MARC To Purchase Siemens Chargers?

[Jeff Smith]

Sounds like an argument for the ALP-45DP.

[dowlingm]

If MARC is looking for the HHPs to last until possibly 2017, who takes care of them after Amtrak won't from 6/2016?

[Backshophoss]

Figure on BBD to provide some support on MARC property.

[dt_rt40]

Though I'm angry about this, I see it as a culmination of years of "peak" overarching stupidity and poor procurement policies, in terms of MARC and Amtrak management. As in: it cannot possibly get worse from this point forward. AT LEAST they are buying these purported 125 mph diesel locomotives from like, oh geez, a real world-recognized railroad engineering/manufacturing company and not whoever the heck made the hideous, unreliable MP36s. If only the HHP-8 purchase hadn't been so botched, and they'd have bought some electric locomotives from a company whose main line of work isn't jet skis (and jet planes) - they'd still be running reliably, and we'd have had an electric Penn line for the rest of my life, most probably.
Since MARC has carried out their dieselization threat, it looks like the relationship between Amtrak and MARC has further soured. It wasn't long after this announcement that cross-honoring on 181 was ended - by canceling the whole flippin' train. The line fed to MARC passengers was the train was no longer profitable. But Amtrak is competing with an armada of Boltbuses et al. for a steady on-going flux of hipsters, business people, and tourists who need frequent reliable transport between NYC & DC. They have yield management software: if they'd wanted to make 181 at least break even, they could have just lowered prices somewhat. I remember it being crowded some mornings. I see it as a warning shot to MARC, but maybe some of you will think I'm reading too much into it.

[DutchRailnut]

I am not Bombardier fan but as for their electric locomotives so far Bombardier has delivered several 1000 of them.
not only HHP-8 but also Astride, Traxx , largest locomotives for IORE , the ALP45DP etc

[Tadman]

AT LEAST they are buying these purported 125 mph diesel locomotives from like, oh geez, a real world-recognized railroad engineering/manufacturing company and not whoever the heck made the hideous, unreliable MP36s.

The MP36 was made by MPI using EMD prime movers and traction motors. I don't know that it gets any more real world than the company that put the world's railroads on the diesel standard. As for the unreliable standards, they seem to work just fine here in Chicago. I don't know how suited they are to the NEC market and associated high speed.

As for the Siemens Charger, it's made by a group that has never made an American locomotive until recently. History has seen quite a few European makers show up, try, and quit our market. Let's see how it works out in five years.

[MCL1981]

If MARC is looking for the HHPs to last until possibly 2017, who takes care of them after Amtrak won't from 6/2016?

With any luck, a scrap metal recycling company.

[dt_rt40]

"The MP36 was made by MPI using EMD prime movers and traction motors."
Why not just buy them from EMD then? I thought all MPIs were partly recycled right? Made with reconditioned and not brand new prime movers? Maybe works in Chicago, hasn't been a walk in the park here obviously. If the MPIs were so great, MARC would be buying more of them.
As for Siemens, yes, they have a lot more experience with high speed passenger locomotives than any US maker. Yes I agree that doesn't translate to their locomotives having guaranteed success here. We shall see.
Traxx et al btw, were really designed by a predecessor to Bombardier, Adtranz. Obviously, whatever engineers successfully designed those older euro-locos either weren't applied at all to North American engineering efforts for the HHP-8 or were very mis-applied. (buyout in 2001, HHP-8s designed in the late 90s - so not applied at all) I see Bombardier back then as a clever marketing company (with respect to advanced HS locomotives) who though they could license a bit of tech from Alstom and "presto, American TGV" (Oh maybe I should say: "voila, TGV-americain" LOL) Little details like strengthening the yaw dampers got lost in all the excitement. But, in fairness, Amtrak probably screwed up the "requirements gathering" too. In any case my overall point stands, this is a final convergence of years of compounded idiocy. On the other coast, Caltrain has finally made the commitment to electrification! If the state doesn't go bankrupt before it's done. It's good they got the environmental studies out the way so Californians don't have to worry about it harming them. (yes, I actually read posts along those lines on websites out there, during the early 2011 debate over electrification. I took a great interest in Caltrain after visiting the Bay Area in 2011. Other than running on diesel, it seemed amazingly advanced compared to DC or Philly area commuter rail)

[dowlingm]

When was the last time, before F125, EMD marketed a passenger locomotive? The F59PHI?

