Western Railroad Discussion > Devore derailment site update

These photos were taken 8-31-18. Note all three BNSF main tracks have been repaired at least temporarily. Note the "cocooned"  Metrolink locomotive off to the side of the tracks in a fenced area just off old Devore Rd.  Traffic on 8-31 was moderate and very busy on 9-1

Have fun, be safe,

Bruce "Doc" Jones   Sierra Madre CA

---

---

---

Two more for perspective.

Have fun, be safe,

Bruce "Doc" Jones  Sierra Madre CA

---

---

what caused this derailment?

66

Bruce-pardon my stupidness but what was the Metrolink loco doing in the consist?  Thanks 

BB

Two Metrolink Locos were enroute to LA for delivery.  They are new.   One of the units has been reported as suspect in causing the derailment.

bmarti7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce-pardon my stupidness but what was the
> Metrolink loco doing in the consist?  Thanks 
>
> BB

Believe there were two locomotives being hauled dead in consist with idler/spacer flats around the, for delivery to Metrolink.  To think it was that close to it's destination and then this.  I really wonder what will happen to the engine - will insurance pay for a replacement; will this one be fixed up and Metrolink given a discount; fixed up but no discount; or just scrapped and Metrolink ends up short one unit on the planned order and given a refund?

Nathan

Wasn't the Metrolink locomotive derailed but upuright?  Doesn't sem that it will be a loss; just some repair work.

atsf121 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bmarti7 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bruce-pardon my stupidness but what was the
> > Metrolink loco doing in the consist?  Thanks 
> >
> > BB
>
> Believe there were two locomotives being hauled
> dead in consist with idler/spacer flats around
> the, for delivery to Metrolink.  To think it was
> that close to it's destination and then this.  I
> really wonder what will happen to the engine -
> will insurance pay for a replacement; will this
> one be fixed up and Metrolink given a discount;
> fixed up but no discount; or just scrapped and
> Metrolink ends up short one unit on the planned
> order and given a refund?
>
> Nathan

Don't the railroads normally insist on placing their own dead-in-tow locomotives in the consist with the other locomotives?  If so, then we have to wonder why that wasn't done here.  It seems to me like having flats on both ends is just asking for a derailment  Any rails care to comment?.

radar Wrote:

>
> Don't the railroads normally insist on placing
> their own dead-in-tow locomotives in the consist
> with the other locomotives?  If so, then we have
> to wonder why that wasn't done here.  It seems to
> me like having flats on both ends is just asking
> for a derailment  Any rails care to comment?.

I can't recall the EXACT reason, but I believe it has something to do with the couplers on the Metrolink locomotives, and that they don't play well with freight locomotives.   Just about the entire order of these engines have been shipped like this (in the middle of a manifest train).   I know the very first one was shipped as a special move (with a BNSF locomotive pulling a spacer car, the Metrolink locomotive, and another spacer car)   #911 was also shipped in that fashion for some reason. 

I am not saying the couplers caused this accident, but the modern passenger equipment specifications set forth in APTA and PRIIA call for passenger equipment to be equipped with Crash Energy Mananagement (CEM) couplers. The CEM couplers do not have an alignment control mechanism on the draft gear, like the freight equipment does. The lack of aligment control draft gear is why the new passenger locomotives were shipped as special movements and not in freight trains. It will be interesting to see how future shipments are handled.

zchcsse Wrote:

> I can't recall the EXACT reason, but I believe it
> has something to do with the couplers on the
> Metrolink locomotives, and that they don't play
> well with freight locomotives.   Just about the
> entire order of these engines have been shipped
> like this (in the middle of a manifest train).  
> I know the very first one was shipped as a special
> move (with a BNSF locomotive pulling a spacer car,
> the Metrolink locomotive, and another spacer
> car)   #911 was also shipped in that fashion for
> some reason. 

The interesting tthing here is when MARC and SEPTA took delivery of their new units both the UP and CSXT ran special trains consisting of two freight units pulling the passenger units. This eleminated the weight of the freight train but probably greatly increased the charges MARC and SEPTA had to pay to have the locomotives shipped back east. Maybe Metrolink was trying to keep their shipping charges down. I'm sure BNSF will now insist future Metrolink F125 deliveries be done as "lite power" moves as in two Gevo's a spacer car and the F125's.

atsf121 Wrote:

> Believe there were two locomotives being hauled
> dead in consist with idler/spacer flats around
> the, for delivery to Metrolink.  To think it was
> that close to it's destination and then this.  I
> really wonder what will happen to the engine -
> will insurance pay for a replacement; will this
> one be fixed up and Metrolink given a discount;
> fixed up but no discount; or just scrapped and
> Metrolink ends up short one unit on the planned
> order and given a refund?
>
> Nathan

Given how badly the F125 units have performed so far, maybe the derailment was a blessing. Over two years since the first deliveries, and there are still a number of these units parked. I have seen more photos of the units actually pulling trains, so maybe the teething problems are getting solved. At least Metrolink doesn't have to find a place to park this unit for now...

These are the first F125 units in service so guess who gets to find all of the bugs?
Heck, the handrails weren't even right when they first arrived. But they're working on getting these units "right".
Once the get the "test" units fixed they can then apply the fixes to the rest of them.
I expect the Metrolink Legal Department is already working on getting EMD to pay for the fixes.

Perhaps they don't have coupler stops thus allowing too much lateral movement during a run-in. That used to happen with geeps used in local service

Posted from Android

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I expect the Metrolink Legal Department is already
> working on getting EMD to pay for the fixes.

Progress Rail.  EMD is no longer a manufacturer.

Doesn't look like there is any major or even minor damage to the unit.  I'd suspect it will be repaired, although it can't be good sitting out there exposed to the Inland Empire folk.   I assume the lot it's sitting in is fenced off all the way around (not like that stops the vandals).

Interestingly, the other Metrolink locomotive in the shipment, the 928 that had been moved to San Bernardino and was parked near the Metrolink flyover on 8/25, had also been cocooned a week later:
 

---

---

Is it not strange that the track was repaired with jointed rail?

Looks like they used track panels.  Faster to reopen.

pt199 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it not strange that the track was repaired with
> jointed rail?

Standard procedure, use jointed panel track for a fast fix.
Replace with welded rail when time and materials are available.