Coming soon: AEM-7 "cabbage" conversion!

[obienick]

Why can't Amtrak just swap out the suspension? That should fix the rough riding due to loss of weight.

[Tadman]

New trucks probably cost $150k+ for a 125-capable truck. Rebuilds (the "new suspension") likely cost $50k for same. A concrete block costs $500.

[David Benton]

i suspect that rebuilding the aem7dc's would come under maintenance , an expense , far easier to get an appropiation for some new ones .

[Nasadowsk]

New trucks probably cost $150k+ for a 125-capable truck. Rebuilds (the "new suspension") likely cost $50k for same. A concrete block costs $500.

A concrete block costs $500, then the cost of power and wear and tear on pulling around 50,000 lbs or more of dead, useless weight. It could also be the difference between adding an extra car, which carries revenue generating passengers. A concrete block doesn't generate revenue.

[gp80mac]

And the ones on the Harrisburg line trains are more likely to hit a horse and buggy than a car.

Maybe on the eastern-most crossing (Irishtown Rd), but not the other two. There, they are more likely to hit a fully loaded feed truck... and it won't be pretty with a cabcar in the lead.

[jp1822]

Has it been discussed as to how the AEM7s would actually act as "cabbages" as opposed to cust "cab cars." For example, they could operate as cab cars on the Keystone route - but there's no baggage handled on Keystone trains at present, and frankly adding a special section of baggage section to the Keystone corridor would severly slow down the line. So where and how would these "cabbages" operate - on non-diesel territory and electric territory, even though Amtrak is order new baggage cars? I am just wondering if it would just be better to make them into cab cars.

[R36 Combine Coach]

I would sugest box motors-motorized cabbages. Two reasons: it can serves as both a locomotive and a baggage car. The AEM7 box motors could allow additional baggage and express service on the NEC and Keystone.

[MudLake]

I would sugest box motors-motorized cabbages. Two reasons: it can serves as both a locomotive and a baggage car. The AEM7 box motors could allow additional baggage and express service on the NEC and Keystone.

Pardon my ignorance... what is a motorized cabbage?

[DutchRailnut]

And if you keep them motorized, there would not be room for bagage

[Nasadowsk]

And if you keep them motorized, there would not be room for bagage

Wouldn't a motorized locomotive be....a locomotive?

[Fan Railer]

And if you keep them motorized, there would not be room for bagage

Wouldn't a motorized locomotive be....a locomotive?

lol.

[R36 Combine Coach]

And if you keep them motorized, there would not be room for bagage

The motors would be under the carbody, mounted on the trucks.

[M&Eman]

And if you keep them motorized, there would not be room for bagage

The motors would be under the carbody, mounted on the trucks.

so it would be like a slug?

[Finch]

And if you keep them motorized, there would not be room for bagage

The motors would be under the carbody, mounted on the trucks.

so it would be like a slug?

That's what it sounds like. But even if there's a way to trainline that much power from the pushing locomotive to the cabbage "slug," you would still be asking one locomotive's power electronics to drive two locomotives worth of motors. Sounds dicey to me, but I'll leave the final judgment to those better versed in electrified railroading.

[jp1822]

Has it been discussed as to how the AEM7s would actually act as "cabbages" as opposed to cust "cab cars." For example, they could operate as cab cars on the Keystone route - but there's no baggage handled on Keystone trains at present, and frankly adding a special section of baggage section to the Keystone corridor would severly slow down the line. So where and how would these "cabbages" operate - on non-diesel territory and electric territory, even though Amtrak is order new baggage cars? I am just wondering if it would just be better to make them into cab cars.

I still don't get how the AEM7s are to act as cabbages. Baggage service on the NEC for Northeast Regionals are limited and sort of discouraged as this "adds time" to the schedule of the train. Plus Amtrak is not going to be operating Northeast Regional trains in push-pull mode. The only thing that comes close to that is the Keystone corridor, which is just a 3 hour ride that people largely don't need a baggage car for. Would they "strip" down the AEM7 (removing the pantographs etc., so it would operate as a cabbage say on the Downeaster, Vermonter, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, Carolinian or Midwestern corridors. Only the later and the Vermonter would have such use for a "cabbage" for both a "cab car" and baggage car. All other trains don't operate in push-pull manner.

So again, I push my question forward. Maybe I missed the purpose of having such in the 5 year plan. Or perhaps Amtrak is just trying to keep these engines around so as to keep the concept of the F40 cabbages in mind!