# AMTK Locomotive 66 Hit semi and damaged



## TylerP42 (Feb 19, 2016)

Link to FB, Joliet Fire Dept. Extensive damage to side, leaking fluids, front, broken windshields and ditch lights. 3rd wreck 66 has been involved in.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1138756179469431&id=209932415685150


----------



## Acela150 (Feb 19, 2016)

https://www.facebook.com/209932415685150/photos/pcb.1138756179469431/1138753566136359/?type=3&theater

Non mobile link. Hopefully it loads for everyone.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Feb 19, 2016)

If 66 is having such bad luck, no wonder they don't want a 666 ACS-64.


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 19, 2016)

Looks like a container on chaise, with one of the containers that is partially owned by UP!!!


----------



## afigg (Feb 19, 2016)

Chicago Tribune: Cops: Truck carrying ATVs struck by train after going around gates in Joliet.



> A southbound Amtrak train struck a semi truck carrying all-terrain vehicles in Joliet Friday after the truck's driver drove around downed warning gates, Joliet police said.
> 
> Four semi trucks had gone around the downed gates before the train struck the fifth truck, police said.
> 
> ...


Five trucks drove around the lowered gates?? And the 5th one got hit. Yikes.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Feb 19, 2016)

Has 66 been in any other notable accidents? Other than the Heritage paint scheme, it's no different than any other Amtrak locomotive. (Although this accident did take place near the old U.S. 66, so that's something.) The stretch of track south of Joliet is located near two giant container yards, one used by BNSF, the other by UP. Accidents involving trucks and container-haulers are very frequent in the area and the residents of Elwood, the town where the yards are located, have been freaking out about the problem, demanding new access to the yards from nearby I-55. In an unrelated incident, a truck made a u-turn and ran over several graves in nearby national veterans cemetery. Needless to say, the residents are very unhappy about the situation, despite the fact the town is reaping a lot of money from taxes on the container yards.


----------



## TylerP42 (Feb 19, 2016)

2 Passengers injured.


----------



## keelhauled (Feb 19, 2016)

afigg said:


> Chicago Tribune: Cops: Truck carrying ATVs struck by train after going around gates in Joliet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is a special kind of stupid.


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 19, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> Has 66 been in any other notable accidents? Other than the Heritage paint scheme, it's no different than any other Amtrak locomotive. (Although this accident did take place near the old U.S. 66, so that's something.) The stretch of track south of Joliet is located near two giant container yards, one used by BNSF, the other by UP. Accidents involving trucks and container-haulers are very frequent in the area and the residents of Elwood, the town where the yards are located, have been freaking out about the problem, demanding new access to the yards from nearby I-55. In an unrelated incident, a truck made a u-turn and ran over several graves in nearby national veterans cemetery. Needless to say, the residents are very unhappy about the situation, despite the fact the town is reaping a lot of money from taxes on the container yards.


This is the third accident with it since it received the paint job. It's the heritage unit that has had the worst luck.


----------



## Acela150 (Feb 19, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> Has 66 been in any other notable accidents? Other than the Heritage paint scheme, it's no different than any other Amtrak locomotive. (Although this accident did take place near the old U.S. 66, so that's something.) The stretch of track south of Joliet is located near two giant container yards, one used by BNSF, the other by UP. Accidents involving trucks and container-haulers are very frequent in the area and the residents of Elwood, the town where the yards are located, have been freaking out about the problem, demanding new access to the yards from nearby I-55. In an unrelated incident, a truck made a u-turn and ran over several graves in nearby national veterans cemetery. Needless to say, the residents are very unhappy about the situation, despite the fact the town is reaping a lot of money from taxes on the container yards.


I think it's been in 3 or 4 in the Phase II paint alone!


----------



## Ryan (Feb 19, 2016)

keelhauled said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Chicago Tribune: Cops: Truck carrying ATVs struck by train after going around gates in Joliet.
> ...


One of the Facebook comments on the article pointed out that you can't fix stupid, but you can push it a mile down the tracks while you get the train stopped. (or something to that effect)


----------



## chakk (Feb 19, 2016)

And another bites, and another one bites, another one bites the dust.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 19, 2016)

keelhauled said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Chicago Tribune: Cops: Truck carrying ATVs struck by train after going around gates in Joliet.
> ...


It's easy to continue down the path of _gawk and awe_ but maybe if we stopped viewing these kinds of routine events as being any kind of special we could finally start doing something about them. The trucking companies have made it clear that they don't see railroad crossing safety as an issue worthy of their time or consideration. Maybe we need to make it clear that this sort of attitude is a severe financial mistake with tougher regulations and more proactive enforcement?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Feb 20, 2016)

It is time to start equipping the grade crossings with four quadrant gates. I think it would help.


