AEM7 Disposition (and other motors - HHP8)

Ahhhh. The return of Fanrailer. It is long overdue. Allow me to cleAr up something. My posts have nothing to do with ego and everything to do with your pitiful need for attention. I could even get behind that of you actually knew what you were talking about. But, you don't and that is what reAlly kills me.

For the record, not everyone is on social media. Something that is on (for example) Facebook may slide under the radar. However, as I and others have previously stated: management is definitely on this board...and others. While I do agree that the person who started the ball rolling is definitely at fault, your actions show your lack of concern and/or judgement. It is akin to someone starting a fire and you saying " well , I didn't start the fire. I just fanned the flames so blame them."

Which most adults know is a crock.

I also note that others had the judgement to not pass things around while you tripped over yourself posting it on two boards...and the bottom line is I wish the list was still posted so everyone can just how wrong it is. T
This is why patience is the way to go. But your thirst for attention ( look what I have pay attention to me) won't allow it. M
My presence on this board is to pass as much accurate information that is possible while protecting sources. While you are clearly content to put up false statements derived from other boards ( the lower acs64a have mu problems) which you naturally never bothered to correct.

So, please. Spare me your pathetic stab at psychology and run back to making videos.
However, you won't. You'll respond because your need for attention is too great and you've been out of the spotlight for took long.

How is that last statement for ego?

Thread locked, PM myself or other mods if you have something productive.

Two footnotes from the July Monthly Performance Report: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/855/870/Amt ... y-2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; page 41

/m Capital lease obligations decreased $185.1M – reflects a reduction of defeased lease payments on leased locomotives and rolling stock due to their replacement or termination.

/o Equipment and other debt increased $171.3M – primarily relates to the establishment of two new long term debt facilities.

I'm no accountant, but that sounds to me like a lease buy-out.

jstolberg wrote:Two footnotes from the July Monthly Performance Report: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/855/870/Amt ... y-2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; page 41

/m Capital lease obligations decreased $185.1M – reflects a reduction of defeased lease payments on leased locomotives and rolling stock due to their replacement or termination.

/o Equipment and other debt increased $171.3M – primarily relates to the establishment of two new long term debt facilities.

I'm no accountant, but that sounds to me like a lease buy-out.

Yeah, it does. And a savings of $14M it sounds like.

jstolberg wrote:Two footnotes from the July Monthly Performance Report: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/855/870/Amt ... y-2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; page 41

/m Capital lease obligations decreased $185.1M – reflects a reduction of defeased lease payments on leased locomotives and rolling stock due to their replacement or termination.

/o Equipment and other debt increased $171.3M – primarily relates to the establishment of two new long term debt facilities.

I'm no accountant, but that sounds to me like a lease buy-out.

I wonder if the feds helped them seat up those "long term debt facilities". Can they really just go to the private sector and ask for a $170 million loan?

Rahway-valley-Alex wrote:I wonder if the feds helped them seat up those "long term debt facilities". Can they really just go to the private sector and ask for a $170 million loan?

The ACS-64 purchase is in fact federally financed through the FRA's Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program. Pretty sure that's what the $170 million is. The Viewliner IIs are a purchase. Not sure what the lease obligation decrease is except possible continuation of early buyout options (EBO) on sale and leaseback arrangements. I didn't realize Amtrak was still getting funding for those. Good for them!

gokeefe wrote:

Rahway-valley-Alex wrote:I wonder if the feds helped them seat up those "long term debt facilities". Can they really just go to the private sector and ask for a $170 million loan?

The ACS-64 purchase is in fact federally financed through the FRA's Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program. Pretty sure that's what the $170 million is. The Viewliner IIs are a purchase. Not sure what the lease obligation decrease is except possible continuation of early buyout options (EBO) on sale and leaseback arrangements. I didn't realize Amtrak was still getting funding for those. Good for them!

Well, keep in mind Amtrak also sold a bunch of their Superliners and other equipment into a buyback-lease program around 2000 or so so they could be on the "glidepath" to recovery.

I think Amtrak is still buying those out.

Greg Moore wrote:

gokeefe wrote:

Rahway-valley-Alex wrote:I wonder if the feds helped them seat up those "long term debt facilities". Can they really just go to the private sector and ask for a $170 million loan?

The ACS-64 purchase is in fact federally financed through the FRA's Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program. Pretty sure that's what the $170 million is. The Viewliner IIs are a purchase. Not sure what the lease obligation decrease is except possible continuation of early buyout options (EBO) on sale and leaseback arrangements. I didn't realize Amtrak was still getting funding for those. Good for them!

Well, keep in mind Amtrak also sold a bunch of their Superliners and other equipment into a buyback-lease program around 2000 or so so they could be on the "glidepath" to recovery.

I think Amtrak is still buying those out.

This happened with the AEM-7 AC engines also. Not all of them but quite a few of them

gokeefe wrote:

Rahway-valley-Alex wrote:I wonder if the feds helped them set up those "long term debt facilities". Can they really just go to the private sector and ask for a $170 million loan?

The ACS-64 purchase is in fact federally financed through the FRA's Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program. Pretty sure that's what the $170 million is. . . . Not sure what the lease obligation decrease is except possible continuation of early buyout options (EBO) on sale and leaseback arrangements. I didn't realize Amtrak was still getting funding for those. . . .

Let me see if I understand you.

The capital lease obligations declined by $185.1 million. That's early lease buyouts. I think they probably didn't get Treasury funds, so to do this Amtrak used cash from operations or short term bank credit or whatever. (Remarkable enuff that Amtrak now can get short term bank credit, but no, there's no long-term private lending here.)

Then at the same time debt increased by $170 million due to two new long term debt facilities, presumably to pay for the ACS-64s. This amount is now owed to the feds under the RRIF program.

