F40PHM-2 questions

Do the F40PHM-2's have a seperate HEP package or is HEP run off a inverter? Also if these engines are a newer model of the F40PH do they run the 16-645 or the 16-710 prime mover? Desktop controls or the standard F40 control stand? DC or AC traction?

Thanks in advance, I have never seen these units in person but they look interesting.

- HEP alternator runs off the crankshaft like all previous F40's

- 645 prime mover

- Desktop controls

- DC traction motors

Really, they're just F40PH-2's with a goofy carbody and desktop controls.

Oh ok so the prime mover is constantly running at full speed on the M's? Wow Chicago is really F40 land. Here in Jersey NJ Transit has CAT HEP in all the F40s, I miss the original F40 sound.

The MP36s, I read somewhere that they have the 16-645 engine and DC traction, is this correct? Why would Metra go with outdated traction technology and a older engine model. (I didn't think EMD manufactured new 645's anymore).

Thanks

The F40PH-2 (#128-184) does not have a desktop. Only the Winnebago's do (#185-214). There really is no difference between an F40PH, and the F40PH-2. EMD just decided to get goofy again.

There really is no difference between an F40PH, and the F40PH-2. EMD just decided to get goofy again.

Are there -2 upgrades, like the difference between an SD40 and a SD40-2?

NJRail4129 wrote:Why would Metra go with outdated traction technology and a older engine model.

I would guess the main reason is that by keeping the MP36s as similar to the F40s as possible, Metra can keep a smaller inventory of spare parts and can reduce the need for specialized training of mechanical employees. Keep in mind, the MP36s make up barely 10% of Metra's locomotive fleet.

NJRail4129 wrote:(I didn't think EMD manufactured new 645's anymore).

I believe that the prime movers for the MP36s were mostly built in Poland by a subsidiary of--surprisingly enough--GE.

I didn't look at Metra's roster until after this post, I didnt realize the MPs were only a small part of the roster power. It makes sense why they would want parts standardization. I'll be interested to see how NJ Transit does maintaining AC traction systems and the 16-710 engine for the first time on the PL42AC's, so far many bugs reported. And it interesting that GE is manufacturing the 2-stroke 645, I guess for commuter service the market demands a engine which can change speeds quickly, and their FDL just cant compete with a 645.

What I still don't get is why Metra and NJT didn't collaborate on what was a sizeable order for a passenger locomotive. It's about time most agencies get together and find a "PCC" of commuter locomotives - When there's maybe twelve commuter agencies that will order 10-20 locomotives, or 100 on a very good day, there just isn't the R&D budget to do a good job like there would be on a freight-duty locomotive that will see order of 100-200 or 300 on a good day, plus repeat orders, etc... If a standard were created like the PCC did with trolleys and the F40PH did with 1980's passenger locomotives, it might be easier to get a handle on quality and reliability. Something like a F70PH if you will.

Tadman makes a very good point. I have thought that there is a big market for a "F70PH-AC" if you will, modeled after the F40 but with the guts of a SD70ACe. NJT and Metra started locomotive purchase projects pretty much at the same time, it would have made so much more sense to make a order together.

NJRail4129 wrote:[...] it would have made so much more sense to make a order together.

It makes TOO much sense! I agree that it would be a great idea to repeat the PCC design process applied to commuter locomotives, but at the risk of being too cynical, I doubt that it will happen.

I think most agencies would be rather reluctant to share their decision-making powers with another agency. They probably fear that they will end up having to compromise some of their desired specifications to those of the other agency (even though what would be a good locomotive for one agency would almost certainly be a good locomotive for the other, and the cost savings would probably more than make up for a few compromises on the precise specifications). Even if the differences were more significant (such as CalTrain wanting MP36s with separate HEP generators and Metra wanting HEP driven by the prime mover), those variations could probably be included within a larger bid and the cost per locomotive would still be much less than with completely separate orders.