----------



## keelhauled (Feb 20, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> > afigg said:
> ...


I was referring specifically to the driver not having insurance paperwork. But I don't disagree with anything you said.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Feb 20, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> It is time to start equipping the grade crossings with four quadrant gates. I think it would help.


Or maybe the railroad should maintain there gates so they only go down when there a train coming. Add some railroad training and paint the crosstie so the crews know where the grade crossing sensor are so they don't fowl the crossing.

Four quadrants gates can fail, when they do two of arms fail down, two of the arms fail up. So five trucks still could get around them in a failure mode.

One thinks with modern technology a failed gate, or a fowled gate could report itself to the dispatcher.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Feb 20, 2016)

keelhauled said:


> I was referring specifically to the driver not having insurance paperwork. But I don't disagree with anything you said.


Failure to have a updated copy of insurance, or a failure to have any insurance. One is a bad thing, the other is a oops.


----------



## GaSteve (Feb 20, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> It is time to start equipping the grade crossings with four quadrant gates. I think it would help.


The basic problem is cost, which starts at around $250K. Who is going to pony up?


----------



## Karl1459 (Feb 20, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> > afigg said:
> ...


If I recall correctly DOT rules only require liability insurance to state minimums (150K to 300K? for most trucks, 1M for Hazardous materials, and 5M for Hazardous waste). Clearly not enough if a gyppo wrecks a locomotive, even another truck, or puts someone in a trauma center and rehab for a year of so. The truckers that don't care (many do... but they stay out of the news) would care a little bit more if their insurance costs became higher for the shady operators... and there was a little enforcement at the pumps with no insurance? = no fuel purchase!

Note that this bozo may have had insurance... just not carrying the proof.



Thirdrail7 said:


> It is time to start equipping the grade crossings with four quadrant gates. I think it would help.


While full quadrant gates are better than lane gates separated crossings (over/underpasses) are even better.

There are a lot if intersections where it is physically not feasible to install four quadrant gates, usually where an intersection to a road paralleling the railroad is too close to the tracks. The incident at the VA/NC border and IL several weeks ago were that type of intersections (and both had a truck trailer fouling the track while waiting to turn onto the parallel highway).

I don't think there are very many good and inexpensive solutions out there... whats left is either not that good or very expensive.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Feb 20, 2016)

GaSteve said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > It is time to start equipping the grade crossings with four quadrant gates. I think it would help.
> ...





Karl1459 said:


> While full quadrant gates are better than lane gates separated crossings (over/underpasses) are even better.
> 
> There are a lot if intersections where it is physically not feasible to install four quadrant gates, usually where an intersection to a road paralleling the railroad is too close to the tracks. The incident at the VA/NC border and IL several weeks ago were that type of intersections (and both had a truck trailer fouling the track while waiting to turn onto the parallel highway).
> 
> I don't think there are very many good and inexpensive solutions out there... whats left is either not that good or very expensive.



My thought process is a grade crossing incident usually ends up costing millions in loss of life, lawsuits and damages. Where it is feasible, equipping the crossings with four quadrant gates is probably cheaper than grade crossing separation. The states can use a portion of motor vehicle fines with contribution from the railroads to pay for it.

After all, you can pay for it 250k at a time or have a few million dollar, lump sum payments.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 20, 2016)

The solution is simple - put red light cameras at grade crossings.

Institute a $1,000 fine for personal vehicles, $50,000 fine to commercial vehicles.

The cameras will pay for themselves, then pay for quad gates or whatever the best solution is, then can get moved to the next intersection.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Feb 20, 2016)

Ryan said:


> The solution is simple - put red light cameras at grade crossings.
> 
> Institute a $1,000 fine for personal vehicles, $50,000 fine to commercial vehicles.
> 
> The cameras will pay for themselves, then pay for quad gates or whatever the best solution is, then can get moved to the next intersection.


I was thinking the cameras and their monitoring would be more expense than the gate.


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 20, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > It is time to start equipping the grade crossings with four quadrant gates. I think it would help.
> ...


Most of the crossings have detection systems that can track the speed and distance of the train and estimate when it will cross the road, and trigger the sequence when deemed appropriate. When a train stops after activation, the gate stays down until the circuitry realizes that the crossing is not blocked, then it will deactivate.


----------



## A Voice (Feb 20, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > The solution is simple - put red light cameras at grade crossings.
> ...


According to the link below, the cost is under $80,000, which unfortunately - given the number of violations - would soon pay for itself. The idea makes good sense (so we know it'll never happen).

Wonder if there is a practical way to let the railroads do the installation, and reimburse them out of the ticket revenues?

http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/ITS/benecost.nsf/ID/2B209AD2C5AD2AB985256DB10045892B?OpenDocument&Query=CApp


----------



## Big Iron (Feb 20, 2016)

Ryan said:


> The solution is simple - put red light cameras at grade crossings.
> 
> Institute a $1,000 fine for personal vehicles, $50,000 fine to commercial vehicles.
> 
> The cameras will pay for themselves, then pay for quad gates or whatever the best solution is, then can get moved to the next intersection.