The HHPs and Acelas were a Bombardier-Alstom collaboration as opposed to the ALP45/46 family. The Bombardier brand is an accumulation of various properties (BREL, Adtranz, UTDC, Learjet, Canadair...) and whether they also make jetskis is neither here nor there. My main concern at present is whether the cashflow drain, principally from aerospace (Global 7000 and C-Series), is threatening their ability to deliver on stuff they know how to make, especially in Transportation division.

It's hard to blame MARC for wanting equipment which is interoperable between its own routes, and on VREs with runthrough arrangement in addition to being less dependent on Amtrak generally. Maybe a bit more diesel noise and exhaust at WAS will make the State and District authorities rethink the utility of the current DC-area rail network arrangements, particularly the physical, operational and ownership blockers to electrification expansion on routes other than Penn Line.

[DutchRailnut]

Last EMD power was DE/DM for LIRR assembled by Super Steel Schenectady.

[dowlingm]

Last EMD power was DE/DM for LIRR assembled by Super Steel Schenectady.

Thanks DutchRailnut. So not in this millennium

[MCL1981]

Maybe a bit more diesel noise and exhaust at WAS will make the State and District authorities rethink the utility of the current DC-area rail network arrangements, particularly the physical, operational and ownership blockers to electrification expansion on routes other than Penn Line.

I don't think I would call it a blockage. Adding additional tracks electrifying without unacceptable disruptions to freight and passenger rail is simply not practical. Unless Maryland plans to eminent domain every piece of property along both sides of the tracks to widen the right of way and allow construction that doesn't inhibit existing traffic, it's not going to happen. To say nothing of the WMATA right of ways between DC and Derwood. CSX is not going to say "sure, we'll just cut operations for a decade and go out of business so you can do whatever you want on our tracks". No should they.

[strench707]

“Also, there are no electric locomotive options on the current contracts. If we were to issue our own spec, regardless of locomotive type, it would be for eight or so locomotives depending on cost. The procurement would not benefit from the economies of scale that piggybacking allows. Therefore, with a fixed amount of available funding, we would not be able to buy as many locomotives as we need.”

Digging this back up.... How does MARC dismiss the economies of scale of piggybacking 8-10 locomotives whereas SEPTA jumped all over a 13 unit piggyback?

I guess we are all just supposed to accept MARC's reasoning at face-value considering this all of the information that they are willing to share on the issue.

Davis

[MCL1981]

Would increasing the number of locomotives per train allow them to accelerate faster to keep on schedule in the summer when it's hot out?

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Would increasing the number of locomotives per train allow them to accelerate faster to keep on schedule in the summer when it's hot out?

No. I don't think most passenger locos can even balance propulsion load like that. The Amtrak HHP-8's had that capability, but it was never needed in actual practice so Amtrak never ordered it with the Sprinters and loaded up on extra HEP output instead.

The only reason Amtrak does double-drafts or back-to-back power with LD's is because the sleepers, diners, etc. are so much more electricity-hungry than coaches/dinettes that they need one locomotive for just propulsion and one locomotive just to supply HEP for those juice-sucking cars to keep from overloading and degrading the performance of the other. It's not a double-propulsion lash-up like a freight train.

Commuter rail double-drafts usually mean there's something amiss...like a cab car shortage, mis-assignment of cabs, or too many busted cabs that have to run as trailers. Or situations where 1 loco with a blown HEP but good propulsion getting paired with a loco running HEP-only (or vice versa) just to keep the otherwise OK busted unit useful while it waits its turn in line for shop time. Or, rare long-distance specials (like MBTA did the first couple years of its Cape Cod "Cape Flyer" summer weekend train to out-of-district trackage) where for liability and reliability reasons they want a protect unit onhand in foreign territory far from home.

*Maybe* those 12 MultiLevel-car NJT monster sets on the NEC get bookended by two ALP-46's because that's the most extreme-length commuter rail push-pull consist you'll ever find, but that's likewise 1 providing just propulsion while 1 provides HEP for all the electricity taken up by that many heating/AC units and plugged-in electrical outlets on such a gargantuan consist. But no CR operator can afford the operating premium of doing that practice as a rule outside of one-offs or truly off-scale circumstances.