# Loco #s After Accidents; Missing Locos/UP Locos



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 7, 2016)

UP has now gone from numbering its GE ES units from 8000 series to 2000 series. UP barely has any room on its loco roster for newer locos. Why is UP, as well as a few other railroads, not getting rid of the older locos to make room for the newer locos? I mean many of the locos like the SD40-2 and prior are starting to reach their age.


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 7, 2016)

Newer locomotives have to comply with more strict emissions standards, and cost more to purchase and operate than older *already paid for* locomotives do to operate.


----------



## Acela150 (Feb 7, 2016)

Yup. The have to meet Tier 4 standards. Anything to raise the price. Most freight units are trash anyway. But the AC units are nice.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Feb 8, 2016)

I heard there is a shortage of freight locomotives. It does explain why CSX is rebuilding their SD40-2s and even UP has converted it's SD40-2s into SD40-3s. BNSF I last heard wants to convert it's Dash 9s into AC locomotives.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 8, 2016)

Caesar La Rock said:


> I heard there is a shortage of freight locomotives. It does explain why CSX is rebuilding their SD40-2s and even UP has converted it's SD40-2s into SD40-3s. BNSF I last heard wants to convert it's Dash 9s into AC locomotives.


Yeah. CSX is rebuilding its SD40-2's with safer cabs and also installing different electronics. For example, the Graham-White horn valves are being replaced with solenoid valves, which I kinda hate, and replacing pneumatic brakes with electro-pneumatic brakes. Also, they're redesigning them to have a higher tractive effort.

And yeah, BNSF is rebuilding its Dash 9's to AC units, and so is Norfolk Southern. Only difference is, BNSF's will have A1A-A1A (4 out of 6-axle powered) wheel arrangement, but NS's will have the standard C-C (all 6-powered axle) wheel arrangement.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 8, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> Yup. The have to meet Tier 4 standards. Anything to raise the price. Most freight units are trash anyway. But the AC units are nice.


Yes, they are indeed. I've heard rumors from railfans and some railroad workers that AC locos are more powerful and tend to last longer than DC locos and require less maintenance.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 8, 2016)

Caesar La Rock said:


> I heard there is a shortage of freight locomotives.


Source?


----------



## Acela150 (Feb 8, 2016)

Caesar La Rock said:


> I heard there is a shortage of freight locomotives. It does explain why CSX is rebuilding their SD40-2s and even UP has converted it's SD40-2s into SD40-3s. BNSF I last heard wants to convert it's Dash 9s into AC locomotives.


I'm dying to know where you're hearing about a shortage. Considering UP, NS and others are putting units into storage.

Please enlighten me.


----------



## keelhauled (Feb 8, 2016)

Older diesel engines in a lot of ways are better than newer ones. They'll run just about indefinitely, given proper maintenance, and you don't have to fuss around with the emissions nonsense--no extra filters, DEF, self-sabotaging computers. With fuel being so cheap there's no reason not to run older units.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 8, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> Caesar La Rock said:
> 
> 
> > I heard there is a shortage of freight locomotives. It does explain why CSX is rebuilding their SD40-2s and even UP has converted it's SD40-2s into SD40-3s. BNSF I last heard wants to convert it's Dash 9s into AC locomotives.
> ...


That's why there is a shortage, they're all in storage! Do I have to do all the thinking around here?!?


----------



## Acela150 (Feb 8, 2016)

Ryan said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > Caesar La Rock said:
> ...


Oh Ryan. You always find a way to make me laugh. Haha! But they're being stored due to a lack of work for them.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Feb 8, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Caesar La Rock said:
> 
> 
> > I heard there is a shortage of freight locomotives.
> ...





Acela150 said:


> Caesar La Rock said:
> 
> 
> > I heard there is a shortage of freight locomotives. It does explain why CSX is rebuilding their SD40-2s and even UP has converted it's SD40-2s into SD40-3s. BNSF I last heard wants to convert it's Dash 9s into AC locomotives.
> ...


Unfortunately, you guys are going to look for that information on your own, busy. Heard about the shortage several months ago. Things could of changed in that time frame. Want to talk about a real shortage, I have a shortage of hands.


----------



## Acela150 (Feb 8, 2016)

Caesar La Rock said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > Caesar La Rock said:
> ...


I have a shortage of patience.. I work for NS, and we are putting units into storage... You're wrong.. Get over it. And on the railroad things change quickly.. If you don't like the fact that you're wrong go somewhere else to say there is a shortage..


