Passenger Trains > Why don't Amtrak buy some old Go Units?

Why don't Amtrak buy some F59 Engines from Go or any company has extra power sitting around. But We all know amtrak doesn't think like normal company does just look at the Viewliners car order taking 5 years plus, what a joke.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/15 21:43 by railcity.

Given Amtrak's experience with the rather lackluster F59PHIs, I seriously doubt they want more of them. Especially units that have already been thoroughly thrashed in commuter service.

ThumbsUp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given Amtrak's experience with the rather
> lackluster F59PHIs, I seriously doubt they want
> more of them. Especially units that have already
> been thoroughly thrashed in commuter service.


Amtrak could make F59PH new again, too last say 5 to 10 years until Amtrak buys new power??

Please identify the funding source for either option ( rebuild old F59's or order new units ).

If Amtrak needs additional diesels, the first place to look would be the remaining P40s that are stored out of service (though I understand they cannibalized the trucks to replace cracked trucks on the P42s).

NCDOT has bought many ex-GO F59s - some operating after rebuild, some yet to be rebuilt, some earmarked for cab control cars. But NCDOT maintains their locomotives with care, they (almost) never get more than 150 miles from the shop in Raleigh, and they rarely run more than 300 miles in a day. Amtrak units get harder duty.

What percentage of the P40/P42 are out of service as we speak ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/15 03:59 by joemvcnj.

The number of P42s that they have in service is 199 out of the 207 that they bought.
Out of their 44 P40s they bought 14 in service. 12 are sold. The rest presumably stored somewhere (and would be much more relevant choices for rebuild) than an F59).



I also don't see why Amtrak would see anything appealing in an F59. Especially when all of their system-wide units are GEs. I like how people randomly go on the offensive against Amtrak here with asinine accusations of ineptitude. There's inept decisions in every railroad, but Amtrak not buying ragged out commuter EMD's does't quite the make cut.

Davis



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/15 05:26 by strench707.

We all thought at one time the F59 was to be a new and improved F40. We were wrong.

VIA Rail does not use Gennies outside the Corridor. The shops in Winnipeg and Vancouver are not GE (nor LRC) friendly. Their F40's have been rebuilt. They encounter nastier weather than ours and seem to run fine.

<Out of their 44 P40s they bought 14 in service. 12 are sold. The rest presumably stored somewhere (and would be much more relevant choices for rebuild) than an F59>.

Didn't some of the remaining 18 P40's lose their trucks to P42's whose trucks cracked thanks to Amtrakian maintenance ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/15 06:21 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all thought at one time the F59 was to be a new
> and improved F40. We were wrong.
>
> VIA Rail does not use Gennies outside the
> Corridor. The shops in Winnipeg and Vancouver are
> not GE (nor LRC) friendly. Their F40's have been
> rebuilt. They encounter nastier weather than ours
> and seem to run fine.
>
> .
>
> Didn't some of the remaining 18 P40's lose their
> trucks to P42's whose trucks cracked thanks to
> Amtrakian maintenance ?

What is the utilization rate of any VIA equipment, including the F40s when compared to Amtrak's. Which Amtrak trains would you like to see cancelled for Amtrak to achieve VIA's utilization rates? Just curious.

I have no idea of VIA's utilization rates are, especially in summer. But I don't hear of road failures going on all the time either.

Amtrak bases a lot of decisions on procurement ... they don't want 2 inventory bins from 2 builders

Posted from Android

North Carolina bought a few ex-GO F59's a few years ago, but their railroad (which is a state supported, stand-alone operation) was all-EMD from the start.

strench707 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The number of P42s that they have in service is
> 199 out of the 207 that they bought.

That number is misleading. Not all 199 are running (in fact, many, many fewer).
The "199 out of 207" number derives from those that are off roster, either
scrapped or stripped and pending sale for scrap:

Scrapped: 143, 149. Pending: 8, 49, 70, 128, 141.

At least ten more are long-term out of service, pending decision on disposition.

Many more are unserviceable, waiting for repair...some for a long time.

> Out of their 44 P40s they bought 14 in service.
> 12 are sold. The rest presumably stored somewhere
> (and would be much more relevant choices for
> rebuild) than an F59).

