# HHP-8 starting to be retired now?



## edjbox (Apr 24, 2014)

I heard somewhere that several HHP-8s are already out of service and are not being brought back. Someone please explain which units are "out of service", or any other news related to the HHP-8s status.


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 24, 2014)

From what I've heard as the HHP-8s are developing expensive issues to remedy they're just being taken offline rather than sinking money into them. The same is happening with the AEM-7s.


----------



## neroden (Apr 24, 2014)

From poking around certain other forums (railroad dot net) it seems that one HHP-8 has been officially retired.

A few others seem to be sort of sidelined -- officially waiting for repairs, but will probably never run again. I think they're waiting to retire them until the bugs are worked out of the ACS-64s, just in case they need to press them back into service.

The one which was officially retired must have been in extra specially bad shape.


----------



## ACS-64 (Apr 24, 2014)

The 652, 656, and 658 are on social security if you know what I mean.


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 24, 2014)

Has anyone heard what will be done with the numbering situation when ACS 650 comes out? Will that mark the end for the HHP-8s or will they get renumbered like the Turbos did when the P-42s were coming out?


----------



## ACS-64 (Apr 24, 2014)

battalion51 said:


> Has anyone heard what will be done with the numbering situation when ACS 650 comes out? Will that mark the end for the HHP-8s or will they get renumbered like the Turbos did when the P-42s were coming out?


re# to 680-694


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 24, 2014)

I doubt there will be single Fast Flying Phallus in service when they get to 650.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Apr 24, 2014)

Something like the SDP40F?


----------



## brentrain17 (Apr 24, 2014)

*found farewell to both the AEM-7s and the HHP-8s hope to see them once in a while*


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 24, 2014)

Yes the HHP-8 are getting retired early. However any motor that gets a major issue will be sidelined first, follow by the HHP-8. The Hippo's were a intermediate technological advancement. Some new and old stuff by two different builders. The new ACS-64 are new technologic advances from a proven designs from Europe by one builder.

Bugs will happen, however everyone seem happy so far.


----------



## edjbox (Apr 24, 2014)

How fast are the acs64s being delivered? It takes time to be pressed into service. If more hhp8s break down, could there be a shortage?


----------



## afigg (Apr 24, 2014)

edjbox said:


> How fast are the acs64s being delivered? It takes time to be pressed into service. If more hhp8s break down, could there be a shortage?


The ACS-64s are reportedly to be built at a rate of 3 per month. The production deliveries have been stalled or intermittent while Amtrak and Siemens were working on fixes and tweaks for the delivered units. #611 is on its way east, if it has not arrived at WAS already. According to a post at rr.net, there is a backlog of more ACS-64s at the Sacramento plant almost ready to ship.

Amtrak has dealt with shortages of working electric locomotives before by running diesels between PHL and WAS. But there is no reason at this time to expect a shortage. The cost of maintenance repairs appears to be the driving factor behind laying up the HHP-8s early. They could repair the to be mothballed units if they determine that there is going to be a serious shortage of working electrics.


----------



## bgiaquin (Apr 25, 2014)

What I have is: 650 is stored dead and probably retired, 652 is also stored dead in Wilmington with fire damage, 656 and 662 are retired.


----------



## jis (May 4, 2017)

Since this is about (non-)retirement of some HHP-8s, intsead of starting a new thread, I thought I will simply add to this thread. If mods prefer they can hive this off as a new thread.

During the NARP Reception on the Hill, I had a chance to speak with a couple of MARC folks from their engineering and equipment department. One interesting tidbit that I learned is that MARC is getting all of their HHP-8s rebuilt with new IGBT drives - work to be performed by Alstom. They will be the high speed workhorses on the NEC with the SC-44s playing second fiddle, since they will by far be better performers being vastly more powerful, and supposedly with far superior torque after the rebuild to modern standards. They have a prototype ready for testing and so far things are going well.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 4, 2017)

Nice. Although my view may be a distant outlier I've always liked the look of the HHP-8. Much better than those ugly toasters. Even the brand new Chargers look older and uglier to me.


