MARC To Purchase Siemens Chargers?

Backshophoss wrote:MARC might lose their slots if they continue to use diesel power on the NEC during peak travel times.

That is kinda harsh considering Amtrak is looking at Maryland to help finance track improvements within that state, especially the new Susquehanna River Rail Bridge.
I suggest killing valuable slots is the quickest way to kill the new bridge.

Okay, MARC can buy Chargers (or F125s, or ALP-45DPs if they want) once they're proven. They'd be fine for off-corridor use or VRE run-through, and would be able to keep on-corridor schedules if they perform as advertised.

That said, both MARC and Amtrak are missing the obvious solution: pool ownership of several ACS-64s. Amtrak needs ACS-64s for NEC service, but always buys too few motors for special events. MARC wants quick service between Baltimore and Washington, without the high power prices. Just add red-and-white pinstripes above the blue, and Amtrak logos on the gray.

NH2060 wrote:

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: ...

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.

You make some good points here and I appreciate your logic. Wasn't MARC doing just that - having Amtrak maintain their motors, just like NJT maintains WOH? It worked well until the entire toaster fleet just got old.

Tadman wrote:

NH2060 wrote:

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: ...

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.

You make some good points here and I appreciate your logic. Wasn't MARC doing just that - having Amtrak maintain their motors, just like NJT maintains WOH? It worked well until the entire toaster fleet just got old.

Well from what others have said here that is indeed the case. However one thing to further take into consideration is that in the 1980s a number of commuter rail agencies had multiple types of motive power and rolling stock. Today it appears to be all about homogenizing motive power and rolling stock fleets as much as possible WHILE providing extra fleet flexibility as well.


Now in the case of SEPTA they can do EMUs and ACS-64s and MLVs since their network is completely electric so there is already fleet flexibility factored in there. And with replacement of the Silverliner IVs on the horizon at some point who's to say they're not using this "base" order as a way of gauging the Silverliner Vs vs. newer electric locos + coaches.


For all we know MARC could be using this particular Charger order as a test case for perhaps a somewhat larger procurement; even with a relatively new fleet of MP36s. But even if they aren't that still means that they've got only 2 types of locomotives (the others being the MP36s of course; are there any older Geeps still in service/due for retirement?) that can operate on any of their lines.


Perhaps only if plans to go to DE really pick up steam then having a sizeable electric locomotive fleet strictly for the Penn Line will be considered a good investment by MARC.

NH2060 wrote:...are there any older Geeps still in service/due for retirement?...

The six 6 GP39H-2's are still in service. They were supposed to be sold to a short-line freight railroad originally, when that didn't work out they were supposed to be repowered. Don't know if that's still the case. They're not the most versatile engines since they can only handle trains 3-4 cars long, which are becoming rarer and rarer at MARC.

The MBTA 3 subways and 1 trolley system are all dimensionally different: car width, platform height, tunnel size, allowed turning radius. Which is very unfortunate. Blue was originally designed for trolleys. I've read that all new construction is designed to accommodate the red line (largest) cars someday if they decide to convert the other lines. T's repair facility is not accessible from the NEC / electric, so any electric locomotives would have to be towed. They could subcontract maintenance with Amtrak, but Amtrak's facilities in Boston may be minimal/constrained, so they'd have to tow the locos to Delaware? I suppose they could pool engines with Amtrak. Electric costs in MA are extremely high. Electric locos should be faster, cheaper, more reliable & last longer than diesel and require less maintenance...don't seem to be any cheaper.

What does Amtrak charge for overhead electricity?

Is this how the HHP-8 debacle began? Buying a new and untested product, then simply prey it works? How'd that work out?

The Board of Public Works has approved the purchase of the 8 diesel engines. http://mta.maryland.gov/board-public-wo ... ocomotives" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Board of Public Works yesterday approved the Maryland Department of Transportation’s contract to purchase eight new diesel locomotives for MARC Train service. The $58.1 million contract was awarded to Siemens Industry, Inc., and will enable the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) to enter into a cost-effective cooperative purchasing agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation to replace older electric locomotives. By entering into this intergovernmental agreement, Maryland can purchase the locomotives at a volume discount.

Purchasing diesel locomotives also was necessary since MTA was informed last year that Amtrak no longer will maintain MARC’s electric locomotives effective July 2016. Amtrak, which has maintained MARC’s electric fleet since 1983, is retiring its electric fleet and no longer will carry the parts to maintain these locomotives. MTA will maintain its electric locomotives beginning in July 2016 until the new diesel fleet arrives in the fall of 2017.

Poorly worded by accident? Or intentional misinformation?

That might be the date when Amtrak's Hippos go off lease and possibly return to BBD.

srepetsk wrote:The Board of Public Works has approved the purchase of the 8 diesel engines. http://mta.maryland.gov/board-public-wo ... ocomotives" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Board of Public Works yesterday approved the Maryland Department of Transportation’s contract to purchase eight new diesel locomotives for MARC Train service. The $58.1 million contract was awarded to Siemens Industry, Inc., and will enable the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) to enter into a cost-effective cooperative purchasing agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation to replace older electric locomotives. By entering into this intergovernmental agreement, Maryland can purchase the locomotives at a volume discount.

So any fleet commonality excuses for eliminating electrics are out the window. MARC now has MP36's, GP3's, and will have Chargers to replace electric motors soon. mmkay.... Good thing the nearest charger maintenance base is in Chicago, so they'll have to totally outfit a new shop as compared to having an ACS maintained under contract nearby on the NEC.

Nothing sense makes here... We keep hearing justifications of the latest flavor of the month plan that contradict the last justification.

any local shop will do as far as regular maintenance, maybe heavy overhaul of Cummins engine will be done in Chicago, but even those can be done with overhaul kits in local shop.

I get that a local shop can do the maintenance, but that requires the staff to undergo training and stock a large parts inventory. If they bought ACS64's, you already have a staff that is training to fix those and a parts inventory.

MARC doesn't have staff for electrics - the maintenance on what they owned has been performed by Amtrak, Amtrak has been raising the charges for this service to the point that MARC wants out. MARC (Bombardier) does have personnel that are able to maintain diesel-electrics, no matter the manufacturer.

An official explanation from a MARC representative on the purchase of the Chargers vs. ACS-64s:

“What constrains us the most is that only one of our three lines is electrified. Of the 22 trainsets we put out for operations each day, only six can be fulfilled with electric locomotives. Therefore, our need is primarily for diesels as they are the most versatile for our operations.

“Also, there are no electric locomotive options on the current contracts. If we were to issue our own spec, regardless of locomotive type, it would be for eight or so locomotives depending on cost. The procurement would not benefit from the economies of scale that piggybacking allows. Therefore, with a fixed amount of available funding, we would not be able to buy as many locomotives as we need.”

There's also a mention of the future of the HHP-8s pending their reliability after an improvement program.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mec ... scape.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;