Amtrak ACS-64 Sprinter Discussion

DutchRailnut wrote:you mean the Harley doing 125

I'm sure it's possible if dropped off the edge of Grand Canyon

DutchRailnut wrote:you mean the Harley doing 125

Yeah, I don't know how that's possible either (honest, officer!). Anyway, I was chasing stability issues above 90 until I did the motor mounts last year, now it's rock solid again.

Though this brings up an interesting question - how do locomotives ride vs passenger cars? I'd imagine they're different. Are the ACS-64s any better than the AEM-7s? I'd think being a bit longer would help, not to mention 30-40 years newer technology, but then, I never studied the dynamics of these things much.

ok here we go.

DutchRailnut wrote:ok here we go.

10490124_316852531817806_361461608_n.jpg

AEM-7s had their quirks with their ride. Granted, they were old and worn out as well. Engines always ride worse than cars because they are usually twice the weight, at least.

Dutch wins the internet that day!

ApproachMedium wrote:LOL air suspension. Nothing we have ever had, has had air suspension. The acela seats have some kind of spring in them which helps, but when they bottom out it also helps jam your knee right into the exposed metal bottom of the brake lever. What a load of garbage.

AEM-7 seats had no air or springs but the cushion was very thick and absorbed a lot of impact.

It's hard to express how disappointing it was to read this. Even the MRAPs I drove in the military (training only!) had air suspension seats. They were at most a tenth of the cost of an ACS-64 and were little more than a conventional dump truck chassis with an armored body attached.

I will keep this in mind for future conversations.

I know little of the give-and-take between BLE and Amtrak, but I'm surprised a better operator's chair isn't part of the deal some day. You get a single digit percentage pay increase, do you notice it? Maybe, maybe not. You get a chair that doesn't beat the snot out of your back and knees 40 hours/week, you surely notice that. It must have some bearing on reducing insurance claims, too, given how easy it is to screw up your spine and how important it is.

But again, I know little of the inside politics here.

That's been an issue for some time. At the time of the PC merger the union had an agreement with the NYC that the engineer's seat had to have armrests, but no such requirement with the PRR--presumably they got something else instead. The result was that a train on the former NYC had to have an engine with an "agreement seat" in the lead, but on the former PRR an engine with cab signals had to lead. No doubt it got ironed out somehow, but you would certainly think that the basic comfort of the seat would play an important role in negotiation. Not only does an engineer spend a lot of time in that seat, it's only rational that the operator of any vehicle should not be enduring physical discomfort.

The seats could be be better however I’ll take them over the horrid Cab signals/ACSES audible alarms. Part of the problem with things like these are the Unions put up no fight!

Unions ? or one ?

8th Notch wrote:The seats could be be better however I’ll take them over the horrid Cab signals/ACSES audible alarms. Part of the problem with things like these are the Unions put up no fight!

Dont worry the new beepers are so quiet you cant even hear your overspeed penalty!

And the ACS seat is comfortable, if you arent moving. So it looks good to people and execs and union reps sitting in it stationary at the moch up i the factory.

ExCon90 wrote:The result was that a train on the former NYC had to have an engine with an "agreement seat" in the lead, but on the former PRR an engine with cab signals had to lead.

My God no wonder they went bankrupt ...

gokeefe wrote:

ExCon90 wrote:The result was that a train on the former NYC had to have an engine with an "agreement seat" in the lead, but on the former PRR an engine with cab signals had to lead.

My God no wonder they went bankrupt ...

From what I understand after reading quite a few books, there were perhaps 100 similar anecdotes of "you can't make this up" caliber that sunk the company. It really leads you to question the mindset of Saunders and Perlman. Saunders knew he was on a sinking ship so perhaps he figured it was a gamble worth taking. NYC was in far better shape, so why were they compelled to merge with PRR?

Ultimately, it took not only the PC bankruptcy, but five years of running Conrail like "New Blue Penn Central" before the gov't realized it just wasn't going to work, and the laws had to make a huge change.

I'm always happy to Monday morning quarterback the PC merger over in the PC forum if anybody wants to join.

ApproachMedium wrote:

8th Notch wrote:The seats could be be better however I’ll take them over the horrid Cab signals/ACSES audible alarms. Part of the problem with things like these are the Unions put up no fight!

Dont worry the new beepers are so quiet you cant even hear your overspeed penalty!

And the ACS seat is comfortable, if you arent moving. So it looks good to people and execs and union reps sitting in it stationary at the moch up i the factory.

I take it crews aren't allowed to bring cushions from home, as McGuyver fix?