----------



## Eric S (May 4, 2017)

Any indication as to whether Amtrak adjusted their rates? I thought Amtrak "overcharging" MARC was one of the reasons they were switching to an all-diesel fleet.

Regardless, good to hear that MARC plans to use electrics on an electrified line.


----------



## Ryan (May 4, 2017)

Thanks, Jishnu. I had heard something about them staying around, but not the rebuild. That's great news.

In semi-related MARC electric news, the 3 remaining MARC toasters put in an appearance down by the grown up trains that still run last week. Wonder what's up with them (said as he glances in a certain poster's direction).


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (May 4, 2017)

Will any HHP-8's or AEM-7's be preserved


----------



## jis (May 4, 2017)

At least one AEM-7 is at the Pennsylvania State Rail Museum in Strasburg. The HHP-8s are still under lease, so not free to be doled off.


----------



## CraigDK (May 4, 2017)

I wasn't expecting that news, interesting.


----------



## KnightRail (May 4, 2017)

Within the past few weeks a large number of AEM-7 were moved from Wilmington to Bear. Meanwhile almost all of the HHP-8 were moved from Bear to Wilmington. Two AEM-7 should also be part of further movement.


----------



## A Voice (May 4, 2017)

KnightRail said:


> Within the past few weeks a large number of AEM-7 were moved from Wilmington to Bear. Meanwhile almost all of the HHP-8 were moved from Bear to Wilmington. Two AEM-7 should also be part of further movement.


Are these moves related to the requirement to continue maintaining the still-under-lease HHP-8's, or is something more interesting going on? Can I not read between the lines because there's nothing there, or do I just need glasses?

There was an ad in Progressive Railroading a few months back offerring AEM-7 units for sale, as I recall.


----------



## jis (May 4, 2017)

Amtrak has its mysterious ways.

ARM-7s going to Bear for storage pending disposal and HHP-8s to Wilmington for periodic maintenance most likely.

This has nothing to do with what MARC is doing with their HHP-8s.


----------



## KnightRail (May 5, 2017)

A Voice said:


> Are these moves related to the requirement to continue maintaining the still-under-lease HHP-8's, or is something more interesting going on? Can I not read between the lines because there's nothing there, or do I just need glasses?
> 
> There was an ad in Progressive Railroading a few months back offerring AEM-7 units for sale, as I recall.


Related to bank inspections, acceptance, and turnovers.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 5, 2017)

Ryan said:


> Thanks, Jishnu. I had heard something about them staying around, but not the rebuild. That's great news.
> 
> In semi-related MARC electric news, the 3 remaining MARC toasters put in an appearance down by the grown up trains that still run last week. Wonder what's up with them (said as he glances in a certain poster's direction).



They have been officially retired. I believe they are making their way to Riverside for disposition.



jis said:


> Since this is about (non-)retirement of some HHP-8s, intsead of starting a new thread, I thought I will simply add to this thread. If mods prefer they can hive this off as a new thread.
> 
> During the NARP Reception on the Hill, I had a chance to speak with a couple of MARC folks from their engineering and equipment department. One interesting tidbit that I learned is that MARC is getting all of their HHP-8s rebuilt with new IGBT drives - work to be performed by Alstom. They will be the high speed workhorses on the NEC with the SC-44s playing second fiddle, since they will by far be better performers being vastly more powerful, and supposedly with far superior torque after the rebuild to modern standards. They have a prototype ready for testing and so far things are going well.


I believe 4915 is the prototype. Hopefully, it works out better than the AEM-7 overhaul.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 6, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, Jishnu. I had heard something about them staying around, but not the rebuild. That's great news. In semi-related MARC electric news, the 3 remaining MARC toasters put in an appearance down by the grown up trains that still run last week. Wonder what's up with them (said as he glances in a certain poster's direction).
> ...


From ashes to ashes, dust to dust, toaster to toast. ^_^


----------



## KnightRail (Jul 7, 2017)

KnightRail said:


> Two AEM-7 should also be part of further movement.


This foreshadowed movement occurred on Wednesday, when 928 & 942 moved to WAS, enroute to their new owner.


