This morning, two more F40PH's arrived at the Grand Canyon Railway after shipment from Larry's Truck & Electric in Ohio. Former Amtrak 401 and 407 will be evaluated for potential rebuilding and parts supply.

With the rebuild of the prime mover of recently-arrived Amtrak "330" (ex-VRE 33, nee-Amtrak 365, which arrived in November) now under way, the railroad is now in the possession of eight F40PH's--six ex-Amtrak, two ex-NJ Transit. This will allow the eventual retirement and sale of the last of its MLW FPA4 cab units and their boosters/B-units. Arrangements for sale to another party are already under way, but possibly not before a finale operation of some sort on the GCRY, to be determined.

Speculation is now brewing as to the possibility of the rebuild of at least one unit--F40PH or FPA4--as an experimental battery or hybrid unit for GCRY operation.

Here's hoping they ride better than the NJT units! Mr. Hadder is on his way to having a standardized fleet in terms of appearance.

Anyone got a current status list of FPAs at GC?

This seems correct:

http://www.thedieselshop.us/GCRY.HTML

My recollection is that they had at least one ex-VIA cadaver, never repainted from VIA, that was scrapped within the past year, and possibly another "green" one parted out and scrapped. 6776 is the one that was--might still be--on display at the South Rim Depot.

I understand that things can't stay as they are forever, but the first time I went, it was steam on all trips with ALCO helpers.
It just isn't the same for me now.

OT - Just a note here, I recently sent the HRA a 19-page printout of the entire HEP operating sequence for the F40PH along with diagrams of the jumper placement to satisfy TLC relay pickup in each operating connection arrangement. They will be posted to the online technical library. The originals of these documents from the 1977 EMD training classes are being sent to Barriger Library. All F40PH units with gearbox driven HEP use pretty much the same sequence and device nomenclature.

This is not applicable to stretch units with separate diesel driven HEP.

PC

I really do wonder what the cost of running a F40PH versus say an early F or E unit or Alco switcher is?

Parts are easier to source for 645 engines over 567's these days. And those locos don't get "babied" even rebuilt to freight gearing.

Besides which, given that we have basically established that passengers don't really care what's on the point, do you want to go and find them eight F-units in good working order, all mechanically identical?

(If you have to get an F-unit fix in the Southwest the Verde Canyon RR is right nearby, but there's a case to be made that they're seeing how long it takes to wear out their duo with little to no rebuilding......)

Never mind those F units. What does this say about the future of steam?

I wouldn't worry, most operations don't have the Grand Canyon as a destination.

Perhaps RCD was referring to fuel costs. As originally configured, the F-40ph will have comparatively high fuel consumption. NJ Transit had their F-40 fleet rebuilt at (then) Conrail Juniata shops, replacing the original HEP arrangement with a separate caterpillar powered generator set. I’ve always wondered what the difference was in fuel consumption.

Mark

Well, maybe when Brother Hadder has some spare moments from shoveling snow to get to work, he can do the math for us:

Two "freight-style" locos with lower RPM and fuel consumption PLUS a power car with enough HEP to heat/cool/light up to sixteen cars.......
OR
Two F40FHs with HEP..............

OH, and while we're at it, TWO F7s/FP7s/whatever to equal the power output of each F40FH......... so four per train........

Forty five or 50 years ago, when the F40s were developed, they were a good choice for Amtrak. They were based on one of the most reliable and successful platforms and prime movers ever built in this country, and given the sprawling nature of Amtrak's network, if you had a locomotive for the train, you had head-end power - and a backup in the case of longer trains with two or more units, no need to maintain a fleet of power cars. Aside from some remote turning point locations where there was no ground power available, the engines were usually actively pulling a train when they were generating HEP, so the fuel consumption was probably not a great deal more than a separate generator car would use. I believe I've read that the HEP function used about 150 hp of the prime mover's output, so it really didn't take that much away from power for traction. Former Amtrak President Paul Reistrup is quoted as saying that the F40s, along with the electric AEM-7s, were the locomotives that helped save Amtrak, and I think there is a very good case for that assessment.

And even the Grand Canyon Railway still uses Steam HEAVILY in its marketing. I'd also argue that the F40 is a more attractive locomotive than a GP-38 - it's still a passenger locomotive although it's not quite as pretty as an ALCO.

6776 was still on display as of early June 2023.