ACS-64 Heads Up

[jis]

The HHP-8's will be sticking around a little longer than the AEM-7's. Only some of them are retired because of mechanical issues that couldn't be fixed.

Sorry to break this to you.... but you are wrong. The last HHP-8 will be decommissioned before the last AEM-7 according to current plans.

 

[Amtrak172]

The HHP-8's will be sticking around a little longer than the AEM-7's. Only some of them are retired because of mechanical issues that couldn't be fixed.

Sorry to break this to you.... but you are wrong. The last HHP-8 will be decommissioned before the last AEM-7 according to current plans.

Oops!!!!! I'm wrong!!!!!!! I my god, thanks for telling me because I had no freakin clue!!!! The information that I told you was the existing information. I WAS TOLD MY AN AMTRAK EMPLOYEE WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE FLEET PLAN!!! Sorry to say that he never mentioned his name.

Amtrak172

 

[Ryan]

Chill out, dude.

 

[Ryan]

Also:

 

[neroden]

The last HHP-8s probably are going to stick around longer than the last AEM-7s, even though the HHP-8s will probably be taken out of service first. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't.

Why? The leasing arrangements. I expect several of the HHP-8s to be sitting stored dead for quite a while until Amtrak can get out of the leases. The AEM-7DCs and the wholly-owned AEM-7ACs can be disposed of on Amtrak's schedule. The leased equipment is more of a problem, because the leases still have years to run. I don't know what the terms of the leases are exactly, but I expect the lessors will want their money, and so Amtrak will probably be stuck making lease payments on the HHP-8s after they are removed from service. I expect that the lease terms will discourage scrapping until the lease is over.

...also, I'm not sure, but it looks like the HHP-8 leases run further into the future than the AEM-7AC leases.

 

[afigg]

The last HHP-8s probably are going to stick around longer than the last AEM-7s, even though the HHP-8s will probably be taken out of service first. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't.

Why? The leasing arrangements. I expect several of the HHP-8s to be sitting stored dead for quite a while until Amtrak can get out of the leases. The AEM-7DCs and the wholly-owned AEM-7ACs can be disposed of on Amtrak's schedule. The leased equipment is more of a problem, because the leases still have years to run. I don't know what the terms of the leases are exactly, but I expect the lessors will want their money, and so Amtrak will probably be stuck making lease payments on the HHP-8s after they are removed from service. I expect that the lease terms will discourage scrapping until the lease is over.

But the HHP-8 won't be in active service, just placed in storage. Along with the AEM-7DCs and ACs, as the DC and AC units are either kept in storage or disposed of. The only practical difference to the railfans is sightings and photos of HHP-8s stored dead on a track at one of Amtrak's facilities. None of the AEM-7s and HHP-8s will be in active service except for 5 AEM-7ACs possibly leased to SEPTA for interim use. The only real difference to Amtrak is the lease payments on the HHP-8s until they can return them versus getting some revenue in the scrap value of some of the DC and AC units.

 

[neroden]

Looking at that decomissioning schedule, I find it odd. I would have expected the more "poor reliability" units to be decommissioned before the more reliable units, at least within any one type of locomotive. But instead one of the worst AEM-7DCs is apparently supposed to be kept in service until late, and one of the best HHP-8s is scheduled to be decommissioned early. Or I might have expected one type to be eliminated entirely early on, but nope, all three types survive until near the end of the list. Maybe this has something to do with lease buyout or expiration dates or something, or maybe there's some other subtle differences between different units driving these decisions.

 

[Ryan]

Likely it is scheduled for units to leave service when scheduled maintenance/inspections are due.

 

[Amtrak172]

The last HHP-8s probably are going to stick around longer than the last AEM-7s, even though the HHP-8s will probably be taken out of service first. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't.

