Anybody else think that locomotive number 8 is going to be scrapped?
Posted by tarheelman (Member # 6095) on :
From the looks of the picture, I'd say so. The front wheels look almost unrecognizable to me.
Posted by Italiancanuck89 (Member # 1873) on :
That and the frame looks bent which, if their insurance is anything like a cars, once the frame is bent its totaled.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
P-42 #8 is likely to have all salvageable parts stripped and what remains scrapped.
Although Amtrak does carry a high deductible catastrophe insurance, the loss of a locomotive would not even be close to the deductible threshold, which I think is around $20M. Therefore the loss is self-insured. I doubt if even other claims arising from this incident will 'crack' the deductible.
Since Amtrak and the railroads have agreed to self-indemnification, or in street talk, no-fault, there will not be any recovery against the freight train operator, Norfolk Southern, should any fault be assessed against them arising from the incident.
I'm quite aware that the Chicago media has taken on the role of self-appointed NTSB investigators, and speculations are running rampant (including at other railforums I visit). But the "real deal' from the NTSB is likely a year away from release and such will be public record that you will be able to review at their website. But my best advice on this matter until then is patience.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
Presumably this thread is referring to the Amtrak train "assisting" a freight, caught on video on 30th (?) November?
Heeding Mr. Norman's hints to the contrary, are there any preliminary findings? Usually incidents have a preliminary finding a few days after the event followed by the full report in several months to a few years away, depending on the complexity of the case.
Geoff M.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
I concur with Mr. Norman that speculation is useless. Often the NTSB's preliminary findings bear no resemblance to the final findings, as we have seen in all too many air crashes.
It is natural for the public and the press to want answers right away. It is also natural for many self-appointed "experts" to put on display their macho prowess at instantly deducing the blame for events. We have seen plenty of this phenomenon on another railroad forum, so much so that the keepers have locked the cages, er, threads.
We'll just have to wait. We should.
Posted by Judy McFarland (Member # 4435) on :
Did anyone else notice an ad for a lawyer looking for railroad accident victims when you logged in today? They're coming out of the woodwork.
Posted by Southwest Chief (Member # 1227) on :
I don't know if #8 will be scrapped for sure. Beech Grove has surprised me a lot at what they deem repairable and what isn't. But #8 will need a heck of a lot of undercarriage work and it’s hard to tell what condition the fuel tank is in. Thankfully there wasn't a fire. I wonder how an F40 would have faired? Likely the fuel tank would have ruptured and potentially caused a fire. Perhaps the P40/42 integrated fuel tank design really works.
Anyway, with the current power surplus, #8 will probably become a parts store.
I'm more worried about the Superliners in the consist. They'll likely need coupler work, truck work and possible fame work…but at the very least they’ll need to be thoroughly checked out. Man three coaches off the line for a while. And it's worse now with the holiday traffic crush. That's why it bugs me when Superliners are used on commuter/local trains.
Posted by tarheelman (Member # 6095) on :
Why *are* the Superliners used on day trains? I thought that kind of service was what the Amfleets are for?
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Excuse the ignorance, but having never ridden or even seen the Pere Marquette, are they really using Superliner coaches? Or are they actually old Santa Fe hi-levels like the Heartland Flyer uses, or even Amfleet?
Sorry, but as I said, I have never ridden nor even seen the PM consist.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
If any of the Superliners sustained frame damage, it is a safe assumption they too are "goners'. However, all were Coaches and Amtrak is "flush" with those at present. The critical Superliner shortage is limited to the likes of Sleepers Diners and Lounges - of apparent great concern to rail forum participants (here and elsewhere); of virtually no concern to "John Q" (and some may hold of no concern to 60 Mass).
I once learned the reason for assigning Superliners to some Midwest Corridor consists is that when the consist must be parked overnight 'when the weather outside is frightful', Horizon coach doors get a little tempermental, in that they do not like freezing temperatures. Obviously at 14th St (CHI mtce), they have resources to address any problems, but not so for a train set overnighting at Grand Rapids, Quincy, and possibly Carbondale.
Finally, Mr. Rich, all Santa Fe Hi-Levels have been withdrawn other than the sporadic "cameos' the Pacific Parlours make in Starlight consists.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Horizon coach doors get a little tempermental, in that they do not like freezing temperatures. Obviously at 14th St (CHI mtce), they have resources to address any problems, but not so for a train set overnighting at Grand Rapids, Quincy, and possibly Carbondale.
You have got to wonder what is going on in the thinking of the vehicle designers when they have problems like this. You would think Mechanical Equipment Design 101 would have a large lesson on Design Appropriate to In-service Climatic Conditions.