Quantcast

Currently Stored P42DC's

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

CSXfoamer1997

OBS Chief
Joined
Dec 23, 2015
Messages
557
The currently stored P42DC's are 8, 21, 24, 49, 70, 80, 99, 102, 128, 135, 141, 178, 185. Some of these have either wreck damage or fire damage.

I'm very curious which of these stored locos will likely be scrapped, continuously stored, or back in service in the future.
 

CCC1007

Conductor
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
1,719
8 is almost certainly going to be scrapped, the frame is damaged beyond repair.

 

CCC1007

Conductor
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
1,719
Most are being held until the insurance pays out, and are reparable
 

Thirdrail7

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
4,490
The currently stored P42DC's are 8, 21, 24, 49, 70, 80, 99, 102, 128, 135, 141, 178, 185. Some of these have either wreck damage or fire damage.

I'm very curious which of these stored locos will likely be scrapped, continuously stored, or back in service in the future.
I'm not sure where you received this information, but some of the units you mentioned aren't stored while some that are stored did not receive a mention. Additionally, some will be repaired while others will languish as insurance battles rage on, particularly since they are evidence.

Finally, there is funding and scheduling that must be considered. It may take years. The 706 was a perfect example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

greatcats

Conductor
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
2,385
Location
Flagstaff, Arizona
IIRC, #8 was the one that rear ended a freight train a few years ago in Chicago. The engineer was rather new, but a Road Foreman was in the cab!
 

keelhauled

OBS Chief
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
863
Location
Camorr
Almost ten years ago now...it was the Pere Marquette in 2007 I think. Rear ended a freight train at 40+mph. No fatalities.
 

SarahZ

Conductor
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
8,087
Location
KAL
#8: The crewmembers in the locomotive suffered serious injuries, and approximately 60 passengers suffered minor injuries.
 

CSXfoamer1997

OBS Chief
Joined
Dec 23, 2015
Messages
557
Miraculously not. The P40DC's and P42DC's were designed for safety inside the cab. I rarely hear about Amtrak engineers getting killed in crashes these days.

And also, I got the infor from the 4rr website. http://4rr.com/4rr_001.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CSXfoamer1997

OBS Chief
Joined
Dec 23, 2015
Messages
557
The currently stored P42DC's are 8, 21, 24, 49, 70, 80, 99, 102, 128, 135, 141, 178, 185. Some of these have either wreck damage or fire damage.

I'm very curious which of these stored locos will likely be scrapped, continuously stored, or back in service in the future.
I'm not sure where you received this information, but some of the units you mentioned aren't stored while some that are stored did not receive a mention. Additionally, some will be repaired while others will languish as insurance battles rage on, particularly since they are evidence.

Finally, there is funding and scheduling that must be considered. It may take years. The 706 was a perfect example.
I received the info from the 4rr website.
 

AmtrakBlue

Conductor
Gathering Team Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
11,795
Location
Delaware
The currently stored P42DC's are 8, 21, 24, 49, 70, 80, 99, 102, 128, 135, 141, 178, 185. Some of these have either wreck damage or fire damage.

I'm very curious which of these stored locos will likely be scrapped, continuously stored, or back in service in the future.
I'm not sure where you received this information, but some of the units you mentioned aren't stored while some that are stored did not receive a mention. Additionally, some will be repaired while others will languish as insurance battles rage on, particularly since they are evidence.

Finally, there is funding and scheduling that must be considered. It may take years. The 706 was a perfect example.
I received the info from the 4rr website.
I wouldn't have much faith in the up-to-dateness of that website based on this link, since there is at least one other Amtrak investigation that has not been finalized.

Click here for a revised link to NTSB railroad accident reports. There is still one investigation still not final involving Amtrak, the June 24, 2011 California Zephyr vs. gravel truck at Miriam, Nevada. The preliminary report has been released. You can also reach other completed reports through this link.
 

battalion51

Conductor
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
7,193
Location
USA
When in doubt, read the NTSB report. The NTSB has little, to no conjecture in its reports. Items from elsewhere on the internet rely on rumor and "well I heard."
 

Thirdrail7

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
4,490
I think it is safe to say you can add the 65 and 66 to the list of stored diesels for the foreseeable future.
 

Acela150

Conductor
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
8,800
Location
In a Sea of Foam
99 is being equipped for ACSES operations.. IINM. Looks like that and dare I say 145 will be captive to the NEC for a bit, 145 is now ACSES equipped pending FRA approval. This according to an Amtrak Engineer that is pretty reliable.
 

RPC

Service Attendant
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
221
"And for those units that are not repairable, why not sell them for scrap?" It's cheaper to leave them parked and use them for spare parts as needed than to disassemble them and store the parts separately. If you just scrap them, the spare parts are gone forever.
 

cirdan

Conductor
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
2,391
"And for those units that are not repairable, why not sell them for scrap?" It's cheaper to leave them parked and use them for spare parts as needed than to disassemble them and store the parts separately. If you just scrap them, the spare parts are gone forever.
And also, the scrap value is pretty much peanuts compared to the value of parts.
 

PVD

Conductor
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
4,818
Location
NYC/Queens
There are parts which have very little value as scrap steel (steel is very recycleable, but not particularly expensive) but are very valuable as a part. A prime example are truck assemblies, I believe a bunch have already been grabbed. No longer in current manufacture, a custom fabrication would likely cost more than a whole loco at scrap would bring.
 

cirdan

Conductor
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
2,391
Also, it's not always economic to remove parts speculatively.

You cannot predict whether a given part will ever be required, but it costs manpower to remove that part and then inventorize and store it. Then some years later when the type gets retired that part may go for scrap anyway. It's more economic to extract the parts in a focussed manner and as needed, provided of course you have a location where it is feasible to store and access the entire locomotive - preferably a location where the land value is low.
 
Top