Passenger Trains > CDTX #2007 headed for an overhaul

Amtrak #6 of the 24th highballs Elmira, CA yesterday with CDTX F-59PHI #2007 headed back East for an overhaul.  Unlike P-40's and P42's, these California engines are like CA cars--very little rust, if any, making them prime candidates for a rebuild.  Looking forward to getting it back, the last of the EMD F's:  yes, not a bulldog nose with a classic carbody, but with a 1994 build date, they still echo back to that era, especially with the Blomberg trucks-- the same ones that rode underneath countless geeps and covered wagons!  The sound of the turbo in run-8 reminds me of what I heard as a kid as CB&Q GP-20's pulled the grade past my Grandparent's house in Steward, IL headed East to Chicago-- classic EMD!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/23 10:29 by IC_2024.

---

---

---

Any idea where it’s going?
I saw it go by yesterday, but I’d already gone after the spreader set a little earlier and had “chores”. There was a nice scattering of interesting stuff on The Hill yesterday- this, the spreader set, some CN power, and a fairly decent number of trains.
SR

BoilingMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any idea where it’s going?
> I saw it go by yesterday, but I’d already gone
> after the spreader set a little earlier and had
> “chores”. There was a nice scattering of
> interesting stuff on The Hill yesterday- this, the
> spreader set, some CN power, and a fairly decent
> number of trains.
> SR

Yes, your Hill's better for observation purposes, not working over it!  haha...   Our A-1 topnotch Oakland loco welder, Kevin, told me they're sending them to PowerRail in Atlanta--not too many folks are doing loco rebuilds, anymore.  I'm really excited to see them do this-- my fav loco to run now.

Huh. Curious they didn’t send it via LAX and NOR. Maybe geography isn’t Amtrak strong suit.
SR

BoilingMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Huh. Curious they didn’t send it via LAX and
> NOR. Maybe geography isn’t Amtrak strong suit.
>
> SR

‘Member your sacred Coast “Stoplight”ain’t goin down the Coast line Acct the bridge washed out? That’s a geography lesson right there! Only way is back to Chi on Zephyr — east on Cap, and down on the Crescent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/23 11:04 by IC_2024.

I caught it this morning in Utah thanks to BoilingMan's heads up last night.  I just didn't get the unit number in the dark, so thanks for posting, I was just getting my video ready to post.

Nathan

atsf121 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I caught it this morning in Utah thanks to
> BoilingMan's heads up last night.  I just didn't
> get the unit number in the dark, so thanks for
> posting, I was just getting my video ready to
> post.
>
> Nathan

Nice— look forward to seeing it! I was tired out from 2nd/3rd Trick so didn’t get a chance to post it yesterday. Glad you got a heads up from SR!

Nice photos and sentiment towards the F59PHi.  My brother (WP921 here on TO) and I have felt the same way - that they were a continuation of EMD's F-units.  I once took them for granted on Metrolink, as well as Amtrak Surfliner, Capitol/San Joaquin, and Cascade service, but now miss them dearly.  I did get to see one in Metra service last May in Chicago, still wearing Surfliner paint.

Rich

Sorry to derail the rebuild story, but the 2007 is in transit to scenic Pontiac Michigan! The 2007 is be used by the National Loss of Shunt Committee to test a "Shunt Enhancing Device", which if sucessful, will remove the minimum axle count restrictions currently imposed by some host railroads. The minimum axle count requirement is causing equipment shortages due to trains being required to carry extra cars to meet the minimum axles counts imposed, which impacts daily services and scheduled maintenance (Amtrak Chicago need not apply!). The 2007 will be spreading California Sunshine in Michigan for most of February.

What is loss of shunt? Well to simply explain it, it is a momentary loss of shunt on low axle count trains which effect Grade Crossing Equipment. Each grade crossing is equipped with a Grade Crossing Predictor, and there are many different manufacturers and models past and present on the National rail network. A typical Grade Crossing consists of a circuit broken into 3 portions: Approach-Island-Approach. The GCP's job is to detect the train advancing towards the Island, and calculate the trains speed and arrival at the Island, and then activate the protection according to the calculation, providing appropriate warning times.
The problem with passengers trains is two fold, typically lower axle counts than most freight trains and typically higher approach velocities. With these two factors, the passenger equipment and most importantly locomotives do not always reliably maintain a good clean reliable shunt while in the grade crossing circuits. This causes the GCP to miscalculate, or get confused if the shunt values change dramatically as the train approaches. This is why there have been minimum axle counts imposed by the host railroads, in an attempt to reduce the loss of shunt problem and at the same time reduce the risk of grade crossing mis-activation or failure to activate. The GCPs really need to track the leading axles of the locomotive to make the proper predictions for the appropriate activation time.

M-636



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/23 12:52 by M-636.

Hah! Fascinating, on several levels. And thanks for the discussion of the system for sensing the presence and speed of trains.

