# The AEM7 replacement



## frequentflyer (Oct 26, 2009)

Ok, Amtrak can rehab the AEM7s for so long, what are the "real" plans for the NEC motive power needs for the future? We all know in Amtrak's wants to order more Acelas. There was talk of the new generation Acelas bumping the current Acelas to Regional, do not know if thats still the plan.

Will more HHPs be ordered or have Bombardier shredded the plans for the early problem prone beast?

Or is a fresh design being looked at? What about those new electric EMDs one of the New York /NJ commuter agencies received?


----------



## wayman (Oct 26, 2009)

frequentflyer said:


> Ok, Amtrak can rehab the AEM7s for so long, what are the "real" plans for the NEC motive power needs for the future? We all know in Amtrak's wants to order more Acelas. There was talk of the new generation Acelas bumping the current Acelas to Regional, do not know if thats still the plan.
> Will more HHPs be ordered or have Bombardier shredded the plans for the early problem prone beast?
> 
> Or is a fresh design being looked at? What about those new electric EMDs one of the New York /NJ commuter agencies received?


Moreover, what will we call them? The AEM7s are "toasters". Will they get replaced with "toaster ovens"? :lol: "Waffle irons"? :unsure: "Stand mixers"?


----------



## cpamtfan (Oct 26, 2009)

They've been looking at the ALP46s, but thats mainly because NJT plans on getting more lolos from there so it would be easier to order.


----------



## jis (Oct 26, 2009)

cpamtfan said:


> They've been looking at the ALP46s, but thats mainly because NJT plans on getting more lolos from there so it would be easier to order.


NJT is acquiring ALP-46As which internally are very different beasts from the ALP-46s, but externally look very similar.

Amtrak has new electric engines on its wish list for the next couple of years, but beyond that I am not aware of any specific decisions about what they may or may not get. I guess appropriation of money for the same by Congress is the gating factor at present.


----------



## frequentflyer (Oct 26, 2009)

Why wouldn't Amtrak stick to what it knows, order more HHPs? Acela, and HHPs, retire the AEM7s, and simplify the mx and parts logistics.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 26, 2009)

Between the fact that the HHP's have had their problems, coupled with the fact that they'd have to pay to set up the assembly line again, they'd probably look at something else instead. Like the NJT ALP's, which are currently in production and therefore could be gotten more cheaply than having Bombardier setup the HHP line again.

Not to mention that the HHP is now 10+ year old technology.


----------



## wrjensen (Oct 26, 2009)

I thought there is a RFP for new electric Locos out on the street? Or Did I dream that?


----------



## Acela150 (Oct 26, 2009)

According to a friend in the purchasing department of Amtrak. Amtrak has ruled out more HHP-8's due to the problems that have come up in the past 10 years.

Yes there is a RFP out for them. I will try to get some info for you guys and gals.

Stephen


----------



## AlanB (Oct 26, 2009)

*AMTRAK RFP* - found on APTA web site:

*PURCHASE OF AC PROPULSION ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES*

*RFP# X-063-9168-001*
​


*INTRODUCTION:*

Amtrak intends to issue a competitive Request for Proposal for a qualified vendor to provide the design, manufacture and delivery of twenty (20) Electric Locomotives with AC Propulsion (IGBT) technology, with an option for Amtrak to purchase up to an additional forty (40) electric locomotives. The locomotives will operate at revenue service speeds of 125 MPH on Amtraks Northeast Corridor track between Boston and Washington, DC, as well as between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, using the existing traction power system and track infrastructure. (The maximum design speed is 135 MPH). The locomotives will be used as a general purpose passenger locomotive suitable for high speed, commuter, (including push-pull), and heavy long distance trains. The Electric Locomotives will provide sufficient horsepower to provide continuous 125 mph operation when used in a train consist of one (1) locomotive and eighteen (18) cars.

