Capacity Management/Revenue Enhancement

[ThirdRail7]

Another factor worth remembering but forgotten in my first post is the immediate effect that renewal of the electric traction fleet will have on maintenance and power expenses. Amtrak is going to see some very significant savings here which will only be partially offset by the loan payments.

I'm not a financial expert, but I'm not sure this is true. You're still on the hook for the HHPs and the Remans whether they are running or not. Sure, you save on wear and tear, but they still must be kept in reasonable condition. This is what gives the DCs a slight advantage over the rest of the fleet. The DCs are paid for. As for the savings, we'll have to see how this regenerative brake is actually set up, operates and if people will attempt to work around it like the HHPs and the Acela sets.

Don't count your chicken before he crawls out of his shell.

[gokeefe]

Here is my thinking:

1. Even if Amtrak is still on the hook for the remanufactured AEM-7ACs and the HHP-8s in "good condition" the answer could be as simple as preserved storage, much like the P-40 fleet was for some time.

2. Assuming that storage really is an option then your maintenance costs go down due to the newer condition of the units and manufacturer's warranty coverage. At least initially the ACS-64 units would need only minimal normal inspections and periodic maintenance. That immediately takes away from required shop time for heavy overhaul and repair.

I guess that's my "hope" as much as anything. I am also hopeful that the regenerative braking would in fact see very heavy use on the new units and that crews will find it sufficiently convenient to use that they will employ it as much as possible.

We shall see......

[Station Aficionado]

The Superliners are more likely than Amfleets to get damaged because of the large number of grade crossings. An estimate of 2 wrecked cars per year would be good for planning. So 508 cars becomes 458 cars after 25 years. 458-437 is an increase of 21 cars, or about 5 percent. Figured differently, 508 cars to replace the original order of 479 cars plus the 5 Pacific Parlour cars is an increase of 24 cars, still about 5%. That's equivalent to about 2 years of ridership growth.

That's an excellent point. So, assuming that Amtrak has funding for bi-level cars post 2017, we'll essentially see nothing but replacement of the current Superliner fleet--i.e., Amtrak is planning on no significant capacity change in the LD system. No real surprise-the system will be maintained to keep the requisite political support.

[ThirdRail7]

Here is my thinking:

1. Even if Amtrak is still on the hook for the remanufactured AEM-7ACs and the HHP-8s in "good condition" the answer could be as simple as preserved storage, much like the P-40 fleet was for some time.

2. Assuming that storage really is an option then your maintenance costs go down due to the newer condition of the units and manufacturer's warranty coverage. At least initially the ACS-64 units would need only minimal normal inspections and periodic maintenance. That immediately takes away from required shop time for heavy overhaul and repair.

I guess that's my "hope" as much as anything. I am also hopeful that the regenerative braking would in fact see very heavy use on the new units and that crews will find it sufficiently convenient to use that they will employ it as much as possible.

We shall see......

But you can't count on it because it is unknown. I asked a question about these engines that no one(on the railroad or on this board) has answered as of yet: How will these engines perform in push pull service? How did the engines these are based on perform in push pull service?

So far, my questions yielded:




Mr O'keefe:

You're from the Downeaster territory, so I ask, what is one of the BIGGEST problems they incur, particularly in push mode?

Think about that and then add a strong electrical component that can't really censor itself into the mix.

I've seen this show before.

Additionally, with newer engines comes warrantied work. It is mandatory unless you want to be in violation. Right now, the maintenance (or lack of) outside of FRA mandates on the current electric fleet is up to Amtrak. They can say "bring it into the shops,' or "screw it, run it until it dies..then we'll fix it."

A piece of equipment that you're paying for and must be kept in a state of good repair and is now hogging real estate by sitting around doesn't make anyone money. The forces that are maintaining them are still getting paid.

[Suburban Station]

I'm not a financial expert, but I'm not sure this is true. You're still on the hook for the HHPs and the Remans whether they are running or not. Sure, you save on wear and tear, but they still must be kept in reasonable condition. This is what gives the DCs a slight advantage over the rest of the fleet. The DCs are paid for. As for the savings, we'll have to see how this regenerative brake is actually set up, operates and if people will attempt to work around it like the HHPs and the Acela sets.

Don't count your chicken before he crawls out of his shell.

possibly the biggest impovement will be the number of cars that can be hauled per train though I don't know if Amtrak has any plans to take advantage of that. aer the toasters still going to be converted to npcu's?

[Jersey_Mike]

we'll have to see how this regenerative brake is actually set up, operates and if people will attempt to work around it like the HHPs and the Acela sets.

The regenerative breaking is mostly PR. Most inverter equipped locomotives and MU's are set up to dump the braking energy into the HEP load. This is why the ALP-46's (and I assume the ACS-86's) aren't equipped with resistance grids. I have been told the savings are 10% over traditional dynamics.

