Commuter Rail Electrification

NJT and SEPTA's territories were electric before Amtrak existed.

Technically, MARCs electric operation predates Amtrak.
But it operates on Amtraks tracks and wires.
But SEPTA and NJT have electric operations that were never Amtrak, and they own the infrastructure for them.

They use Amtrak infrastructure for their NEC lines.

Maryland DOT didn't begin subsidizing commuter services on the NEC until 1977, and MARC wasn't created until 1984.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 5:33 pm They use Amtrak infrastructure for their NEC lines.

Yeah I know, They also serve the NEC.
I wonder if having their own infrastructure gives them any leverage over shared routes.
I know MTA at one point was running Arrow EMUs for penn line service, before replacing them with cab car push pulls, while SEPTA and NJT never got rid of EMUs.
I'm going to assume they draw less current, and thus the agencies were charged less for power?
Anyone know what percentage of trains ran by those two are EMU and what are locomotive pulled?

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 6:22 pm Yeah I know, They also serve the NEC.
I wonder if having their own infrastructure gives them any leverage over shared routes.

Why would it? They are still using Amtrak's infrastructure on Amtrak.

The NEC south of New York was electrified by the Pennsylvania railroad long before Amtrak or NJT were conjured up. Each inherited PRR services with the precedent set that both used the infrastructure. Whatever deals were made for how that worked out from a financial standpoint were made, there's no relevance to Massachusetts operations.

Regardless of opinions of what should be, NHV-BOS electrification was a Federal/Amtrak funded project. ConnDOT, RiDOT, and the Commonwealth contributed nothing (MassDOT wouldn't exist for almost another decade). MBTA was invited to invest into a shared use agreement but declined, and so the infrastructure does not exist to support electric commuter rail. It could, and it should, and MassDOT needs to pay for it!

CRail wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 1:29 pmThe NEC south of New York was electrified by the Pennsylvania railroad long before Amtrak or NJT were conjured up. Each inherited PRR services with the precedent set that both used the infrastructure. Whatever deals were made for how that worked out from a financial standpoint were made, there's no relevance to Massachusetts operations.

They're still sharing Amtrak infrastructure. There have been deals made over the years to keep it working. And you don't see SEPTA moving to diesel push-pull on the NEC.

MBTA was invited to invest into a shared use agreement but declined, and so the infrastructure does not exist to support electric commuter rail. It could, and it should, and MassDOT needs to pay for it!

It's designed so that it can be upgraded with MBTA buy-in. That's the low hanging fruit in terms of electriciation, assuming that the clearance is there on the 3rd track for the autoracks under the wire, which I'd think it would have been designed in from the get-go.

Is it still true that electric locomotives cost more than diesel locomotives?

BandA wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:34 pmIs it still true that electric locomotives cost more than diesel locomotives?

Globally, no, electrics should be cheaper, in the US they are bespoke, so they end up costing a lot more. EPA Tier 4 diesels are significantly more complicated than even an AC motor electric. Also, NEC electrics for NJT and Amtrak have to have ACSES II and have to handle 11kV/25, 12.5kV/60, and 25kV/60.

I think an SC-44 costs around 7.25M (based on press releases about MARC's purchase), while Amtrak payed $6.6M per ACS-64 (it seems SEPTA payed something closer to 8.6M for its ACS-64s and NJT payed ~$8M for its ALP-46As), and the ALC-42s for the Amtrak LD fleet cost 11.3M each (but that may include the long term maintenance agreement, so may be the locomotive + services). I do see that orders for the Siemens Smartron electric freight locomotive were placed in 2018 for ~$2.77M, so I think an electric locomotive would clearly be less expensive in the USA if the market for them were larger (Siemens discontinued it's diesel-only Vecton model in Europe in 2018 in favor of a dual mode locomotive).

What causes the additional cost, having them built in the US?
I'd thought the EU locomotives also have to deal with multiple voltages.

I think multiple voltages and multiple signaling / PTC systems are both "solved problems", which makes me think there are three different reasons for the cost difference: North American equipment is just different than most of the rest of the world, there are less vendors and purchasers for new locomotives in North America, and (it seems to me) that locomotives are more of a retail kind of commodity in Europe.

The "just different" are, I think, two things in their own rights: different crash worthiness standards between the USA and most of the rest of the world that demand differently engineered bodies, and lack of homogenization between AAR and UIC practices, meaning that equipment that works in AAR systems does not work in UIC systems.

There are two major manufacturers of locomotives in North America: Progress Rail and Wabtec with Brookville, NRE, and RailPower as minor secondary players. I don't know where Siemens fits into this picture: do the recent Charger orders make them a major manufacturer in NA, or are they still minor beside Progress Rail and Wabtec? There seem to be only a handful of purchasers of new locomotives in NA: Amtrak, the Class Is, some commuter railroads, while most Class IIs, regionals, short lines, and remaining commuter railroads buy on the used locomotive market.

Europe seems to have more major manufacturers (even if owned by non-European firms): Alstom, CAF, Hitachi, Siemens, Stadler (I'm sure I'm missing others), and many minor firms that produce locomotives. It also seems there are more companies that purchase new locomotives, and many of those companies seem to have relatively small fleets (or are legacy national carriers with large fleets), and are likely to be in the market for a handful of locomotives at a time instead of in the market for large orders with complex option structures.

That large selection (lots of vendors) from a large number of small customers (lots of customers) makes the market more retail than the US market is to the point where Siemens developed the Smartron locomotive: customers can't even choose the paint color, and its sold on a standard contract, which does make it inexpensive to buy new. (This isn't to say there aren't lots of older locomotives running around Europe in daily operation either.)

I don't know if there are (or aren't) other incentive structures that are encouraging a stronger new locomotive market in Europe than in the US, but it seems there is a stronger market for new locomotives in Europe and that does drive down prices.

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 4:32 pmI think multiple voltages and multiple signaling / PTC systems are both "solved problems", which makes me think there are three different reasons for the cost difference: North American equipment is just different than most of the rest of the world, there are less vendors and purchasers for new locomotives in North America, and (it seems to me) that locomotives are more of a retail kind of commodity in Europe.

Multiple voltages and multiple signaling systems are solved problems, but they aren't free. That being said, when we're talking about an $8M locomotive, PTC is probably $50-$100k, and I have no clue about the extra transformers, but I doubt they're actually that much. For electric, the bespoke nature of US electric locomotives absolutely does drive up the cost.

That large selection (lots of vendors) from a large number of small customers (lots of customers) makes the market more retail than the US market is to the point where Siemens developed the Smartron locomotive: customers can't even choose the paint color, and its sold on a standard contract, which does make it inexpensive to buy new. (This isn't to say there aren't lots of older locomotives running around Europe in daily operation either.

Even in the relatively tiny US passenger locomotive market, you make a good point. European railroads may be more willing to buy stuff off the shelf, as opposed to American railroads that have a VERY long history of weird customizations to their locomotives that continues today, whether in more extreme forms like the LIRR, or minor customizations you see on other railroads. It's interesting considering that such customizations are almost entirely gone on the Class I's that all buy the same couple of models of Tier 4 freight diesels.

Also realize that there aren't any "off the shelf" electric locomotives that meet US crashworthiness standards (due to us having heavier freight trains here).

But, the recent electrics were pretty close. The AEM-7 and ALP-44s are basically a mildly customized Swedish (ABB) design. The ACS-64s are a mildly customized Siemens electric Eurosprinter.

And as far as off-the-shelf European equipment working here, they absolutely do. Remember back in the day when Amtrak tried all sorts of demonstrators like the X2000, or the ICE trainset?