----------



## Acela150 (Jul 7, 2017)

KnightRail said:


> KnightRail said:
> 
> 
> > Two AEM-7 should also be part of further movement.
> ...


And that owner is?


----------



## Ryan (Jul 7, 2017)

Dare I hope that MARC is going to make use of them? VRE certainly can’t.


----------



## Acela150 (Jul 7, 2017)

That gives me a reason to travel to Maryland.


----------



## A Voice (Jul 7, 2017)

Ryan said:


> Dare I hope that MARC is going to make use of them? VRE certainly can’t.





Acela150 said:


> KnightRail said:
> 
> 
> > KnightRail said:
> ...


Assuming a domestic operator, it's a really short list of just who can make use of them at all. Didn't MARC retire/scrap all their own AEM7's though?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 7, 2017)

A Voice said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Dare I hope that MARC is going to make use of them? VRE certainly can’t.
> ...


I believe they were located in Delaware, so if they were moved to Washington that eliminates anything north of the Washington area on the NEC. I don't know for sure if MARC scrapped their AEM-7s, but I haven't seen any in awhile. Is it possible Metra or South Shore could have a use for them? Beyond MARC, Metra, and South Shore, I can't think of any other potential passenger operators in the US that aren't north of Delaware on the NEC. Do any test facilities such as Pueblo own locomotives?


----------



## KnightRail (Jul 7, 2017)

They will be in the CAPITAL for a LIMITED time


----------



## west point (Jul 7, 2017)

"IF""IF" this is actually going to happen here is some speculation. Previous posts stated that MARC did not need electric motors as the Chargers could handle the required acceleration ? That was stated as one reason MARC did not add on to Amtrak's ACS-64 order. Another reason cited was speculation the ACS-64s cost 1-1/2 times a Charger ?

It may be MARC now realizes or was told by Amtrak that the Chargers on the Penn line trains are not going to meet Acceleration requirements ? That could be because MARC's desire to operate some longer trains and their stated need to add more trains ? As well faster trains might prevent MARC from having to 3 and 4 track their routes from Perryville ( eventually Wilmington ) to Washington as soon as would be required otherwise. The replacement of the 3 draw bridges on the route are expensive along with the B&P tunnel.

If the rebuilding works with decent reliability MARC may save some money over buying ACS-64s or having to use 2 Chargers on its Penn line trains.. That may leave MARC with a surplus of Chargers ? MARC has been having a lot of mechanical delays lately which of course not all are loco / motor failures on the Penn line. Extra Chargers certainly will not hurt with a standby at WASH and Perryville / Baltimore ?.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 7, 2017)

KnightRail said:


> They will be in the CAPITAL for a LIMITED time


  
Go west young man or should I say old toasters?


----------



## Ryan (Jul 7, 2017)

KnightRail said:


> They will be in the CAPITAL for a LIMITED time








???


----------



## jis (Jul 7, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I believe they were located in Delaware, so if they were moved to Washington that eliminates anything north of the Washington area on the NEC. I don't know for sure if MARC scrapped their AEM-7s, but I haven't seen any in awhile. Is it possible Metra or South Shore could have a use for them? Beyond MARC, Metra, and South Shore, I can't think of any other potential passenger operators in the US that aren't north of Delaware on the NEC. Do any test facilities such as Pueblo own locomotives?


And you really seriously think that one can just take a 12kV/25kV AC electric locomotive and plop it down under 1.5kV DC wires and it will purr along without any significant modifications, eh? Forget about METRA and South Shore. To run there they will have to change out the internal guts of the engines, which will cost a ton of money, before they turn a single wheel under their own power under 1.5kV DC cat.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 7, 2017)

jis said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe they were located in Delaware, so if they were moved to Washington that eliminates anything north of the Washington area on the NEC. I don't know for sure if MARC scrapped their AEM-7s, but I haven't seen any in awhile. Is it possible Metra or South Shore could have a use for them? Beyond MARC, Metra, and South Shore, I can't think of any other potential passenger operators in the US that aren't north of Delaware on the NEC. Do any test facilities such as Pueblo own locomotives?
> ...