[ThirdRail7]

I'm not a financial expert, but I'm not sure this is true. You're still on the hook for the HHPs and the Remans whether they are running or not. Sure, you save on wear and tear, but they still must be kept in reasonable condition. This is what gives the DCs a slight advantage over the rest of the fleet. The DCs are paid for. As for the savings, we'll have to see how this regenerative brake is actually set up, operates and if people will attempt to work around it like the HHPs and the Acela sets.

Don't count your chicken before he crawls out of his shell.

possibly the biggest impovement will be the number of cars that can be hauled per train though I don't know if Amtrak has any plans to take advantage of that. aer the toasters still going to be converted to npcu's?

They deemed it too costly. That being said, there is renewed grumbling about train sizes, particularly on the NEC. The HHPs and Remans have little trouble pulling 12-14 cars (in dry weather of course) however, people are noticing the longer dwell times in the stations.

The proposed solution (which is in the earliest stages of feasibility study) should be interesting if it comes to fruition.

we'll have to see how this regenerative brake is actually set up, operates and if people will attempt to work around it like the HHPs and the Acela sets.

The regenerative breaking is mostly PR. Most inverter equipped locomotives and MU's are set up to dump the braking energy into the HEP load. This is why the ALP-46's (and I assume the ACS-86's) aren't equipped with resistance grids. I have been told the savings are 10% over traditional dynamics.

I assume this hold true in push mode as well? The cab car modifications are supposed to reduce wear and tear on the new engines in push mode. Hopefully, the same amount of "sliding" will not occur in push mode.

[Jersey_Mike]

I assume this hold true in push mode as well? The cab car modifications are supposed to reduce wear and tear on the new engines in push mode. Hopefully, the same amount of "sliding" will not occur in push mode.

When you have dynamic brakes in an APL-46 or an Arrow III that power should be running the HEP. While Arrows still have their original grids they are largely unnecessary. Some of the power does go into heat within the engine, but I forget where that sink is. It's HEP + some other stuff = no grids. I would suspect that on transit vehicles with higher braking rates you would have more use for the regen as the peak power generation would exceed the HEP draw.

[gokeefe]

But you can't count on it because it is unknown. I asked a question about these engines that no one(on the railroad or on this board) has answered as of yet: How will these engines perform in push pull service? How did the engines these are based on perform in push pull service?

I was wondering if there might be some coverage of this question in the European press.

Apparently there is. Here is an article from the European Tribune (no prior experience with this publication/blog). There is extensive discussion of problems with systems other than the Eurosprinter, which itself seems to be quite successful. Based on the lack of negative reporting for the Eurosprinter in this article and the plentiful descriptions of problems with other locomotives I believe the initial indication is to the positive.

Siemens: Eurosprinter
For long, West German electric loco makers produced almost only for the domestic market. That changed with the DB class 120 technology (shared among West German makers). From 1991, Siemens got to deliver 75 locos to Spain (RENFE class 252; see also this diary).

The locos were for two voltage systems different from the one in Germany (3 kV DC on old lines, 25 kV, 50 Hz AC on high-speed lines). But, with the new power electronics, it proved rather simple to build supply units for the same on-board DC main circuit. So, the idea arises: with relatively minor modifications, aint' the universal loco suited for export into any country? Indeed, after the first batch for Spain, Siemens built an up-powered (from 5.6 to 6.4 MW) prototype for themselves, and christened it EuroSprinter.

[gokeefe]

The EuroSprinter Wiki is quite extensive and has no mention of any particular failures or problems either (not that this means anything...).

[ThirdRail7]

The EuroSprinter Wiki is quite extensive and has no mention of any particular failures or problems either (not that this means anything...).

Not really. I see something that is noteworthy. These units are based on two engines. The Vectron mentions being used for push pull service, but the Sprinter does not. Along those lines, this tidbit is mentioned in the Sprinter:

with the new digitally controlled anti wheel-slip control the tractive effort should be brought to bear more reliably: nonetheless, some engine drivers argue that in autumn, due to slippery tracks, heavy trains are hard to accelerate.

This condition is exacerbated in push service. it can lead to various problems. Too much electronic braking in push mode is also a problem, and a general problem for the Acela sets in wet conditions and the fall. This is why the Keystones MUST operate engine lead between PHL and HAR in the fall when practicable. The blended brake applications and the associated wheel slip lead to flat spots which leads to shopped engines. Hopefully, the cab car modifications will help.

By the way, one set of the Auto Train has been in the death cycle for the last couple of days. It is ping ponging back and forth, departing each initial terminal late. It has gradually gotten better. It only departed SFA 7 hours and 15 minutes late today. I'm hopeful that it will depart LOR just 3 hours late on the turn. However, they have to strike fast. CSX imposed heat restrictions over the last few days. I suspect tomorrow will not be an exception. If the Auto Pain is out there when they take effect, you can forget about making up time.


If you're wondering why I brought that up, earlier in this thread I mentioned I'm not a fan of same day turns, particularly for self cycling sets. A nice break between runs ends these kinds of cycles sooner rather than later.