The anticipated dates for procurement and award of Request for Proposal #X-063-9168-001 are as follows:

*TASKS: ANTICIPATED DATES:*

Amtrak issues RFP Week of June 22, 2009

Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting July 20, 2009; 9:00 a.m., Amtrak, Philadelphia, PA

Due Date for submission of written proposals October 20, 2009

Oral Presentation from Short-Listed Companies Week of November 16, 2009

Contract Award Week of March 29, 2010

Notice to Proceed Week of May 3, 2010

Amtrak, at its sole discretion and without discussion, will determine which vendors are to be added to its bid list. *ONLY* vendors that can meet the minimum qualifications listed below should E-MAIL or MAIL a request for the Request for Proposal Package on company letterhead to:

Mr. Kevin Parkhurst

Principal Contracting Officer

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

30th & Market Streets, 5th Floor, Box 12

Philadelphia, PA 19104

E-Mail: (deleted fcor OTOL posting)

*QUALIFICATIONS:*

Qualification of vendors will be based on a demonstration of:

Relevant experience with design, manufacture and delivery of rail passenger electric locomotive projects which have already been successfully completed, or which are currently in progress.

Proven project management, quality assurance, warranty support, field support and rail industry innovation.

Financial resources/capability.

REQUESTS FOR THE RFP PACKAGE MUST BE RECEIVED BY AMTRAK NOT LATER THAN 2:00 P.M., JULY 10, 2009 AND COMPLETED RFP PACKAGE MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AMTRAK NOT LATER THAN THE TIME AND DATE ESTABLISHED AS THE DUE DATE WHICH IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR 2:00 P.M., OCTOBER 20, 2009. ANY REQUEST NOT RECEIVED BY 2:00 P.M. ON JULY 10, 2009 MAY NOT BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION.

(DURHAM / BRUSS)


----------



## battalion51 (Oct 27, 2009)

Interesting stuff. I mean I guess it's a good thing that Amtrak is starting to look towards the future while times are good. My concern though is that they've just poured a whole bunch of money into upgrading the AEM-7s. Is Amtrak looking for more fleet flexibility or to be able to put two ponies on more trains for reliability reasons. Is it possible that they may try to sell some of the AEM-7s off to operators like MARC and SLE? Or is this part of the push for downstate Virginia electric service?


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> Interesting stuff. I mean I guess it's a good thing that Amtrak is starting to look towards the future while times are good. My concern though is that they've just poured a whole bunch of money into upgrading the AEM-7s. Is Amtrak looking for more fleet flexibility or to be able to put two ponies on more trains for reliability reasons. Is it possible that they may try to sell some of the AEM-7s off to operators like MARC and SLE? Or is this part of the push for downstate Virginia electric service?


I think they will put the DC AEM-7s (the originals) out to pasture. They have become too unreliable for use by anyone. I think the ACs (the ones that got upgraded with the AC propulsion pack) will last another 5 years or so. One has to realize that these engines are used extremely intensively.


----------



## frequentflyer (Oct 27, 2009)

The RFP looks like it describes the new NJT ALP46s to a tee. Though I do not believe the 1 ALP46 can pull 18 car trains such as the Silver service. They want HHP like pull in a more reliable platform. But why only 40 if Amtrak needs to replace some 50 AEM7s?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 27, 2009)

frequentflyer said:


> The RFP looks like it describes the new NJT ALP46s to a tee. Though I do not believe the 1 ALP46 can pull 18 car trains such as the Silver service. They want HHP like pull in a more reliable platform. But why only 40 if Amtrak needs to replace some 50 AEM7s?


20 + 40 means that if Amtrak execises all options, 50 AEM-7s will be replaced by 60 new electric locomotives. The HHP-8 is still runnable, although I would not care to guess for how long, and the AEM-7ACs are good enough to last a while. The AEM-7DCs will, according to an Amtrak report, become Cabbages.

Currently we have:

20 AEM-7DC

29 AEM-7AC

14 HHP-8

Total: 63 electric locomotives.

