by ApproachMedium
ThirdRail7 wrote:If all goes according to plan, the 606 will be on the NEC in just over two weeks.I assume all of the mechanical "mods" have been completed on it?
No good deed goes unpunished.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
ThirdRail7 wrote:If all goes according to plan, the 606 will be on the NEC in just over two weeks.I assume all of the mechanical "mods" have been completed on it?
BuddSilverliner269 wrote:and besides, you should know I don't come on much anymore anyways.Good Boy. Less time on Railroad.Net allows for more studying.
MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 wrote:602 test extra passed my train in Attleboro, 11/2 around 7am....and the 901 that was trailing developed some sort of mechanical problem at Readville shortly before 8am, locked axle??? because at 12:30p, she was still sitting on Trk 2 at Readville disabled, liteThat does not sound good..
25Hz wrote:If anything.. This paints the picture clear as day that the AEM7s are shot, precisely the reason 602 was testing, to replace the AEMSs.MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 wrote:602 test extra passed my train in Attleboro, 11/2 around 7am....and the 901 that was trailing developed some sort of mechanical problem at Readville shortly before 8am, locked axle??? because at 12:30p, she was still sitting on Trk 2 at Readville disabled, liteThat does not sound good..
beanbag wrote:Not to dumb things down Approach but if youre gonna run a test train dont you want a good running locomotive as backup in case a failure occurs? I mean I understand the logic of restricting the troublesome 901 to non revenue work, but testing.. I would want a good locomotive as a backup. Granted the 602 seems to have kept itself out of board discussion here which I assume by the logic "no news is good news" is a good thing. But what if the hypothetical problem child in the making of the ACS fleet (again, hypothetical.. We clearly dont know which locomotive it will be if there will in fact be one) is testing with the 901 and it craps the bed, then while trying to bring the test train back, the 901 dies too? Putting a locomotive that is a known brat with a locomotive that youve never used before for an extended period just seems like it could be a recipe for trouble.What you are saying is very logical....BUT when the 901 dies on the test train it makes for a interesting situation for a few Amtrak employees (while they are still getting paid to sit there with a dead locomotive). When the 901 dies on the train that the 9XX should have had, it makes 500 passengers UNHAPPY while they are faced with a major inconvenience.
beanbag wrote:Yeah I understand you acela.. however say the test train dies at a crucial choke point on the NEC and the 901 has a problem? Again the chances of what im saying happening are very minimal but provided there is problem at a choke point during a daylight run, you do kind of want to know the locomotive backing you up will get you out of there. Thanks for the clarifier though Approach. Merely asking a question and I got my answer, not looking to start a fight.Yeah, I see both sides of it. I think that we are all just hoping that when the ACS-64's are put into service Amtrak will not have to deal with reliability issues very often at all!