One rebuilt P40 is out of service, probably permanently. As noted, the stored ones
are unserviceable because their trucks were used to repair P42s whose trucks
were damaged due to improper maintenance and repair methods. The fabricated Krupp
truck is now discontinued and parts would have to be manufactured new by its maker.

> I also don't see why Amtrak would see anything
> appealing in an F59. Especially when all of their
> system-wide units are GEs.

Note, however, that while there is an overhaul program in place for Amtrak-owned
F59PHI at Beech Grove (not California or North Carolina-owned ones), and for
the 1992-built 500 class P32s, there is currently none for the P42 fleet at all.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/15 09:14 by GenePoon.

As though there are long lines of F59s sitting around just waiting for Amtrak to buy them.

Some have no idea how much it costs to rebuild a unit for service let alone how long. Kind of like driving by a used car lot, buying one and then finding out how much its going to cost as it was trashed but looked good.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That number is misleading. Not all 199 are
> running (in fact, many, many fewer).
> The "199 out of 207" number derives from those
> that are off roster, either
> scrapped or stripped and pending sale for scrap:
>
> Scrapped: 143, 149. Pending: 8, 49, 70, 128, and
> 141.
>
> At least ten more are long-term out of service,
> pending decision on disposition.
>
> Many more are unserviceable, waiting for
> repair...some for a long time.

Thanks for the more detailed info.

Because tracking down the specific disposition of each non-retired / non-scrapped units is so difficult, generally everything else is considered "active," regardless of how active it really is. I was trying to present the information in that sense but did not clarify.


> Note, however, that while there is an overhaul
> program in place for Amtrak-owned
> F59PHI at Beech Grove (not California or North
> Carolina-owned ones), and for
> the 1992-built 500 class P32s.

I'm aware of that. I was thinking along the lines of stocking EMD parts at terminals across the country being a problem. Right now I'd assume only the west coast and possibly Chicago have any EMD parts at their shops. If Amtrak bought F59PH's, a place like Albany would rarely get an F59 and it wouldn't make sense for those parts to be laying around there. A place like New Orleans probably has some GE parts on-hand but again wouldn't make sense to stock EMD parts for a small F59 fleet that might only occasionally visit and hopefully less occasionally fail there.

Since their retirement, there have been numerous rumblings of reactivating a small fleet of F40's at Beech Grove. Every time this was of course shot down and a major factor each time was my argument outlined above. They're oddballs now, no parts stocked systemwide and many newer mechanical guys not qualified on them. There was serious consideration towards the exhibit #406 being powered, but being a fleet of 1, the argument pounded that down even more. When they chose to rebuild the P40's, I'm sure the F40's also crossed their mind but what made more sense?

Its efficient to have consistency in your fleet. I look to NJT as someone who got it right (even though as a buff I don't like what they did). They've been cleaning house and eliminating ALP-44's, geeps, F40's, etc, and replacing all of those different models with a fleet of new generation ALP variants. Different models, but all sharing universal parts.

> there is currently none for the P42 fleet at all.

What are you referencing when you say Beech Grove doesn't currently have a P42 overhaul program? They've been overhauled numerous times and they continue to do so. With no new orders on the horizon, they wouldn't be running them into the ground. I also would find it highly unlikely that they would rebuild Dash-8's and not P42's considering how much older and more of a lemon those units are.



It's all fun to speculate but even as an outsider with no RR experience, I can't see much sense in what the Trainorders Power Desk is coming up with.

Davis



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/15 09:18 by strench707.

Looks like the power issues just won't go away, #4(28) added a BNSF unit at Gallup yesterday.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/15 09:18 by Milw_E70.

Is it my imagination, or are there few engine failures east of Chicago?

Milw_E70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like the power issues just won't go away,
> #4(28) added a BNSF unit at Gallup yesterday.


It was a sharp looking SD40-2. Photo by bnsfsd70:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3677777

It came off at Kansas City; BNSF did not want it going to Chicago.
Reportedly it is a special unit for multiple-unit remote operation
on the Transcon. Also, this way Amtrak gets hit with a smaller
lease fee and a smaller mileage fee for its return to Gallup.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/15 09:41 by GenePoon.