----------



## jis (Feb 9, 2016)

This is really odd. Someone "heard" from somewhere that there is shortage and using that hearsay keeps challenging folks who actually work on the railroad and have first hand knowledge countering that contention. So what does this someone do? He says go look the information up yourself, something he apparently did not bother to do to verify his claim of shortage based on hearsay. Sheesh!


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 9, 2016)

If a locomotive has been in a certain accident and someone has been killed or injured, what the heck does the number have to do with such bad things about the accident?

For example, after the Graniteville train accident, the engineer was killed, and now his family wanted the loco that returned to service re-numbered and does not want NS to use that number ever again.

Another example, NS #7117 (An EMD GP60) was involved in an accident that killed a crew member. The locomotive returned to service, but the crew member's family wanted it re-numbered and does not want NS to use that number ever again.

Is it me, or is that some kind of superstitious nonsense?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Feb 9, 2016)

Maybe the family members don't want the reminders. If they see the number on a loco, it will remind them of the tragedy. I think it's more important to eliminate the numbers for the families sakes than to keep them for foamers sake.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 9, 2016)

I agree. It doesn't cost much to renumber a locomotive, especially if its being rebuilt anyway. And if doing so saves hurt to people, why not do it?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 9, 2016)

^^^ what they said.

Not being reminded of a painful event isn't "superstitious nonsense", it's being a decent human being.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Feb 9, 2016)

I've never heard of such a request.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Feb 9, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> I've never heard of such a request.


Neither have I, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.


----------



## jis (Feb 9, 2016)

Yup. Never heard of a locomotive number changed for this reason.

But it could happen as an exceptional case on a case by case basis.

Naturally if the engine is destroyed typically no one will go out of their way to reuse the number immediately. But if it is rebuilt, typically it will get the same number as it had before.

Airlines are known to retire flight numbers of flights involved in accidents. If planes are recovered from an incident typically their registration number does not change. And of course if it crashes and is taken off the roster typically the registration number is not reused for a considerable amount of time.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 9, 2016)

AmtrakBlue said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > I've never heard of such a request.
> ...


You mean "other than the two in the OP", right? 

I hadn't heard of it outside of those two, but it doesn't sound like an unreasonable request.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 9, 2016)

jis said:


> Yup. Never heard of a locomotive number changed for this reason.
> 
> But it could happen as an exceptional case on a case by case basis.
> 
> naturally if the engine is destroyed typically no one will go out of their way to reuse the number immediately. But if it is rebuilt, typically it willg et the same number as it had before.


Yeah, there are many locos that have been wrecked, but returned to service with the same number,


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 9, 2016)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Maybe the family members don't want the reminders. If they see the number on a loco, it will remind them of the tragedy. I think it's more important to eliminate the numbers for the families sakes than to keep them for foamers sake.


Well, I didn't necessarily mean for foamers. In fact, in the future, they may need that loco number for the future (maybe distant future) roster.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 9, 2016)

NS #7100 was originally #7117, but was wrecked and renumbered to #7100 because it was requested by the dead crew member's relatives.

However, I've looked everywhere for sites about the accident, but couldn't find anything.

I know it occurred in July 1998, but where did this accident occur? And was this a derailment, collision, etc.? I'm still unable to find any sites or pictures about this accident.


----------



## PerRock (Feb 9, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> NS #7100 was originally #7117, but was wrecked and renumbered to #7100 because it was requested by the dead crew member's relatives.
> 
> However, I've looked everywhere for sites about the accident, but couldn't find anything.
> 
> I know it occurred in July 1998, but where did this accident occur? And was this a derailment, collision, etc.? I'm still unable to find any sites or pictures about this accident.



So I couldn't find an NTSB report for any NS-related fatal incidents happening in July of 1998. However I did find other websites saying that it was in 1998 that the locomotive was renumbered; which would indicate to me that the incident happened a few years before that (presume a year for the NTSB investigation, and a few months of the locomotive operating under the #7117 before the request.) A cursory glance over the incident reports I didn't see anything in 1997; but I didn't look in 1996 or earlier.

peter

Edit: Feel free to look for yourself: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/railroad.aspx


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 9, 2016)

Cue "The Wreck of Old 97".


----------



## Ryan (Feb 9, 2016)

Which I have listened to while traveling on the new 97.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 10, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Is it me, or is that some kind of superstitious nonsense?