And something along the lines of a 3 year license suspension for drivers of Class 6, 7, and 8 trucks.


----------



## neroden (Feb 20, 2016)

A Voice said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


At locations like this with a very high rate of violations, yes.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 20, 2016)

A Voice said:


> Wonder if there is a practical way to let the railroads do the installation, and reimburse them out of the ticket revenues?


That's a pretty good way of going about it. (so as you said, it'll never happen)


----------



## neroden (Feb 20, 2016)

Hmmmmmm. Yes. There's a way to do it. Pass a local law providing a cash payment to any person or organization which provides documented, date-stamped video evidence of an illegal raiload crossing by a motor vehicle, sufficient to lead to a conviction. Then ask the railroad politely to set up a camera to track cars & trucks going around the gate, explaining that they will be paid the prize for providing evidence. I think the railroad would be quite interested.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Feb 20, 2016)

Like the red lite camera bit. However what to do when gates are down, by failure, or by equipment fowling the signals. Railroads I am told are not permitted to block a grade level crossing for more than 30mins. How long do people sit there waiting for a railroad maintainer to show up?


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 20, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Like the red lite camera bit. However what to do when gates are down, by failure, or by equipment fowling the signals. Railroads I am told are not permitted to block a grade level crossing for more than 30mins. How long do people sit there waiting for a railroad maintainer to show up?


The time limits vary from state to state and most states exempt failure from the limits anyway. It's illegal to go around the gates when they are active, no matter the situation. The only time it's not is when there is a flager directing traffic.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Feb 20, 2016)

I like your idea Ryan. There is one place I've been I've watched school buses that were loaded go in front of trains. On a regular basis.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Feb 21, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Like the red lite camera bit. However what to do when gates are down, by failure, or by equipment fowling the signals. Railroads I am told are not permitted to block a grade level crossing for more than 30mins. How long do people sit there waiting for a railroad maintainer to show up?


There is something to be said for the impatience of drivers. How long indeed? I know some towns fine the railroads for improper gate activation and bill them if police support is needed.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Feb 21, 2016)

How fast do you think the police will respond to a report of gates down, but no train.

How busy is the workload on a 911dispatcher.

Railroads did have some problems in the past get the information to right dispatcher, and then communicated to the right trains.

What is the response time of railroads maintain personal?

Are the police even trained in what to do, and what should be done.

I like bridges, not perfect but you must be truly talented to get hit by a train from a bridge.


----------



## neroden (Feb 21, 2016)

Seaboard92 said:


> I like your idea Ryan. There is one place I've been I've watched school buses that were loaded go in front of trains. On a regular basis.


Good god. What is wrong with your state? I've never seen school buses do this in NY or California.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Feb 21, 2016)

neroden said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > I like your idea Ryan. There is one place I've been I've watched school buses that were loaded go in front of trains. On a regular basis.
> ...


I live in South Carolina. So anything is possible. That town was Clinton by the way. It probably still happens. I've never understood why a town with twenty plus trains a day doesn't have gates for two crossings of four lane roads.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Feb 22, 2016)

Seaboard92 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Seaboard92 said:
> ...


We have at least one 4-lane highway with an at-grade crossing. I'm not sure if there are gates (never paid attention the few times I drive there), but do know they have stop lights in addition to the RR crossing lights.

Here's a recent close call in TX.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/close-call-camera-school-bus-narrowly-misses-train/story?id=37052898


----------



## TylerP42 (Feb 22, 2016)

66 May get scrapped. Lots of internal damage, and the truck driver had no insurance.


----------



## jis (Feb 22, 2016)

Do you seriously believe that the truck driver's insurance has anything to do with deciding whether a locomotive will be scrapped or not?

It will get towed to Beech Grove. Legal and insurance issues will get addressed and based on various factors a decision will be made. Let us not jump the guns here. None of us have any expertise or concrete information about how repairable the damage is or not. So let's chill for a while.


----------



## FormerOBS (Feb 22, 2016)

In the case of actual collisions, footage from the onboard forward-facing video camera that is present on most modern mainline locomotives can and should be used.

In the case of a near miss, this footage should also be used when it can be presented with corroboration or when the video shows something distinctive like a vehicle identification number, license plate, distinctive paint scheme, identifiable person, etc. If onboard footage doesn't exist, we have nothing to fall back on except eyewitness accounts.

Unfortunately, onboard footage only comes into play when there is an actual accident. I believe it should be used in the case of near misses, and I believe security cameras can be installed at a number of locations to be used in charging drivers, whether onboard cameras exist or not.

Tom


----------



## Agent (Feb 24, 2016)

I found this video which is a recording taken Sunday from a web cam in Rochelle, Illinois of a westbound Union Pacific freight train. The fourth engine is AMTK 66. Anyone know where it went?