[25Hz]

Here is my thinking:

1. Even if Amtrak is still on the hook for the remanufactured AEM-7ACs and the HHP-8s in "good condition" the answer could be as simple as preserved storage, much like the P-40 fleet was for some time.

2. Assuming that storage really is an option then your maintenance costs go down due to the newer condition of the units and manufacturer's warranty coverage. At least initially the ACS-64 units would need only minimal normal inspections and periodic maintenance. That immediately takes away from required shop time for heavy overhaul and repair.

I guess that's my "hope" as much as anything. I am also hopeful that the regenerative braking would in fact see very heavy use on the new units and that crews will find it sufficiently convenient to use that they will employ it as much as possible.

We shall see......

The hippos are going back to bombie, as they are on lease. I can see these going first.

The AEM7's will likely get scrapped, a few may stay on for work train duty, AMT might want them for work trains as well, but their days on pax trains are definitely numbered.

The P40's were stored because they were/are a relevant design, that with a few upgrades could see 35-45 years in service. I foresee the entire genesis fleet going through a rebuild program, with a few trouble units cannibalized for parts. But that's subject for another thread.

[mtuandrew]

The hippos are going back to bombie, as they are on lease. I can see these going first.

The AEM7's will likely get scrapped, a few may stay on for work train duty, AMT might want them for work trains as well, but their days on pax trains are definitely numbered.

The P40's were stored because they were/are a relevant design, that with a few upgrades could see 35-45 years in service. I foresee the entire genesis fleet going through a rebuild program, with a few trouble units cannibalized for parts. But that's subject for another thread.

Do you suggest that Amtrak will break the lease on the HHP-8s? Absent an agreement between Amtrak and Bombardier, or a court order, Amtrak has either a bunch of small payments or one big penalty payment to make.

Can't see why AMT specifically would want the AEMs, since they just got shiny new ALP-45DPs. Why not the HHPs, since manufacturer support is so close? (They probably wouldn't want the HHPs either, I'm just saying it makes more sense.)

The P40s also weren't (aren't?) owned by Amtrak, so they were required by lease agreement to keep them potentially usable. Otherwise, you're probably right - unless of course Amtrak gets a grant for new locomotives. I do expect the Geneses to be at the head end of passenger trains for years, Amtrak's or others.


A question for those in the know - is Amtrak allowed to sublease its leased equipment? If so, would Amtrak be willing to cut a good deal on HHP-8s to, say, Shore Line East or MARC just to get some money back on their lease? Sorry for the topic drift, since this sort of belongs in an Electric Locomotive Usage and Disposal thread.

[afiggatt]

Do you suggest that Amtrak will break the lease on the HHP-8s? Absent an agreement between Amtrak and Bombardier, or a court order, Amtrak has either a bunch of small payments or one big penalty payment to make.
...
A question for those in the know - is Amtrak allowed to sublease its leased equipment? If so, would Amtrak be willing to cut a good deal on HHP-8s to, say, Shore Line East or MARC just to get some money back on their lease? Sorry for the topic drift, since this sort of belongs in an Electric Locomotive Usage and Disposal thread.

The FY13-FY17 Five Year Financial plan (page 18) shows the Early Buyout Options (EBOs) and End of Lease options for the rolling stock through FY17. The EBOs for the HHP-8s (and Acelas) start in FY2017. There are end of lease purchase options for 16 AEM-7 remans in FY16 and 5 remans in FY17. Amtrak is seeking funds to exercise the EBOs and for the end of lease payments in FY14 to FY17 to reduce debt and eliminate lease payments. The funds for EBOs was provided directly by the Treasury through FY2013 as provided under the 2008 PRIIA act. Amtrak would be better off if that were to continue in the re-authorization bill so the money does not show up in the annual appropriation amounts and are used as an excuse to trim the capital grants every year.

Getting to the point, unless Amtrak wants to challenge the lease, the less expensive path is probably to lay up the HHP-8s and get the funds to exercise the EBOs until all 15 of them are paid off. Exercising the EBOs may be part of the thinking of delaying additional rolling stock purchases until FY2019 except for the Acela IIs. Get the funds to close out many of the remaining equipment leases, pay off the mortgage on NYP in 2017, and substantially reduce the old (bad) debt load. Then Amtrak could can both ask for funds from Congress for the down payment for new rolling stock and take out new leases to cover the rest of the costs.

As for SLE, SLE will be switching to M-8s. Won't need electric locomotives. MARC is reportedly not very happy with their HHP-8s, unlikely they would want more. Maybe Amtrak would lease them some cherry picked AEM-7 ACs to tie them over for a few years.

[gokeefe]

The P40s also weren't (aren't?) owned by Amtrak, so they were required by lease agreement to keep them potentially usable. Otherwise, you're probably right - unless of course Amtrak gets a grant for new locomotives. I do expect the Geneses to be at the head end of passenger trains for years, Amtrak's or others.

Amtrak may have already exercised Early Buyout Options on the P40s using grants provided for in the PRIIA. I know I saw a list with P42s on it. Not sure if the P40s have already had the leases bought out.