Amtrak California buying 27 coach cars, 2 engines

All and all, I'm really glad to see Amtrak making this purchase.

This is where money needs to be spent. Creating opportunities to put butts in seats. That equals money, and the more revenue Amtrak brings in, the stronger it's shields get against being cut down.

would the rotem units supplied to metrolink be suitable . would they qaulify for american made content ?.How do they work out a cost , without having bids to base itr on ???

Nothing built for metrolink would be suitable for Amtrak California. Metrolink uses lower level car connections while Amtrak California uses upper level connections. No chance they will buy something which is wholly incompatible with their current fleet. They will almost certainly be VERY similar to the current California fleet.

Greg, butts-in-seats only generates money if the train is profitable. A few trains (Acela, Autotrain) cover their operating costs (crews, fuel, etc...) but most trains only recover about 50% - that means the other half comes from Uncle Sam or Cali. No passenger train is currently known to cover the capital costs, IE the costs to purchase new trains or track.

Currently, there is actually a disincentive to buy new cars because service expansion doesn't even cover operating costs - each but in a seat costs the state incrementally more - let alone the cost of the new cars. That said, if it saves the state money in the long run (IE if electric trains were used, the operating costs would be 100% American-spent versus diesel fuel or auto gas being bought abroad) the state may choose to spend the money.

Tadman wrote:Greg, butts-in-seats only generates money if the train is profitable. A few trains (Acela, Autotrain) cover their operating costs (crews, fuel, etc...) but most trains only recover about 50% - that means the other half comes from Uncle Sam or Cali. No passenger train is currently known to cover the capital costs, IE the costs to purchase new trains or track.

Currently, there is actually a disincentive to buy new cars because service expansion doesn't even cover operating costs - each but in a seat costs the state incrementally more - let alone the cost of the new cars. That said, if it saves the state money in the long run (IE if electric trains were used, the operating costs would be 100% American-spent versus diesel fuel or auto gas being bought abroad) the state may choose to spend the money.

Actually in this case, the cars are to extend existing trains (4 to 5 on the San Joaquin for example)

So the additional operating cost is very small (no additional staff, slight increase in fuel cost), but the additional revenue is very large.

So yes, more money.

jamesinclair wrote:So the additional operating cost is very small (no additional staff, slight increase in fuel cost), but the additional revenue is very large.

So yes, more money.

No additional staff is key. They Japanese can run profitably from Osaka to Tokyo, but they do it by routinely carrying 1,000 passengers with a crew of 4.

Amtrak is now a 40-year old corporation. Many of their employees will be retiring soon. As they do, Amtrak needs to find ways to carry more passengers using fewer staff. Since they are already meeting 85% of their operating expenses, it's not that far to profitability.

jstolberg wrote:

jamesinclair wrote:So the additional operating cost is very small (no additional staff, slight increase in fuel cost), but the additional revenue is very large.

So yes, more money.

No additional staff is key. They Japanese can run profitably from Osaka to Tokyo, but they do it by routinely carrying 1,000 passengers with a crew of 4.

And at more than twice the speed...

After three pages of posts, we still have no idea where the motive power is coming from? GE does not make the Genesis anymore and EMD does not make the F59 anymore.

Probably means it hasn't officially been bought yet. Public institutions have to publicly post a specification, request for proposals, the results of the request for proposals, the due diligence on the bidders, and the end result (price, contract, delivery time). If that stuff can't be found, the purchase itself probably hasn't happened.

Edit: upon review of the original post, it appears the money has just been awarded by the FRA. They're probably preparing documentation or soliciting bids right now, so nobody has been selected as seller yet. Likely suspects were already enumerated - MPI, Brookville, et al... EMD and GE are likely out, and for good reason. they build hundreds of freight locos/year and are not set up to build an entirely separate line of passenger diesels. That's where MPI comes in - they use EMD/GE prime moves and conventional blomberg trucks (albeit stretched wheelbase) and EMD/GE traction motors, but add value by designing and building a package optimized for passenger locomotives.

Don't forget the possibility of an F59ECO rebuild from one of the surplus GO units.

Jersey_Mike wrote:Don't forget the possibility of an F59ECO rebuild from one of the surplus GO units.

French engines, German engines, Government of Ontario engines -- none of these create many US jobs.

Perhaps now that Caterpillar has bought up EMD, a Progress Rail engine might be in the offing. Seems to me I've seen a cat train around here somewhere.

US-built passenger engines don't really produce that many jobs, either. EMD currently employs 3600 people to produce 300-500-ish locomotives per year. A passenger locomotive order would be for 15-20 units, or in this case, 2. I can't see job growth of more than a handful of people to build 2 locomotives, or even 20. Employment does not move in linear fashion with production, it takes an entirely new factory to boost employment by significant numbers.

Right now, the best hope is to employ one of the specialty builders, using GE or EMD components, to build local passenger engines.

giljanus wrote:Must meet or follow the following specs - local deviations are authorized (mentioned in the specs):

AASHTO - High Speed Rail - Documents/Specifications
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/DocsSpecs.aspx

Some heavy reading in those specs.

Gil, known as Bill somedays ...

I think people might be missing out on the importance of these specs.
If these specs are (or become ) national specs for all future HSR/passenger rail projects, it makes sense for all of the companies offering, or looking to offer new equipment, to become familiar with these specs. These specs are basically the blueprints for future equipment to come - possibly ALL future equipment to come. These basically say "This is an outline of what transportation agencies will want (or be required to buy) from here onwards."

Sure, it may only be 2 locomotives. If the current offerings meet the specs, then those builders are all set if they can build only 2 locomotives. If the current offerings don't meet the specs, then, IMO, it would be wise for the locomotive builders to hit the drawing boards now. There might only be a market for 2 now, but the specs for the next 5, 10, 20 locomotives are on the table now.

I'd also keep in mind that with equipment that could potentially have a lifespan of 20-30 years, it makes sense to buy equipment that will be able to handle higher speeds that roadbed/infastructure upgrades will make possible in its lifetime. Just because the track won't handle 100mph trains now doesn't mean you should buy 90mph equipment, then have it be outdated in 10 years when the track upgrades happen.

Stmtrolleyguy wrote: I'd also keep in mind that with equipment that could potentially have a lifespan of 20-30 years, it makes sense to buy equipment that will be able to handle higher speeds that roadbed/infastructure upgrades will make possible in its lifetime. Just because the track won't handle 100mph trains now doesn't mean you should buy 90mph equipment, then have it be outdated in 10 years when the track upgrades happen.

I would agree if Amtrak had a past history of keeping most of their diesel locomotives in service over 20 years, but they haven't. States haven't the history of upgrading tracks to higher speeds on time either.

electricron wrote:I would agree if Amtrak had a past history of keeping most of their diesel locomotives in service over 20 years, but they haven't.

again with the negativity
F40ph starting in 1976 till 2003 (last) so about 30 years average
FL9 built in 1958 retired in 1996 average 38 years
E60 1974 till 2003 about 29 years for some.
AEM7 1980 till now is 30 years
GP40/GP38h-3. built 1966 and still going.
P32-8 built 1991 and still going 20 years