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 24, 2016)

Facebook conversation says either cut it up or it went to global 3


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Feb 24, 2016)

It's on it wheel between freight engines and the freight cars. The reports of it's damage seem a bit over stated.


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 24, 2016)

That's why I was saying that it wouldn't be scrapped on FB


----------



## TylerP42 (Feb 25, 2016)

quoting an engineer friend: "The thing is, it's in a UP train. A stacker to be precise. It's not exactly going to swing by 16th and be dropped off. If it would have been a shuttle home it would have been a light engine move and delivered back to Chicago or an Amtrak crew could have come out and drug it back.

These units are unibody design known as a monocoque body. If there is too much damage to major components ? Then it's razor blades. End of story full stop. That crease and the amount of damage to the fuel tank, radiator and other components ( didn't have time to climb on and look) tells me this could be its last round up."


----------



## jis (Feb 25, 2016)

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, I don't see any evidence that he has done a serious examination of the damage before stating his opinion. Therefore, I don't give much credence to your engineer friend's assessment at all.

As I said, it will be towed to Beech Grove once they get an irregular move permit, and then we will know what will happen to it.


----------



## FormerOBS (Feb 25, 2016)

Maybe I'm missing something here. If it was damaged in Joliet, and if it is intended to go to Beech Grove (the logical place for repair), then why was it going westbound through Rochelle --- away from Beech Grove?

Tom


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 25, 2016)

The rest of the equipment was towed to Chicago, 66 was left behind.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Feb 26, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> quoting an engineer friend: "The thing is, it's in a UP train. A stacker to be precise. It's not exactly going to swing by 16th and be dropped off. If it would have been a shuttle home it would have been a light engine move and delivered back to Chicago or an Amtrak crew could have come out and drug it back.
> 
> These units are unibody design known as a monocoque body. If there is too much damage to major components ? Then it's razor blades. End of story full stop. That crease and the amount of damage to the fuel tank, radiator and other components ( didn't have time to climb on and look) tells me this could be its last round up."



Would you mind if someone qualified actually took a look at it before you and your friend write it off?


----------



## TylerP42 (Feb 26, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> > quoting an engineer friend: "The thing is, it's in a UP train. A stacker to be precise. It's not exactly going to swing by 16th and be dropped off. If it would have been a shuttle home it would have been a light engine move and delivered back to Chicago or an Amtrak crew could have come out and drug it back.
> ...


They're opinions. Not facts. We're entitled to use our brains to come to our own thoughts for the time being. I personally am indifferent either way, if it gets scrapped or wrote off, or if it gets repaired. Personally not my problem.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> They're opinions. Not facts. We're entitled to use our brains to come to our own thoughts for the time being. I personally am indifferent either way, if it gets scrapped or wrote off, or if it gets repaired. Personally not my problem.


From your strident posts and the fights you picked on Facebook about this, one could get the (possibly mistaken) impression that your life almost depended on this opinion being fact


----------



## JoeBas (Feb 26, 2016)

Drama??? On FACEBOOK?!?!?! *GASP*


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 3, 2016)

Alright, so now it's been almost half a month since the accident. So the question is, where is #66 now? Is it in Chicago, Beech Grove, etc?


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 3, 2016)

No clue, FB has been incredibly quiet about it


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 3, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> No clue, FB has been incredibly quiet about it


Ohh, boy. I hope it'll return to service.


----------



## jis (Mar 3, 2016)

Even if it does it may be many years before it gets around to it.


----------



## TylerP42 (Mar 3, 2016)

Just saw 66 in the Chicago Yard


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 3, 2016)

Great news, how did it avoid the wall of foamers that I assumed would surround it more securely than the secret service surround the president? Of course I'm jesting


----------



## TylerP42 (Mar 3, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> Great news, how did it avoid the wall of foamers that I assumed would surround it more securely than the secret service surround the president? Of course I'm jesting


It was pretty tucked away... I barely saw it when passing it while talking to the crew (who all know me) on the Lake Shore passing the shops.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 8, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news, how did it avoid the wall of foamers that I assumed would surround it more securely than the secret service surround the president? Of course I'm jesting
> ...


Do you know of any reasons why it was *hidden*?


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 8, 2016)

This kinda reminds me, why was #66 rebuilt for regional service rather than kept just the way it was before?


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 8, 2016)

High speed signaling equipment is expensive, so there are monetary reasons to have a pool for the high speed service.


----------



## TylerP42 (Mar 8, 2016)

No idea why it was tucked away. Probably because they just have more important things to do than get it ready for scrap


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 8, 2016)

Eventually, most of the fleet will receive the upgrades.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 9, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> No idea why it was tucked away. Probably because they just have more important things to do than get it ready for scrap


Does this mean it's going to scrap or they're in the process of getting it repaired?


