LOS ANGELES – The long-awaited Metrolink F125 locomotives made their main line debut over the weekend on test runs over the Metrolink Pasadena Subdivision. No. 905 was spotted testing in Glendora on Saturday. The locomotives, built by Progress…
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/06/12-metrolink-f125-locomotives-make-main-line-debut
Can someone please go into technical detail on the reasons why these locomotives have taken so long to get into practical service, and what difficulties still continue with them?
I read in two other forums that the F125 wasn’t FRA certified because of being not compliant with 49CFR229 Locomotive Safety Standards especially handrail placement.
If the change of ownership at Vossloh to Stadler added to the problems I don’t know. They designed the monocoque carbody and built the trucks.
Supposedly there were additional problems. Hopefully someone can tell.
Regards, Volker
There were problems with the handrails on the first NJT dual mode locomotive. Took a day (and a blacksmith) to fix. I can’t imagine that Vossloh vs Stadler could have much to do wit it as it’s the same folks (in a beautiful location BTW).
Every source I have says the same thing, doesn’t make sense.
Since the F125’s took so long to enter service, that’s basically a lot of invested capitol jut lying around not doing anything.
Progressive Railroading’s piece yesterday said that FRA has given permission to begin testing the locomotives.
All information found in internet is third hand at best. Both EMD and Metrolink will not reveal the reason. Another source relayed street talk that EMD didn’t admit the handrail mistake and Metrolink didn’t accept the units. It is said that lawyers tried to sort it out.
True? I don’t know. It sounds like speculation.
I have looked into the history of the Spanish company. They have used EMD parts for almost 60 years and their newest product, the Eurolight, uses a Caterpillar C175 engine.
On the other hand EMD is very vulnerable as most of the high-speed locomotive experience lies in Spain I think. Vossloh delivers the trucks and at least has designed the monocoque carbody with its CEM front. If Vossloh delivers the monocoques as kit or completed I don’t know. So just little changes in atmosphere might cause problems. But again speculation.
While browsing for more information on the delays I found a F125 project status report from 2014. It is not an answer to the project delays but nevertheless verry interesting, at least for me:
https://prezi.com/xhizn5e6bity/f125-tier-4-emd-status-report/
Regards, Volker
Remember the Velencia plant belonged to Alstom, and built numerous EMD based locomotives for overseas markets. In the rationalization of Alstom about a decade ago Vossloh acquired the facility. Shortly thereafter I had lunch with the President of Vossloh at Innotrans. I asked him if he was interested in purchasing the rest of EMD, his respon
Until 1987 before Alstom took over the company was named Macosa. Macosa used EMD parts and engines from about 1960 on, long before the Alsthom regime.
What do you mean with overseas, Spain and Europe. Living on the other side of the pond I want avoid misunderstandings
Regards, Volker
Unlike the F59PH, F59PHI, and MP36PH-3C, The EMD F125 Sprint does not have a rear porch with handrails.
My EMD licensed construction list for Valencia shows locomotives for Spanish National Rys, Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), Parana-Sta Catarina (Brazil), Yugoslav State Rys,Vitoria a Minas Ry (Brasil), Central Ry of Brazil, Iraqi Republican Rys, Ponferrada a Villablino Ry (Spain), Catalan Ry, Israel Rys, English Welsh & Scottish, & New Jersey Transit. And this is a US based list as is the EMD product.
Neither does the Siemens product.
Thank you for the list of licenced products.
To understand the handrail issues I compared photos on rrpicturearchives.net.
Here are four of them:
Rear end #905: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4603279
Rear end #913: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4700525
Front end #905: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4479889
Front end #908: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4687860
The changes are more than just the handrails.
Regards, Volker
Can someone comment on the reason why some of these units would be built with nose steps and grabs that ‘lead nowhere’, seemingly only to facilitate nonlegal ‘footboard riding’? I must be missing something about design assumptions. Certainly the response appears to be to plate off the step area and remove the lateral grabirons…
The handrails on the rear are obviously for access to the roof. There is also a side door at the rear that may be difficult to see. I’m not sure about the steps and rails on the pilot.
That wouldn’t be footplate riding, but never the less no modern passenger locomotive has steps in that location, although the F40s appear to have nose access steps here.
Is it possible that it’s been so long since EMD has built a passenger locomotive (that task going to MPI) that they forgot?
Sorry, I should have added a later photo of #905:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4603277
Regards, Volker
This is getting curiouser and curiouser.
In the latest picture of 905 (12/17/06) there is no blanking plate, as seen in the picture of 908. I think I can clearly make out the lens of the light that was there for the second step. But there are no steps; in fact, I can’t see any sign of a weldment or seam where the steps were.
Somewhat elaborate grommets and plugs appear to occupy the four locations where the side grabs attached to the nose. This is visible in the latest picture of 905 if you know what to look for.
What aside from 49 CFR 238.429 would apply to this situation? (I am presuming it is not possible that people from EMD misunderstood 49 CFR 231.30 as applying to these locomotives…)
The question is who designes this area? The design of monocoque and CEM elements came from Vossloh as far as I know. Perhaps Vossloh designed an EMD overlooked the faults. On the other hand there might have been a design change regarding the front steps.
Regards, Volker
49 CFR 231.30 as I understand it refers only to ‘switching’ locomotives, not road power used to spot consists; it makes implicit reference to steps at all four corners of the locomotives in question, and the range of ‘year’ makes me think this concerns locomotives like SW or MP power: explicit switch engines rather than ‘road switchers’ by courtesy.
Does anyone remember applicable law pertaining to the noses on the F/FP45s when they were cut back and ‘notched’?
While we are on the ‘European side of the pond’ – are those nose steps explicitly provided in any ‘domestic’ Vossloh/Stadler versions of the carbody, and what are they used for if so?