News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

The nominal loaded weight of a Metra EMD SD70MAC locomotive is 415,000 lbs

Vs 289 000lbs for a mp40

Venture locomotive is 128 000lbs

So yeah they are double the weight of a conventional loco.
You know, I thought about mentioning the six axle option but I thought, no, be nice to the rail fans they get so annoyed by the SD70s in Chicago but yoooooou had to go there :)
 
You know, I thought about mentioning the six axle option but I thought, no, be nice to the rail fans they get so annoyed by the SD70s in Chicago but yoooooou had to go there :)
I mean Alaska railroad uses them on their trains..and they did appear on the northlander from time to time.
 
That’s the 2 x QSK60 with no HEP engine, compared to the 4,000+1,000hp of the MP40 Tier 3. The thing is, MP40/54s are heavy by passenger locomotive standards - about 130 tonnes. That means more track forces, more wear and tear.
More weight also means more tractive effort, as it is a function of weight and grip and force able to be applied. The MP54s are heavy because GO has them ballasted so.

This is also why the trend in freight locos is to ballast them up to 430,000 pounds and above.

The nominal loaded weight of a Metra EMD SD70MAC locomotive is 415,000 lbs

Vs 289 000lbs for a mp40

Venture locomotive is 128 000lbs

So yeah they are double the weight of a conventional loco.
A Venture is not a locomotive, it's a passenger car. So it doesn't provide any tractive effort, except in braking.

A Charger - which is a locomotive - weighs about 270,000lbs.

Dan
 
Saw this on LinkedIn - Track work on the ONR line north of North Bay in Temiskaming Shores. Looks like flash-welding for the jointed track to make it continuous weld. Will help with Northlander speeds.
How does continuous weld help the Northlander speed? I don't remember the old VIA Turbo being any slower while you were being shaken to death on the unwelded segments.
 
Modern rail operational standards will limit speeds (a bit) over jointed rail. Welded rails will also give riders a smoother trip.
At the highest speeds, perhaps.

How much of it's route is currently rated at 80 mph? Let alone 90 mph.

It's certainly a smoother trip. There's an essay somewhere I wrote while travelling to Montreal - and you can tell from the shaky handwriting, which sections were written on jointed rail!
 
No they don't.

Beyond comfort, the one thing that CWR is good for is vastly reducing maintenance requirements.

Dan
That's fair. This whole conversation is giving me PTSD about how a low-level GO employee scuttled a OBRY farewell trip using GO equipment because "GO Trains can't run on jointed rail" (which for numerous reasons is false, GO does do that). Anyways, back to ONR...
 
Last edited:
That's fair. This whole conversation is giving me PTSD about how a low-level GO employee scuttled a OBRY farewell trip using GO equipment because "GO Trains can't run on jointed rail" (which for numerous reasons is false, GO does do that). Anyways, back to ONR...
That comment was not what prevented that trip, although it certainly managed to garner lots of laughs from those who knew better. It was the exorbitant cost that they provided the Credit Valley Explorer that scuttled the possibility.

Dan
 
That comment was not what prevented that trip, although it certainly managed to garner lots of laughs from those who knew better. It was the exorbitant cost that they provided the Credit Valley Explorer that scuttled the possibility.

Dan
Were they actual costs to Metrolinx, or made up costs in the vein of a contractor giving ridiculous quotes to jobs the contractor does not want to do, in the hope the potential client will move on and not give the job to the contractor.
I have no doubt there would be costs to operate that farewell trip, but I can't see the costs being much more than could be covered by ticket sales for the trip, and maybe some volunteer work for the operators of the trip.
Maybe a better discussion in the General Railway thread, but what happened to railfan trips that seemed to happen with frequency in the 60's and 70s?
 
Maybe a better discussion in the General Railway thread, but what happened to railfan trips that seemed to happen with frequency in the 60's and 70s?

A bunch of things. Railways not wanting the hassle, accountants using sharper pencils, lawyers taking a far more cautious view of liability, senior executives taking a far more controlling position on local management decisions, availability and cost of labour very different.

Somehow I inherited a bunch of old correspondence between the railways and a certain frequent trip organizer from back in the 1960's. It's fascinating just how casually these were arranged and how much was made possible over a coffee or just by asking. These are simply not the same times.

- Paul
 
Were they actual costs to Metrolinx, or made up costs in the vein of a contractor giving ridiculous quotes to jobs the contractor does not want to do, in the hope the potential client will move on and not give the job to the contractor.
I have no doubt there would be costs to operate that farewell trip, but I can't see the costs being much more than could be covered by ticket sales for the trip, and maybe some volunteer work for the operators of the trip.
There was a quote provided by Metrolinx that would have required a full 10 car train to have every single seat sold, and the tickets priced at something approaching $100 / head in order to break even. And that was before considering ancillary costs, such as CVE's staffing requirements and any catering.

While it felt like a bit of a "go away" price, it also smelled like the result of an organization that just doesn't know how to deal with these kinds of requests. Which very much lines up with Paul's comments above.

Dan
 

Back
Top