If all options are exercised, we will have:

20 NEC-compatible Cabbage cars,

60 new Electric Locomotives

29 AEM-7ACs

14 HHP-8s

Total: 103 electric locomotives.

This would produce an expansion of the fleet by 40 units. But its more then that. Those 20 AEM-7 DCs are extremely unreliable. According to Amtrak, the engine availibility of the AEM-7DC is only 58.6%, the AEM-7AC is 73.2%, and the HHP-8 is 71.8%.

That means that Amtrak has, realistically at any one time:

11 AEM-7DC

21 AEM-7AC

10 HHP-8AC

Or a total of 42 locomotives availible. Now, if we were to assume that Amtrak bought ALP-46s (not the As, since we don't know how reliable they are) and maintained them to NJ Transit standards, the ALP-46 locomtives would be availible 86.7% of the time, and 60 of them would create 52 availible locotmotives, a gain of 10 and that's with scrapping the entire fleet immediately. If they left the AEM-7AC and HHP-8 locomotives in there, they'd have 83 locomotives availible on a daily basis.

Translation: ordering 60 electrics and scrapping the DCs could potentially double Amtraks availaible electric locomotive fleet.


----------



## Neil_M (Oct 27, 2009)

frequentflyer said:


> The RFP looks like it describes the new NJT ALP46s to a tee. Though I do not believe the 1 ALP46 can pull 18 car trains such as the Silver service. They want HHP like pull in a more reliable platform. But why only 40 if Amtrak needs to replace some 50 AEM7s?



How often do the existing NEC electrics pull 18 coaches?


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2009)

Is it possible that the options have been put in there anticipating extension of electrification to Richmond in the next 5 years?


----------



## AAARGH! (Oct 27, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > The RFP looks like it describes the new NJT ALP46s to a tee. Though I do not believe the 1 ALP46 can pull 18 car trains such as the Silver service. They want HHP like pull in a more reliable platform. But why only 40 if Amtrak needs to replace some 50 AEM7s?
> ...


I would think rarely. BUT if they need to rescue a train, it might be needed.


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2009)

AAARGH! said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > How often do the existing NEC electrics pull 18 coaches?
> ...


I wonder where they will find platforms to hold all of those 18 coaches. Maybe a couple in New York and Washington?


----------



## Acela150 (Oct 27, 2009)

Dates were pushed back due to confusion and many questions from bidders.

Stephen


----------



## Neil_M (Oct 27, 2009)

AAARGH! said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > frequentflyer said:
> ...


True, but pushing a failed train is unlikely to be at 125mph.


----------



## AAARGH! (Oct 27, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> AAARGH! said:
> 
> 
> > Neil_M said:
> ...


It was a thought....


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Oct 27, 2009)

AAARGH! said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > AAARGH! said:
> ...


My guess would be they are just setting themselves up to have a little padding. They might never use an 18 car consist, but they would like to know they have it.

Only thing I can figure would be if some new Viewliner Equipment you could see the LD trains growing in length. Then they would loose the heritage equipment allowing them to go faster.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Oct 27, 2009)

jis said:


> AAARGH! said:
> 
> 
> > Neil_M said:
> ...


:lol: The new metropark platforms would come pretty close to holding an 18 car train I would think. Although it might just be deceptive since MET is on a curve.


----------



## Murjax (Oct 27, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Only thing I can figure would be if some new Viewliner Equipment you could see the LD trains growing in length. Then they would loose the heritage equipment allowing them to go faster.


Don't Viewliners also contribute to the speed restriction? They don't look very aerodynamic.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 28, 2009)

Murjax said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > Only thing I can figure would be if some new Viewliner Equipment you could see the LD trains growing in length. Then they would loose the heritage equipment allowing them to go faster.
> ...