It feels better than a $14 million difference to look at it that way, not just, "debt goes down, debt goes back up".

The $185.1 million capital lease obligations were extinguished! Those past, high-interest obligations were doing nothing for Amtrak now or in the future. Meanwhile, Amtrak borrowed money from the feds at current low-interest rates to pay for new equipment being delivered. This is debt I can like, LOL, because it's paying for valuable new stuff for many future years.

Somebody smarter than me (I know, doesn't narrow it down much, LOL) posted here or on AU the schedule of the remaining lease early buyout opportunities. If I recall, this year was gonna be real tight, but the amounts needed next year and next will be much easier for Amtrak to deal with.

Then the Penn Station mortgage will be paid off in 3 or 4 years, and boy, THAT will be the day!

Woody wrote:

gokeefe wrote:

Rahway-valley-Alex wrote:I wonder if the feds helped them set up those "long term debt facilities". Can they really just go to the private sector and ask for a $170 million loan?

The ACS-64 purchase is in fact federally financed through the FRA's Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program. Pretty sure that's what the $170 million is. . . . Not sure what the lease obligation decrease is except possible continuation of early buyout options (EBO) on sale and leaseback arrangements. I didn't realize Amtrak was still getting funding for those. . . .

Let me see if I understand you.

The capital lease obligations declined by $185.1 million. That's early lease buyouts. I think they probably didn't get Treasury funds, so to do this Amtrak used cash from operations or short term bank credit or whatever. (Remarkable enuff that Amtrak now can get short term bank credit, but no, there's no long-term private lending here.)

Woody,

I think on this one you're probably wrong. Up to this point they have in fact been proceeding with EBOs solely through appropriated Treasury funds. Given the apparent willingness of Congress to continue to provide this funding I would imagine they would protect their pile of unrestricted operating cash, which is a corporate, and not a government asset and continue to execute the EBOs in the normal fashion.

The distinction between the two kinds of cash is important because Amtrak can be a lot more flexible about what they do with their own money. A very close look at the Chief Mechanical Officer's Report from July shows one result. 9 Amfleet II coaches were moved from "Level I" Overhaul to the more extensive "Level II" Overhaul as a result of "incremental" funds authorized.

Although 9 cars may not sound like much keep in mind this is in addition to all other Level II overhauls of Amfleet IIs for the year. The total fleet is 120 cars so in effect something like 10% or more of the Amfleet IIs will receive in depth overhauls this year. I think we can expect more of the same next year with the net outcome being that the Amfleet II cars will be in very good shape for many years to come. This makes a lot of sense to me especially as Amtrak has largely exhausted the cafe car to coach conversion options for the Amfleet Is and is now left to hope for the arrival of the Midwest Bi-level fleet in order to see any further possible increases in capacity on the NEC through displacement of Amfleet Is currently in service.

Just curious, does anyone else think that some of the AEM-7s, maybe like 6 or 7 of them, should be sold to the MBTA. Im pretty sure the MBTA is the only Commuter railroad on the NEC that is lacking electrics. If they were to pick up some, they could have most of the sets on the Providence line have the AEM-7s leading, plus that way they have some preparation for electrifying some of their other lines if they want to. I dont know weather or not if the MBTA has funding for the used toasters, but I'd say its worth a try.

MetroBostonRailways wrote:Just curious, does anyone else think that some of the AEM-7s, maybe like 6 or 7 of them, should be sold to the MBTA. Im pretty sure the MBTA is the only Commuter railroad on the NEC that is lacking electrics. If they were to pick up some, they could have most of the sets on the Providence line have the AEM-7s leading, plus that way they have some preparation for electrifying some of their other lines if they want to. I dont know weather or not if the MBTA has funding for the used toasters, but I'd say its worth a try.

How many times has that been asked in this thread? 5? 6?

The T does not have an electrics maint facility. Amtrak would have to service them at Southampton. Amtrak has no room at Southampton for its own equipment, let alone the T overflow clogging up its yard. Amtrak is pissed that the T isn't moving fast enough to build out new space and get the hell out of its yard. Why would they feel compelled to make that situation worse by offering of its own volition to maintain foreign equipment? Much less offer it up for equipment they're trying to get rid of, and which no one at the T is qualified to work on?

It'll never happen. If the AC's have to go anywhere it'll be to an existing operator: SEPTA on-lease as a bridge until they can buy all-new, or MARC as ultra-lowballed bait to talk them out of their idiotic plan to clog up the NEC with all-diesel ops. The T can't even build its own maint facility from scratch within the timeframe that these engines will still be viable and available. Look elsewhere. If the T goes electric for the Providence Line, it'll be new power...no sooner than the 2020-22 procurement for replacing the remaining F40's...and when they've got their own place to maintain them.

Option B: MARC, with any remainders (which might be quite a few units) going to SEPTA. Just a guess on my part but I strongly agree that it is in Amtrak's own self interest to do so.

Sooner or later the MBTA is going to have to address the operation of their Providence trains with electric equipment. A few of the "Meatballs" would be a good start and their trains could then make better time enroute as well. I think it is a good idea. In most respects electric operation is far superior to diesel operation.
Noel Weaver

So what about the situation with MARC going all diesel pretty soon, how do you answer for that one? This topic on the T and electrics has been beat to death already, nothing has changed and will change anytime soon so I think it's time to put that to rest. In addition to what was already said, the T does not keep sets on one line and by adding an electric to the mix you would be doing so. The only line down the road slated for electric at the moment is Fall River/ New Bedford and the plans for that are going to dual mode. We have 40 new diesels on the way that can accelerate our trains probably just as fast as an aging AEM-7