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 9, 2016)

How can we get it through your head that we don't know what will happen to it, as it has not been assessed by insurance people that we know of yet.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 9, 2016)

Tyler seems really convinced that it's going to be scrapped. Truth is, we don't know.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 9, 2016)

I don't think it is typical to scrap a unit. It rarely occurs.


----------



## Acela150 (Mar 9, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> How can we get it through your head that we don't know what will happen to it, as it has not been assessed by insurance people that we know of yet.


We can't. He has the name Foamer in his user id for a reason.


----------



## jis (Mar 9, 2016)

Well, it is Tyler that seems to be convinced that it will be scrapped, and apparently it has something to do with the Heritage paint scheme, though of late he vehemently denies that.


----------



## Karl1459 (Mar 9, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> Tyler seems really convinced that it's going to be scrapped. Truth is, we don't know.


Well, its likely it will be scrapped. The question is if it will be repaired first and then how many years of service after that before it does.


----------



## Acela150 (Mar 9, 2016)

jis said:


> Well, it is Tyler that seems to be convinced that it will be scrapped, and apparently it has something to do with the Heritage paint scheme, though of late he vehemently denies that.


He was all over Facebook demanding it be scrapped.. Not like there is a power shortage or anything...


----------



## neroden (Mar 9, 2016)

Karl1459 said:


> Well, its likely it will be scrapped. The question is if it will be repaired first and then how many years of service after that before it does.


I see what you did there. 
Of course, perhaps it will live on forever, eventually in museum service.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 9, 2016)

Karl1459 said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Tyler seems really convinced that it's going to be scrapped. Truth is, we don't know.
> ...


Touché, sir. You win.


----------



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

neroden said:


> Karl1459 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, its likely it will be scrapped. The question is if it will be repaired first and then how many years of service after that before it does.
> ...


I suppose we might as well take this as far as it can possibly go. Forever is a really long time and any locomotive would rust and decay long before that. The glass headlight lenses would probably remain intact the longest if they were left undisturbed but eventually there would be nothing left that was large enough to see with the naked eye. Over time continents would move and oceans would form and shrink as any remaining inert molecules of the locomotive floated and drifted about. Followed by the evaporation of all surface water and eventual envelopment by the sun. It's hard for me to imagine even the tiniest least significant spec of a locomotive somehow surviving an event of such magnitude. I suppose if we had chipped away a piece of the locomotive and sent it out into space beforehand it would be able to experience the finite expansion and cooling of the universe followed by perpetual entropy. I'm not sure what if anything could possibly happen after that, but this is about as close to "forever" as my human brain can hope to comprehend.


----------



## TylerP42 (Mar 10, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it is Tyler that seems to be convinced that it will be scrapped, and apparently it has something to do with the Heritage paint scheme, though of late he vehemently denies that.
> ...


I just use information given to me by engineers and other amtrak friends.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 10, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...




Yes...that worked out well with the 10031, didn't it? I think you should take this parable to heart:


----------



## TylerP42 (Mar 10, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> > Acela150 said:
> ...


I mean, now I listen to Director of Operations, a few conductors and engineers, not fellow railfans.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Mar 10, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > TylerP42 said:
> ...


You need to take whatever they say "with a grain of salt" as some professionals like to play around with young enthusiasts and give them "bad" info. I don't know if your sources have done this, but it certainly is possible. But I feel you can believe TR7 because he has not shown to me to be one to give false info.


----------



## TylerP42 (Mar 10, 2016)

I believe TR7, I'm just saying I feel I have much better sources now.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 10, 2016)

Third Rail has the best "inside" information of anybody on this site. I wouldn't discount anything he says.


----------



## TylerP42 (Mar 10, 2016)

I'm talking about compared to my past sources. not his sources.


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 10, 2016)

Well Tyler your information does seem to be improving, and I feel that you are becoming a better person at analyzing your sources and posing questions when you hear something that might not be true. For that I commend you.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 14, 2016)

Also, why would the loco be scrapped? I saw no damage to the frame.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 14, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Also, why would the loco be scrapped? I saw no damage to the frame.


You've been under the engine?


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 14, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, why would the loco be scrapped? I saw no damage to the frame.
> ...


Certainly not. But when I saw the pictures of its side damage, I didn't see any signs of damage to the frame. That's mostly what claims a locomotive's life.


----------



## SarahZ (Mar 14, 2016)

Pictures of the side won't show all of the types of frame damage that can occur. You have to get underneath.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 14, 2016)

SarahZ said:


> Pictures of the side won't show all of the types of frame damage that can occur. You have to get underneath.


Not if you are the hero known around these parts as BUFFMAN!!!







Get underneath? Nonsense!! Take it to the shop? That's for the birds! With Buffman's can do spirit and vast knowledge which is superior to all, a mere glance can provide all of the information needed.

