Passenger Trains > MARC locomotive news and questions

From what MARC tells me, the 26 ?GPS 40 units on order from the Utah Transportation Authority (via MPI) will replace all of the existing diesels on the MARC roster. Does anyone have a link to a current MARC roster - could not find anything under Google.
Apparently UTA ordered some units for future service that they will not be needing in the near future. Am wondering if these are really MP36H units.

Andy

I doubt the MP36 would meet NEC clearance requirements.

For anyone interested, the link for the related MTA press release is:

http://www.mtamaryland.com/news/press/index.cfm?id=397&year=2008&month=4

Sad excuse for a press release. "MTA will acquire re-manufactured commuter locomotives from The Utah Transportation Authority (UTA). The locomotives will be completely overhauled with all new equipment. When overhauled, the re-manufactured locomotives . . ." Huh? I think it means MTA has picked up a UTA option for MP36's that will be assembled using remanufactured components, probably including the engine block, traction alternator, trucks, and traction motors.

TWROPR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From what MARC tells me, the 26 ?GPS 40 units on
> order from the Utah Transportation Authority (via
> MPI) will replace all of the existing diesels on
> the MARC roster. Does anyone have a link to a
> current MARC roster - could not find anything
> under Google.
> Apparently UTA ordered some units for future
> service that they will not be needing in the near
> future. Am wondering if these are really MP36H
> units.
>
> Andy

Pleas God let them have adequate HEP capabilities. (I am SO SICK of sitting in the dark with no ventilation or A/C while they try to start those generator engines.)

hsr_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I doubt the MP36 would meet NEC clearance
> requirements.

Are they taller than MARC's existing diesels? In any case, aren't the AEM-7s and HHP-8s the normal power on the Penn line?

Dave

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hsr_fan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I doubt the MP36 would meet NEC clearance
> > requirements.
>
> Are they taller than MARC's existing diesels? In
> any case, aren't the AEM-7s and HHP-8s the normal
> power on the Penn line?
>
> Dave

If you're suggesting that MARC doesn't need the diesels, you are misinformed about the MARC system. Only the Penn line is electrified. Camden and Brunswick are not.

hsr_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I doubt the MP36 would meet NEC clearance
> requirements.

VRE has ordered the same type of locomotives. They must be able to navigate through WAS to get to the storage yard, so I'm assuming they would be all right for the rest of the Corridor.

MARC uses several diesel-powered trainsets on the Penn Line; the HHPs and/or AEM-7s are used for the longer rush-hour trains.

-Mike

ProRail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DavidP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > hsr_fan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I doubt the MP36 would meet NEC clearance
> > > requirements.
> >
> > Are they taller than MARC's existing diesels?
> In
> > any case, aren't the AEM-7s and HHP-8s the
> normal
> > power on the Penn line?
> >
> > Dave
>
> If you're suggesting that MARC doesn't need the
> diesels, you are misinformed about the MARC
> system. Only the Penn line is electrified.
> Camden and Brunswick are not.


That's not what I was suggesting. HSRfan referenced NEC clearances, which to me means the Baltimore tunnels on the Penn line. The point is that IF a clearance problem exists, that line could be operated with electrics.

Dave