo. Everytime there's a crash, everyone screams 'do something', and so, Washington does 'something'. The problem being, like everything else, the government's treating the symptons, not the problem. The FRA's standards are a nice smiley face on the issue, which is why the heck trains are bumping into each other in the first place. It's interesting to note that the Japanese, who have by far the safest rail system in the world, use equipment that wouldn't even meet european crash standards. In fact, they have <b>zero</b> protection at all. Because they operate on the principal that there will be <b>no</b> crashes. This is the opposite extreme of the US view, which is train crashes are a fact of life that can't be avoided, thus we should try to eliminate deaths from them.

Realistically, you can absolutely avoid train-train collisions, but train-car and train-truck collisions are less avoidable. Thus, you use what technology you have to avoid train train collisions, and design equipment to be safer when it hits a car or truck. And current US designs, even recent ones, do horridly in grade crossing accidents.
I just got my first ride on the Maglev at Pudong airport in Shanghai and I respectfully submit to all here that before we argue anymore about how nice we can make an internal combustion-powered locomotive look, we ought to start wondering why this country still relies on 170-year-old technology to help drive its economy.
Well, maglev's a dead end, ultimately. But, the US, in terms of passenger rail, is firmly stuck in the 70's and slowly regressing into the 30's. There has been no significant advances in the state of the art in the US since the late 60's and the M-1s and Silverliners, and recent equipment has often tended to be either not more advanced, or a step behind the stuff it's replacing. We're still buying DC locomotives for passenger use, equipment weight has taken a severe upturn, speeds are not better, energy use has gone up, and safety has not increased. We're runninjg a passenger rail system that's the laughingstock of the industrialized world. It flat out costs more, carries fewer, and does it slower.

We might as well argue about paint schemes, nobody seems to be willing to ask the hard questions about passenger rail in the US....

 #57836  by Irish Chieftain
 
I just got my first ride on the Maglev at Pudong airport in Shanghai and I respectfully submit to all here that before we argue anymore about how nice we can make an internal combustion-powered locomotive look, we ought to start wondering why this country still relies on 170-year-old technology to help drive its economy
The Diesel-electric locomotive is not 170 years old. As for the rail infrastructure, it still has a lot of life in it—certainly, high-speed steel rail lines expanding their top end to 220 mph is proof of that. Nonetheless, since we are talking about commuter distances and such speeds are really impractical, not to mention what "drives our economy" more than anything right now is more asphalt-related than anything else, I am merely concerned about the trains moving...and so long as they pass by vehicles on said asphalt during rush-hour and thus selling its purpose to drivers crawling at 20 mph, the locomotive can be a long-hood-forward FM Trainmaster for all the hoopla about looks...

 #57855  by GandyDancer
 
Irish Chieftain wrote:The Diesel-electric locomotive is not 170 years old.
I was referring to metal rail technology, not diesels.
Irish Chieftain wrote:As for the rail infrastructure, it still has a lot of life in it—certainly, high-speed steel rail lines expanding their top end to 220 mph is proof of that...
Even though, as Nasadowsk sez, Maglev is technologically a dead-end, I'll take 350 mph speeds and near-silent (60db at speed) running - for now - to anything we have in the US today.

 #58210  by Zeke
 
There's something in our psyche that is averse to new designs. A case in point for me, was my first glimpse of an Amtrak Genesis diesel. I thought it was one of those bizzare Speno rail grinder abominations. Man I could not believe some one let that thing out of the design studio,now I really like them painted up in that Shamu scheme. It seems the more you see a new design locomotive in service it grows on you. I am a modernist, if its new I like it. I agree with nasodowsk though...the automobiles all look the same today as do the locomotives. We have world cars and now world locomotives. The Alp-46 looks better every day so I think the PL-42 will have the same effect, at least on me. A sage wisely stated, " In matters of principle stand firm like a rock. In matters of taste bend like a reed."

 #58230  by hsr_fan
 
Nasadowsk wrote:
BigDell wrote:My goodness, is there NO ONE IN THE FREE OR OPPRESSED WORLD who can properly design an aesthetically pleasing locomotive that the engineer can see out of?
And still meet FRA regulations and everything else? No

I think the Acela Express is one of the best looking trains of any era!

 #58320  by DutchRailnut
 
The Acela styling and car body are almost direct copies of any of later TGV designs.
Now bout them PL42ac's were this subject line is about, are the two prototypes back from Pueblo yet ?? and will the other 31 units be delivered in the next 14 weeks ?? take way the holidays and Alstom must look like the Ford plant of the 1930's.
If the locomotives are not delivered by December 31st they need to be compliant of Tier II emmisions, dropping the performance of the diesels by 10% or so, this would be a contract violation and huge penalty clause.
 #58424  by njtmnrrbuff
 
I am wondering when those 42s will enter transit. Right now, chances look pretty slim for Christmas. For one thing, I doubt that all 33 units will be on the property. Also,I am not so sure when they will enter revenue service. I can't wait to see them. They look very nice. To me, they look like a cross between an FH-2, and of course, a 46. Does anyone know what lines they will be running on? I bet they will be assigned to the RVL but if they perform better than the current diesels even though the current ones do a good job, better than a genesis, it might not hurt to have them roam on the Montclair-Boonton and M&E.
 #58443  by nick11a
 
njt/mnrrbuff wrote:I am wondering when those 42s will enter transit. Right now, chances look pretty slim for Christmas. For one thing, I doubt that all 33 units will be on the property. Also,I am not so sure when they will enter revenue service. I can't wait to see them. They look very nice. To me, they look like a cross between an FH-2, and of course, a 46. Does anyone know what lines they will be running on? I bet they will be assigned to the RVL but if they perform better than the current diesels even though the current ones do a good job, better than a genesis, it might not hurt to have them roam on the Montclair-Boonton and M&E.
Yes, I agree, they do look nice. I do believe they don't have to be on the property by Christmas, just as long as all the frames and engines are built they'll be in the clear. ABCD could fill you in more. But, they are doing very well aparently.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 96