Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF ET44C4s......

Can SOMEONE shed some light as to what's going on with there Tier-4s? I understand that most (if not all) are in storage !!! I've also seen very recent photos of these models on NS, U.P, and CSX on mainline trains and it would appear there NOT having any issues with theres.If BNSF doesn't like them, WHY buy them?
 

The VP Sales and the VP Mechanical were sitting in a bar........................

Out 

Their tier-4s. They're not having any issues with theirs.

Txtrainman60 Wrote:

> I've also seen very recent photos of these models on NS, U.P, and CSX on mainline trains

If you look at Ritzville's posts, you'll find very recent photos of BNSF ET44C4's on main line trains, too.  These are just from the last ten days:

3966: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4945770
3895: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4943311,4943334#4943334
3872: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4941240,4941253#4941253
3768: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4941240,4941257#4941257
3887: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4939920,4939928#4939928
3873: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4939920,4939930#4939930

Txtrainman60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can SOMEONE shed some light as to what's going on
> with there Tier-4s? I understand that most (if not
> all) are in storage !!!

71 ET44C4s are currently Laid Up for MOdification.  They have been going to Mid America Car for whatever this work entails.

THANK you Evan and MP555. The only two that doesn't post a smart ass response!

Thing is, my answer wasn't smartass. There are a small number of people involved in new power purchases and it's the responsibility
of the vendor sales people to present the operating advantages of their new power in the best light. The Tier IV stuff was a crtap shoot
in that little couid be advertised that thiey would puil more, use less fuel or be of lower maintenance. When you consider that against
the exisiing power on the railroad it's tough to immediately justify a large scale purchase.

Out 

I see a few here and there over here on the Chicago Line through Sandusky, Ohio on Norfolk Southern.

Usually just run through power, but yes I see them.

Michael Fair
Royal Oak, MI

It’s software update to improve adhesion.

Posted from iPhone

A lot of people seemingly don't understand how railroads finance locomotives.  Most are financed under trust agreements--something akin to a lease or lease-to-own agreement.  What does this have to do with this discussion?  Well, the railroad must pay on those trust agreements (unless they are some power-by-the-hour agreement) whether the locomotive is operating or sitting--it's a fixed expense that must be paid no matter what.  When railroads are busy and need all the power they can get, they will operate everything that they own that is reasonably reliable.  When things slow down, however, they are more likely to sideline the locomotives that are more expensive to operate or that are less reliable.  To a certain extent, Tier 4's fit the description of higher operating cost and lower reliability.  If, in fact, they also need upgrading or modification, it makes sense to do that during a slowdown in traffic.  Though it is not likely the case in this particular circumstance, if one looks at locomotive dead lines the most common thread is that they are full of locomotives that are either unreliable and/or expensive to maintain and operate.   Those locos that are the least reliable or most expensive to operate will almost always be the first put into storage and the last taken out. 

It seems clear to me that the railroads are doing some housecleaning in their locomotive rosters.  Locomotives whose trust agreements have expired and are not economically rebuildable are being disposed, either to scrap or sold on the used market.  Older locomotives that can be economically rebuilt are being sent to rebuilders, often in preference over buying new Tier 4 locomotives.  Whatever one's opinion is of PSR, it does reduce the amount of motive power necessary, so I would expect locomotive disposals to continue.

The-late-EMD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s software update to improve adhesion.

Haha. Nothing personal against you, but it seems software mismanaged the locomotive's mechanicals for adhesion, so they are fixing the bug?

Software does NOT improve adhesion, but ignorants are brainwashed into believing that statement face value. Real adhesion are determined by mechanical factors, like weight, wheel diameter and design, sand, and the operating environment that software has little or no control over.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Software does NOT improve adhesion, but ignorants
> are brainwashed into believing that statement face
> value. Real adhesion are determined by mechanical
> factors, like weight, wheel diameter and design,
> sand, and the operating environment that software
> has little or no control over.

Software controls the movement of the lifting axle on each truck, increasing weight to the rail when the axle is lifted.

The-late-EMD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s software update to improve adhesion.

It doesn't surprise me.  BNSF trying to cut cost and make a poor performing loco better.  If only they looked at how much rail the C4's grind up.  Doesn't matter...  one less traction motor costs less.  Despite the fact that other railroads know what they are doing.  One thing about the ET's their idle is higher.  The engine vibrates a lot while idling.  

MP555 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cchan006 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Software controls the movement of the lifting axle
> on each truck, increasing weight to the rail when
> the axle is lifted.

Yup. But that's a financially-driven design (cut costs by removing traction motors), not a mechanical one. Of all the stUPidity from that railroad lately, at least they didn't buy the 4 traction motor GEs like BNSF did. 

Off topic, but Boeing tried to use software to fix hardware (engines too big for the 737) to save money and we get the 737 MAX.