# Amtrak Genisis 869 on MNR???



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 22, 2008)

I know Amtrak leased a few old Genesis engines (P40s?) that aren't dual-mode capable to Metro-North for use in certain places where the train needs to be diesel but won't operate into Manhattan (where it would, obviously, need to be dual-mode capable.) But this thing was strainge. I figured that if Amtrak did that, Metro-North would repaint it into MNR colours and give it an MNR number.

This one was in pure Phase V paint, and had its nose smashed in considerably. What gives?


----------



## AlanB (Jan 22, 2008)

Actually it wasn't Metro North that leased the engines from Amtrak, it was the State of Connecticut that leased the P40's. The State of CT pays MN to run the CT service and has to help supply equipment, so they made the deal with Amtrak. It could be that they don't have permission to repaint the engines under the agreement with Amtrak, or it could be that they just don't want to spend the money to repaint the engines.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 22, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Actually it wasn't Metro North that leased the engines from Amtrak, it was the State of Connecticut that leased the P40's. The State of CT pays MN to run the CT service and has to help supply equipment, so they made the deal with Amtrak. It could be that they don't have permission to repaint the engines under the agreement with Amtrak, or it could be that they just don't want to spend the money to repaint the engines.


That makes that even more interesting, then. And thats because this wasn't in CT. It was on the Harlem River branch, between Southeast and Wassaic, NY.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 23, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it wasn't Metro North that leased the engines from Amtrak, it was the State of Connecticut that leased the P40's. The State of CT pays MN to run the CT service and has to help supply equipment, so they made the deal with Amtrak. It could be that they don't have permission to repaint the engines under the agreement with Amtrak, or it could be that they just don't want to spend the money to repaint the engines.
> ...


Well MN mixes all the equipment up, so you'll see cars and locos in New Haven livery on both the Harlem and Hudson lines, and you'll see the MN blue and black on some New Haven routes. Apparently there is nothing in the contract between MN and CT that states that CT equipment must be used exclusively on CT owned lines. And frankly that makes sense from an operating stand point, better to send the wrong color cars and/or engines than to leave people standing on platforms.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 23, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


That makes sense, but how come the nose of the engine looked like a worn out prize fighter's?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 26, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Cause a tree decided to cross the tracks without giving advance notice.

Since locomotive is fully functional why shop it for aesthetics.

If I lease a car I do not get to paint it my color either.

B.T.W. no engine 869 exist all the leased P40's are in 830's and 840's


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 26, 2008)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Cause a tree decided to cross the tracks without giving advance notice.Since locomotive is fully functional why shop it for aesthetics.
> 
> If I lease a car I do not get to paint it my color either.
> 
> B.T.W. no engine 869 exist all the leased P40's are in 830's and 840's


Because commuter rail, like anything else, is sold on its virtues. And a train that looks like nobody cares about it is less likely to attract riders than one that looks like people do. Plus you don't want to remind your customers on a route with a lot of grade-level crossings of the frequency with which grade-level crossing accidents occur. Especially on a coffin-car Push-pull.

I could be off on the number a bit, as I never wrote it down. I thought it was 869.

Almost every leased loco I've ever seen has been repainted...


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 27, 2008)

I bet riding in a cab car is still safer than riding in an automobile, though I haven't seen clear statistics on that. (And when I ride inbound MBTA commuter rail trains, I tend to do so off-peak, and the cab car doesn't seem to tend to be the first place they put passengers.)

And I get the impression that the railroads are not exactly swimming in excess money to enable them to do all the small things that would be nice to do.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 27, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> And I get the impression that the railroads are not exactly swimming in excess money to enable them to do all the small things that would be nice to do.


I haven't met a commuter RR that is swimming in excess money.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 27, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I bet riding in a cab car is still safer than riding in an automobile, though I haven't seen clear statistics on that. (And when I ride inbound MBTA commuter rail trains, I tend to do so off-peak, and the cab car doesn't seem to tend to be the first place they put passengers.)
> And I get the impression that the railroads are not exactly swimming in excess money to enable them to do all the small things that would be nice to do.


Trains are much safer than cars. But people feel less safe when they aren't in control, or atleast some do. I ride in the cab-car because I sit way the heck upfront and watch the scenenry coming from the front window when I can. Once in a while I've had drivers invite me up front


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Feb 1, 2008)

Drivers ?? maybe in Great Britain but in US their called Locomotive Engineers.

