RRspatch wrote:dt_rt40 wrote:
Hopefully Amtrak will say to MARC: look, you have a choice between slow diesels that break down and were probably a bad purchase for use on the Penn line, and fast old electrics that break down because of their age. The only logical choice here is to buy some new, reliable electrics LOL.
I think what is happening here is that Amtrak is putting pressure on MARC not to drop electric operation on the Penn Line ... at least for rush hour trains. Back in the days I worked for Amtrak as a dispatcher (I left in October of 96) I was qualified on CETC 1 (Avenue to Fulton) and CETC 2 (Charles to Gunpow). Back then MARC only had four electrics (4900-4903) of which only three were usually in service at any one time. Trains that had an "electric schedule" usually got one but if more than one unit was down the train would get a diesel and NOT make schedule. This not only caused delay to the MARC train but also delayed any following Amtrak trains. This was most pronounced southbound between Baltimore and Washington as ALL trains use No.3 track between Fulton and Avenue. The diesel powered train took forever to get going and couldn't make the speed the electrics made. This also made for some very tight, or even LATE, turns at Washington. My guess is Amtrak, not wanting slow diesel powered MARC trains slowing down the south-end of the corridor, is pushing MARC to order ACS64's, keep running their AEM7's and HHP's or perhaps going in with NJT on Multi-level EMU's.
They might just be trying to sell them on the Remans with this pinch-hit duty. Say..."Look, we're still using some of the best units for ourselves for the next few months. So we'll let you use a few of the dodgier ones in the meantime, if you understand that these units are on standby for a reason. Try it...see if you like it, see if you like it better than what you're running today. Then if you drop that dieselization threat when the last of them are retired you and me sort through the 'best of the rest' and we'll ID the ones in the best possible shape for continued use. We do have some that are in absolutely fine shape. Then we can talk a little service & support quid pro quo to make it worth your while."
The ace in the hole that MARC can play here is that the +10 MP36's on-order can easily be assigned instead to replacing the 6 GP39H-2's and 1 GP40WH-2 for complete diesel uniformity + 3 more units of fleet padding. And still let them keep all-electric service on the Penn Line by trading their flotsam in for a bigger and nearly-free fleet of more reliable AEM-7AC's. Let's face it, pulling the electrics for alleged "fleet uniformity" while talking out the other side of their mouth about re-powering the GP39's doesn't pass the smell test. It reeks of a leverage ploy to try to pin Amtrak into making a favorable deal with dieselization as the ransom. They can use the 10 new MP36's for
either purpose...and who knows, privately they may be thinking GP39 + etc. replacement is the true Plan A and Penn Line dieselization just the few-downsides fallback position for Amtrak not responding to the ransom.
As for new orders...keep in mind that SEPTA's ACS-64's won't be coming until 2018 because the Siemens plant is taking a pause to do the Amtrak and All Aboard Florida Charger diesel order first. SEPTA may still be getting a few AEM-7AC leasers to get it through the next 4+ years of waiting then burn-in testing/deployment before its new stuff is at full fleet availability. So MARC, if it has any interest in buying Sprinters, has a 5-year wait before they'd be able to get new units on the property for testing.
And as for NJT's MLV EMU's...the engineering specs contract was awarded in October 2014 to some outside project management firm (it's on the NJT board minutes for that month with complete terms of the engineering contract if you want to Google for it). So figure that process is going to run through at least the end of the 2015 calendar year, get collected by NJT in 2016, and only then be put into a Request For Proposals that goes out to manufacturers. Then give the RFP 6-9 months to be collected from the manufacturers so NJT can evaluate the proposals. Then in late-2017 or 2018 the actual real-deal contract goes out to bid for the 110-car base order (surely to be backloaded with at least double that quantity in options). And then and only then would MARC and/or SEPTA (for Silverliner IV replacement) have something substantive to actually chew on if they want in on a parasitic order to NJT's specs. In which case they'll be waiting until after NJT's base order leaves the plant before they can get any of theirs in the manufacturing queue. That's like 2021-22 before they could get those MLV EMU's on the property. So same deal: you need a 6-8 year bridge fleet to keep the Penn Line electric any which way. The AEM-7AC's definitely fit the profile for 8 more years of lightish-duty commuter rail before something/anything new, awesome, and electric can be in full service. They'd be very smart to arm-twist Amtrak for the best lease terms and service/support package they can wring for that bridge fleet. Because there's no avoiding it if they want to buy something new that has safety-in-numbers with some larger operator's identical-make fleet.