Amtrak (new) locomotive news

I would surmise MTH since they likely have the tooling that is closest to this unit already? Maybe a mold that can be altered just enough?

Well, don''t hold your breath.  Amtrak ain't buyin' any of that stuff.

Rusty

Correct. Virtually all public transportation systems throughout the world are subsidized, at least partially.

Greyhound is still in operation, reorganized a few years ago. Speaking of bus lines, of course they use public highways. Not built and maintained by Greyhound! Yet another example of public subsidies for a transportation company!

Not following the connection between bankruptcy and subsidy.  Bankruptcy is a process for recapitalizing a firm or dissolving it, depending upon its financial condition, overseen by a bankrupcy judge, governed by US bankruptcy law and court rules, and driven by the creditors committee.  The government's only involvement, short of a bail-out which is unusual and did not occur in the cases you mentioned, is that the government provides the court system.

I agree with the other point in the sense that, yes, government does provide subsidy for other forms of transportation so you can't just single out Amtrak entirely.  Whether that is appropriate, and the degree to which it is appropriate is a question that is better discussed in a different forum but it is also fair to say that while ground and air transport receive some subsidy, the carriers and the infrastructure are not wholly-owned by the government.  This is the difference with Amtrak and why many of us believe that, financially and operationally, the railroad leaves much to be desired.    But don't take my word for it, spend some time reviewing Amtrak's financial statements and draw your own conclusions. 

Living a long fly ball from the Penn Station in Baltimore I see the electrics daily and saw the GG1's running for many years.  That was an electric the made a bold statement.  The new electrics will capture a bold statement also and I look forward to seeing them.  As a side note they have to be more more reliable in the hot weather than what we currently have.  It seems like every 10 days or so they were breaking down between DC & Baltimore.  

I love the look.

Here in Ogden, which has no AMTRAK due to cutbacks, we have an airport with one commercial flight a week, the rest is all private planes. The FAA has ordered the tower closed due to sequestration, you should see the local pols screaming about how dare the FAA does not continue to pay over 200,000 a year to support the city's airport.

If the cities and the users think the control tower is important, let them pay it

What bold statment do they capture?  To me they say - it's about function only.  All that matters is that they work.  There's no money left over for styling.

GG-1's, E-8's, F-7's and PA's are so passe - give me a rectangle with squinty eyes.

Ugh.

/Mitch

Are they being built by Seimens?  From the front they look like Houston METRO's 200 cars but on droids.

I LOVE IT!! 

Nuff said!

There is a substantial article in my local newspaper that states Seimens is building them near Sacramento, CA.

I read that Amtrak subsidy is now just 12%.  That is much lower than subsidies to the general public! 

As Matt said the engines being replaced have millions of miles on them.  The new engines are kind of cute if you ask me.  

Here's a nice PDF describing the ACS-64 locomotive:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/89...otive-ATK-13-039.pdf

Well, repeated bankruptcies by the airlines end up costing lots of money that the public ends up paying for, directly and indirectly. When thousands of creditors are forced to take pennies on the dollar for the products and services they provided, there's widespread financial fallout, not only for all those companies but for everyone else who has to pay more for things because creditor companies have to recover their losses in the form of higher prices. It's more complicated than that, of course, but it's a very real public subsidy.

And Amtrak's infrastructure is hardly wholly-owned by the government. In fact, in the vast majority of the country, Amtrak owns none of the right-of-way or other infrastructure it operates on - the private railroads do. Amtrak has to pay them to use their rails/dispatch/signal systems/etc./etc./etc.

As far as Amtrak's financial situation, certain Washington administrations (prior to the present one) did their best to starve Amtrak to death by defunding it; certain key senators kept that from completely happening (Joe Biden was one of those, of course). It's hard to get healthy when you're being starved. Thankfully, things have improved markedly. As Farmer Bill notes, the Amtrak subsidy is now only 12% - less than that to the general public. The latest:

      "Amtrak must still seek federal funding for a long list of planned and ongoing improvements, including replacing sections of pre-World War II electrical systems on the Northeast Corridor that cause regular disruptions. The fact that Amtrak has reduced its debt by 60 percent over the last 10 years and its federal operating subsidy to 12 percent could make it an easier sell."

Aren't the locos these are replacing horrible in terms of reliability?  Can't the original manufacturer be held accountable?

Respectfully, if we accept your premise that losses in bankruptcy are not private losses then there is no such thing as a private business.  I take your point in the sense that the costs then have to be recovered, but that is far different than direct and sustained public subsidy to support a single enterprise.

As far as debating what different administration have and have not done, I am not going to do that here.  However, if you are interested in Amtrak I would encourage you to spend time with the financial statements.  As of 2011 -- I haven't looked at 2012 yet but I will to see what they have about these new locomotives -- the firm's accumulated losses are in the $20-$25bn range.  As a practical matter, this range of losses overwhelms the equity capital of the firm and means that the firm is government owned, and this is very different than other forms of transportation subsidy.  Stated differently, your analog to air and highway subsidies would be appropriate if the government owned the airlines and the cars that drove on the roads.  With Amtrak, it's very different and it's unnecessary because we both likely agree that there is place for transporting people by rail in this country, it just cannot be done with the cost structure that Amtrak has in place currently and when you have certain politicians who want to intervene in running a railroad to service their constituents.  The cost structure issue is also  why the airlines and other firms, such as Greyhound, have in many cases gone bankrupt and emerged from bankruptcy as viable firms -- they used that process to restructure their costs, most typically pension and legacy healthcare costs, in a way that allows the enterprise to function profitably.  No one likes it when individuals take it hard to the chin in these instances -- there is nothing to celebrate or gloat over -- but yet the reality is that it is necessary if you are going to have a viable economic system.  Ask the Soviets or the French how the alternatives are working out for them.  Again, not trying to be snarky or disrespectful, but the difference with Amtrak versus the other subsidy models is pretty stark and reading over their annual reports will do far more to illustrate the absurdity of their cost model than anything you and I can throw back and forth here.  Take care -- again no disrespect intended but as a railfan and a taxpayer, I would like to see a viable and healthy passenger rail system in this country.  Amtrak is like a patient on perpetual life support or dialysis -- it is not that healthy alternative.  

          http://www.railcolor.net/index...v=1405330&lang=1                     Video on this page          

Some points to ponder.  

Someone asked if MARC would climb on and replace their electrics (AEM-7's and HHP-8's) as a rider to this order.  After the failure of the HHP-8's, (which are reportedly not only unreliable, but are slow accelerators ... not what you want in commuter service), I would hold off at least a year or two to see how these work out.  Maryland likely doesn't have the money anyway.

The new locomotives have crumble zones with the trucks set way back from the ends.  These are new features that will be interesting to observe.  To me, they also pose risk as far as tracking, vibration and smooth operation at high speeds.  Testing might be interesting to observe.  These crumble zones appear to be designed to absorb energy and reduce damage to the train (not the crew).

Does anyone NOT like the looks of the GG1? Yet the design of the GG1 served a function.  The deep set back of the crew space was a safety requirement after an accident with a P5 locomotive.  But the GG1/P5 modified design also requires two crew members in the cab so both sides of the line could be monitored.  Today Amtrak runs with only a single crew member in the cab.  In a repeat of history, the engineer was lost on Amtrak train 94 in 1987.  Perhaps Amtrak remembers this.  It appears the mitigation is to put the engineer in a safety cage that apparently is pushed back on impact into the crumble zones.  Wow, I would not want to be the person who gets to try this out! 

I can't find a reference at the moment, but I suspect the AEM-7's regenerate braking power back into the grid (or perhaps I'm thinking of the Acela units).  So while it's a cool feature, I'll call BS that it regenerates 100% of the energy back (some HAS to be lost to heat) and as others have mentioned, call it PR hipe.

Bob

That doesn't include the cost of capital, just operating subsidies.  Any funds for anything capitalized just gets piled on top, like these locomotives. 

Regards,

GNNPNUT

Is it possible to do a passenger mile comparison to automobile travel??  Noting the highway congestion, especially in the DC area. 

