15 now, possibly up to 27 more later.
Interesting
I wonder if the Progress Rail leasors that Norfolk Southern just let go will be part of this group?
The early speculation suggests that those ex-BNSF SD70MAC’s will be the starting point. I have no idea where the others will come from if Metra exercises its option.
Rebuilt freight power in suburban service is hardly a new concept. MARC, VRE, NJ Transit/Metro North and others have such locomotives on their rosters.
But they’ve typically have been lighter weight four axle locomotives that have been rebuilt after retirement for passenger use.
Locomotives not far removed beyond the external aesthetics from contemporary dedicated passenger locomotives that EMD was building at the same time the freight locomotive had originally been built. This on the other hand has little in common with EMD’s F59PH.
I wonder how light they will be able to make them. I imagine most all of the ballast will be removed, since they won’t need the same sort of tractive effort they would’ve needed at the head of something like a Powder River Basin coal train?
Way back in 1973 SP wanted to retire their 14 Fairbanks-Morse TrainMasters that had made up the backbone of the San Francisco Commute fleet since the late 1950s. The low cost option was to take the ten 1967-built SDP45s, of which eight were on lease to Amtrak. The first two (3200 and 3205) were modified by Sacramento shops with changes to excitation and traction motor blowers, with a “mode” switch so they could be MUed with normal power. The three GP40Ps were also set up with the Commute mode.
The other eight were modified as they came off lease. The SDP45s were used until CalTrain bought its own power in the late 1980s.
I don’t know how extensive the rebuilds will be, but would it be worth the trouble to convert them to 4-motor units? That should help lighten them.
Will they be able to operate on the UP line or is there still bridges to be strenghten??
IMO they should remain 6 AC traction motors, That will allow for faster acceleration and better Dynamic braking!
So SD-series locomotives will return to regularly scheduled passenger service after, what, 35 years? 40?
Is it correct to assume that they will shoehorn HEP on to the rear platform?
The F40Cs served long and well for approximately three decades.
There should be no reason to expect these units can’t provide two decades or more of service.
They will need another inverter for HEP and lately they have been installing equipment like that on the fireman’s side behind the cab. There is also no need for a coast-to-coast fuel tank so look for a smaller replacement to free up space for other equipment.
(Removing mechanic’s hat and donning railfan cap.)
If indeed one or more of these are of BN heritage then certainly one should be painted in Cascade Green.
Alaska’s SD70MACs have HEP, so I’m guessing these will be arranged similarly. I think that two of the axles are depowered when in HEP mode.
On ARR‘s SD70s an entire truck loses traction to provide HEP. That’s not a likely scenario for Metra. It will be interesting to see what the rebuid will entai: inverter replacement, one inverter per truck as built or one per powered axle, truck modifications, etc.
Is the expectation that they will continue to be geared for a top speed of 70 mph?
With a name like SD70MACH, one would expect much faster top speeds. [}:)]
I enjoyed catching the BNSF C44-9Ws in Metrolink service a few years back.
They will not be able to operate on Metra’s Kenosha sub (due to the bridge issue you mentioned).
It would indeed; however, better acceleration could also be achieved by adjusting the load regulator such that it stays in the max position. On the F7s and E8s of Metra, when one opened the throttle to the first notch, the amps would immediately jump to over 1000–one had to keep the independent applied or else the passengers would get their coffee spilled and their neck snapped. The E units did have a ‘road’ switch that would cause the load regulator to operate as normal.
I would think four motors would offer better acceleration than six.
rdamon, well played, good sir! Well played indeed!
[:D]
Leo Ames: No! Six motors can provide 50% faster acceleration than four.
1, Laws of physics. 2. I worked for EMD summer 1952 and my MIT SB Thesis was on diesel-electric load-regulator controls.
I can’t wait to see the actual locomotive when finished.