I don’t know if this belongs here or in Transit, but will leave it to someone else to post it over there in context.
According to LocoNotes, a F125 Spirit has finally run ‘solo’ on Metrolinx - SCAX 908, running trains 314,335 and 336 to San Berdoo yesterday. It will be interesting to see how quickly other units enter service, and how they perform.
Metrolink ordered about 40 of them back in 2013. I’m not sure how many of them are on the property or being tested right now.
Several recent test train pictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/634068/
I suppose in time, a lot of time, we will come around, and learn to love this styling. That front end looks like a sea creature, shrimpy.
Why did the carbody design have to be designed by a Spanish company. Vossloh Rail Services? We, ummm, EMD, Caterpillar, Progress Rail, don’t know how to do this any more?
Oh yes, it’s a global world society now, everything’s in the cloud…I forgot.
I visited the Metrolink San Bernardino stop yesterday, and saw no F125’s, only the older power:
Maybe things will work out next Friday that I could spend the day there. Surely one F125 will be by …
Vossloh is a German Steel Company. The subsidiary in Spain that builds EMD locomotives for use in Europe has had a number of owners and names over the past few years. They have sold a number of locomotives with similiar construction to the F125s to the UK and in Spain. It is probably cheaper to build the bodies in Spain, than to set up to build a small number in Muncie.
Peter
Great info…thanks Peter/M636C.
Still say the head on look presents a face only a mother would love.
Hope they achieve good reliable service and long service lives.
Vossloh is primarily a railroad infrastructure company. They deliver rail fastening systems, concrete ties, concrete crossing panels, turnout systems, signaling systems and products, and locomotives. After selling the Valencia facility to Stadler they still produce switching locomotives: https://www.vossloh.com/en/
If I remember correctly all semi-monocoque structural designs for American passenger locomotives beginning with GE’s Genesis P40 came from Europe. Only exception maybe the MPI locomotives. For the MPI locomotives I didn’t find a source telling who did the semi-monocoque structural design.
Deutsche Bahn hasn’t excepted six axle locomotives for quite some years. With lower axle loads European manufacturers were forced to built light and use semi-monocoques even on freight locomotives.
The CEM elements on the F 125 come from Vossloh too. Because our our different crashworthiness requirements (lower buff load, more crash energy management) companies like Vossloh and Siemens have CEM experience that American companies don’t have to this extent.
Same goes for high speed trucks with truck-suspended traction motors.
Regards, Volker
I didn’t think the MPI locos WERE monocoques. I thought they were cowels like the FP45 and F40/59/59PHI. In any case, The answer is Simple, EMD (and GE) didn’t know how to do it, because the number of passenger locomotives purchased is small, so maintaining R&D staff to do that design was not cost effective. That’s part of why the Cowel designs came about in the first place.
You are right, EMD ang GE would have been able to do it, but with a long learning curve and high risk of failure. It was an economical decision.
The monocoque (or semi-) are very similar to the cab units. The skin takes over the task of the truss diagonals, like plate girder and truss bridges. The cowl came when ATSF didn’t want road swichers for their premium passenger trains.
Regarding the MPI locomotive: I think I read somewhere they are monocoques but can’t find it anymore. When ATSF ordered theit EMD GP60M they wanted a cowl unit, but axle load limits allowed only a wide cab road switcher. Perhaps that and 8’ more length made me believe that MPI locomotives have a monocoque design
When GE built the Genesis P40 they used a monocoque for two reasons: Weight and height. According to a GE presentation the monocoque was 20.000 lbs lighter than with a heavy frame underbody.
If you compare weights of a P40 (268,000 lbs) and MPI MP40PH-3C (289,000 lbs) There is 21,000 lbs difference with the MPI having a separate HEP generator.
Perhaps a half-heartedly designed monocoque? I really don’t know, what to believe.
I’ll try to find the monocoque source this afternoon.
Regards, Volker
Hmmm… With GE, I can understand that. Records show that for the USA, they only built a sinlge 4-unit ABBA cab-unit set, essentially a cab unit version of their U-boats, but with lower power. I’m still trying to wrap my head around why EMD didn’t try building cab units after the last E9 was delivered. There was only a three year difference between that and the FP45’s introduction, so I don’t quite know why they didn’t at least try.
The railroads didn’t ask for cab units. They had realized road switchers were easier to run (better view backwards) and easier to maintain. And weight saving wasn’t necessary for freight units.