Aerodynamics have nothing whatsoever to do with it. the issue is the trucks and the general structural integrity of the cars. The Viewliner trucks aren't rated for 125, although the same trucks can do 125 under the ex-metroliner cab-cars, so its probably simply a rating thing and could be dealt with easily. The Heritage diners are literally falling apart. Add 15 mph to the speed they are hauled at and it happens even faster.


----------



## battalion51 (Oct 28, 2009)

It's got a lot more to do with the entire car, not just where steel meets steel. You've got structural integrity, crashworthiness, and a whole host of other issues.


----------



## VT Hokie (Oct 28, 2009)

Amtrak recently released an interim report on long range NEC improvement plans, and it discussed new equipment. Unfortunately, since Amtrak redid its website, the link that I had for the report is now dead.

The report gave the impression, though, that Amtrak will not order additional Acela equipment, and instead wants a next generation HST with higher curve speeds and a higher top speed capability (180 - 200 mph). The report did mention the Acela's width and truck stability issues as limiting factors for maximum cant deficiency on curves.


----------



## acelafan (Oct 28, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Amtrak recently released an interim report on long range NEC improvement plans, and it discussed new equipment. Unfortunately, since Amtrak redid its website, the link that I had for the report is now dead.
> The report gave the impression, though, that Amtrak will not order additional Acela equipment, and instead wants a next generation HST with higher curve speeds and a higher top speed capability (180 - 200 mph). The report did mention the Acela's width and truck stability issues as limiting factors for maximum cant deficiency on curves.


I think you want the Interim Assessment of Achieving Improved Trip Times on the Northeast Corridor - PRIIA Section 212 (d)

Another report on the NEC is Northeast Corridor State of Good Repair Spend Plan - PRIIA Section 211

Both are on the "News & Media" page (click on "Reports & Documents" on the left side menu.)


----------



## VT Hokie (Oct 28, 2009)

acelafan said:


> I think you want the Interim Assessment of Achieving Improved Trip Times on the Northeast Corridor - PRIIA Section 212 (d)


That's it, thanks!


----------



## acelafan (Oct 28, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> acelafan said:
> 
> 
> > I think you want the Interim Assessment of Achieving Improved Trip Times on the Northeast Corridor - PRIIA Section 212 (d)
> ...


Sure! I enjoyed reading them - one can hope all the $$ comes in to make the improvements, but the report does have a few upbeat parts in talking about past work on the NEC:

"Each round of investment made significant improvements in the physical condition of the NEC that has benefited all users. Signaling and control have been centralized, allowing the replacement of aging mechanically operated interlocking plants with modern facilities. All of the modern equipment needed for higher speed service, such as cab signals and automatic train stop, is in service. Positive train control is installed on the segments of the Amtrak-owned routes where trains exceed 125 mph, and Amtrak intends to install it on Amtrak owned and operated portions of the main line and branch lines by the end of 2012. Continuous welded rail and concrete ties have replaced jointed rail and wooden ties, allowing for improved ride quality, higher speeds and lower maintenance costs."

"Despite aging components, the NEC is still the most modern and up-to-date railroad in the United States. Much of the track structure has been upgraded over the past decade; undergrade bridges have been re-decked and curves have been elevated, among other improvements, that permit higher speeds and improved ride quality while contributing to lower operating costs."


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Oct 28, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > AAARGH! said:
> ...


I assumed the 18 car rating was mainly due to the lack of track slots to put new trains in, growth as to be in length not frequency because of this. NEC trains used to be no more than 6 cars long, now 8, 10, and occasionally 12 is the norm.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 30, 2009)

According to a discussion I had with an Amtrak official that I won't name, but will describe as extremely tall and generally large in size with big teeth, Amtrak does not have any serious plans to retire the Amfleets within the next 10-15 year time period. They are considering acquiring some additional higher-speed new cars to supplement (and perhaps displace) some from the Corridor itself, but he described the likely hood of that happening as "remote".

Given their acceptable top speed, the sheer number of cars they have, the amount of money they are putting into them, and the amount of money it would require to acquire about 400-450 rail cars with limited intended life, and Amtrak's overall plans, it just doesn't make any sense. Amtrak wants to electrify to Richmond.

