Locomotives used for testing the Bi-levels

Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.

Moderator: Liquidcamphor

Which Coach do you prefer most?

Kawasaki Bi-Level
Bombardier M-7
Budd M-1 & M-3
Pullman P72
Total votes : 17

Locomotives used for testing the Bi-levels

Postby LIRR04 » Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:07 pm

Does anyone have pictures of the Locomotives that where used when the LIRR was testing the Bi-levels back during the 90s?

Postby John 61 » Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:11 pm

They tested with the Metra units and after testing these units only lasted for two weeks .
Here's some of the photos I took.
John 61
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:37 pm
Location: Smithtown NY

Postby GP38 » Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:45 pm

LIRR04, I have some photos of the FL9's that tested with the bi-level, and also the GP38-2's that were altered a bit and used with the test train.
I don't have them online anywhere right now to post them here, but when I have time to scan them and upload them in the next few days, I will post them here when I have more time.
User avatar
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:33 pm

Postby DutchRailnut » Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:39 pm

LIRR04 do you absolutly have to start every tread with a useless poll ??
Polls suck and only create arguments about personal choices.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
User avatar
Posts: 22059
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Postby NIMBYkiller » Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:57 pm

Hey Dutch, did it maybe ever strike you that some people, like me, may actually enjoy the polls? If you don't like em, then don't participate in em, geez.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:24 pm
Location: Port Washington

Postby emfinite » Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:32 am

I find the useless polls annoying and I think they should be removed. I don't like logging on the forum and seeing clutter.
Posts: 979
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:25 pm
Location: Crew Dispatcher's Discretion

Postby bluebelly » Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:59 pm

DutchRailnut wrote:LIRR04 do you absolutly have to start every tread with a useless poll ??
Polls suck and only create arguments about personal choices.

Maybe his personel choice is to start every thread with a poll.

Postby Liquidcamphor » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:34 pm

Do you mean the first Bi-levels? the C-1's?

The LIRR regeared i think 2 GP's for 80mph operation. Actually, 257 was according to shop personel, geared for that out of the factory. Supposedly, there was a factory mistake in gearing that engine and it was left as delivered. Someone who worked the shops then would no better than me..I'm just an Engineer.

It's been a while so forgive me if my memory is not exact. They regeared the engines in order to test the C-1's at 80mph. They took Mainline 1&2 out-of-service from Jay to Harold. We received Train Orders relieving us from the Special Instruction limiting GP-38's from 65mph on Psgr. trains so we could run up to 80mph. I am almost positive 257 was one of the engines involved. The FL-9's were delayed, and the LIRR didn't have diesel locomotives in regular 80mph service back then, so they had no choice but to modify Geeps for the tests.

The Geeps later modified to operate the C-1's had nothing to do with the tests because the train in Psgr service had a 65mph MAS.
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:44 pm

GP38-2 Gearing

Postby kro52 » Tue Sep 21, 2004 7:34 am

None of the GP38's were re-geared. They along with the MP15AC's came with a gear ratio of 59:18. The SW1001's were geared at 62:15. As note all traction motors on the EMD's were D-77 and in time repaired motors from outside vendors were upgraded to D-78 motors.


Postby Liquidcamphor » Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:09 am

Hi Kro,

Are you absolutely certain of that? I do recall the Engine House Foreman at the time, Craig, mentioning that they regeared two engines for that test. One was a mistake in gearing from the factory, the other they were waiting for the parts from EMD so they held off the test for a week from it's original schedule. But hey, if you were in Morris Pk. then and worked on them, well you would know better than me.

I will say this, it took a long time for the typical LIRR Geep to make 80+mph, so I wouldn't be suprised that what Craig said was true.
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:44 pm

GP38-2 Gearing

Postby kro52 » Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:24 pm

Greetings Liquid,
I can assure you they were not re-geared. I knew Craig M. very well. Some rumor mongor probably told him that. I retired two years ago after a 32 year stint as a loco. shop foreman so I kind of saw it all, from ALCO's to the EMD "winabagos" they have now. As note the Geeps were capable of 80 mph as purchased. The original ASC setting was set for 68mph MAS but was tweeked to 80mph for the C-1's. Of course they needed two geeps to accomplish this.


Postby Tadman » Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:30 pm

You know, I understand the non-turbo Geeps run out of energy a lot quicker than turbo-geeps such as GP40, etc... So why do railroads needing speed, such as LIRR or south shore, order pokey engines? I don't know what LIRR is like, but if you've ever seen the South Shore, it's an amazing site seeing three to five GP38-2's puttin some ass into it trying to get out of passenger train blocks.
User avatar
Posts: 9066
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am

Postby alcoc420 » Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:14 pm

From all that I have read, non-turbo engines do not run out of energy faster than turbocharged engines. A 2000HP C420 probably has similar horsepower ratings to a 2000HP GP38, at sea level. Differences in acceleration, top speed or pulling power have more to with gearing and the design of the electric transition, the alternator or generator and the traction motors. Turbocharged engines do not lose as much horsepower at higher altitudes as do non-turbos.

In 1983, an LIRR management person was also a well known buff told me the LIRR was very happy with the choice of buying non-turbo EMD's. The earlier Alco's were good, but the new EMD's were better. The LIRR was particularly happy with the MP's. They could pull anything and did not need much maintenance.
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:29 pm
Location: The Empire State

Return to Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests