Amtrak ACS-64 Sprinter Discussion

As much as I have my own thoughts and curiousities regarding 601 and 627, I think it is prudent to just wait and see, no point in keeping it going when the real answer as to their fate is still many months off.

DutchRailnut wrote:European versions of this Siemens product have been returned to service with far more damage , repairs at Factory put unit back to as new condition, I am sure even Bear or Wilmington can do job.
question is when can they start, as unit will be impounded till any and all legal claims have been resolved.

Weren't these "repaired" by purchasing three (I think) empty loco hulls from Siemens which were then filled with the electronics etc scavenged from the wrecked locos?

no I am talking about crash damaged and repaired not parts donors.

DutchRailnut wrote:no I am talking about crash damaged and repaired not parts donors.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_E ... f.C3.A4lle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (German-Language) - according to this, three wrecked Taurus were "repaired" by putting salvageable parts into new-build hulls. Two more Taurus have been wrecked (one burnt), but no mention of whether they were repaired or not.

yes but there have been many others , without new loco frames.

ADMIN NOTE:

Please refrain from discussing 601 and 627 outside of CURRENT events, i.e. relocations/moves, and if they're actually being shopped. There's probably only a few people on here "in the know" who, you "know", actually "KNOW".

Onion Autistic Train Reporter

Although I don't intend this as a rebuke and understand it's a sincere question, in all seriousness, the dirt hasn't even settled on the graves yet in the most recent incident, and it's WAY premature on 627.

Please comply.

khecht wrote:Tough to know at this point, really. But the incentive to repair if economically feasible will be higher since it's a newer, largely undepreciated asset. Assuming the repair cost is less than the replacement cost, generally the repair will be done. This is really no different from cars - older cars with significant damage may be "totalled" by the insurer as the repair cost exceeds its current value, whereas newer ones are less likely to be subject to that.

Here's an interesting question: Does Amtrak depreciate their assets? Usually depreciation is an accounting concept to show loss of value due to age and use, which is then applied to the operating income in order to show the loss in value as an offset to the bottom line. That reduces the tax bill for a company like GE or Norfolk Southern. Given that Amtrak is a quasi-governmental entity, do they pay taxes? If not, do they need to depreciate their assets? Obviously most publicly owned passenger carriers operate their equipment far longer than the design life and accounting depreciation has little bearing on the actual life of the asset (read up on MACRS and ACRS if you want to really learn something, or maybe GBN can take the wheel here).

I'm curious but I have no desire to know in relation to 601/627 etc... Let's leave those two alone for now.

I never worked in accounting for a government entity, but they do indeed depreciate:

https://www.sage.com/na/~/media/site/Sa ... unting.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aka the Government Accounting Standards Board.

Let's move on!

Gilbert B Norman wrote:While I should defer to others with better knowledge, there was an instance in which Amtrak (or outside contractor) made two AEM-7's into one. This arose from the "cornfield meet" that occurred atop Hell Gate Bridge circa 1984.

Both of the meatballs 924, and 936 in that accident were repaired and returned to service.

Im with Jeff on this one. Lets drop it. Youre only making it worse for yourself waiting for the final decision on them and bringing it up constantly. Lets move onto more positive topics.

Anybody know if 668 has actually shipped?

Now with the AEM-7s, Amtrak ordered 947-953 later on for service increases, and to replace 900 and 903. Do you think the ACS-64 will be in production long enough of this was to occur again? I understand that at the moment, Amtrak has more than enough motors to cover current operations.

This is always a fine line.

Order equipment you don't need now, but probably will in the future, or save the money and live with the consequences later on?

This is true of any of the recent orders. Would another baggage car or two be prudent, knowing that you will probably lose one or two later on. Sure with a baggage car you can say, "well, in the meantime we'll add baggage service to train X, and terminate it if we need the cars" but harder to do with a locomotive.

But if you buy a locomotive and don't use it much for 5 years, you've wasted money. Sure, you could use it as much as the others and let all sit around a bit more, but again, not necessarily the best move economically.

Technology improvements are also a lot faster for electronics in a locomotive than a baggage car. Though perhaps the leaps in transistor technology is slowing, it is common for parts to be superseded in 6 months. Very hard if you are stocking electrical items. (as I work my way through a stocktake of obselete electrical items)

the ACS-64 line is pretty much on hold, till SEPTA units will be build, if amtrak wanted to make up for lost units they could probably get a deal to add to the Septa units.
maybe not at current price but sure better than if ACS line has to be started for 3th time.