Why? The leasing arrangements. I expect several of the HHP-8s to be sitting stored dead for quite a while until Amtrak can get out of the leases. The AEM-7DCs and the wholly-owned AEM-7ACs can be disposed of on Amtrak's schedule. The leased equipment is more of a problem, because the leases still have years to run. I don't know what the terms of the leases are exactly, but I expect the lessors will want their money, and so Amtrak will probably be stuck making lease payments on the HHP-8s after they are removed from service. I expect that the lease terms will discourage scrapping until the lease is over.

...also, I'm not sure, but it looks like the HHP-8 leases run further into the future than the AEM-7AC leases.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to say.

Amtrak172

 

[Amtrak172]

Likely it is scheduled for units to leave service when scheduled maintenance/inspections are due.

Probably. Or when all of the ACS-64's enter service.

Amtrak172

 

[Ryan]

I expect several of the HHP-8s to be sitting stored dead for quite a while until Amtrak can get out of the leases. The AEM-7DCs and the wholly-owned AEM-7ACs can be disposed of on Amtrak's schedule. The leased equipment is more of a problem, because the leases still have years to run. I don't know what the terms of the leases are exactly, but I expect the lessors will want their money, and so Amtrak will probably be stuck making lease payments on the HHP-8s after they are removed from service. I expect that the lease terms will discourage scrapping until the lease is over.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to say.

That may have been what you were trying to say, but it isn't what you said:

The HHP-8's will be sticking around a little longer than the AEM-7's. Only some of them are retired because of mechanical issues that couldn't be fixed.

If you were talking about "sticking around" in the sense of "stored dead out of service", their ability to be fixed wouldn't matter.

 

[jis]

Looking at that decomissioning schedule, I find it odd. I would have expected the more "poor reliability" units to be decommissioned before the more reliable units, at least within any one type of locomotive. But instead one of the worst AEM-7DCs is apparently supposed to be kept in service until late, and one of the best HHP-8s is scheduled to be decommissioned early. Or I might have expected one type to be eliminated entirely early on, but nope, all three types survive until near the end of the list. Maybe this has something to do with lease buyout or expiration dates or something, or maybe there's some other subtle differences between different units driving these decisions.

I found that a bit odd too Nathaniel, so I discreetly asked around. And the explanation is exactly what Ryan said in this thread in response to you. Also apparently the deal with SEPTA is in the works. It has not been closed yet.
I wonder whatever came of the idea of converting a few of the AEM-7s that are in relatively better mechanical shape, into cabbages. They'd probably provide better protection than the Capitoliner Cab Cars in a grade crossing accident, so would possibly be desirable for use on trains that run outside of the sealed corridor with cab cars.

BTW, here's some more on 612 and 613 from someone in the know....

Ive got some great news. The ACS 612 is in perfect running order. Just had a great conversation with a Siemens Technician. The 613 has some issues but it's not as bad as initially speculated. Got a couple shots of the 613 in the annex building

 

[afigg]

I found that a bit odd too Nathaniel, so I discreetly asked around. And the explanation is exactly what Ryan said in this thread in response to you. Also apparently the deal with SEPTA is in the works. It has not been closed yet.

I wonder whatever came of the idea of converting a few of the AEM-7s that are in relatively better mechanical shape, into cabbages. They'd probably provide better protection than the Capitoliner Cab Cars in a grade crossing accident, so would possibly be desirable for use on trains that run outside of the sealed corridor with cab cars.

BTW, here's some more on 612 and 613 from someone in the know....

It makes sense to have the planned retirement sequence mostly determined by the maintenance cycle of AEM-7s and HHP-8s. Why spend money on scheduled maintenance if it is going to be retired soon? But the actual sequence is obviously going to be changed by locomotive failures. If a toaster or hippo needs an expensive repair or part and there are enough ACS-64s and remaining AEM-7s available, then off it goes to dead storage.
As for converting some AEM-7s to cab cars, I wonder if the plan was dropped due to the funding and placement of the order for the corridor bi-levels. The base order of 130 cars includes 24 cab-baggage cars. The Midwest and California corridors won't need converted locomotive car cars. So Amtrak will only need to supply cab cars for the eastern trains and they may have enough on-hand for now. They can still cherry pick a batch of the less beaten up AEM-7s for dead storage for possible future cab car conversion 5 or 10 years from now.

