Amtrak has new Engines

A switch engine operating on a revenue Amtrak train. That is like going back in time with the LIRR.

transitteen wrote:Other Note: I believe one of the Amtrak California switching engines was actually operating a revenue Capitol train as well two weeks ago. We sure could use one back in the Oakland yard.

Couldn't have been. I am almost positive that that switch engine does not have HEP, why would it? So, unless the passengers were not using lights, doors or heat and A/C...

He might be thinking of the Dash-8 that they have painted in Amtrak California livery. I believe that there are two on the roster for 'Western Services.'

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=95288

It is all about appearances, and Amtrak did screw up in the appearance department here.

It is asking for $1.8B from the government this year, and those who are zeroing out the Amtrak appropriation this year are complaining (maybe rightfully so) that Amtrak takes money that is intended for capital costs, and uses it for operating costs - and then complains it needs more capital funding. WHAT?!! Any accountant who got caught in this would be summarily executed (or at least fired) for this, eventually.

Amtrak did not need NEW locomotives. Maybe it did need better, or more reliable equipment - but new? When you have an agency whose job is to serve the public and complains about not having enough revenue locomotives or cars, and then goes out and buys new switchers (non-revenue equipment)...it's all about appearances. Those folks on Capitol Hill who will ultimately determine what Amtrak gets will probably take a look at this and really wonder, when Amtrak could have bought a trainset, or repaired track, whatever...something that makes a difference to the passenger. These switchers don't.

As another posted asked, maybe buying these new GP15Ds was a better buy than going on the used locomotive market...well, where's the proof? Isn't Amtrak supposed to identify this? What is the cost of...oh...a leased MP15 or SW-1500 from LLPX or GATX?

Let's see...Amtrak has already gone through the SDP40Fs, P30CHs, the F40PHs, the E60CPs, the SPV2000s and the original Metroliners. and those locomotives are all gone. So there is absolutely, positively NO guarantee that these MP15Ds will last long.

Mr. Nip, as does anyone else, has the right to question Amtrak's logic behind this purchase, and at the least Amtrak should explain why it is spending money on non-revenue equipment before revenue equipment. Amtrak will never get a blank check, and it shouldn't - there is no rationale for it, there is no need for it, and Amtrak has shown that if it were to get it, it'd somehow still ask for more money.

You're right Mr. Fan. These switchers make no difference to the passenger.

That is, if the passenger doesn't want to get where they are going. I guess passengers love to ride on trains pulled by passenger locomotives that are worn thin becsuse they have been pressed into switching duties. I know I love to ride on tracks that are bumpy becasue there wasn't a switch/MoW engine to pull the welded rail cars, ballast cars, rail grinder out and about on the Amtrak system. And having my consist being wrong, late or in the wrong order is wonderful. Seeing as the old, worn out switcher broke down and there was nothing to replace it.

This is why most people, myself included, buy NEW automobiles instead of USED. They want reliability. And these new locomotives will provide JUST THAT.

queenlnr8 wrote:That is, if the passenger doesn't want to get where they are going.

Are you telling me that the F59s and P42s are being used as yard switchers? And exactly how does that wear a locomotive thin?

Much of the track maintenance is done with mechanized equipment - they don't need a switching (or road) locomotive to be pulled around. Not to mention that out here on the other coast, Amtrak doesn't maintain the track. In Portland, our local Amtrak "switcher" was a Dash 8-32BWH that Amtrak had purchased for road use, but every road crew refused to run it. (Another example of a fine Amtrak purchase.) So at least Amtrak decided to use the locomotive as a switcher, instead of dumping it at a huge loss.

Why can't a P42 (or other road locomotive) be used to switch a consist around, when the locomotive is simply sitting around until the train is ready to leave? Let's see. I have a pair of P42s, and a bunch of passenger cars, and a switcher. The switcher is broken, the train needs to be switched. The train leaves in two hours. I'm going to fire up the P42s, get the train in order, and go, not wait for the switcher to get fixed because "I don't want to 'ruin' the road locomotive." Why not use what you already have? Do you have the luxury of owning separate cars for every imaginable use? I don't, and if Amtrak doesn't have money to throw around, maybe it needs to get better utilization of what it has.

Evidently, Amtrak needed locomotives that would fit through the East River tunnels, and a variety of tighter spaces on the NEC. As such, any GP38 or GP 40 purchased would have to both be rebuilt mechanically, but also structurally. This may have increased their costs substantially. These new locomotives have modified cabs. So perhaps there was logic to the decision.
The capital budget that Amtrak uses is based on the theory that the railroad is a going concern and will need equipment to last years and as such the absolute cheapest option is not always the one they will choose.
Look back to the previous Amtrak administration. Deferred maintenance, limited equipment purchases, and a near non-existant rebuild program for wrecked equipment is a great way to run a railroad into the ground.

And no, passanger trains will never make a profit, but then again, neither will the nation's interstate system, the airports, or the army corp of engineers flood mitigation program for that matter. Like the others, its an on going cost for a public good.
- Stephen

queenlnr8 wrote:I whole heartedly agree with everyone who supports the move Amtrak made in buying new switching and MoW power.