It could be superstition or it could be overwhelmed emotions leading to irrational demands. Sometimes when life seems unfair people respond to adversity by pursuing unrelated changes that have little if anything to do with correcting an actual problem but everything to do with giving emotionally fragile people a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Unless the number somehow led to the accident by virtue of being difficult to read or easy to confuse I don't see why it should be retired in any logical sense. On the other hand it seems like a relatively minor change to help a grieving family accept their loss.



jis said:


> Airlines are known to retire flight numbers of flights involved in accidents. If planes are recovered from an incident typically their registration number does not change. And of course if it crashes and is taken off the roster typically the registration number is not reused for a considerable amount of time.


I completely understand changing numbers for passenger flights that have experienced substantial loss of life. Millions of potential customers are shockingly superstitious, amazingly unaware of statistically relevant threats, and just plain irrational about flying in general. That being said, I've never seen or heard of anyone making a fuss over the registration of a cargo aircraft, which would seem to be the closest equivalent to the situation described by the OP.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 10, 2016)

Ryan said:


> You mean "other than the two in the OP", right?
> I hadn't heard of it outside of those two, but it doesn't sound like an unreasonable request.


In the UK there was a serious crash when a train derailed at hatfield in 2000

You can read about it here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash

The locomotive involved (number 91 023) was repaired and renumbered 91 132


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Feb 10, 2016)

I have two dying relatives to think about, especially with surgeries taking place, I have other business to take care of, most of the time I'm alone handling it, the amount of stress of those said things are literally killing me.

Apparently, this hobby and information that I last saw months ago is a lot more important to some then taking care of family and business. Reminds me of what an older fan once said, you deal with fans in this community and you get burned.

If you guys can't look for the information on your own, then don't respond to my posts again. I'm falling apart from enough things as it is, I'm not looking for something that I saw months ago out of random. Even then, I very likely deleted it since I delete all my history.


----------



## Acela150 (Feb 10, 2016)

While I am sympathetic for you and your situation. You need to listen to someone who is on the industry. I have been working for NS for a year. And locomotives are going into storage due to the lack of work. 6 months ago they didn't have enough. Today it's the other way around. They have to many. If you don't want to believe me. Then that's your issue.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Feb 10, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> While I am sympathetic for you and your situation. You need to listen to someone who is on the industry. I have been working for NS for a year. And locomotives are going into storage due to the lack of work. 6 months ago they didn't have enough. Today it's the other way around. They have to many. If you don't want to believe me. Then that's your issue.


I believe you and the thing is, I didn't know they were going into storage until recently. 6 months ago was around the time I heard about the locomotive shortage. The freight recession thread I saw furthermore proves that the railroads have surplus locomotives.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 15, 2016)

When did UP 6936, UP's only active DDA40X, last operate? I haven't seen any recent videos of it in operation by itself.

Also is there anything any of us could possibly find of when that loco will run again at a certain time, like the date of when it will?


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 15, 2016)

I have heard unconfirmed rumors that it is being brought up to SD70ACE standards for both engine blocks, and will be running tests to see if a double engined locomotive is feasible today.

It is claimed to be used as a test bed, and EMD will be watching closely.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 17, 2016)

There are two UP GTEL's that are surviving in museums. Both are 8500-HP. The two survivors are #18 and #26.

How would any of you like to see UP add one of those beasts to its heritage fleet and have them in operation again, whether it's hauling freight or running on excursions?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 17, 2016)

HUH? WHAT'S THE QUESTION AGAIN? I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE ROAR OF THOSE DAMN TURBINES.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 17, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> HUH? WHAT'S THE QUESTION AGAIN? I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE ROAR OF THOSE DAMN TURBINES.


Lol. But yeah. They sure were loud.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 17, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > HUH? WHAT'S THE QUESTION AGAIN? I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE ROAR OF THOSE DAMN TURBINES.
> ...


On the other hand it would sure make for one heck of a candid camera moment if an Amtrak train pulled into a major station with one of those things running full blast.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 17, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> > Devil's Advocate said:
> ...


Indeed it would, or maybe even sitting near a freight yard and seeing a freight train coming in with one of those beasts at full throttle!


----------



## cirdan (Feb 17, 2016)

These units have been cold and out of use for a long time now.

In contrast to steam locomotives, where working knowledge and experience has been kept alive by tourist and heritage operations, I don't think there are many people around who would even have a clue what to do with these machines, let alone restore one to full working order and then operate it.

I fear they will never run again.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 22, 2016)

Does anyone know what happened to UP #3300 (The Independence Unit)?


----------



## jis (Feb 23, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Does anyone know what happened to UP #3300 (The Independence Unit)?


Did you perhaps give consideration to the possibility of trying to Google "UP 3300" and see what you get before posing the question here?


----------