They're overall dream is to acquire a pair of tracks alongside the CSX ROW, straighten where possible, and electrify the thing with high platforms the entire way. To put it differently, the intention is to have the core corridor be BOS-RVR, and running with high speed trainsets. The Amfleets and any successors to them need to have traps, to serve the numerous low-level platforms along the Northeast, Keystone, and Empire corridors, as well as a possibility (and we are talking long, long term here), of running a corridor from New York to Buffalo via Dover, Scranton, and Binghamton. I.E. the old DLW line- the Cutoff that NJT is rebuilding. NJT is gonna run trains to Scranton, New York and Pennsylvania have shown interest in helping to fund a New York-Buffalo corridor under those circumstances.

Since these theoretical Amfleet replacements would need traps to serve the NEC as it currently stands, they would have to be limited to 125 mph. More then that and you go to FRA tier II and you need trapless construction. What he said was that the intention was to work on improving the infrastructure to the point where the core Northeast Corridor, as well as the Keystone and perhaps Empire corridors, could be served by tier II equipment, at which point Amtrak would start asking congress for that kind of equipment, which is easier to sell since it is faster.

Given these plans, any Amfleet replacement would, by its very nature, be temporary, and thus make very little sense economically. The impression I got was that if they did order Amfleet replacement equipment, it would be something off the shelf and easily resold. I got the impression that NJT/AMT multi-levels would be likely if they had to do that, but more likely of the still only-on-the-drawing board Arrow IV Multi-Level variety, which are Bombardiers plans for EMUs based on the Multi-level coaches.

All of that is subject to change, but what the contact said was that, equipmentwise, short/medium distance single-level 125mph trap-equipped coaches are about last on the priority. Intended NEC capacity increases is going to come from freeing up such cars from duties where other cars can do the job- i.e. California-car style bi-levels.


----------



## jis (Oct 30, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> All of that is subject to change, but what the contact said was that, equipmentwise, short/medium distance single-level 125mph trap-equipped coaches are about last on the priority. Intended NEC capacity increases is going to come from freeing up such cars from duties where other cars can do the job- i.e. California-car style bi-levels.


... And hence the desire to acquire 130 bi-level corridor cars, so that they can be used to release all the single level Amfleets to be shipped back east.

I suppose the issue of Amfleet II shortage when they get to expand eastern LDs is a separate one.


----------



## frequentflyer (Oct 30, 2009)

Makes sense for the Amfleet cars, but what does your source say about the AEM7 replacement? Does the ALPs have the inside track? Especially if they are serious about electrifying the Richmond corridor, they do not have enough electrics for that.

So in Amtrak's mind the STL-CHI, DET-CHI,MIL-CHI corridors would use Surfliner like equipment? Would Amtrak use Genesis locomotives with these sets, it would not be aesthetically pleasing. Hasn't EMD stop making the type of locomotive the Surfliner uses? MP makes a good motor that Metra and Caltran uses.


----------



## battalion51 (Oct 30, 2009)

EMD pulled the F59PHI from their catalog at least 5 years ago. IIRC among the last units built were for TRE. The sales for the units never came to fruition as they expected. The largest single user of passenger engines in the country is Amtrak, and if they're not buying from you there's a very limited market. Many of the Commuter agencies have been purchasing second hand engines that have been retired in recent years. As far as new fleets for the mid-west goes, I honestly don't think the aesthetics of matching motors to the height of the cars is high on the priority list. The P-42's still have another 10 years of life on them at minimum, not to mention you have some P-40's that have been sitting dormant for the better part of 6 years. Use what you've got before you start going out and buying new stuff.


