MARC To Purchase Siemens Chargers?

Proposal is to buy 8 new diesels to replace the 4 AEM-7s and possibly the 6 HHP-8s; pending evaluation of the latter units. Brief quote below:

The MTA plans to ask the state Board of Public Works for permission to piggyback on an Illinois contract with Siemens Industry Inc. to buy the diesel engines.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's asking a lot for an unproven prime mover,that's not even tested on the Indiana RR yet!
Why MARC hasn't tried to piggyback on SEPTA's ACS-64 order is nuts!

Well think about it:

More diesels= increased fleet flexibility for use on the Brunswick, Frederick, and Camden Lines + no more electricity payments to Amtrak.

New electrics= what is practically an outlier fleet + continued electricity payments to Amtrak.

Sounds like another example where diesel power really is more economical. And since they decided to run shorter trains after that nightmare in 2010(?) it shouldn't be too hard getting a 125mph diesel up to speed. The same has been said with Metrolink and the F125.

Why in the world would they use diesels on electrified track? That would be like unplugging your toaster from the wall and running it off a generator. It doesn't sound very economical to me.

$7.25 million apiece seems rather expensive for what will presumably be minor (if any) modifications to a design built for others, whether it be the Charger or F125.

Amtraks's electricity charges are apparently considered exorbitant by MARC, and they have threatened to go all-diesel for a few years now.

NorthWest wrote:Amtraks's electricity charges are apparently considered exorbitant by MARC, and they have threatened to go all-diesel for a few years now.

Can their diesels keep up with the rest of the traffic? Or is this why they are trying to get the Chargers, so that Amtrak does not boot them out of the rails for being unable to keep schedule? If this is the case the Charges will need to be bound to the NEC anyway.

That's the thing. They can't accelerate as fast as the electrics or travel at as high a top speed, which reduces capacity in an area without four tracks. It's a way of getting concessions from Amtrak-either lower the rates or we'll go all-diesel and eat up capacity with diesels. With this, it seems they may have officially decided on diesels. At this price, though, Sprinters wouldn't be much more expensive. Whatever Tier IV design they purchase won't have much if any parts commonality with the MP36PH-3Cs.

MARC has been using Remans on loan from Amtrak,and keep on/close to time with them,with Diesel power cannot
stay even close to time.
Forget about reaching Wilmington De unless they Lease/buy ACS-64's .

Backshophoss wrote:MARC has been using Remans on loan from Amtrak,and keep on/close to time with them,with Diesel power cannot
stay even close to time.
Forget about reaching Wilmington De unless they Lease/buy ACS-64's .

I saw this article that spoke about the purchase and i said "I guess this might kill the service to Delaware anytime in the future ?".....does anyone know how much it cost MARC for their payments to AMTRAK for power ? I don't think AMTRAK would be up to leasing their new Sprinters to anyone...they basically just got them. I wonder if MBTA face the same issues that MARC does since they are all diesel locomotive frinzy also ?

sammy2009 wrote:I saw this article that spoke about the purchase and i said "I guess this might kill the service to Delaware anytime in the future ?".....does anyone know how much it cost MARC for their payments to AMTRAK for power ? I don't think AMTRAK would be up to leasing their new Sprinters to anyone...they basically just got them. I wonder if MBTA face the same issues that MARC does since they are all diesel locomotive frinzy also ?

I believe MA either fully owns or has some form of joint ownership of the NEC from the state line to South Station so the dynamics of the relationship between Amtrak and the T are different than with MARC. Plus long term both parties plan to install full high level platforms at NEC stations and add triple tracking where room allows. And longer term both plan to repurpose the existing 2 track mainline as part of Amtrak's dedicated high speed ROW and add a new track for commuter rail ops on each side to make a 4 track ROW.

Amtrak isn't even pressuring CDOT to go all electric for Shore Line East, just to get those bi-directional high level platforms finished while they themselves continue to work on how to replace the Connecticut River bridge.

I really think that it's a mistake not to get the ACS-64 Sprinters. For 30 years MARC has operated the same electrics (AEM-7 and HHP-8) as Amtrak since they perform the maintenance and have a wealth of spare parts and technical expertise (although the MARC AEM-7 rebuilds weren't so great). At least they're getting locomotives that can get up to 125mph, but I seriously doubt any train will hit that speed between WAS and BAL, unless it's a super-express.

NH2060 wrote:Well think about it:

More diesels= increased fleet flexibility for use on the Brunswick, Frederick, and Camden Lines + no more electricity payments to Amtrak.

New electrics= what is practically an outlier fleet + continued electricity payments to Amtrak.

Sounds like another example where diesel power really is more economical. And since they decided to run shorter trains after that nightmare in 2010(?) it shouldn't be too hard getting a 125mph diesel up to speed. The same has been said with Metrolink and the F125.

The shorter trains really aren't shorter anymore. Every rush-hour Penn Line train is at least 6 (bilevel) cars long and there are at least two 7-car sets and one 8-car set. Pulling/pushing a packed all-bilevel commuter train from a stop every five minutes in the summer is a very heavy workload (significantly more than the typical Amtrak locomotive has to deal with).

NH2060 wrote:Plus long term both parties plan to install full high level platforms at NEC stations and add triple tracking where room allows. And longer term both plan to repurpose the existing 2 track mainline as part of Amtrak's dedicated high speed ROW and add a new track for commuter rail ops on each side to make a 4 track ROW.

This is pretty much exactly what's in MARC's long-term Growth and Investment Plan.

