334 Locomotives when and whom?

Amtrak breaks down its initial replacement needs into three categories: 1,200 passenger cars (780 single-level cars, 420 bilevel cars); 334 locomotives (70 electric engines, 264 diesel units); and 25 high speed rail train sets. “This is just a start of the process. In order to meet the lifing policies, further acquisition programs will run indefinitely,” Amtrak adds.

Will there be an Announcement soon on who may get all if not, some of the 334 Locomotive order? Are the 50 outdated Loco's
part of the 334# or added to that 334# therefore 384?

General Discussion: Locomotives, Rolling Stock, and Equipment Moderator's Note:

This is Amtrak specific. I suspect Messrs. Becker and Dunville will find other threads to link into this.

Coach yard to terminal, off this goes ... to Amtrak.

Amtrak needs new diesels like they need a hole in their head - the P-42 fleet's barely 10 years old. The P-32ACDMs are older, but still going strong - MN's show no sign of going away anytime soon.

The motor fleet's getting up there, but there's a good argument for NOT buying more motors and getting MUs of some sort, instead. That cuts the need for motors.

The other big question is why the heck the brand-new HHP-8s aren't performing well. Granted, Amtrak says they're not. What are they doing now? What are they supposed to do? What's breaking on them?

I could justify coaches first - the Amfleets are all shot, and barely what the NEC, among others, need these days. But guess what the only viable replacement is, unless Amtrak wants to go with a custom design....

Part of it is "get money while they're sure there's money to be had" and the other part is to get an annual procurement program in place to keep the manufacturers busy, keep costs down and support domestic rail equipment manufacturing.

Don't confuse a wish list as an actual purchase of locomotives.
This list is nothing more than a wish list for next few years and attempt to raise funding.

One way to create a market & support some locomotive builders would be to buy about 30 locos each & every year for the next 10 years. It is folly to wait till the fleet is 20years old & falling apart until buying replacements. In this scenario, in 10 years no loco will be older than 10years old. Reliability should be better & the cost to maintain & rebuild reduced. Growth comes from adding a few more units to the order + replacements for the wreck scrapped units.

The 1980's era electrics need to be replaced soon. The HHP appears to be a failure. Replacing them is a good place to start.

With what is a competition question with any of today's builders. Let the best makers in the world compete for the market.

Nasadowsk wrote:Amtrak needs new diesels like they need a hole in their head - the P-42 fleet's barely 10 years old.

Spend 32+ hours a week on these motors and let me know what you think.

slchub wrote:Spend 32+ hours a week on these motors and let me know what you think.

I think the taxpayers shouldn't be giving Amtrak money for new equipment if they can't maintain their existing stuff. There's no reason a locomotive should be worn to the point of replacement in 10 years. Other than poor maintenance or buying lousy equipment in the first place. Neither are excusable, and I find it hard to believe GE got to where they are buy building a bad locomotive...

Nasadowsk wrote:I think the taxpayers shouldn't be giving Amtrak money for new equipment if they can't maintain their existing stuff. There's no reason a locomotive should be worn to the point of replacement in 10 years. Other than poor maintenance or buying lousy equipment in the first place. Neither are excusable, and I find it hard to believe GE got to where they are buy building a bad locomotive...

I completely agree with you. All locomotives should be built to last 30 years before replacing. If Amtrak can't achieve 30 years, maybe Amtrak should be looking at hiring new personnel to maintain their trains.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServe ... gyPlan.pdf

Read page 24 of the attached pdf again.
Useful Life is a generic and somewhat arbitrary age based definition of 30 years for locomotives and 40 years for passenger cars.
Commercial Life is a combination of a number of factors. The main elements are as
follows:
* Maintainability – the condition of the equipment, the ability to support the components on the vehicle based on obsolescence, the cost in manpower, support infrastructure and parts consumption necessary to maintain the equipment, the reliability experienced in service with its associated impact on service delivery.
* Availability – the number of vehicles available to support the demand requirement.
* Technical capability – ability to meet the requirements of the service.
* Customer acceptance – the willingness of customers to pay to ride the vehicle and the impact on ridership or revenue that can be achieved by changing to a different type of vehicle.
* Capital availability – the capability of the organization to fund the capital investment required to provide replacement equipment

 Single Level Coaches – 30 years
 Bi-Level Coaches – 30 years
 Tier I Trainsets – 25 years
 Tier II Trainsets – 20 years
 Electric Locomotives – 25 years
 Diesel Locomotives – 20 years

I can't believe the Commercial Life of a locomotive is two-thirds it's Useful Life, but that's what this study is recommending. Or that Tier II trainsets Commercial Life is half their Useful Life.

I respect schlub's opinion (engineer, correct?) but is that attitude based on Amtrak maintenance and would it be different if he was operating for UP or Metra? Just curious.

Even if the Genesis units are only about 12 to 14 years old this wish list is not an order.
by the time the money is allocated and units ordered/designed and build , the P42's will be 20 years old.

Tadman wrote:I respect schlub's opinion (engineer, correct?) but is that attitude based on Amtrak maintenance and would it be different if he was operating for UP or Metra? Just curious.

After having been employed by both UPRR and Amtrak (as an engineer) I can attest that either the maintenance scheme at both RR's are flawed or the eqpt. is not being made to the standards of previous years/models. As a tax payer myself, I agree wholeheartedly with you in regards to the lifespan of the motors is ridiculous. However, after working hours on said motors, seeing the faults from the software coding by GE, the seats falling apart from average wear and tear, rust along the frame of the motors, water invading the cab from the seals of the forward windshield, etc. etc. etc., I can say that Amtrak or any other carrier would be hard pressed to keep up with the poor craftsmanship of the motors of late by GE.

I really don't think that the P42s are bad motors to begin with... once you get used to them and learn what makes them tick. But Amtrak has made so many modifications to them, not necessarily for the better, that some of them are just useless. Low-budget maintenance, including use of aftermarket parts, isn't helping any. But of course it comes down to the almighty dollar.

One of the more frustrating things for engineers is the way Amtrak has "dialed down" these units in the name of fuel conservation. You can still find the occasional units running around that load up nearly as quickly as an EMD, but the vast majority of them have received the, uh, treatment...

Will Amtrak be looking to award the contract in 2010 for the replacement of the 50 aging locomotives and how soon will they need them.

I think Amtrak would do better to keep the P42's...and give them their midlife overhaul. Before that process, the BLET and Amtrak need to get together with a list of needed upgrades submitted by the engineers that run them. Overhauling with upgrades cant be anywhere near as expensive as buying more locos. Meanwhile....design work on the next highspeed diesel electric locos can begin...hopefully with more bidders than just GE. Some new locos can be purchased now to replace switchers that are needed. As for the ole Pepsi cans.....Im not sure if rebuilding those is worth it. They DO fill a niche....being medium horsepower to fill in on road assignments as well as yard jobs.....even though Im sure they suck at that.

As previvously mentioned....its down right pathetic that these units have detiorated to the point they have. Poor maintence is to blame....and some of you here that dont actually run these units pretend to know otherwise. The REAL issue is the lack of funds to keep these units maintained....as well as the fact that GE builds junk. GE's initial quality and pricing cant be beat.....perfect for the American Railroad market and the bean counter's that run them. If someone could take the technology of a GE and use the durable parts of a EMD....THAT would be one hell of a locomotive. Its Chevy vs BMW.