----------



## frequentflyer (Oct 30, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> EMD pulled the F59PHI from their catalog at least 5 years ago. IIRC among the last units built were for TRE. The sales for the units never came to fruition as they expected. The largest single user of passenger engines in the country is Amtrak, and if they're not buying from you there's a very limited market. Many of the Commuter agencies have been purchasing second hand engines that have been retired in recent years. As far as new fleets for the mid-west goes, I honestly don't think the aesthetics of matching motors to the height of the cars is high on the priority list. The P-42's still have another 10 years of life on them at minimum, not to mention you have some P-40's that have been sitting dormant for the better part of 6 years. Use what you've got before you start going out and buying new stuff.


If that only was the case, then the Surfliner would be using those Genesis that are sitting around. Genesis would be on the Sounder in the Northwest or North Carolina's 403b train. Since the states will be financing this you can sure bet they want something that screams fast or chic.


----------



## battalion51 (Oct 30, 2009)

My point is valid for the supposed new fleet that is to be going into the mid-west. Assuming that the states aren't paying for the capital expenditure (which I'm assuming they won't) they can take what they get. They want to throw down the bucks for some new motors, parts, and training, sure, buy whatever you want.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 31, 2009)

jis said:


> ... And hence the desire to acquire 130 bi-level corridor cars, so that they can be used to release all the single level Amfleets to be shipped back east.
> I suppose the issue of Amfleet II shortage when they get to expand eastern LDs is a separate one.


What I gathered was that Viewliner II coach cars are a long-term desire, but in the short term setting up Amfleet Is to supplement the Amfleet IIs as cars for short-haul, quick turn-over passengers would work the problem fairly nicely. Not ideally, but the Amfleets aren't ideal long-haul cars, Is or IIs.



frequentflyer said:


> Makes sense for the Amfleet cars, but what does your source say about the AEM7 replacement? Does the ALPs have the inside track?


I didn't have a news interview. I had a 10 minute private conversation with the man. I personally am not interested in the AEM-7 replacement. Either they are gonna buy ALP derivatives or they are going to spend a fortune developing a boondoggle. With Boardman in charge, I'd suspect the former- he's pretty practical, but its not all in his hands, of course. Either way, I didn't discuss it.


----------



## wrjensen (Nov 2, 2009)

Interesting from the "FY2010-2014 FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN":

_Another item in our short term fleet plan is the conversion of our current AEM-7 locomotives. As_

_mentioned above, we will be procuring 20 new electric locomotives to replace the outdated DC_

_locomotives that are in use today. As they are taken out of service, Amtrak plans to convert these_

_locomotives to cab cars, removing the power function and returning them to service as baggage /_

_cab cars._

Looks like they will use the old AEM-7 as cabbages. Other then the Keystone what other NEC train would need a Cab car?


----------



## wrjensen (Nov 2, 2009)

jis said:


> Is it possible that the options have been put in there anticipating extension of electrification to Richmond in the next 5 years?


There were two studies done on the Richmond to DC line. One was to increases capacity (add a third track) and a second to wire the line. the cost was in the 600-800 million for each project (total around $1.5 B). They seem to decide to increase the capacity and speed (up to 110 MPH) before they thing about electrification.

Here the link to the summary report:

http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/projects/wash...oncorridor.aspx

The Third Track, Franconia Hill ( AF-Ravensworth-Fairfax County), is under progress (have moved the 2 line to the center and about to add the 3rd line. 66/67 are not running south of Washington so they can add the track this week.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 2, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> Interesting from the "FY2010-2014 FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN":
> _Another item in our short term fleet plan is the conversion of our current AEM-7 locomotives. As_
> 
> _mentioned above, we will be procuring 20 new electric locomotives to replace the outdated DC_
> ...


Once converted to cabages, it doesn't matter where they are used. It doesn't have to be the NEC, they can go anywhere since they won't be drawing power from an overhead wire.

So they could land on the Keystones, the Downeaster, Michigan services, Hiawathas, Springfield shuttles, or where ever Amtrak deems appropriate.


