Passenger Trains > New locomotives for Metrolink (LA)

Metrolink plans to buy state-of-the-art locomotives

To overcome a surge in locomotive breakdowns that delay passengers, the Metrolink commuter railroad plans to spend about $200 million for some of the most sophisticated low-emission engines available.Rail officials want to buy 29 so-called Tier 4 locomotives — powerful, fuel-efficient vehicles designed to slash potentially harmful releases of nitrogen oxide and fine particles of diesel exhaust.Metrolink is set to take delivery of its first locomotive in December and the rest next year. When it does, the railroad that serves about 41,200 daily riders from six Southern California counties will become the first passenger line in the nation to operate the state-of-the-art engines.

More  from the LA Times: Metrolink plans to buy state-of-the-art locomotives

Article mentions how the F59 locomotives are breaking down all the time and the decision to go for new, unproven locomotives instead of doing rebuilds.

I didn't realize that the first set of engines are over 20 years old.  It seems like it was just yesterday when they started up....


-j

Of the Chargers, "McCarthy, Metrolink's deputy chief, [says] all Tier 4 components have been tested successfully. 'We are not concerned,' he added. 'It's a tried-and-true locomotive.'" Really? As far as I know, the components have yet to be installed in a working locomotive.

I don't know I watched a metrolink train this afternoon with traction motor problems I don't  think nonsmoking loco's would of helped that.

CPR_4000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of the Chargers,

Metrolink is purchasing the EMD F125 Spirit, not the Charger.

Am rather skeptical about a locomotive churning at 1800 RPMs (almost double that of anything else ever built in RRing) in a V-20 configuration that requires Urea Injection (pissing in the exhaust), also known as CRC, with all the infrastructure that will have to go along with it! Something heavy-haul Class Ones have fought tooth & nail to AVOID, perhaps more doable in captive service on a regional commute line--I highly doubt these new locos will turn in 20 years & as reliability figures as the 20-year old F59PHs!!!

Skeptical why Red?

The Charger would probably have been a much better choice. Metrolink would have had operational compatibility with Caltrans, who will have significant maintenance ability for Chargers within the next few years. Would save them money on crew training and maintenance (that urea is going to get expensive).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/15 22:27 by Amfleeter.

Political payoff, or metrolink is getting the feds to pay for most of the new locos.  It's OK to waste money, as long as it is someone else's money.  If there was a rebuild company in a politically influential part of Socal, u cud bet the F59's would be rebuit.

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Political payoff, or metrolink is getting the feds
> to pay for most of the new locos.  It's OK to
> waste money, as long as it is someone else's
> money.  If there was a rebuild company in a
> politically influential part of Socal, u cud bet
> the F59's would be rebuit.

This.
It's all politics.   Same thing is happening all over Southern Californian.   Districts are ripping out driving lanes and putting in bike lanes on busy streets.   It's destroying traffic flow, but it's green and looks good for when they run for higher office.

Red Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am rather skeptical about a locomotive churning at
> 1800 RPMs (almost double that of anything else
> ever built in RRing) in a V-20 configuration that
> requires Urea Injection (pissing in the exhaust),
> also known as CRC, with all the infrastructure
> that will have to go along with it! Something
> heavy-haul Class Ones have fought tooth & nail to
> AVOID, perhaps more doable in captive service on a
> regional commute line--I highly doubt these new
> locos will turn in 20 years & as reliability
> figures as the 20-year old F59PHs!!!

SCR is a proven technology that presents logistics, not reliability issues.  Trying to meet Tier 4 without it is far more complicated, but large freight railroads would prefer not to have to have another fluid to manage, the absence of which could shut down a unit. Commuter operators have captive fleets with daily down time so SCR isn't a problem aside from the additional cost.  I'm with you that the road/stationary use diesels on locomotives are a bad idea.  Double the RPM means half the service life, not to mention there are 2-4 turbos to go bad instead of just 1.

BTW, who rebuilt Amtrak California's F59PHI's to Tier 2/3? 

Maybe the next step will be to electrify the San Bernardino Line--after all, part of it was Pacific Electric for many years.  Oh well, we juicefans can dream (and look at the new Denver Airport line).

DNRY122 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the next step will be to electrify the San
> Bernardino Line--after all, part of it was Pacific
> Electric for many years.  Oh well, we juicefans
> can dream (and look at the new Denver Airport
> line).

Sure, come up with the funding, you'll need a lot of it. That overhead ain't cheap! 

The new locomotives utilize high-rpm, high HP Caterpillar prime movers. Tier 4 compliance devices aside, how many successful mainline locomotives have incorporated such engines? I recall lots of trial runs...none particularly successful.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/15 18:39 by Alco251.

Alco251 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The new locomotives utilize high-rpm, high HP
> Caterpillar prime movers. Tier 4 compliance
> devices aside, how many successful mainline
> locomotives have incorporated such engines. I
> recall lots of trial runs...none particularly
> successful.
>
> Posted from iPhone

Locomotives? Not many. But big mining trucks and loaders, lots!

Coming to Caltrains near you.

DNRY122 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the next step will be to electrify the San
> Bernardino Line--after all, part of it was Pacific
> Electric for many years.  Oh well, we juicefans
> can dream (and look at the new Denver Airport
> line).

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Red Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Am rather skeptical about a locomotive churning
> at
> > 1800 RPMs (almost double that of anything else
> > ever built in RRing) in a V-20 configuration
> that
> > requires Urea Injection (pissing in the
> exhaust),
> > also known as CRC, with all the infrastructure
> > that will have to go along with it! Something
> > heavy-haul Class Ones have fought tooth & nail
> to
> > AVOID, perhaps more doable in captive service on
> a
> > regional commute line--I highly doubt these new
> > locos will turn in 20 years & as reliability
> > figures as the 20-year old F59PHs!!!
>
> SCR is a proven technology that presents
> logistics, not reliability issues.  Trying to
> meet Tier 4 without it is far more complicated,
> but large freight railroads would prefer not to
> have to have another fluid to manage, the absence
> of which could shut down a unit. Commuter
> operators have captive fleets with daily down time
> so SCR isn't a problem aside from the additional
> cost.  I'm with you that the road/stationary use
> diesels on locomotives are a bad idea.  Double
> the RPM means half the service life, not to
> mention there are 2-4 turbos to go bad instead of
> just 1.
>
> BTW, who rebuilt Amtrak California's F59PHI's to
> Tier 2/3? 

To the other gentleman above who asked "why I am skeptical," you statements above pretty much cover it: half the service life & the logistical issues. Perhaps less a problem with Metrolink with Amtrak units in PSL & intercity service needed complete rebuild every 3-4 years, well, what would these things need? Complete overhauls every year-and-a-half? Even with their reduced service demands & reduced mileage factors? BOONDOGGLE!!!

Has there ever been a successful use of Cat diesels on full-sized locomotives?  Must be fun to roll the dice with other people's money and hope this time will be different.  Even if performance and reliability is guaranteed in the contract, if there is a less than ideal outcome the contract won't help if these things break down a lot.  But let's hope for the best.  Wish them good luck and start saving pee for them.

Ah yes, another since it's never been done, it can't be done thread.
 

tcarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah yes, another since it's never been done, it
> can't be done thread.
>


The locomotive industry is REPLETE with "thinking outside of the box"--others perhaps can provide the various examples--of "thinking outside of the box"--not one of which in the diesel-electric industry survived very long.  

Going back to the days of steam, we had such experiments as water-tube boilers, poppet valve cylinders and nickel-steel boilers.  This is not to say that Caterpillar can't develop a sufficiently rugged diesel for main-line railroad service, but history is not on their side.