NH2060 wrote:

sammy2009 wrote:I saw this article that spoke about the purchase and i said "I guess this might kill the service to Delaware anytime in the future ?".....does anyone know how much it cost MARC for their payments to AMTRAK for power ? I don't think AMTRAK would be up to leasing their new Sprinters to anyone...they basically just got them. I wonder if MBTA face the same issues that MARC does since they are all diesel locomotive frinzy also ?

I believe MA either fully owns or has some form of joint ownership of the NEC from the state line to South Station so the dynamics of the relationship between Amtrak and the T are different than with MARC. Plus long term both parties plan to install full high level platforms at NEC stations and add triple tracking where room allows. And longer term both plan to repurpose the existing 2 track mainline as part of Amtrak's dedicated high speed ROW and add a new track for commuter rail ops on each side to make a 4 track ROW.

Amtrak isn't even pressuring CDOT to go all electric for Shore Line East, just to get those bi-directional high level platforms finished while they themselves continue to work on how to replace the Connecticut River bridge.

But the Shoreline isn't even the same dynamics as MARC territory, it's a mostly 70-90mph railroad with some 110+ sections sprinkled in, plus, SLE only has what? 4-car trains at most? That's a far cry from MARC-land where you have long stretches of 110-125mph running with MARC trains up to 10 cars of fully loaded bilevels. (maybe just 8? But still, the point remains).

I'm about done with the "outlier fleet" line of logic. Look at any major commuter agency and you'll find they have outlier fleets. MNCR has a catenary outlier fleet, a Brookville outlier fleet, and WOH outlier fleet maintained by NJT. Metra has their electric outlier fleet. Boston T has different rolling stock on each line. SEPTA has an outlier fleet of random motors. Why it would be out of order for Maryland to have an outlier fleet of motors maintained by Amtrak is beyond me. It's pretty normal to have an outlier fleet.

Tadman wrote:I'm about done with the "outlier fleet" line of logic. Look at any major commuter agency and you'll find they have outlier fleets. MNCR has a catenary outlier fleet, a Brookville outlier fleet, and WOH outlier fleet maintained by NJT. Metra has their electric outlier fleet. Boston T has different rolling stock on each line. SEPTA has an outlier fleet of random motors. Why it would be out of order for Maryland to have an outlier fleet of motors maintained by Amtrak is beyond me. It's pretty normal to have an outlier fleet.

Some things to point out:

1) MNR's fleet of 405 M-8s is no outlier fleet by any means. Even compared to the 336 M-7 + 142 M-3 fleet for the Hudson and Harlem lines. And that's really because the different power systems existed long before MNR came into existence (and because CT outlawed use of 3rd rails in the late 1800s/early 1900s so the NH went with wires instead) their fleets are built to their can't-get-around-it needs.

2) The Brookvilles were built as dual purpose units. They could do switching/MOW/etc. jobs and work in passenger trains up to 5 (?) cars. So there was some sort of fleet consolidation with that order.

3) With the WOH fleet the key words are maintained by NJT. Plus those fleets are a mix of new and still-in-good-condition locos that went out for rebuild. Those Pascack Valley and Port Jervis trains are more or less NJT trains with MNR paint. Heck, those MNR units can be seen on Morris & Essex trains.

4) Again, the Metra Electric service was inherited from its predecessors and tearing down the catenary and running diesels would be simply pointless so alas Metra has a fleet of over 200 electric MUs. Even for a system the size of Metra that is otherwise diesel 200 isn't small.

5) Boston has different rolling stock for each line because -from what I know and can tell- each line has it's different set of specifications and restrictions that date to over 100 years ago. Those tunnels were initally built essentially for -literally- streetcars. Even an "extended Blue Line car without pantographs" for the Orange Line I think ran into design problems due to OL restrictions, etc.

The NYC subway system OTOH had/has 2 types of subway: the IRT and the BMT/IND. The only reasons for the different rolling stock used -aside from the obvious- is that 2 or 3 generations of cars are used at the same time and only so many cars of one exact designation were bought in one or 2 swoops.

6) At the time of purchase nobody was building straight catenary EMUs that could meet SEPTA's requirements. They certainly weren't going to buy any MNR/CDOT M-4s. SEPTA had piggybacked it's order onto an existing order from Amtrak and MARC and at the same time who wasn't Bombardier building coaches for? MNR, CDOT, NJT, MBTA..

So why not MARC? Well for starters in comparison to the other carriers in the NE and elsewhere, MARC's operation is small by major-city-in-the-NE standards. The Boston-Lynn-Salem-Beverly segment of the MBTA Newburyport/Rockport line has an equal amount of commuter rail traffic on weekdays as MARC does between DC and Baltimore. And to Perryville it's only 6-7 trains each way. Seems that for MARC there would need to be more of a compelling reason to use electrics when they can simply swap diesel sets between lines and save money by not needing to pay Amtrak utility fees.

Very same could be said for the MBTA with the Providence Line. Which btw has an equal or greater amount of commuter rail traffic between Canton Jct. and Forest Hills (where the Needham Line factors in) in 100-125 mph territory as well. And for those CR runs to/from Providence they're traversing in 150 mph territory with only 2 tracks most of the way!

Amtrak is not able to use the full capy of the NEC east of NHV,due to REQUIRED openings of the moveable bridges
by the Coast Guard.
MBTA and RIDOT might consider getting motors over diesels if the price of fuel goes up.
SEPTA saw the light,and ordered a commuter version of the ACS-64,if MARC wants to save $$$ on maintaining
the Motors,build your own shop!
The Chargers are based on an unproven prime mover,that's STILL an R+D project,has yet to run on the Indiana RR!
MARC might lose their slots if they continue to use diesel power on the NEC during peak travel times.