----------



## Shotgun7 (Nov 2, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> Interesting from the "FY2010-2014 FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN":
> _Another item in our short term fleet plan is the conversion of our current AEM-7 locomotives. As_
> 
> _mentioned above, we will be procuring 20 new electric locomotives to replace the outdated DC_
> ...


It's not cab cars they need, it's baggage cars (especially useful on 66/67, Pennsylvanian, Adirondack, Vermonter to name a few). But seeing as how there's already cabs on these units, there's no reason not to make it into a cabbage, especially if it means you can save the time it would take to either turn the whole train or transfer the engine to the opposite side of the consist.


----------



## wrjensen (Nov 2, 2009)

AlanB said:


> wrjensen said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting from the "FY2010-2014 FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN":
> ...


I think it would be funny to see on on the heartland flyer


----------



## VT Hokie (Nov 2, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > wrjensen said:
> ...


Would look something like this!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?...0942&nseq=1

Sounds to me like Amtrak is looking to retire the Metroliner cab cars. I'll be sad to see 'em go!


----------



## MattW (Nov 2, 2009)

It'll definitely be interesting to see these locomotives outside of Electrified territory! Who knows? If they run a day train to Atlanta from the NE, we might see them down here  Though there is a WYE not too far out of the current station and if the Beltline goes to HSR, then the track is such the train will just loop...


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 2, 2009)

Well there's nothing that said these cabbages couldn't be used as baggage cars on lines that would do low volume but it'd be a great service to have. A service like the Pennsylvanian immediately comes to mind. What will be interesting to see is how these are weighed down in comparison to how the F-40's were done. One of the issues with the F-40's is that when you pull out all the diesel components you lose a ton of weight. You have to compensate for this somehow so they don't just bounce off the rails.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 3, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Sounds to me like Amtrak is looking to retire the Metroliner cab cars. I'll be sad to see 'em go!


No. They need more cabbages for other routes, like New Haven.


----------



## DET63 (Nov 3, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> Interesting from the "FY2010-2014 FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN":
> _Another item in our short term fleet plan is the conversion of our current AEM-7 locomotives. As_
> 
> _mentioned above, we will be procuring 20 new electric locomotives to replace the outdated DC_
> ...


As others have pointed out, the use of old "Meatballs" or "Toasters" as "cabbages" would have nothing to do with where they originally ran, since they wouldn't be power units anymore. But the food imagery that converting the AEM-7s might generate...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 3, 2009)

I suspect that the New Haven trains will get the ex-Metroliners (as well as some Albany trains, and maybe even a few NYP-WAS regionals. It would allow for faster turning.) The Cabbages will probably go to trains that need baggage service as well as cab cars AND access to Penn.


----------



## acelafan (Nov 3, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Would look something like this!
> http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?...0942&nseq=1
> 
> Sounds to me like Amtrak is looking to retire the Metroliner cab cars. I'll be sad to see 'em go!


Looking at that pic, it looks like there is some sort of blue material covering the horns on the upper right part of the locomotive. Any guesses what that is and if it is a common practice?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Nov 3, 2009)

> Looking at that pic, it looks like there is some sort of blue material covering the horns on the upper right part of the locomotive. Any guesses what that is and if it is a common practice?


those are snow covers to keep snow out of Airhorns .


----------



## acelafan (Nov 3, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> > Looking at that pic, it looks like there is some sort of blue material covering the horns on the upper right part of the locomotive. Any guesses what that is and if it is a common practice?
> 
> 
> those are snow covers to keep snow out of Airhorns .


Easy enough! Thanks.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 3, 2009)

To answer the other part of the question, yes they are very common. Some are metal, others are more of the tarpish material like NJT uses. I think at one point Amtrak was just leaving these on year round on the engines since it's in a weird place on the engine that's hard to access.


----------



## DET63 (Nov 3, 2009)

acelafan said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Would look something like this!
> ...


Er, from the perspective of the locomotive, the horns would be on the upper *left* part.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 4, 2009)

It's on the fireman's side. Who cares?


----------

