Coming soon: AEM-7 "cabbage" conversion!

[AEM7AC920]

I'll believe it when I see it....

[amtrakhogger]

You won't see any AEM7 NPCU's for quite some time since Amtrak isn't even through with the RFP process for the new electrics.

[Nasadowsk]

Amtrak's recent rebuild of MARC's AEM-7 locomotives stretch on for years and years because the manufacturer for a replacement part was no longer around (or no longer producing the part).

Given there's still plenty of RC-series motors in Sweden, and plenty of other ASEA units of the vintage out there, Amtrak's not trying if they can't find parts - you honestly think SJ, etc aren't doing regular replacement of failed components?

The AEM-7 is an RC-4 that was slightly Americanized. Green cargo alone has more than twice as many RC-4s in service than AEM-7s were built. SJ has plenty of older RC-3s and newer RC-6s in service.

Maybe Amtrak should brush up on their Sweedish and place call oversea to see where the folks running the same locomotives elsewhere, are getting THEIR parts...

[HokieNav]

I don't have the technical details, but I would think that if Amtrak could have solved the problem with a phone call to Sweeden, they would have done so rather than have deliver the rebuilt AEM-7's 2 or 3 years late.

[Finch]

If they do make some AEM-7 cabbages, it would be so great if they ran them in non-electrified territory! Of course I'm not sure that's even possible. Would the control setup in an electric locomotive prevent an AEM-7 cabbage from controlling a diesel-powered train? I'm sure the desired use is with an electric loco pushing from the other end, Keystone-style. But it would be hilarious to see a toaster whizzing through the New Hampshire woods on a Downeaster, or some similar situation.

[Matt Johnson]

If they do make some AEM-7 cabbages, it would be so great if they ran them in non-electrified territory! Of course I'm not sure that's even possible. Would the control setup in an electric locomotive prevent an AEM-7 cabbage from controlling a diesel-powered train? I'm sure the desired use is with an electric loco pushing from the other end, Keystone-style. But it would be hilarious to see a toaster whizzing through the New Hampshire woods on a Downeaster, or some similar situation.

It'd look something like this!

[DutchRailnut]

If and only big If, it would be beneficial for Amtrak to maintain the HEP supply on any such Cab units.
It would ease up the power use of pushing locomotive, it would maintain redundancy .
a AEM-7 even with to much weight removed would ride like S***

[chuchubob]

If they do make some AEM-7 cabbages, it would be so great if they ran them in non-electrified territory! Of course I'm not sure that's even possible. Would the control setup in an electric locomotive prevent an AEM-7 cabbage from controlling a diesel-powered train? I'm sure the desired use is with an electric loco pushing from the other end, Keystone-style. But it would be hilarious to see a toaster whizzing through the New Hampshire woods on a Downeaster, or some similar situation.

This is seen every weekend in South Jersey as an ALP44 electric is the cab car leading a train pushed by a P40DC diesel on the Atlantic City Express Service trains.

[R36 Combine Coach]

I do support the conversion of AEM7s into Cabbages. First, it will allow more baggage and express capacity on NEC routes (only one Regional roundtrip, overnight #66/67 has a baggage car). The oldest AEM7s date from 1978 and the newest 1987. Two (922 and 930) have been out of service at Wilmington since 2003. If Amtrak wants to dispose of AEM7s, some could be sold surplus to SEPTA for its push-pull fleet. One thing I note is SEPTA's oddball ALP44 (2308). If an Amtrak AEM7 (or several) could be traded over to SEPTA, one can replace 2308 and allow it be swapped to NJT's ALP44 fleet, enabling both NJT and SEPTA to have complete fleets of one class.

[ZephyrHogHead]

this just sounds to me like yet another bone headed move by amtrak. i would like to see how it will cost more money to get repacement parts for locomotives that the company has paid for and owns vs. purchasing new locomotives.

they made this same blunder with the f-40's. once they were sold what did they do? they gave them the overhauls they needed! completely stupid! a good use for the f-40's would have been to take some of them and make mother/slugs out of them for use. levaing their air compressors intact along with a cat motor for hep. yet they didnt do that. and, instead of learning from other railroads they stripped them of everything. only to find out the need to add wieght to then and did so but putting steel where the motor once was. why not just fill the fuel tank with cement line csx has done with thier slugs??? more blatant stupidity on the comapanies part!

if they convert the aem7's what they need to do it make them so they can still provide HEP to the train at the least. then compensate for the lost weight by adding weight that is equal to what the manufacted weight is/was of the locomotive. also, they need to leave the air compressor in the locomotive. the air compressor should be set up so that it can be powered off the wire OR the HEP system. so if the HEP went down on the aem7 the compressor can still be powered by the other unit providing HEP.

eihter way you cut it, there is no more steel between the engineer on an aem7 than a former metroliner car in the event of hitting a car/truck. the only thing you can do in an aem7 you cant in a former metoliner cab car is hit the floor. and that is if you dont sit so close to the control stand that you dont have to slide the chair back before diving!

[BuddSilverliner269]

Zephyr, the difference between a metroliner cab car and an aem7 is that the metroliner cars have a fiberglass end cap that shatters like an eggshell when in a collision. This in itself makes the aem7 safer then the cab cars in use although I certainly hope Amtrak doesn't entertain the thought of making these engines cabbages

[MudLake]

Zephyr, the difference between a metroliner cab car and an aem7 is that the metroliner cars have a fiberglass end cap that shatters like an eggshell when in a collision. This in itself makes the aem7 safer then the cab cars in use although I certainly hope Amtrak doesn't entertain the thought of making these engines cabbages

The other difference is the engineer is significantly higher above grade level in any locomotive vs. an ex-Metroliner.

[Nasadowsk]

The Metroliner cab has to be the stupidest design ever. It's clearly NOT designed for hitting things at grade crossings.

Anyway, if Amtrak really can't get another life cycle out of the AEM-7s, and needs cabs, and it's economical - then it's not a bad idea. I just don't believe the the life issues, think cabs and locomotives are the wrong answer to the equipment issues on the NEC, and would like to see some proof of the economics...

They'd have to re do the suspension (possible?), or ballast the thing (dead weight's stupid). I bet an AEM-7 without the traction motors, transformer, and other goodies, ain't terribly much heavier than an Amfleet.

[chuchubob]

The Metroliner cab has to be the stupidest design ever. It's clearly NOT designed for hitting things at grade crossings.

That's why (or because) grade crossings between NYP and WAS were removed prior to initiation of the Metroliner service.

[Jersey_Mike]

That's why (or because) grade crossings between NYP and WAS were removed prior to initiation of the Metroliner service.

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