• AEM-7 status

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  • 798 posts
  • 1
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  by Tadman
 
It would be nice to see this work done as it requires so little capital investment given the current surplus of motors (AEM7 and Montreal ALPDP) and the wires already strung.

We've heard a lot about MBTA resisting fleet diversity, but that's a laugh given their subway has five lines, all with different equipment.
  by troffey
 
Is there any source for how much money is available to each state from the VW settlement? While this should be a fairly affordable project by transit standards, electrical distribution work isn't exactly low cost. And although Sharon Substation has been discussed several times on here, I'm not sure anyone has seen any detailed breakdown of the work required (I'm certain I haven't seen one anywhere, at least).
  by DutchRailnut
 
These engines are no longer Amtrak ?? should they be covered elsewhere ?? not even proven to be MBTA .
  by rcthompson04
 
troffey wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:45 pm Is there any source for how much money is available to each state from the VW settlement? While this should be a fairly affordable project by transit standards, electrical distribution work isn't exactly low cost. And although Sharon Substation has been discussed several times on here, I'm not sure anyone has seen any detailed breakdown of the work required (I'm certain I haven't seen one anywhere, at least).
Mass is getting approximately $75 million while Rhode Island is getting approximately $14 million.

https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/rep ... 0May19.pdf
  by troffey
 
rcthompson04 wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:45 pm
troffey wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:45 pm Is there any source for how much money is available to each state from the VW settlement? While this should be a fairly affordable project by transit standards, electrical distribution work isn't exactly low cost. And although Sharon Substation has been discussed several times on here, I'm not sure anyone has seen any detailed breakdown of the work required (I'm certain I haven't seen one anywhere, at least).
Mass is getting approximately $75 million while Rhode Island is getting approximately $14 million.

https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/rep ... 0May19.pdf
Thank you.

Based on the information at https://www.mass.gov/guides/volkswagen- ... -programs-, Massachusetts has already spent $40 million and Rhode Island is spending their full award on electric busses. The pool for funding this project is getting considerably smaller.
  by east point
 
Have no first or second hand knowledge but have heard that major substation transformer building lead times are in the ball park of 2 years +.
  by liftedjeep
 
liftedjeep wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:37 am Video of the AEM-7 move through Holmesburg Junction, taken in the early morning hours of Sunday, December 8th:

https://youtu.be/Pce7X6GuMTY

Ben
I've since heard that the 15 AEM-7s have been split up, and eight of them have left Hudson Yard for the journey north to Rhode Island. ACS-64 #648 did the honors.

Ben
  by DutchRailnut
 
MN does not allow engine consist of over 12 units so move was made in two parts . units are heading for Seaview Transportation, for storage by leasor , no plans exist for those units
  by gregorygrice
 
liftedjeep wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:09 pm
liftedjeep wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:37 am Video of the AEM-7 move through Holmesburg Junction, taken in the early morning hours of Sunday, December 8th:

https://youtu.be/Pce7X6GuMTY

Ben
I've since heard that the 15 AEM-7s have been split up, and eight of them have left Hudson Yard for the journey north to Rhode Island. ACS-64 #648 did the honors.

Ben
Both sets are being rejoined at New Haven for the rest if the trip.
  by ApproachMedium
 
Second set made its journey tonight all reunited in new haven motor storage. Not sure when the next and final portion of the trip will be, but this will be their off amtrak property storage until further things.
  by Tadman
 
I know nothing of MN rules, but wouldn't adding a deadhead coach or two make this a train rather than a light engine and negate the 12-motor limit?
  by gregorygrice
 
Tadman wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:06 am I know nothing of MN rules, but wouldn't adding a deadhead coach or two make this a train rather than a light engine and negate the 12-motor limit?
The 12 locomotive limit applies to all trains and all locomotives, not just lite engines moves. The restriction has to do with weight.
  by east point
 
Bridge weight ? Or maybe like the freight RRs weight per operative brake that limits speeds ?
  by EuroStar
 
I think we all can agree that the rule produces a nonsensical result for this particular move, but that complying with it is not that big of a deal especially if the owners are paying for the moves. Rewriting the rules just for once-in-a-blue-moon moves like this is a terrible idea.

I personally see no reason how the 15 deadhead engines are more weight of a fully loaded stone train (these still go to Long Island, no? How long are they these days?). The 12 is also suspiciously the same as the maximum EMU set length for Metro-North, so the rule was probably written with that in mind, and was not meant to catch random moves like this one. If anything, my best guess would be that the 12 has to do with the capability of the EMU coupler, not the standard couplers used by Amtrak. But again I know nothing of the history of the said rule and these are just random guesses.

Remember that for FRA purposes an EMU is a locomotive!
  by gregorygrice
 
EuroStar wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:26 pm I think we all can agree that the rule produces a nonsensical result for this particular move, but that complying with it is not that big of a deal especially if the owners are paying for the moves. Rewriting the rules just for once-in-a-blue-moon moves like this is a terrible idea.

I personally see no reason how the 15 deadhead engines are more weight of a fully loaded stone train (these still go to Long Island, no? How long are they these days?). The 12 is also suspiciously the same as the maximum EMU set length for Metro-North, so the rule was probably written with that in mind, and was not meant to catch random moves like this one. If anything, my best guess would be that the 12 has to do with the capability of the EMU coupler, not the standard couplers used by Amtrak. But again I know nothing of the history of the said rule and these are just random guesses.

Remember that for FRA purposes an EMU is a locomotive!
Rule has nothing to do EMU couplers. It's all about weight distribution on the bridges. An old rule that is not going to change for once move. I really don't think this is a topic to dwell on, especially since both moves are complete and the engines are back together outside of Metro North territory.
  • 1
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54