Of course, this sets up a confrontation with non other than:






He heard the unit has lots of internal damage and may get scrapped. Once again, this is based upon people looking at it from the outside and not seeing it over a pit or anything. None of that matters, because Scrap Man sees a payday...and he will do anything to obtain it!

Who will win? Stay tuned! Same Facebook time! Same Facebook Channel!!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Mar 14, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Pictures of the side won't show all of the types of frame damage that can occur. You have to get underneath.
> ...


:giggle:


----------



## SarahZ (Mar 14, 2016)

Oh my god, TR. You just had me fighting laughter at Walgreens. Everyone is looking at me.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 14, 2016)




----------



## A Voice (Mar 14, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Pictures of the side won't show all of the types of frame damage that can occur. You have to get underneath.
> ...


The forum needs a 'like' button for posts such as these.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 14, 2016)

I has one, begging to be turned on.

You can see traces of it in the iOS app, but the "like" doesn't persist.


----------



## jis (Mar 14, 2016)

The forum is like Amtrak. Making any changes is impossible because it is special.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Mar 14, 2016)

Actual the post is quite offensive, and very childish. One hopes it gets deleted.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 14, 2016)

a) You seem to be in the minority.

2) Did you actually report it, and if so, what did the staff say? Complaining in the thread accomplishes approximately nothing.


----------



## oldtimer (Mar 15, 2016)

As a lifelong Amtrak mechanical department employee, now retired, I can tell you that the P40 and P42 Amtrak locomotives are a monocoque design which means that the frame is integral with the body and not a separate structure. It is impossible to determine the actual amount of damage and the repairability without precise measurement and alignment tools.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Mar 15, 2016)

Ryan said:


> a) You seem to be in the minority.
> 
> 2) Did you actually report it, and if so, what did the staff say? Complaining in the thread accomplishes approximately nothing.


Calling out bad behavior is never wrong. Cyber bullying is and always will be wrong. Personal attacks should never be allow.


----------



## jis (Mar 15, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Actual the post is quite offensive, and very childish. One hopes it gets deleted.


I have always been a child I suppose and I bow to your adulthood and then choose to ignore. I thought the post was hilarious.  it was a comment on certain behavior and not really an attack on a single individual IMHO. And as many of us seem to agree the behavior was somewhat silly and that is why it was humorously called out. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this and move on.


----------



## jis (Mar 24, 2016)

Bringing the thread back on topic, it appears that #66 finally arrived at Beech Grove on the 17th of March.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 24, 2016)

jis said:


> Bringing the thread back on topic, it appears that #66 finally arrived at Beech Grove on the 17th of March.


Whew! What took them so long to move it?


----------



## jis (Mar 24, 2016)

There was absolutely no need to hurry I suppose. It is going to sit around while all the paper shuffling takes place for many weeks and months anyway.


----------



## TylerP42 (Mar 24, 2016)

jis said:


> There was absolutely no need to hurry I suppose. It is going to sit around while all the paper shuffling takes place for many weeks and months anyway.


I talked to an amtrak friend a few months back and the Chicago Shops are pretty... let's just say, not very efficient and take their time.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 24, 2016)

Now that its at the Beech Grove Shops, one question: IF they do repair it, depending on how bad the damage is to a locomotive, what's the average time it takes to repair?


----------



## Karl1459 (Mar 24, 2016)

oldtimer said:


> As a lifelong Amtrak mechanical department employee, now retired, I can tell you that the P40 and P42 Amtrak locomotives are a monocoque design which means that the frame is integral with the body and not a separate structure. It is impossible to determine the actual amount of damage and the repairability without precise measurement and alignment tools.





Agent said:


> I found this video which is a recording taken Sunday from a web cam in Rochelle, Illinois of a westbound Union Pacific freight train. The fourth engine is AMTK 66. Anyone know where it went?



If one were to look carefully at the pix of 66 there is a fairly significant crease just ahead of the rear truck, with some lateral deflection to the loco's right. Given there was no impact with another immovable object the only cause is major energy transfer from the rear of the locomotive to the front when the train hit the track boo boo, which is likely associated with major scrambling of internal components.

The question of scrapping or not is going to be related to the value if fixed, what it takes to get there, and what the scrap or donor value is (if there are locos on the dead line that undamaged stuff could be used to get them running).


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 24, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Now that its at the Beech Grove Shops, one question: IF they do repair it, depending on how bad the damage is to a locomotive, what's the average time it takes to repair?


Look at the rolls of oos locomotives, the cheapest to fix get sent for repairs first, and only when all the money is there.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 24, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> > Now that its at the Beech Grove Shops, one question: IF they do repair it, depending on how bad the damage is to a locomotive, what's the average time it takes to repair?
> ...


"oos locomotives"? What the heck are you talking about? Is that a typo or something?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 24, 2016)

oos = out of service


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 24, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> oos = out of service


Ohhhhh, ok. I was confused, especially without capitalization and without periods in front of the letters.