Chicago has had to use P42 and B32-8 as Swithcers. I agree with them buying new Swithcers

wigwagfan wrote: As another posted asked, maybe buying these new GP15Ds was a better buy than going on the used locomotive market...well, where's the proof? Isn't Amtrak supposed to identify this? What is the cost of...oh...a leased MP15 or SW-1500 from LLPX or GATX?

Let's see...Amtrak has already gone through the SDP40Fs, P30CHs, the F40PHs, the E60CPs, the SPV2000s and the original Metroliners. and those locomotives are all gone. So there is absolutely, positively NO guarantee that these MP15Ds will last long.

Mr. Nip, as does anyone else, has the right to question Amtrak's logic behind this purchase, and at the least Amtrak should explain why it is spending money on non-revenue equipment before revenue equipment. Amtrak will never get a blank check, and it shouldn't - there is no rationale for it, there is no need for it, and Amtrak has shown that if it were to get it, it'd somehow still ask for more money.

Yes, we can all question Amtrak's logic, but we can't necessarily expect a reply here. As for the focus simply on revenue equipment, in case you missed it, Amtrak just made a fairly large purchase of cars that will be in revenue service.

But as others have pointed out, w/o the ability to actually switch trains, do maintenance, etc, there wouldn't BE any revenue trains. At that point folks would be bemoaning the fact that Amtrak was buying revenue cars that it couldn't use due to lack of infrastructure.

To me this sounds mostly like a case of sour-grapes.

wigwagfan wrote:...Amtrak just made a fairly large purchase of cars that will be in revenue service

When did Amtrak buy new revenue equipment? Are they passenger cars?

Greg Moore wrote:Yes, we can all question Amtrak's logic, but we can't necessarily expect a reply here. As for the focus simply on revenue equipment, in case you missed it, Amtrak just made a fairly large purchase of cars that will be in revenue service.

But as others have pointed out, w/o the ability to actually switch trains, do maintenance, etc, there wouldn't BE any revenue trains. At that point folks would be bemoaning the fact that Amtrak was buying revenue cars that it couldn't use due to lack of infrastructure.

To me this sounds mostly like a case of sour-grapes.

Again - it's all about appearances, and the fact that Amtrak did this is a black eye, considering that each and every person at Amtrak is fighting for their careers and their lives right now. No, there isn't going to be a reply, but I've already "made my peace" knowing that Amtrak probably won't survive much longer. I like riding the Empire Builder and the Coast Starlight, but I'll get used to flying when I have to.

Amtrak needs switchers, fine. No one doubts the physical need of a light switching locomotive. What is questionable is:

1. Just what condition are the current switchers in? Can they be rebuilt? Do they just need an overhaul? How "unreliable" are they?

If a switcher breaks down, it probably isn't a fatal incident that involves the delay of passenger trains (unless the switcher dies out on the mainline), or the safety of passengers. Inconvenient? You bet.

2. What are the alternatives? Can other locomotives be acquired, or even leased, at a cheaper price? New locomotives almost ALWAYS cost more than a rebuilt locomotive, so I wonder about the justification of buying a brand new switcher. When is the last time a Class One railroad, or any freight railroad, bought a new switcher? They obiviously know something - that switchers do actually last longer because they don't work as hard as a road locomotive, they can be rebuilt/overhauled to made last longer, retired road locomotives can be made into switchers (how many ATSF GP-7s are STILL around today!!), and that switchers are not a necessary capital expense?

Again - it's all about appearances, and when there are budget crunchers out there saying Amtrak spends capital funds designed to rebuild the NEC on non-essential costs, and then complains it needs more money to overhaul track and equipment (when it got the money in the first place), it's easy to get fed up and walk away. It's decisions like this that are going to kill Amtrak.

F59 and P42s could not possibly be used as switchers, since they need to be turned around to change directions. (no, backing up is not really an option. You have to be able to see where you're going.)

Using old locomotives for switching duties may be penny wise but pound foolish. Old locomotives use more fuel, pollute more, and require more maintenance. Old locomotives are probably sold when they start needing too much maintenance to keep up with the heavy duty demands of the Class I's. I expect that Amtrak intends to put these engines to extremely heavy use, so if the loco doesn't work for the Class I's, why would it work for Amtrak? It would take far too much money and labor to maintain a 30+ year old locomotive. Not practical in the long run.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most used locomotives are snatched up by shortlines, aren't they? Most shortlines aren't exactly known for pushing their equipment to the limits.

I guess the ex-Reading SW1001's aren't for sale.

An SW1001 is an SW1000 with a low cab roof for tight clearances.

http://www.transitspot.com/gallery/Bob- ... 05_01_25_5

http://www.transitspot.com/gallery/Bobs ... 05_02_07_1

I don't know why these new engines come as a shock to anyone. Amtrak's intentions are have been *clearly* spelled out in its five-year plan, which has been publicly available online since last June.

Amtrak's five-year plan wrote:Amtrak's locomotive fleet includes...switchers / work engines [which average] over 30 years in service; some equipment exceeds 40 years.

...

Ten new units are being delivered in FY 04 and eight road diesels converted to switchers in FY 04 and FY 05 to ease a shortage of this equipment

When did Amtrak buy new revenue equipment? Are they passenger cars/

Amtrak recently acquired additional autoracks for the Auto Train

I was working on one of these engines last night i believe it was the 572. It's run by computer. The engine could be left running but within 15 minutes it will shut itself down. Thats something