The whole funding process (federal, state, and local) also tends to make it difficult for different agencies to cooperate on the bidding and procurement process. Doing so would require them to coordinate their legislative requests, applications to the FTA, etc., not to mention the timelines of their respective state legislatures, local funding agencies (the RTA in Metra's case), and boards. Transit agencies tend to be at the mercy of the lethargic and unpredictable pace of these bureaucracies, making it nearly impossible for even two agencies (e.g. Metra and NJT) to work together efficiently on a locomotive order, not to mention involving even more agencies or <gasp> another country (e.g. GO Transit's MP36 order).

meh wrote:The whole funding process (federal, state, and local) also tends to make it difficult for different agencies to cooperate on the bidding and procurement process. Doing so would require them to coordinate their legislative requests, applications to the FTA, etc., not to mention the timelines of their respective state legislatures, local funding agencies (the RTA in Metra's case), and boards. Transit agencies tend to be at the mercy of the lethargic and unpredictable pace of these bureaucracies, making it nearly impossible for even two agencies (e.g. Metra and NJT) to work together efficiently on a locomotive order, not to mention involving even more agencies or <gasp> another country (e.g. GO Transit's MP36 order).

Excellent points. To me, the reason that transit agencies are entirely beholden to these obstinate and frustrating bueraucracies is that there are too many lawmakers representing urban or otherwise densely populated areas across the country that have paid little more than lip service to this country's mass transit needs. But, even if political conditions were more favorable to encourage this kind of inter-agency cooperation, our own RTA frequently has its hands full trying to get Metra, Pace, and CTA on the same page, and getting them to stop fighting each other can prove impossible at times. It is this relentlessly competitive climate that casts serious doubt on Metra's ability (or desire for that matter) to relinquish or otherwise compromise it's decision making powers with another agency, even though I wholly agree that the cost and administrative advantages of doing so would be beneficial to both agencies.

Examples of inter-agency cooperation are few and far between. Aside from where two entities coordinate on joint service (the portion of RTA funding for South Shore operations, ConnDOT and Metro North, SEPTA and DelDOT) there are few to think of. About the only two I can think of are MARC and VRE's order for Kawasaki bi-levels (apparently successful, but I think this was mostly a cost savings measure on VRE's part to avoid having to pay design costs), or the ill-fated Boeing standard LRV (forced on the MBTA and MUNI in the 1970s). The Boeing project is probably enough to scare a lot of transit operators away from "joint orders" alone.

Funny thing is, our CTA 2400 series is Boeing-Vertol just like the Muni and MBTA trolleys, and about the same vintage too. While not my favorite cars on CTA as they are crusty and threadbare, I don't get the feeling they're junk. It's my understanding the Boeing trolleys were the biggest junk on rails.

octr202 wrote:Examples of inter-agency cooperation are few and far between. Aside from where two entities coordinate on joint service (the portion of RTA funding for South Shore operations, ConnDOT and Metro North, SEPTA and DelDOT) there are few to think of. About the only two I can think of are MARC and VRE's order for Kawasaki bi-levels (apparently successful, but I think this was mostly a cost savings measure on VRE's part to avoid having to pay design costs), or the ill-fated Boeing standard LRV (forced on the MBTA and MUNI in the 1970s). The Boeing project is probably enough to scare a lot of transit operators away from "joint orders" alone.

What about NJT and Septa on the SilverlinerIV/ArrowII?

Tadman wrote:Funny thing is, our CTA 2400 series is Boeing-Vertol just like the Muni and MBTA trolleys, and about the same vintage too. While not my favorite cars on CTA as they are crusty and threadbare, I don't get the feeling they're junk. It's my understanding the Boeing trolleys were the biggest junk on rails.

You're exactly right, though I think the difference between the 2400s and the LRVs Boeing-Vertol built were in how they were specified by the customers. With the LRVs, the two cities that ordered them pretty much treated BV like they were a seasoned railcar manufacturer, and got a lot of bugs in their finished product. The CTA on the other hand, sent their own engineers into the project who worked with the B-V people to build a car that would work. In essence, the MBTA and Muni people said "Build us a car that looks like this" and got unreliable equipment where you didn't see, but the CTA people said "Build us this car" and showed them blueprints.

It's funny, the 2400s are the only Boeing-Vertol railcar fleet still running strong. I wonder if some of the larger trolley museums (other than the obvious IRM) will buy two-car sets when they're retired since they're the only cars they made that aren't junk and will more or less run reliably.

(and thus ends my off-topic CTA venture in the Metra forum)