Some of those bi-level cab-baggage cars are going to get banged up in grade crossing accidents; perhaps the proposed 42 car option includes a few extra cab-baggage cars.

Good to hear that the problem during the #612,#613 CL move was with only 1 unit and that the damage was not serious, despite GenePoon's rather alarmist post to trainorders.

 

[cirdan]

I found that a bit odd too Nathaniel, so I discreetly asked around. And the explanation is exactly what Ryan said in this thread in response to you. Also apparently the deal with SEPTA is in the works. It has not been closed yet.

I wonder whatever came of the idea of converting a few of the AEM-7s that are in relatively better mechanical shape, into cabbages. They'd probably provide better protection than the Capitoliner Cab Cars in a grade crossing accident, so would possibly be desirable for use on trains that run outside of the sealed corridor with cab cars.

BTW, here's some more on 612 and 613 from someone in the know....

It makes sense to have the planned retirement sequence mostly determined by the maintenance cycle of AEM-7s and HHP-8s. Why spend money on scheduled maintenance if it is going to be retired soon? But the actual sequence is obviously going to be changed by locomotive failures. If a toaster or hippo needs an expensive repair or part and there are enough ACS-64s and remaining AEM-7s available, then off it goes to dead storage.
As for converting some AEM-7s to cab cars, I wonder if the plan was dropped due to the funding and placement of the order for the corridor bi-levels. The base order of 130 cars includes 24 cab-baggage cars. The Midwest and California corridors won't need converted locomotive car cars. So Amtrak will only need to supply cab cars for the eastern trains and they may have enough on-hand for now. They can still cherry pick a batch of the less beaten up AEM-7s for dead storage for possible future cab car conversion 5 or 10 years from now.

Some of those bi-level cab-baggage cars are going to get banged up in grade crossing accidents; perhaps the proposed 42 car option includes a few extra cab-baggage cars.

Good to hear that the problem during the #612,#613 CL move was with only 1 unit and that the damage was not serious, despite GenePoon's rather alarmist post to trainorders.

agreed, and converted locomotives (be they AEM-7 s or any thing else) are more solid and robust than passenger cars. Most purpose built cab cars are just passenger cars with a cab fitted (even if they don't actively carry passengers). So in case of a crossing collision, a cab car that is a former locomotive is going to be more robust than a passenger car.

 

[neroden]

Likely it is scheduled for units to leave service when scheduled maintenance/inspections are due.

Ah! Makes sense.

 

[neroden]

As for converting some AEM-7s to cab cars, I wonder if the plan was dropped due to the funding and placement of the order for the corridor bi-levels. The base order of 130 cars includes 24 cab-baggage cars. The Midwest and California corridors won't need converted locomotive car cars. So Amtrak will only need to supply cab cars for the eastern trains and they may have enough on-hand for now. They can still cherry pick a batch of the less beaten up AEM-7s for dead storage for possible future cab car conversion 5 or 10 years from now.

Amtrak has an excess of NPCUs right now.

It was pointed out in another place that the NPCUs have a top speed limitation of 100 mph. So the motivation for conversion of AEM-7s to NPCUs would only be to have *faster* cab cars. This consideration would currently apply only to trains running on the NEC, Keystone, Empire, Chicago-St. Louis, or Michigan lines. Michigan & Illinois are getting their own cab cars.

Cab cars are only really useful if the train has to reverse en-route, or if there's nowhere to wye the locomotive at the terminus. Considering only trains running on NEC/Keystone/Empire, this isn't very many routes.

For trains running entirely on the NEC or Keystone, there is relatively little worry about grade crossing accidents, since the entire line is grade-separated or soon will be. So the Keystones are better off with the lighter-weight (faster) Metroliner cab cars.