The FP45 wasn’t a cab but a cowl unit. It is a SDP45 with a full width hood. While on cab units the side walls were load carrying on cowl units the hoods were just for the ride.
ATSF wanted a cowl unit for their prestige passenger trains. The didn’t like the look of a freight road switcher up front, though they started with a GE U28CG.
ATSF bought the F45, a SD45 with full width hood, for aesthetics. GN to protect its crews from the hard winters in the north.
After bad experiences with six-axle locomotives (EMD SDP40F, GE E60CP, E60PH, P30CH) Amtrak decided to use four-axle locomotives.
The GE AMD103 Genesis (P40) was the first cab locomotive in a long time with a monocoque design. It saved 20,000 lbs weight and allowed more horsepower, and a larger fuel tank.
Regards, Volker
That’s true…but that brings up the question of why Amtrak didn’t acquire any of the FP45’s from Santa Fe. True they weren’t as fast as the SDP40F’s, but the 45’s had the same top speed as the dozens of F7’s the Amtrak used instead. Plus, they more powerful and were already being used on other Western Roads.
The GE carbody units, which later became Erie 750ABCD, were testbeds that predated the introduction of the Universal line to the North American market.
The Universal line was introduced in 1956 as a full line of export locomotives and the first U25B demos in 1960 were modified export designs.
Amtrak ordered 150 SDP40F. ATSF just had 9 FP45. Both were equipped with steam generators, but the SDP40F was prepared to exchange the steam generator for a HEP unit, the FP45 not.
So why add a different model to the fleet when you have to buy the SDP40F anyway.
On the other hand you need two parties for a deal. The FP45 were easily converted into a freight engine, as it was based on one. So why should ATSF sell if they were content with the locomotive?
Regards, Volker
ATSF didn’t make them available to Amtrak.
You must mean the gear ratio. The FP45’s had a bit more HP, so would be accelerate to track speed a bit faster.
Post deleted due to showing up in the wrong thread.
The first locomotives with the general charecterisics of the Universal line were ten 3’6" gauge locomotives built for Queensland Railways in 1951. These were rated at only 1100 HP but had the 12 cylinder Cooper-Bessemer engine. The head of the laboratories at the QR Ipswich workshops was scathing about them, saying that they were barely prototypes and QR had to bear the cost of development operation for GE. But they lasted into the 1980s and did a lot of work. I imagine GE learnt a lot from them.
The U18s in Argentina looked a lot like them but by then the engine was good for 1800 HP, and equivalent U12s and U13s, also widely used in Argentina, had eight cylinder Cooper-Bessemers.
There were two units built in 1958 or so, type UD18 where a domestic four axle locomotive used the power from the six axle U18. I think these ended up in Mexico.
The first real U25 prototypes were called XP24-1 and these were really domestic units. I think they were scrapped after the real U25s appeared, but neither they nor the UD18s were related to the much smaller clearance export units except in having the same basic power equipment. The pressurised carbody wasn’t extended to the export units for years.
The four carbody units had fluted sides, which appeared on export units of the per
This past Sunday, March 18, 2018 a visit to Los Angeles was made, specifically to a place called “Keller Yard,” and parking was as impossible as ever! But, miraculously, a parking space was found, so it was grabbed.
On previous recent visits when a parking space could not be found, the Keller facility could be glimpsed at only, but F125’s there were increasingly accumulating dust on them, and they looks absolutely filthy. This visit the F125’s had been washing, were sparking, and immaculate. Below is a selection of F125 photos.
Keller Street that had been closed due to freeway construction was now open, WITH free and plenty of parking spaces on it (at least on a Sunday), so close views of the F125’s could be had.
Interestingly, previous visits to the area and photos at other websites, most of the units were facing northish. This visit, and as seen in the photos herewith, many of the units were now facing southish.
Metrolink engine No. 925, prominent in two views among the six above, is known to have been misrouted by BNSF and went both ways over Tehachapi Pass.
http://rrpicturearchives.net/locoPicture.aspx?id=230596
It appears a shielding of some sort was damaged, or maybe a spare (?), and was laying trackside in the Keller facility.
As of this date, while a few F125’s have been see
Well, I don’t think it’s just Familiarity runs, but probably also break in runs. Given the problems, probably worth while. Given what happened with 501 in Or, Probably also worth putting some more time into familiarization (I don’t think 501 was due to unfamiliarity with the locomotive, but still.) I must say, I like the looks of those beasts more and more as I see them.