mtuandrew wrote:gokeefe wrote:mtuandrew wrote:Remind me again, what would be the result of applying $200m to the 40 power cars? Seems you could remove that line item.
As F-line said ... It would be rebuilding the power plants in the engines. Major component replacement and refurbishment along with an onboard electronics upgrade. The current systems run on a pre-millenium operating system.
The engines? Are you considering converting the existing power cars from AC overhead to some sort of diesel-powered locomotive, or are you buying 40 new locomotives?
I'm pretty sure the power cars can't be converted to diesel; they're junk for anyone who doesn't have catenary. If you wanted full-tilt capability you'd be going back to the JetTrain design template and dieselizing that BBD demonstrator's jet turbine engine for a full production run of them with conventional diesel prime mover. But that's a megabucks purchase for retaining >125 MPH capability, which is obviously not possible on current Canadian rails. So let's assume conventional loco-hauled at sacrifice of no tilt capability, meaning that if the tilt hardware remains in the carriages instead of removed for door traps that it'll be permanently turned off and effectively entombed.
Now...how many locos?
-- If the Acela carriages must be run in a double-draft configuration for front/rear-end crashworthiness and trainlining/HEP balance, VIA doesn't have anywhere close to enough power on-hand and you must proceed full-speed ahead with their planned Corridor loco purchase...and double the quantities. So you will end up spending DOUBLE on their originally planned power purchase than they had planned to spend running all-new conventional coaches pull-only. This level of expense probably ends any dalliance with the Acelas right then and there.
-- If the Acela carriages don't need trainlining/HEP balance with a double-draft but DO need a rear counterweight for crashworthiness, then you need the same thing as the
Cascades Talgos with either a cabbage or counterweight on the back. VIA doesn't have any spare locos to make into cabbages, so you'll be scouring the aftermarket for sets of exactly-alike power dispersals to convert. Good luck finding a uniform fleet large enough to scour for >dozen exactly-alike dispersal units with the slim pickings that are on the rent-a-wreck market. Maybe a job for the retiring AMTK-owned F59PHI fleet, but VIA would have to outbid any third parties who want them whole/operable.
-- In any scenario where the P42's are retained (incl. the cabbage scenario), you must put them through substantial component refresh and/or outright midlife overhaul so they are in fresh condition for hauling the carriage fleet. Must do this even if you get lucky, don't need double-drafts or Talgo-like paperweights on the back, and can shave those costs. This is a change from VIA's current plan.
Right now VIA's purchase plan is for all-new Corridor locos (*cough* Chargers), reassigning the P42's to their other routes, and replacing them in 2030 coinciding with the LD coach replacements. It ends up deferring any needed action on Gennie rebuilds-or-replacement before the 30-year mark because: (1) most of their other routes run so infrequently the power gets spared heavy wear from extra downtime between runs; (2) their rebuilt F40PH-2's all got separate HEP generator installations during rebuild as nod to the climate extremes of VIA's LD HEP loads, meaning that brawnier Gennies paired as propulsion leaders with HEP-providing F40's on the
Canadian et al. substantially reduces wear and extends life on both fleets. As per my last post, under VIA's business plan the Corridor power and Corridor coach fleets were to be simultaneous procurements...BUT, if finances hit the fan they can punt the power order out to mid-decade--at the midpoint between the Corridor coach and later LD coach/power procurements--to try again with fresh budgeting and lose nothing on the Corridor. The HEP2 + LRC coach fleets are the only ones sitting at no tomorrow for that purchase; the 2002-built P42's don't have any ASAP fish-or-cut-bait decision on 25-year rebuilds/replacement if they're going to continue pulling orthodox Corridor coaches. It just means they have to try again in 5-7 years with the locos instead of 10-12.
HOWEVER, pair the Gennies' wear profiles with heavily-worn Acela carriages of temperamental design and you are forced to make "a" locomotive procurement today in the form of either an expedited full midlife overhaul for >20 years of continued like-new service, or a substantial component refresh program for approx. 10 years of good state-of-repair service until the next purchase. MTBF won't be acceptable running the Gennies down to spit on their last 5 years of full service with a high-maintenance unorthodox carriage fleet at full Corridor schedules instead of a leisurely VIA LD slate. So for budgeting you are making a large, non-optional investment into the power pool any which way. Whereas in a budget-constrained environment you could purchase conventional coaches and spend $0 on the power pool by punting that off to mid-decade.
Non-optional nature of the loco costs--either new purchase or major reinvestment--means budget for Acela re-use has lots less flexibility than budget for conventional coaches where the power costs can be 100% deferred. Substantial $$$ vs. all/nothing. Even if all else in GK's bucket list of fleet support costs could be rationalized down, power considerations for the Acelas punish the margins compared to buying something/anything wholly conventional for the coaches.