The Pennsylvanian swaps locomotives when it reverses, so it doesn't need a cab car.

The long-distance trains already run with two locomotives and can always run topped-and-tailed rather than using cab cars.

This doesn't leave many routes which would benefit from faster NPCUs. Basically just the Vermonter and the Springfield MA services which run through onto the NEC, thanks to the necessary en-route reversal at Springfield (I think there isn't a complete wye there and even if there is it would block the Boston-Albany mainline). When the Ethan Allen extension happens, the Ethan Allen would need a cab car as well, since there also isn't a complete wye at Rutland. However, I think it would probably be practical to attach/detach the NPCUs at Springfield and at Rutland respectively, and in that case they'd never need to go faster than 100 mph.

So there just isn't the demand for faster NPCUs.

 

[jis]

Actually, not having to wye Regionals at WAS and BOS would potentially save on a few consists while providing the same service frequency ... consists that could be deployed for additional service potentially. That is the primary reason that almost all Commuter roads went to push-pulls.

but I suppose that is neither here nor there.

 

[R30A]

The Regionals at Springfield somehow get turned, so I think there must be something which functions as a wye there. Unfortunately, I do not recall the exact layout west of the station, and cannot view it on google maps, as it is under I91...

 

[Amtrak172]

Is Amtrak planning on getting corridor bi-levels? This is the first time I'm hearing this.

Amtrak172

 

[Acela150]

Is Amtrak planning on getting corridor bi-levels? This is the first time I'm hearing this.

Amtrak172

No.

 

[Amtrak172]

Is Amtrak planning on getting corridor bi-levels? This is the first time I'm hearing this.

Amtrak172

No.

Thanks.

Amtrak172

 

[jis]

Is Amtrak planning on getting corridor bi-levels? This is the first time I'm hearing this.

Amtrak172

Well, depends on which corridor we are talking about....

For NEC, no.

But for the mid-west and California Corridors they have 130 corridor bi-levels on order, based on the Surfliner design. When these go on line, a number of Amfleets and Horizons used in the Midwest and California will be released for redeployment in the east mid-distance and possibly LD trains relieving some capacity crunch.

I know we in the Northeast are blamed about thinking only of the NEC. I just wanted to make sure the big Amtrak picture was taken into consideration in answering the question, specially since the deployment of those corridor b-levels will have knock on effects across the entire system.

 

[Amtrak172]

Is Amtrak planning on getting corridor bi-levels? This is the first time I'm hearing this.

Amtrak172

Well, depends on which corridor we are talking about....
For NEC, no.

But for the mid-west and California Corridors they have 130 corridor bi-levels on order, based on the Surfliner design. When these go on line, a number of Amfleets and Horizons used in the Midwest and California will be released for redeployment in the east mid-distance and possibly LD trains relieving some capacity crunch.

I know we in the Northeast are blamed about thinking only of the NEC. I just wanted to make sure the big Amtrak picture was taken into consideration in answering the question, specially since the deployment of those corridor b-levels will have knock on effects across the entire system.

That's good that the Amfleets and Horizons will be coming back to the northeast to operate. Does anyone know what Amtrak's planning on doing with the P42's? I heard that they placed an order for more.

Amtrak172

 

[jis]

That's good that the Amfleets and Horizons will be coming back to the northeast to operate. Does anyone know what Amtrak's planning on doing with the P42's? I heard that they placed an order for more.

Amtrak172

Amtrak (well actually Illinois DOT on behalf of a handful of states) has placed an order for a number of diesel electric engines with Siemens. These are capable of running at upto 125mph and are for use on Corridor trains in the midwest and California. Their arrival will release some number of P42s for use in the LD network. At present there is no plan to decommission any P42 or P40s that are in service AFAIK.

 

[R30A]

New diesels are coming from Siemens, not GE, and because of that(and other reasons, including new EPA regulations) the new diesels will not be P42s.

These new diesels will be going to California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington.