Amtrak HHP-8 Discussion: Use, Reliability, Disposition

San Jose - San Fran doesn't see much snow, but I don't know if the Bombardier coaches and the older gallery cars are sticking around post-electrification.

David Benton wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:40 pm In the long run , one would hope MARC and others would move to electrify more branches, to improve service and reduce carbon emissions. Hopefully the political climate in the USA will change to prioritize (and pay for) such urgent action required. ( call me a doomsdayer if you like , as I head out to try and find anything green for my cows to eat for the 3rd successive drought in a row, in temperatures 5 degrees above (the old )normal.

That assumes MARC owns the rails. MARC only owns the equipment. CSX and Amtrak own the rails, and CSX has the Brunswick/Camden lines, which are not electric.

Would it be nice to electrify it? Yeah. Would also be nice to widen it three wide too. But its CSX's line.

Matt Johnson wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:45 pm San Jose - San Fran doesn't see much snow, but I don't know if the Bombardier coaches and the older gallery cars are sticking around post-electrification.

The are not electrifying the UP line south towards Gilroy, they will still need diesel locomotives and double level trailers to service customers south of San Jose.

electricron wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:22 pm

Matt Johnson wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:45 pm San Jose - San Fran doesn't see much snow, but I don't know if the Bombardier coaches and the older gallery cars are sticking around post-electrification.

The are not electrifying the UP line south towards Gilroy, they will still need diesel locomotives and double level trailers to service customers south of San Jose.

Last time looked 5 train sets needed to cover Gilroy + any spares. Gilroy does not have any return trains at present and won't until track becomes 2 main tracks. That is 5 inbound in morning and 5 outbound in afternoon.

What does contract law say about when parts are not available? Do we think there is anything specific written in the HHP8 contract? I'm assuming Phillip Morris can't force an upgrade to MARC spec parts.

The "deal" with BBD was to keep the hippos stored but current air brake and 92 day inspections,that changed by turning them into
Acela I part supplies due to lack of spare parts that are NO LONGER produced, obsolete.
Sometime ago BBD,cash strapped, sold the hippo leases to PMCO.
PMCO is now cleaning up the BBD mess.

MARC is not pleased with the chargers. Higher cost/maintance of tier 4 equipment, higher fuel consumption on idle. There is very good reason they are investing in their current HHPs as well as paying amtrak for some ACS-64s. The writing is on the wall at this point in history for dieselised passenger service. The future in electrification is looking better by the day. At the rising cost of Tier4 equipment or retrofits, plus fuel, and then 4 year top deck overhauls vs 10 year+ agencies are finally seeing the light that electric will be cheaper in the long run. I am sure some are kicking themselves in the butt for not getting in to it a long time ago when the installation cost was a lot cheaper but here we are.

BandA wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:17 pm What does contract law say about when parts are not available? Do we think there is anything specific written in the HHP8 contract? I'm assuming Phillip Morris can't force an upgrade to MARC spec parts.

The standard "hell or high water" lease usually requires a customer to maintain the equipment up to manufacturer specifications. In addition, such leases usually have a clause requiring the lessee to have a separate maintenance contract with the supplier. What PMCC is doing here is a bit unusual from my experience in this area (one of my practice area is equipment finance/leasing). Usually this issue comes up because the customer refuses to pay because the equipment no longer works and the supplier is not providing support. The answer to that question is relatively straight-forward... you have to keep paying the lease payments, return the equipment at the end of term and the FMV ends up being scrap value. PMCC is taking a step rarely seen, suing a lessee whose still paying under the lease, but not using the equipment and allegedly not maintaining it.

I have voiced my skepticism of PMCC's claims in prior posts except to the extent Amtrak is cannibalizing the equipment. The play here by PMCC, a defunct business winding down its portfolio that hasn't added new deals since the early 2000s, is to get Amtrak to eat some of the residual hit that PMCC is going to take on the HHP-8s and Acela sets when they are returned. Not a bad strategy when you are looking at an eight figure residual write-down. Spend a several hundred thousand to save $5-10 million seems like something a bean counter would think is a great idea.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:22 pm

David Benton wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:40 pm In the long run , one would hope MARC and others would move to electrify more branches, to improve service and reduce carbon emissions. Hopefully the political climate in the USA will change to prioritize (and pay for) such urgent action required. ( call me a doomsdayer if you like , as I head out to try and find anything green for my cows to eat for the 3rd successive drought in a row, in temperatures 5 degrees above (the old )normal.

That assumes MARC owns the rails. MARC only owns the equipment. CSX and Amtrak own the rails, and CSX has the Brunswick/Camden lines, which are not electric.

Would it be nice to electrify it? Yeah. Would also be nice to widen it three wide too. But its CSX's line.

I still have a feeling that the ultimate result of PSR will be CSX gving up more of the former B&O to the State, along with WM.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:22 pm

David Benton wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:40 pm In the long run , one would hope MARC and others would move to electrify more branches, to improve service and reduce carbon emissions. Hopefully the political climate in the USA will change to prioritize (and pay for) such urgent action required. ( call me a doomsdayer if you like , as I head out to try and find anything green for my cows to eat for the 3rd successive drought in a row, in temperatures 5 degrees above (the old )normal.

That assumes MARC owns the rails. MARC only owns the equipment. CSX and Amtrak own the rails, and CSX has the Brunswick/Camden lines, which are not electric.

Would it be nice to electrify it? Yeah. Would also be nice to widen it three wide too. But its CSX's line.

Throw enough money at CSX and they'll do anything. The kicker is what do the parties consider "enough money" like say UP and the daily Sunset Limited (which I know wasn't just UP being unreasonable).

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:53 am
I have voiced my skepticism of PMCC's claims in prior posts except to the extent Amtrak is cannibalizing the equipment. The play here by PMCC, a defunct business winding down its portfolio that hasn't added new deals since the early 2000s, is to get Amtrak to eat some of the residual hit that PMCC is going to take on the HHP-8s and Acela sets when they are returned. Not a bad strategy when you are looking at an eight figure residual write-down. Spend a several hundred thousand to save $5-10 million seems like something a bean counter would think is a great idea.

Yep - this is all about who takes the write-down hit.

Is there any value to the HHP's as an export product? If so, you can't necessarily assume a scrap value at end of lease.

they far exceed axle load limits of about most of world

ApproachMedium wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:59 am MARC is not pleased with the chargers. Higher cost/maintance of tier 4 equipment, higher fuel consumption on idle. There is very good reason they are investing in their current HHPs as well as paying amtrak for some ACS-64s. The writing is on the wall at this point in history for dieselised passenger service. The future in electrification is looking better by the day. At the rising cost of Tier4 equipment or retrofits, plus fuel, and then 4 year top deck overhauls vs 10 year+ agencies are finally seeing the light that electric will be cheaper in the long run. I am sure some are kicking themselves in the butt for not getting in to it a long time ago when the installation cost was a lot cheaper but here we are.

Maybe a good start post for a new topic

But MARC (ore maybe Amtrak) still can order some new ACS-64...

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:24 am they far exceed axle load limits of about most of world

The discussion is not about where they are to be sold, the discussion is about the terms of the lease that require Amtrak to keep the HHP8 in operable shape regardless of use until the lease is over. My suggestion was to cannibalize the Acela power cars after retirement.

The axle loadings don't have much to do with that.

I was answering a question previous poster , sorry if I stepped on any of your opinions.

>>>>> Is there any value to the HHP's as an export product?<<<<<