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 24, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > oos = out of service
> ...


sorry for the confusion, typing in a rush.


----------



## TylerP42 (Mar 24, 2016)

If the locomotive has a distinctive "crumple" look, it probably has frame damage (That's what a foreman has told me), but I know what I said will probably be rudely rebuttaled. However, until they look at it closely and look under it, they won't know.


----------



## Acela150 (Mar 24, 2016)

You know, the more you pull for it to be scrapped the more likely that thing will see service again.


----------



## TylerP42 (Mar 24, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> You know, the more you pull for it to be scrapped the more likely that thing will see service again.


I never said it would be scrapped,Ive said in the pas there is a possibility it will, right now I am just saying what I heard. I haven't even paid attention to it lately, until I saw this thread pop up again


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 25, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > oos = out of service
> ...


I dunno; .O.O.S wouldn't have been less confusing to me...  
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Apr 14, 2016)

Alright. So now it's been about half a month since the last heads-up about #66. Are there any more heads-ups about it as of now?


----------



## jis (Apr 14, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Alright. So now it's been about half a month since the last heads-up about #66. Are there any more heads-ups about it as of now?


Ask next year. Half a month is not too long a period when it comes to such things


----------



## FormerOBS (Apr 14, 2016)

jis said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> > Alright. So now it's been about half a month since the last heads-up about #66. Are there any more heads-ups about it as of now?
> ...


Right. Sometimes these things can be delayed for various reasons, some having very little to do with the actual repair work. For example, pending legal action could require that an item that could be thought of as evidence can't be altered until the court approves. No telling how long that could take. After the Auto Train derailment near Crescent City in 2002, a couple of the damaged Superliner cars sat, essentially untouched, in Sanford for over a year.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Apr 14, 2016)

Y'all can go to http://www.4rr.com/3/p42roster_001.htm to see what the current engine assignments are.

jb


----------



## Acela150 (Apr 14, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > You know, the more you pull for it to be scrapped the more likely that thing will see service again.
> ...


Tyler you were all over Facebook saying it will be scraped. Don't try it.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 16, 2016)

FormerOBS said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > CSXfoamer1997 said:
> ...


Additionally, this engine may have to wait for insurance companies to duke it out before they can attempt a fix. You won't see this engine for quite some time. Incidentally, the 65 was also involved in a grade crossing incident with a truck.


----------



## Acela150 (Apr 16, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> FormerOBS said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I'll guess that has to deal with the insurance company of the Vehicle that got, well destroyed..


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 17, 2016)

My former employee (Trucking Company) was self insured.

Check were issue very fast, so you did not have time to hire an lawyer. Oops sorry we totally your car, glad to see your were not hurt. Here a check for your next new car. Just sign here to settle the claim. They did this in days, if not hours.


----------



## jis (Apr 17, 2016)

There are a few trucking companies that have seen it fit to try to sue Amtrak and claim that it was all Amtrak's and the host railroad's fault anyway.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Jun 10, 2016)

What's the news with #66 as of now? It's been almost 2 months since the last update.


----------



## R30A (Jun 10, 2016)

When it comes to wrecks, expect updates every few years, if not less frequently.


----------



## TylerP42 (Jun 12, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> What's the news with #66 as of now? It's been almost 2 months since the last update.


Oh I'm sorry, should I be updating this every day on the status of the locomotive?


----------



## Acela150 (Jun 12, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the news with #66 as of now? It's been almost 2 months since the last update.
> ...


Another comment that isn't needed.


----------



## TylerP42 (Jun 12, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> > CSXfoamer1997 said:
> ...


You like to pick at everything with me, don't you? Follow me around so you can show off my flaws? That's cool.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 12, 2016)

Steve is an equal opportunity picker.

Try not taking everything so personally.


----------



## Acela150 (Jun 12, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > TylerP42 said:
> ...


Just think about your posts. I've been known to fire off stuff that I later regret. Once recently.

It's not that I want to pick on you or one up you. It's the fact that I've been in your shoes before. AU members have told me the same thing.



Ryan said:


> Steve is an equal opportunity picker.
> 
> Try not taking everything so personally.


Aren't we all...

Yes. What Ryan said is spot on. Don't take things so personal.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 12, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> Aren't we all...


I'm not.

I just pick on you.


----------



## PaulM (Jun 12, 2016)

I wish there were a separate thread for this sparkling repartee. When I click on a link like this hoping for additional information, I wind up feeling like Lucy has been at it again.


----------



## TylerP42 (Jun 12, 2016)

I did hear today that it's still at Beech Grove. That's all I can say.


----------



## Acela150 (Jun 12, 2016)

Ryan said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't we all...
> ...







TylerP42 said:


> I did hear today that it's still at Beech Grove. That's all I can say.