As for Coffin car statements, the Cab car is not any more dangerous than any other car in consist. it has same crash protection as a locomotive.

If passengers feel at higher risk fine, nobody forces you to sit in first car.

A bus has much higherr risk than that so called coffin car, same with a trolley or minivan.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 2, 2008)

A coffin car is, frankly, the most dangerous car on a train. It does not have the same protection as a locomotive, which is essentially as armoured as a tank and much heavier than the coffin car to boot. I am not saying its the most dangerous form of transportation ever devised. But its more dangerous than any other car. Not that I care. I am not suggesting elimination of it. Its more for other peoples misguided perceptions than my own.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Feb 2, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> A coffin car is, frankly, the most dangerous car on a train. It does not have the same protection as a locomotive, which is essentially as armoured as a tank and much heavier than the coffin car to boot. I am not saying its the most dangerous form of transportation ever devised. But its more dangerous than any other car. Not that I care. I am not suggesting elimination of it. Its more for other peoples misguided perceptions than my own.


You obviously have never been involved in locomotive construction, or maintenance.

the frame and collision post on engine and cab car are same, rest is just fluff and bondo.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 2, 2008)

Contradict me by posting a relevant link. I know a quite a bit about locomotive construction.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 2, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Contradict me by posting a relevant link. I know a quite a bit about locomotive construction.


And he works for Metro North and from what I understand, both works on these things and drives them when needed.

And while I can't say for sure whose right, I do know that the FRA mandates the heck out of cab cars and therefore they are pretty darn sturdy. They might not be quite as sturdy at a loco, again I honestly don't know, but if they aren't the tank then they sure are the armored personel carrier.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 2, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Contradict me by posting a relevant link. I know a quite a bit about locomotive construction.
> ...


Wouldn't that depend on the age of the given car?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Feb 2, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Not really the same 800 000 Lbs crush load strenght applies to locomotives and cars for last 20 or so years, only thing different is Tier II high speed equipment, which has to be 1000 000 Lbs with crash pads at each corner and no interuption of side sill.

yes newer cab cars and Locomotives have corner collission post, in adition to the door frame post, all earlier ones are grandfathered.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 3, 2008)

I noticed that Metro North still has cab-doors on their comets, while NJT Comet V and VI cars do not. Doesn't that make a pretty big different in the structural rigidity of the body?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Feb 3, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I noticed that Metro North still has cab-doors on their comets, while NJT Comet V and VI cars do not. Doesn't that make a pretty big different in the structural rigidity of the body?


No it does not, it does create a draft in cab however and any air leaks at door cause noise, the only reason newer cab cars do not have doors on engineers side is to accomodate better engineers seats and eliminate noise and drafts.

If it had anything to do with strenght there would be no door on firemans side either.


----------



## had8ley (Feb 3, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I bet riding in a cab car is still safer than riding in an automobile, though I haven't seen clear statistics on that. (And when I ride inbound MBTA commuter rail trains, I tend to do so off-peak, and the cab car doesn't seem to tend to be the first place they put passengers.)
> And I get the impression that the railroads are not exactly swimming in excess money to enable them to do all the small things that would be nice to do.


If my feeble memory serves me correctly Metra would not let us ride in the cab car on our return trip to Chicago on Metra. Does anybody else remember that or am I dreaming again?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Feb 4, 2008)

had8ley said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > I bet riding in a cab car is still safer than riding in an automobile, though I haven't seen clear statistics on that. (And when I ride inbound MBTA commuter rail trains, I tend to do so off-peak, and the cab car doesn't seem to tend to be the first place they put passengers.)
> ...


they may have a rule that if enough cars are available the cab car will remain closed.

I am sure that even METRA has passengers in cab cars during rushhours etc.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2008)

Dutchrailnut said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


Jay, I think that you're correct, but they just didn't need to open the cab car either. IIRC, there were only two cars open in the entire consist of like 5 or 6 cars. But I have been in many a cab car on METRA, so they do open it when needed. Most likely though the cab car is one of the last to be opened, since most people wait in the center of the platform, so conductors open those door first. Otherwise you delay the train while you make everyone run down the platform to the front of the train and the open doors.


----------



## battalion51 (Feb 5, 2008)

Agencies will close cars to cut down on cleaning costs, and make boarding and detraing passengers easier.


----------

