Talk:MPI MPXpress

Latest comment: 7 years ago by 107.0.69.23 in topic MP40PH-3C re-engine

MPI MP36PH-3S

edit

I think we should make this article about MPI MP36PH-3 in general by including Metra's MP36PH-3S and have the C and S varients as subsections. --Will74205 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Operators

edit

I removed MBTA from the list of operators. They have requested bids for the construction of new locomotives, but have not yet ordered any from MPI or any other manufacturer. MBTA3247 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

MP40PH-3C re-engine

edit

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/cummins-to-produce-tier-4-compliant-diesel-engine.html

It's interesting and worth looking into. I'll probably update this when I get home. Fan Railer (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another reference link. Fan Railer (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hurray, both were not working.--107.0.69.23 (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

SunRail MP36PH-3C with non-enclosed body

edit

First picture!

If someone would like to include it into the page

 
This is a MP36PH-3C locomotive built by MPI MPXpress for SunRail of Florida USA. It is a currently rare photographic example which will likely be greatly repeated in the future. The unique features of this locomotive are it's non enclosed bodywork with "switcher" type engine cowling, walkways, ladders, and handrails.

B4Ctom1 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great picture! But that's an MP32PH-Q. It was rebuilt from a former MARC engine.--2600:1001:B01E:125D:C124:9D46:EE72:71DB (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MPI MPXpress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Capitol Corridor

edit

Okay, what is going on with this thing with the Capitol Corridor? I made one of the changes to include it, but it seemed to me that they were using F59PHIs that were mistaken as MPXpress. The equipment section of the article says MP36's were used prior to 2012. Can anyone confirm/clarify? --Natural RX 14:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

It says that Caltrain engines and rolling stock are sometimes used as substitutes during peak periods. I have nothing that could specifically refute that and it would seem to be plausible.Sturmovik (talk)
On a handful of occasions the Capitol Corridor has borrowed a locomotive from Caltrain when too much equipment was out of service or leased an entire trainset during the busy Thanksgiving weekend. That doesn't make Capitol Corridor a regular operator of the MPXpress. It's not their equipment, they just rented it for a few days. The issue is, we've had an IP editor who repeatedly removed Caltrain from the list of operators and replaced it with Capital Corridor, without any supporting citation. I asked for semi-protection in an effort to stop the unconstructive edits. --RickyCourtney (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Thanks for that. --Natural RX 18:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply