# Converting the AEM-7's to cabbages



## Northeastern292 (Jun 15, 2016)

For the last couple of weeks I've been looking over plans that I've gone over in my head for improving Amtrak service across the country taking current equipment limitations into account.

The pros:

1) Decreases costs associated with labor (turning a train takes a bit of time).

2) Checked baggage on the NEC outside of the ex-Night Owl trains (65, 66 & 67)

3) Recently NCDOT (from what I heard from a fellow NARP member) is now running the Piedmonts with locomotives on either end. Might be better to run them with just another locomotive.

I know there's issues with this idea

1) Old habits die hard. Amtrak is used to turning trains at WAS and BOS (I don't know whee the wye's are in both cities) and NYP (through the Sunnyside loop).

2) Lack of desire. An AEM-7 is worth money as beer cans (to borrow an airline industry expression)

3) Seats don't turn on the Amfleets (at least on most of the rebuilds). They should, but don't. I don't know how they do Acela layovers. I could be wrong.

Thoughts? Comments?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 15, 2016)

Northeastern292 said:


> For the last couple of weeks I've been looking over plans that I've gone over in my head for improving Amtrak service across the country taking current equipment limitations into account.
> 
> The pros:
> 
> 1) Decreases costs associated with labor (turning a train takes a bit of time).


How so? Assuming you're talking about the corridor, it doesn't take a great deal of time since Amtrak controls access. Additionally, the labor is the same since you'd still need a crew to take it to the mechanical facility, which is where most trains are turned. Additionally, now you need mechanical personnel to perform inspections on the cabbage since it would still be considered a locomotive.



Northeastern292 said:


> 2) Checked baggage on the NEC outside of the ex-Night Owl trains (65, 66 & 67)


This may be a moot point. There a few regional trains that are under consideration for baggage cars. It will be determined by the state of the heritage bags. Even if that plan doesn't come to fruition, it hardly seems worth the cost to maintain another specialized fleet to haul a few bags.



Northeastern292 said:


> 3) Recently NCDOT (from what I heard from a fellow NARP member) is now running the Piedmonts with locomotives on either end. Might be better to run them with just another locomotive.


Piedmont's are diesels, so they need proper pointing. That's the beauty of the electric fleet. They don't need pointing since they have dual cabs. You can run around the train if you so desire, which minimizes the need for cabbages.



Northeastern292 said:


> I know there's issues with this idea
> 
> 1) Old habits die hard. Amtrak is used to turning trains at WAS and BOS (I don't know whee the wye's are in both cities) and NYP (through the Sunnyside loop).


Actually, turning most of the trains is not an old habit. Up until the closed the dump in the upper level in WAS, it was not uncommon for a train to come in, add a motor to the other end, uncouple from the previous motor and the train would turn right in the station. Once the train left, the previous motor would leave the track and repeat the process on other trains. This practice still occurs in WAS on occasion, especially on weekends if the train doesn't need dumping or watering.

It was quite common for trains in NYP to arrive and the motor would run around the train in the station.

However, as facilities become crowded with commuter traffic, this left little space for a train to hog valuable real estate. It also represented a duplication of facilities. As such, there isn't much call for a train to need push pull since they tend to dwell.

Another factor is the the tracks that are used to turn trains also contain the car washes. Chances are, the train is going out there at some point.



Northeastern292 said:


> 2) Lack of desire. An AEM-7 is worth money as beer cans (to borrow an airline industry expression)


Why should Amtrak desire to keep 30+ year old engines with millions of miles and failing/rusting bodies that leak in service when they just bought new engines? Just because it is cabbage doesn't mean it isn't still a locomotive. Therefore, it must be maintained and inspected as such. This represents a major expense. There isn't much need for another fleet of NPCU in the Amtrak system to make any long term investment in converting these units to cabbages. That is why Amtrak backed off their initial proposal to turn some of them into cabbages. It isn't worth the cost or investment.

The AEM-7s aren't being retired just for the heck of it. They are tired and worn out. Finding parts for it is a challenge. Even if you take out the traction motors, the bodies are still beat up and leaking. Some of them couldn't even handle the car wash because they'd take in too much water and components would have trouble.



Northeastern292 said:


> 3) Seats don't turn on the Amfleets (at least on most of the rebuilds). They should, but don't. I don't know how they do Acela layovers. I could be wrong.


I'm not sure where you're getting the seats don't turn. They turn on the Amfleets and they turn on the Acela sets.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 16, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> The AEM-7s aren't being retired just for the heck of it. They are tired and worn out. Finding parts for it is a challenge. Even if you take out the traction motors, the bodies are still beat up and leaking. Some of them couldn't even handle the car wash because they'd take in too much water and components would have trouble.


I don't actually think the AEM-7s should be converted to Cabbages.

But to play Devil's Advocate with the above statement:

You won't need many parts for a baggage as the conversion would strip out traction motors, switchgear, transformers, converter cabinets, pantographs, breakers, much of the cabling etc etc.

These are also the most valuable parts in terms of scrap (because of the copper), maybe 90% of the overal scrap value, so basically Amtrak could walk away with the cash for scrap but still have a usable bodyshell to play about with.

All that would be left to maintain in terms of electrics would be the cabs and control circuitry, which could also easily be replaced by something modern.