I am not familiar with the details og differing types of catenary; I was just listing of the possibilities of other catenary powered American railroads.


----------



## Train_Freak (Jul 7, 2017)

Is it possible for them to go to Caltrain? As I have read somewhere that they were thinking about getting a locomotive or 2 to test the overhead. I'll come back too say if I can find the place where I read that.


----------



## ehbowen (Jul 7, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I am not familiar with the details og differing types of catenary; I was just listing of the possibilities of other catenary powered American railroads.


One reason why electrification is not nearly as popular here as in Europe is that virtually every electrically operated railroad has its own power standard requiring custom-built equipment. It wasn't until the 1980s that the state of the art advanced to the point that a single locomotive design could run through the three different voltage/frequency combinations on the various regions of the Northeast Corridor.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 7, 2017)

ehbowen said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not familiar with the details og differing types of catenary; I was just listing of the possibilities of other catenary powered American railroads.
> ...


That's interesting. Is the different characteristics of the Metra catenary the reason that all trains are MUs rather than locomotive powered?


----------



## keelhauled (Jul 7, 2017)

Ok, off the wall idea--there are various old E60s operating on a couple Western mining railroads, including some ex-Amtrak units. Possible the AEM-7s could be going to one of those operators?


----------



## Train_Freak (Jul 7, 2017)

Train_Freak said:


> Is it possible for them to go to Caltrain? As I have read somewhere that they were thinking about getting a locomotive or 2 to test the overhead. I'll come back too say if I can find the place where I read that.


 Found the link http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/May+2016+Quarterly+Report.pdf (edit) its on the bottom of page 4


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 7, 2017)

Train_Freak said:


> Train_Freak said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible for them to go to Caltrain? As I have read somewhere that they were thinking about getting a locomotive or 2 to test the overhead. I'll come back too say if I can find the place where I read that.
> ...


Is Caltrain close enough to completion that it would make sense to buy such old locomotives at this point? I thought construction hadn't even begun yet.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 7, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> > brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> ...


No, it's that an electric locomotive hauled commuter train is moronic, and why NJ Transit has insisted on doing so has been the subject of much screaming among local advocates.


----------



## west point (Jul 7, 2017)

If this poster was Cal Train would at least have the retired units stored nearby. Why ? There is always the possibility that the EMUs Cal train is getting would experience significant delivery delays. After what has happened at CAF, N-S, and others do not trust a builder of passenger equipment, That way when electrification is complete the electric motors can pull conventional passenger cars on some or all trains ?. Another thought suppose electrification is temporarily only finished part way ? EMU trains would be limited to just the completed sections. By MUing an electric motor with Cal trains' diesel loco the advantages of electrification on those sections would be gained. One advantage would be the faster acceleration.

EMUs have the advantage of having multiple powered axels allowing quicker speed ups and slowing. A disadvantage is failure of a traction motor might require train broken apart to remove offending car motor. That is not as much a problem with the more robust newer AC traction motors.e


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 7, 2017)

Word on FB is 29(11)


----------



## A Voice (Jul 7, 2017)

It is being reported on another forum that 928 and 942 are destined for Pueblo, Colorado. How reliable that information is, I have no idea.


----------



## jis (Jul 7, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> ...


You have to look at what kind of power supply is used. METRA is 1500v DC, which is about as incompatible as you can get with the NEC's 12kV/25kV 25Hz/60Hz AC. You basically have to change out the complete innards of an engine to move it from one to the other.

Anyway, these units are going to Pueblo to the AAR Test Center.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 7, 2017)

I WIN!!!!!!11!!1!!1!!!one11!!!one!!111!!



Ryan said:


>


----------



## west point (Jul 7, 2017)

Forgot to cover EMUs under CAT. When Amtrak ( PC) started tests of the original Metroliners it was soon found that under the variable tension ( PRR) CAT with more than 3 PANs on a train at certain high speeds would set up standing waves on the contact wires that would foul the PANs. Now NJT EMUs have been limited to 100 MPH not necessarily for that reason but ? ?. We all know the excessive costs of getting constant tension CAT on the NEC. Needs to be done but ? ?

