Passenger Trains > SC44s vs F125s

Don't know how these engines are performing.  Doe anybody know about the F125s and their performance?

It looks like in a grade crossing incident, the crew would fare better in the F125.

Thanks for any replie.

Randy Lundgren
Elgin, TX

Both have major mechanical flaws

texchief1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It looks like in a grade crossing incident, the
> crew would fare better in the F125.

The SC44 has been involved in many different collisions so far (a truck in University Park Illinois & a Tractor in Princeton Illinois) and a high profile derailment (the infamous right run and subsequent fall on to I-5 Washington) and the crews in each survived without serious injuries.

I don't think the F125 has run enough to have been involved in any serious collisions for us to compare but the SC44 seems to be just as safe as any other locomotive.

If you want to get into the "weeds" on F125 issues, Metrolink issues a quarterly Board Report titled "=13.6734pxTier 4 Locomotive Update and Delivery Status." Go to metrolinktrains.com, About, Board Meetings, Agendas and Documents and start reading!

From the September '19 Staff Report. Sorry about the formating.

Staff is currently monitoring the deployment of twenty-seven F125 Tier 4 locomotives, which are in the following phases and specifically listed in the table below, as of August 31, 2019:  Twenty-t hree locomotives are operating on the Metrolink systemoThree locomotives are currently in simulated service, where they are backed up by another locomotive until 2,500 failure-free miles of operation are completed.  Four locomotives are stored at Keller Yard and are being readied to enter simulated service

Both are ugly. Just my opinion.

BrightLine's Chargers have hit a few vehicles at 79 mph, with no serious injury to anyone on the train.  I don't believe they've hit anything larger and heavier than a box truck.

PacificElectric1961 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to get into the "weeds" on F125
> issues, Metrolink issues a quarterly Board Report
> titled "=13.6734pxTier 4 Locomotive Update and
> Delivery Status." Go to metrolinktrains.com,
> About, Board Meetings, Agendas and Documents and
> start reading!
>
> From the September '19 Staff Report. Sorry about
> the formating.
>
> Staff is currently monitoring the deployment of
> twenty-seven F125 Tier 4 locomotives, which are in
> the following phases and specifically listed in
> the table below, as of August 31, 2019: 
> Twenty-t hree locomotives are operating on the
> Metrolink systemoThree locomotives are currently
> in simulated service, where they are backed up by
> another locomotive until 2,500 failure-free miles
> of operation are completed.  Four locomotives
> are stored at Keller Yard and are being readied to
> enter simulated service

Updated from my post of 2 months ago:

For those not wanting to wade through the 132 page report: As of August 31, 2019:

• 27 have been delivered of the 40 ordered (4 since June 23)
• ONLY 18 are in service (Up from 9 on June 23)
• 1 was awaiting replacement of a defective alternator bearing on June 23 and has since been repaired and is now back in service.
• 2 were in an collision and have been repaired and were awaiting Certificates of Good Repair on June 23 and have now received that certificate and are back in service.
• The 6 that had completed simulated service and were awaiting issuance of Conditional Acceptance Certificate on June 23 did receive that certificate and are now in service.
• 2 have completed simulated service and are awaiting issuance of Conditional Acceptance Certificate
• 3 are in simulated service
• 4 are sitting around collecting dust awaiting their turn for the simulated service
• 13 have yet to be delivered.

Simulated service is running on a train with a second locomotive for 2,500 failure-free hours

Looks deinitely make them run better or worse.

irhoghead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Both are ugly. Just my opinion.

jst3751 Wrote:

• 2 were in an collision and have been repaired
  > and were awaiting Certificates of Good Repair on
  > June 23 and have now received that certificate and
  > are back in service.

Were these the two units (928 and 931) involved in the derailment at Devore, CA while BNSF was shipping them west in a manifest freight?

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4618584
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4618909
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4626629

Evan_Werkema Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jst3751 Wrote:
>
>

• 2 were in an collision and have been repaired
  > > and were awaiting Certificates of Good Repair
  > on
  > > June 23 and have now received that certificate
  > and
  > > are back in service.
  >
  > Were these the two units (928 and 931) involved in
  > the derailment at Devore, CA while BNSF was
  > shipping them west in a manifest freight?

Yes those are the 2. 928 and 931 are listed as being officially recieved Jan 2019 and are the 2 that have just entered into simulated service last month.

The air conditioners on the F-125’s aren’t very good. They can’t keep up with the heat generated from the back panel of the cab. Your face might be cool, but your back will be sopping wet.

Posted from iPhone

DevalDragon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> texchief1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It looks like in a grade crossing incident, the
> > crew would fare better in the F125.
>
> The SC44 has been involved in many different
> collisions so far (a truck in University Park
> Illinois & a Tractor in Princeton Illinois) and a
> high profile derailment (the infamous right run
> and subsequent fall on to I-5 Washington) and the
> crews in each survived without serious injuries.
>
> I don't think the F125 has run enough to have been
> involved in any serious collisions for us to
> compare but the SC44 seems to be just as safe as
> any other locomotive.

So in sticking with the comment on "...in a grade crossing incident..", the derailment of train 501 (and 188 as the Charger/Sprinter construction share the same Siemens Crash Engergy Management "CEM" integration) has nothing to do with this.  Those derailments happened at speed and dispated energy during the derailment sequence.  They would not show anything near the damage results of say, hitting a 35ton dump truck.

The unit that hit the tractor had substantial ($900k) damage done to it and sent the Engineer to the hospital with injuries.  The unit was rendered inoperable and the entire train had to be towed.  That collision was with a 9ton tractor.  Train 89's run in with a front end loader that was 13tons did quite a bit of damage too.  Both units sustained extensive pilot damage as well as other damage.  These initial incidents along with other units are showing that the pilots of these locos are suceptable to extensive damage, and both of these units sufferent bent back pilots on one side which is allowing debris from the collision up and under the loco.  

I have to wonder that if this is all SIemens CEM system at play here.  It does little good for the pilot to cave in and make the unit, already lighter than a Geneis loco, more succeptable to derailing.  Also, a bigger issue is the fact that the crews sit lower than a P42 crew does...which is already lower than what wide body freight crews sit at.  This posses more risk to the crews because of the reduced vertical separation from the main impact zone on the locomotive.

I can not comment on the F125, other than its crew sits at about the same height as a Genesis and the units weights 20,000lbs more than a SC44.  Supposedly they are gaining better reliability.