It will be for some time. Sad to say. As always during a power shortage things go wrong.


----------



## TylerP42 (Jun 12, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Acela150 said:
> ...


My source says it's likely to be parted out, but that's not the official word, just his opinion


----------



## andersone (Jun 13, 2016)

I love it when the children play nice in the sandbox


----------



## Acela150 (Jun 13, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


His or yours? You were allllllllllllllll over Facebook demanding it's scrapping.. Also why would the scrap the unit considering it's fitted with PTC equipment. One of the few right now. Not sure which it's outfitted with. But I'm relatively sure it's PTC outfitted for Michigan service as well as Illinois "High Speed Service".


----------



## SarahZ (Jun 13, 2016)

andersone said:


> I love it when the children play nice in the sandbox


I'm still waiting for that to happen.


----------



## TylerP42 (Jun 14, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> > Acela150 said:
> ...


That's his word. Not mine. At this point, I don't care what happens to it. It seems like it was bad luck but if Amtrak wants to keep it, they'll keep it.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 14, 2016)




----------



## andersone (Jun 15, 2016)

or perhaps an expletive deleted?


----------



## blackpup (Jun 15, 2016)

Truck driver is very stupid and very lucky he wasn't killed.


----------



## KnightRail (Jun 16, 2016)

For those loosing sleep at night wondering about 66, there it is:

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/579977


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Jun 16, 2016)

blackpup said:


> Truck driver is very stupid and very lucky he wasn't killed.


And get this, he had no insurance!


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jun 16, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> > I was referring specifically to the driver not having insurance paperwork. But I don't disagree with anything you said.
> ...


Have they determine if he just did not have a copy of his current insurance or did he not have insurance.

Have they determine how long the gates were down? The photo show a freight train real close. Did the freight train activate the gates, but not block them? The Amtrak train was on the second track and view was block by the freight train.

Bridges that my dream, you still can get hit by a train from a bridge but you have to be really talented to do so.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Apr 1, 2017)

I just saw a recent picture on Facebook, and this is actually no joke! They're currently having it repaired. Its windshields got fixed, it got a new snowplow, so it should return to service once it's rebuilt and inspected.


----------



## Karl1459 (Apr 1, 2017)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> I just saw a recent picture on Facebook, and this is actually no joke! They're currently having it repaired. Its windshields got fixed, it got a new snowplow, so it should return to service once it's rebuilt and inspected.


Would you be so kind as to post a link the the primary source?


----------



## A Voice (Apr 1, 2017)

Let's see, today's date, and the fact the original source is Facebook.....


----------



## KnightRail (Apr 1, 2017)

A Voice said:


> Let's see, today's date, and the fact the original source is Facebook.....


Yea it's BS


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Apr 1, 2017)

A Voice said:


> Let's see, today's date, and the fact the original source is Facebook.....


https://www.facebook.com/brian.edmonson.503/posts/291965201223555?comment_id=292403594513049&reply_comment_id=292471104506298&notif_t=feed_comment_reply&notif_id=1491081444356391


----------



## Acela150 (Apr 1, 2017)

Looking at that photo nothing has changed. And why would they replace a plow first?? That is for sure one of the last things if not the last thing to get fixed. The ditch lights are still broken out and it looks like nothing has been touched.. You're getting your hopes up for no reason IMO.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 1, 2018)

I can't 100% confirm that the rumor is true, but there was just a post in a private Facebook group hinting that another P42 may have been painted into Phase II (#130). A picture was also included and it looks identical to #66 except for the number.


----------



## KnightRail (Mar 1, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I can't 100% confirm that the rumor is true, but there was just a post in a private Facebook group hinting that another P42 may have been painted into Phase II (#130). A picture was also included and it looks identical to #66 except for the number.


Whats not to believe? You are not suggesting that someone would deliberately doctor a photo, put it on the internet, and spread it around as fact when its total fantasy, are you? That would never happen. Ha.
Believe it. 130 is at Beech Grove for capital wreck repair and repainting. Should be out soon.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 1, 2018)

KnightRail said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't 100% confirm that the rumor is true, but there was just a post in a private Facebook group hinting that another P42 may have been painted into Phase II (#130). A picture was also included and it looks identical to #66 except for the number.
> ...


Thanks for the confirmation. I thought that it was probably true, but I have also seen people lie about things that are far harder to prove than simply photoshopping a locomotive number. This will obviously have no effect on the typical passenger's experience, but it is still a positive to have all the paint schemes covered for the railfans and long-time riders out there.


----------



## Acela150 (Mar 1, 2018)

Said photo is attached. Credit to the photographer.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 1, 2018)

You have to actually ID the photographer to give them credit, dummy.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 2, 2018)

I'm still curious as to why this is in a thread dedicated to the damage of 66. Is it because they have the same paint job? If that is the case, why do we have separate thread for the units with Veteran's Logo?


----------