I have read that one of the problems with automatic grade-crossing protections is that if motorists have to wait "too long" (and "too long" turns out to be a dozen seconds or so) they are exponentially more likely to become impatient and drive around the gates (or else ignore the gates "the next time", thinking to beat a slow-moving train). Adjusting crossing closure times in accord with the speed of the approaching train makes a lot of sense for a list of reasons, but I've never known how it's done. And to be honest this explanation leaves a few loose ends. And in any case, even when everything works, there's always "something", as in the deadly crash at Bourbonnais, Ill. in 1999 caused by a trucker who didn't realize that the approaching train (the City of New Orleans) was "a fast one".

 

@M-636

Great explanation about the issues in shunt failure. But am I missing something. Why is it necessary to ferry a locomotive 3/4 across the country for these tests?

WP17

The device being tested is manufactured in the UK, and is designed to fit under a UK vehicle. Attempts to mount a device under a P42 and Siemens POS are not possible with an "Off the Shelf" designed device. Typically these devices are custom designed for a specific vehicle or truck type. The National Committee had been struggling to get this project off the ground for several years. Caltrans brought myself and another colleague into the group, and we were able to work with the device manufacturer to find a unit that would fit under the F59 (or any Blomberg B Truck) with the proper rail clearances and spacing between the device and the axle centers. Caltrans then worked with the National group to fund the purchase of the device, do the temporary installation for testing on a Caltran F59, and have it moved to the test track CN has set up in Pontiac in cooperation with the other Class 1 railroads and signal manufacturers. The test track in Pontiac can swap in and out different Predictors very quickly, making a comprehensive controlled test environment for all predictor types and configurations.

After testing in Pontiac is completed, the F59 will make some mainline turn with a test train over another section of track CN has set up in Illinois.

Long story short, Caltrans had the locomotive and the right people to make it happen!

WP17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @M-636
>
> Great explanation about the issues in shunt
> failure. But am I missing something. Why is it
> necessary to ferry a locomotive 3/4 across the
> country for these tests?
>
> WP17

This whole thing in confusing to me. It doesn't work on Amtrak GEs or the new Siemens locomotives but they are hoping it will work on a Blomberg. Last I looked Amtrak purged locomotives with Blombergs. I cant see them buying the 25 year old  F59PHIs from Caltrans, and even then there were only 15. So Im not sure how this helps the problem.

TomG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This whole thing in confusing to me. It doesn't
> work on Amtrak GEs or the new Siemens locomotives
> but they are hoping it will work on a Blomberg.
> Last I looked Amtrak purged locomotives with
> Blombergs. I cant see them buying the 25 year
> old  F59PHIs from Caltrans, and even then there
> were only 15. So Im not sure how this helps the
> problem.

I'm sure that if the National Loss Of Shunt Committee finds that this device works, Amtrak will find a way to modify it or Amtrak locomotives so it can be used.  In the meantime, why burden Amtrak shops with fitting an experimental device?  We've been told over and over how overburdened Amtrak is.   BSB

TomG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This whole thing in confusing to me. It doesn't
> work on Amtrak GEs or the new Siemens locomotives
> but they are hoping it will work on a Blomberg.
> Last I looked Amtrak purged locomotives with
> Blombergs. I cant see them buying the 25 year
> old  F59PHIs from Caltrans, and even then there
> were only 15. So Im not sure how this helps the
> problem.

They're borrowing the F59 for testing only. If the device works then they will modify the design to work on the trucks that are under the P42's and the Chargers.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the device works then they will modify the design to
> work on the trucks that are under the P42's and
> the Chargers.

What could possibly go wrong?

The Track Circuit Assistor needs to fit between lead truck axles. None of the existing TCA designs are of the correct shape or dimension to fit on the P42 or the SC44 truck. This means that the manufacturer would need to design a 1 off device to fit either the P42 or SC44s. Since we were able to utilize an existing design TCA, and adapt it to the F59 Blomberg truck, it saves about 16 months of waiting for a new device to be designed and built, plus the design costs.

If the testing is successful, and subsequently approved by the FRA and the Industry, then specific designs for the P42 and Siemens locomotives will be able to be produced.

Say that a Amtrak loco is not in the lead (i.e. broke down) and a CN, BNSF, or UP one is. What happens with shunting then ?

M-636 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Track Circuit Assistor needs to fit between
> lead truck axles. 

Is this an electronic device that somehow interferes with the signal being transmitted down the rail?

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

The Track Circuit Assistor is an electronic device (inductive loop). Here is a link to the product page: https://www.westcodeus.com/rail-products/  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPN2U4K-Q-o

In the case of an Amtrak or State owned locomotive failure equipped with the device has not been addressed yet. The TCA is only 1 of several solutions being tested by the industry.
webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> M-636 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Track Circuit Assistor needs to fit between
> > lead truck axles. 
>
> Is this an electronic device that somehow
> interferes with the signal being transmitted down
> the rail?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/23 08:32 by M-636.