Constant Tension CAT does not have those problems as seen world wide that operate EMUs.. That may be one reason for NJT, , MARC, and maybe SEPTA to use loco hauled trains up to 125 MPH ?


----------



## daybeers (Jan 6, 2018)

I apologize for bringing up an old thread, but I had a question and I thought it would make more sense to post it here instead of creating a new topic.

I'm on NER 163 right now, and we just left WIL. Passing the Wilmington, DE shops I saw a few HHP-8s in the yard. What does Amtrak plan to do with them?

EDIT: Originally I said I saw them in the Bear, DE shops but it looks like it was the Wilmington shops. I thought they were one in the same.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 6, 2018)

bear is not near the NEC, as for HHP-8's Amtrak does not own them , but has to keep them in good condition till lease is fully over.

What Bombardier will do with them ??? big question with very little answers. probably scrap them.


----------



## A Voice (Jan 6, 2018)

daybeers said:


> I apologize for bringing up an old thread, but I had a question and I thought it would make more sense to post it here instead of creating a new topic.
> 
> I'm on NER 163 right now, and we just left WIL. Passing the Wilmington, DE shops I saw a few HHP-8s in the yard. What does Amtrak plan to do with them?
> 
> EDIT: Originally I said I saw them in the Bear, DE shops but it looks like it was the Wilmington shops. I thought they were one in the same.


Bear Shops, adjacent to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, is indeed where the HHP-8's are stored, awaiting lease expiration. They are required to be maintained in serviceable condition until that time. Upon return to the lessor, both these locomotives and the Acela trainsets are almost certain to be scrapped.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 6, 2018)

Bear is not next to NEC it is at least 5 miles away from NEC, you are confused with wilmington shop .

https://www.google.com/maps/place/258+E+Scotland+Dr,+Bear,+DE+19701/@39.6063843,-75.6998843,906m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c7079378f9434b:0xa6d3fd2151bf29fe!8m2!3d39.6063802!4d-75.6976956


----------



## daybeers (Jan 6, 2018)

Yes, I saw them at the Wilmington shop.

Wow, is that normal for retired locomotives or was that just with Amtrak's contract with Bombardier for the HHP-8s?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 6, 2018)

A Voice said:


> daybeers said:
> 
> 
> > I apologize for bringing up an old thread, but I had a question and I thought it would make more sense to post it here instead of creating a new topic.
> ...




Every single Amtrak HHP-8 is in Wilmington Shops. They haven't been in Bear for quite some time. The AEM-7s which were in WIL been shipped to Bear for storage and/or scrapping as they no longer require maintenance.


----------



## A Voice (Jan 6, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> > daybeers said:
> ...


Thanks for the update. I think I remember reading about the move, and then promptly forgot it.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 6, 2018)

daybeers said:


> Yes, I saw them at the Wilmington shop.
> 
> Wow, is that normal for retired locomotives or was that just with Amtrak's contract with Bombardier for the HHP-8s?


Typically, leases have clauses regarding the condition in which the equipment is to be returned. In this case (I'm assuming, going by what others have posted since I don't know the specifics myself), as with many cases for equipment of this sort (be it railroad equipment, airplanes, other machines, etc.), they must be returned in serviceable condition.

It doesn't matter of the locomotives are junk, nor whether or not they are likely to ever pull another railcar again. If the contract says they must be returned in a specific condition, then that's how they should be returned. Since the lease apparently hasn't expired yet, then it's on Amtrak to store them somewhere in decent shape until their date of return to the owner. Breaking leases of this sort can be very expensive, so it's often cheaper/easier just to store them somewhere until the lease is over.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 7, 2018)

To store them in serviceable condition means you still need to perform maintenance. Placing the HHP-8s at WIL allows them to be stored and serviced in a timely fashion.

NJT had to do the same thing with their ALP-44s. They just hung out at Port Morris, waiting for their leases to expire.