Where I see a bigger issue would be in cutting holes for the baggage doors. The body sides of the AEM7 play a much larger role in the overall load bearing and structural integrity than did the FP40's. Think of it like a truss bridge with all the diagonal members that assure the stiffness and integrity. If you cut out a couple of those the bridge will be heavily weakened. This is where I think the above proiposal breaks down. It would call for quite heavy re-enginnering of the structure which would not make sense on such an old locomotive.

And then of course there are the arguments around operational needs as described by others.


----------



## Northeastern292 (Jun 16, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> > For the last couple of weeks I've been looking over plans that I've gone over in my head for improving Amtrak service across the country taking current equipment limitations into account.
> ...





cirdan said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > The AEM-7s aren't being retired just for the heck of it. They are tired and worn out. Finding parts for it is a challenge. Even if you take out the traction motors, the bodies are still beat up and leaking. Some of them couldn't even handle the car wash because they'd take in too much water and components would have trouble.
> ...


Okay, makes much more sense. I knew the mechanics of the AEM-7's were worn, but I didn't realize the structural issues as well. I just want to see Amtrak make the most out of their equipment, since I've heard people accuse Amtrak of deliberately throwing out good equipment without re-purposing.


----------



## west point (Jun 16, 2016)

Only a couple reasons this poster could see for making any old AEMs into cabbages.

1. An unplanned sidelining of a major portion of the ACS-64 fleet.

2. An unplanned sudden increase of passenger demand on the NEC requiring quick turns during the day at WASH, NYP, BOS. That way could reverse trains probably in 30 minutes rather than the 2 - 4 hours now done. Would require much more reliable time keeping.


----------



## jis (Jun 16, 2016)

Can't they simply revert back to what they used to do with Metroliners as in unhooking engine at one and and hooking one up at the other end, flip the seats and off they go?

The problem would appear to be a lack of honey wagon service at platforms these days as mentioned by Thirdrail.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 17, 2016)

cirdan said:


> But to play Devil's Advocate with the above statement:
> 
> You won't need many parts for a baggage as the conversion would strip out traction motors, switchgear, transformers, converter cabinets, pantographs, breakers, much of the cabling etc etc.
> 
> ...


Yes....because these cabbages won't have headlights, controls, wheels, rigging and brakes that don't conform to any other vehicle in the fleet that need maintenance, right? 



west point said:


> Only a couple reasons this poster could see for making any old AEMs into cabbages.
> 
> 1. An unplanned sidelining of a major portion of the ACS-64 fleet.


If Amtrak had an unplanned sidelining of the ACS-64 fleet, what good would a cabbage do? What would it control? You'd need an engine...not a cabbage.



> 2. An unplanned sudden increase of passenger demand on the NEC requiring quick turns during the day at WASH, NYP, BOS. That way could reverse trains probably in 30 minutes rather than the 2 - 4 hours now done. Would require much more reliable time keeping.


Then, the obvious solution is what Jis posted:



jis said:


> Can't they simply revert back to what they used to do with Metroliners as in unhooking engine at one and and hooking one up at the other end, flip the seats and off they go?


----------



## west point (Jun 17, 2016)

Another way to solve the honey wagon problem. Why not have ground based drains that are hoses connected to sewer system ? That way hook up hose, activate hose valve and car valve, proceed along train another person follows behind, removes drain hose, attaches and activates recharge system and proceeds. 1st servicer then has returned to 1st car and removes charge hose for each car.

Now with the major renovation of WASH US adding this would be simple. The new Penn south as well. regular NYP & BOS ? ? ?

Since 2 tracks between platforms that would only require maybe 1/2 + 1 facilities for number of tracks.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 17, 2016)

west point said:


> Another way to solve the honey wagon problem. Why not have ground based drains that are hoses connected to sewer system ? That way hook up hose, activate hose valve and car valve, proceed along train another person follows behind, removes drain hose, attaches and activates recharge system and proceeds. 1st servicer then has returned to 1st car and removes charge hose for each car.
> 
> Now with the major renovation of WASH US adding this would be simple. The new Penn south as well. regular NYP & BOS ? ? ?
> 
> Since 2 tracks between platforms that would only require maybe 1/2 + 1 facilities for number of tracks.



OMG!!!! Why hasn't anyone ever thought of that?

Oh...wait. That is EXACTLY what they used to do in WAS when they serviced the trains in the station...until they closed it due to possible ground water contamination when the sewer pipes aged and leaked.

If you make it down to WAS, check the upper level and you'll see the remnants of the operation between the track centers. You can even see the spot lines on a few platforms.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 3, 2016)

who wants their baggae being hauled around the NEC/ Keystone/ NE services in a toaster with a cab?


----------



## Eric S (Jul 3, 2016)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> who wants their baggae being hauled around the NEC/ Keystone/ NE services in a toaster with a cab?


Regardless of the merits or likelihood of AEM7s being converted to cabbages, why would people care if baggage were hauled in one? How is it different, from the perspective of a passenger, from putting bags in a F40 cabbage?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 3, 2016)

The average person riding an intercity train doesn't know or care what equipment is being used to provide the service, they only care about the actual onboard service and the schedule keeping.


----------

