SC-44 Siemens Charger Locomotives

No new locomotive is ever without failure , 90% of those failures are link between seat and throttle .
unfamiliar with engine and unsure to reset a fault .
Now both Charger and the dog and pony show F125 came out at about same time , just compare how many of each are in actual revenue service , nuff said...

Its no different than the ACS-64s, only thing was the ACS could not be paired up or at least they didnt want to try, with the older power. Most problems with ACS at first just needed MCB open and close but people had a panic about the nature of the fault descriptions and from previous learning did a full reboot every time which costed 5-10 minutes of delay, when a simple 2 second switch could have solved the problem. These midwest trains should have the charger on one end and P42 on the other, since they go far from any other amtrak power.

Now we know better. The only thing killing the ACS now is broken traction motor gearbox couplings, which they supposedly fixed but it has happened again. In about a year or two the cabs of the ACS will need a full interior refresh on the oldest units as the desks are chipping apart and the seats are becoming destroyed. The chargers will probably suffer the same fate. Whoever picked out those cab seats should be dragged out and shot, i doubt they ever worked a day in over the road train service.

hey even pig stry's are great until you put pigs in them

Saw one today (25th) westbound in a NS freight near Porter, Ind. Not sure where it came from, if it was BO or just back from a display but thought it was unusual to be on a freight & not Amtrak. It was bracketed on each side with flatcars. Did not get the number.

That could be a SEPTA ACS-64 headed to Philly,the first unit was released from factory last month.

It probably was, that or its the next top secret thing that will come east.

It was definitely not an ACS-64. No pantograph and it had the large grill on the side with a big X in it. It was definitely a Charger and it was definitely headed West not towards Philadelphia.

ApproachMedium wrote: These midwest trains should have the charger on one end and P42 on the other, since they go far from any other amtrak power.

Bingo. I get there is EIS problems, but let's not strand the passengers for no good reason. And recall when the Dreamliner went into service, they had a lot of problems (to the point that some lamented the program would never make money) but there were limited routes and backup jets standing by. You pop a biz traveler a few times and we don't forget it, we just avoid it. See La Compagnie airlines. I will not fly them after they jerked me around one time, because it was apparent they didn't care, wouldn't learn from it, and had no desire to make changes.

Here's an interesting question: Is there some agreement between Amtrak and the coalition states that states the Chargers cannot/will not be used on LD trains? Knowing how the rails work, one of these days Chicago will be very power short and a Charger will be first in line to go, regardless of what is leaving. If that is an LD, how strong is the rule against sending a charger out on the point?

The F59PHIs, used in service on the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin trains, have pulled the Coast Starlight trains. I don’t think that has happened as much as the Cascades and Pacific Surfliner painted F59PHIs, which are actually owned by Amtrak. I hope that someday, Amtrak can order Charger units for their own pool of trains.

Tadman wrote:Here's an interesting question: Is there some agreement between Amtrak and the coalition states that states the Chargers cannot/will not be used on LD trains? Knowing how the rails work, one of these days Chicago will be very power short and a Charger will be first in line to go, regardless of what is leaving. If that is an LD, how strong is the rule against sending a charger out on the point?

Even with PRIAA's new state ownership rules being a new thing for this procurement, the structure for borrowing across ownership lines is already transparently in-effect and has been for decades. Every time New York State engine-swaps a self-owned P32 dual @ ALB for a nationally-owned P42, it's doing the inverse of your LD-borrow scenario. Ditto whenever WSDOT or Caltrans borrows a Gennie because they're short on F59's (particularly the Cascades last 1-2 years, since WSDOT has pretty much curtailed all heavy maint on their F59's in anticipation of Charger displacement). Two-way equipment lending is a standard clause in the basic service/maintenance agreement the states sign with Amtrak to have Beech Grove maintain the equipment, so the paperwork they're all signing right now on the Chargers for S&I coverage just reaffirms that. Shouldn't be a problem at all to borrow for an LD in the opposite direction if fluidity under these specific new PRIAA equipment orders is administered the same as it was before in "de facto" PRIAA cases (e.g. statie-owned P32, F59, Caltrans coach fleets and nat'l borrowing therein). I would think only the equipment pools that are maintained completely 100% out-of-house like the Talgos and NCDOT sets would need special asks, since those corridor fleets don't have the standard co-signed S&I contracts that all other standardized equipment does.

In a practical sense, if Amtrak needs a statie Charger or some other piece of pinch-hitter equipment that's not ever a request an individual state is likely to turn down. Simply because the statie routes borrow WAY, WAY more often from the national pool than the national routes ever ask the other way around. States need to ask for equipment favors 10x more than the LD's ever do, and have too much more to lose in turnabout by AMTK telling them "tough nuts" than they have to gain next time they need to bum a couple Gennies or Superliners in a pinch. I'm sure it's all well spelled-out in the agreements what borrowing fluidity must be made available, but on sheer scruples it would be an unwise move for a state DOT to deny the mothership on a rare request when they have to make equipment requests of the mothership many times more frequently.

borrowing engine is not much of problem, the bigger problem would be crew qualifications .
Sending a Charger out on LD train may get it stranded at a crew change location.

Trains magazine a few months ago had an article on how freight railroads sometimes share engines (why sometimes you might see say a BNSF on the east coast or a CSX out on the BNSF Transcon).

So, there are mechanisms in place to handle the charging of costs.

Corridor Chargers on LD trains may have a problem with the smaller fuel tank ? Might mean Amtrak would have to buy fuel at usually non refueling points. That increases station dwell ?

Cali stuff can go anywhere in cali regardless of the service because as long as its doing something for a state supported route they wont say anything about it, as far as engines go. The blue cards in the P32 dual modes do not say owned by NYDOT they say amtrak so they can go anywhere amtrak needs them, so they do go to Vermont and they have been to Phila and beyond on the NEC.

If the amtrak state owned chargers are anything like how the Metro north stuff is with NJ Transit they will probably be pretty mad if the stuff goes outside of its service zone. it may be okay at first but let a train be canceled because there is no power available for a state train and come to find out its halway across the country they will not be happy.