----------



## NE933 (Jan 7, 2018)

Then equipment ought to be purchased outright, and not leased.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 7, 2018)

There was a fad in the nineties for sale and leaseback deals that free up cash for the now. They are stupid, but when you are as cash strapped as Amtrak became under unGenerous George, you do what you have to. In this instance, the equipment is not actually wanted, so it is probably more economical to maintain and turn over, rather than to buy it out for the privilege of scrapping- no matter how satisfying the fax smashing appeared in Office Space.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 12, 2019)

Dutchrailnut said:


> bear is not near the NEC, as for HHP-8's Amtrak does not own them , but has to keep them in good condition till lease is fully over.





Trogdor said:


> Since the lease apparently hasn't expired yet, then it's on Amtrak to store them somewhere in decent shape until their date of return to the owner. Breaking leases of this sort can be very expensive, so it's often cheaper/easier just to store them somewhere until the lease is over.





Thirdrail7 said:


> To store them in serviceable condition means you still need to perform maintenance. Placing the HHP-8s at WIL allows them to be stored and serviced in a timely fashion.



It is alleged the HHP-8s are not being stored in serviceable condition. It looks like breaking this lease is as expensive as Trogdor surmised!

HHP-8 “Cannibalization” Generates Lawsuit



> “Philip Morris Capital Corp. (PMCC) alleged in New York federal court [Nov. 7] that Amtrak owes $92.9 million for breaching a $250 million contract for a fleet of [equipment] used on the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston, claiming the company took them out of commission and stripped them for parts.
> 
> “PMCC and HNB Investment Corp. alleged that … Amtrak leased eight [HHP-8 electric] locomotives and [six Acela Express high-speed trainsets]. Amtrak ultimately claimed the [HHP-8 locomotives were] unreliable, but inspectors found [they] had been ‘cannibalized’ for parts. The complaint alleges that Amtrak has denied any default and has urged guarantor Export Development Canada (EDC) to reject claims made by PMCC and HNB.




I can't image what they would do with the parts. They are pretty useless to any other piece of equipment. I can imagine stripping a few to keep the others running when they were in service.


----------



## west point (Nov 12, 2019)

Are some parts compatible with Acela power cars ?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 13, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> It is alleged the HHP-8s are not being stored in serviceable condition. It looks like breaking this lease is as expensive as Trogdor surmised!
> 
> HHP-8 “Cannibalization” Generates Lawsuit
> 
> I can't image what they would do with the parts. They are pretty useless to any other piece of equipment. I can imagine stripping a few to keep the others running when they were in service.


I'm sort-of wondering where PMCC was seriously thinking about re-leasing them (since it doesn't seem likely that even if they hadn't been stripped, Amtrak would've kept them around). _Maybe_ NS for limited NEC operations, but since nothing else significant is electrified in the Americas (and I doubt those locos would find a useful home elsewhere) that seems like a stretch.


----------



## jis (Nov 13, 2019)

From PMCC's perspective, it presents an opportunity to get some money and have them scrapped by Amtrak at Amtrak's expense. So why not?  Otherwise come 2022 they would be saddled with 8 useless lumps of metal and plastic to haul away.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 13, 2019)

Anderson said:


> I'm sort-of wondering where PMCC was seriously thinking about re-leasing them (since it doesn't seem likely that even if they hadn't been stripped, Amtrak would've kept them around). _Maybe_ NS for limited NEC operations, but since nothing else significant is electrified in the Americas (and I doubt those locos would find a useful home elsewhere) that seems like a stretch.


Ah yes, the "seems like a stretch" clause. I'd imagine PMCC would love to see Anderson deploy a defense like that.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 13, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Ah yes, the "seems like a stretch" clause. I'd imagine PMCC would love to see Anderson deploy a defense like that.


lol

The defense is more to damages. Basically, _even if_ PMCC was able to prove that the equipment was degraded in value, trying to put Amtrak on the hook for the (alleged) breach would require demonstrating how they were harmed. I see it as a cousin of why an older car will often get "totaled out" at an absurdly low price, since the theoretical value of the underlying equipment (in that case, a car) is considered very low (especially net of scrap metal). And given how fast these proceedings (don't) proceed, it is very likely that before any putative day in court events would play out to the point that you'd have a pretty good idea as to how much value was "destroyed" in the process.


----------