It is interesting to note that Round Trip PA Turnpike fees,  Pittsburgh to Philly, are very close to Amtrak tickets for the same trip.  5.5hrs by Car, 8hrs by Amtrak.  

Given that so many private businesses are heavily driven by tax considerations, implementing tax leveraging and tax avoidance maneuvers in everything they do, and using loopholes and deductions to the point that they pay virtually no income tax (some companies are run to function solely as a tax deduction), sometimes one wonders if there really is much truly private business left. These are, in effect, public subsidies in many cases. Then there are the periodic untold billions spent to bail out banks, Wall Street investment firms, insurance companies, etc. There are lots of ways to look at how businesses of all kinds are being continuously propped up by the public in this country.

Your points are all well-taken, though, and I'm in agreement with you on most of it. As for Amtrak, I don't disagree that it's never been a healthy organization. Some folks want to blame Amtrak itself, but that's misplaced - they've just been the patient on the bed subject to the hospital's directive to "just keep 'em breathing, but don't do anything more than that."

There have been many examples in the history of this country of the government keeping things alive for all kinds of reasons, using clumsy and ill-suited means to do it. Amtrak's in good company. But yes, we all want a viable, healthy national passenger rail system. We criticize Amtrak. But instead, let's do what? Has anyone provided a satisfactory answer?

After reading all of this I must be completely wrong and we need to immediately cancel the new engines and close Amtrak. Now we can move on.....

By foot of course...

During the history of railroading, most all locomotives were designed for "function only." Even streamlined steam locomotives were often built that way in an attempt to improve aerodynamics. Most steam locomotives were conglomerations of piping and steel and black paint that most "civilians" would not consider aesthetically pleasing, like we do.

IMHO anything after the E9 or FL9 has lost the beauty contest.  EMD has been putting out ugly passenger engines ever since.  Just look at the F59's, looks like a sucker fish on wheels.  The other late model passenger/commuter engines from MPI aren't much better.  So this new electric is a European knock off, it's better than what Japan or China are doing with the duck faced trains for the latest high speed models.  Take a look at this F125 from EMD:

http://www.emdiesels.com/emdwe...R_proof_rev5RevE.pdf

Form follows function or function dictates form.  The beloved PA really looks like a brick when compared to the Alco DL-109.  The Baldwin Sharks were an attempt to get away from their Baby Faced units that looked like EMD Bulldog knock offs.  While I'm picking on everyone else, I'll add my Graemlim for GE's current crop of Pooches or mud missles. 

With today’s safety regulations and EPA emissions standards a truly attractive passenger engine is a tough call, especially when ease of assembly is brought into the equation.  

Also a comment about upgrading the infrastructure for these new engines.  Probably not as big a deal as it has been made out since infrastructure has to be modernized and maintained for what is already running out there. 

Please let me know when I get my 12% subsidy, I don't want the larger one for the general public, I'm not greedy.

In various forums, anytime any aspect of Amtrak is brought up, let's say locomotives and passenger coaches, new routes etc, there is some sort of unwritten rule that it will shortly and severely swerve off topic into a circular debate over Amtrak itself. Getting back to the topic, the answers as to why this equipment was purchased is appreciated.

As far as looks there's no comparing the architectural style of Louis Sullivan to Mies Van Der Rohe. It's all subjective. You say potato, I say potata. 

Bruce 

Go Greyhound.

I concur. Looks like a goofy cartoon character, and an angry one at that. However, keep in mind that we bought them. Love'em or not, they're ours....

Here's part of it, just driving your car. This is a very interesting article considering the subsidies being used by the new Twin Cities mass transit rail system. Worth the read:

"Before diving into the numbers, however, you have to know that taxes subsidize every form of transportation — even walking. Sure, you bought the shoes and own the feet, but the government of the town you live in built the sidewalks, roads and paths you use — and repairs them. Unless you pay a fee that covers the expense every time you walk down the street to the grocery store, your travel is being subsidized.

So the issue isn't what is subsidized — everything is. The question is: How much goes to which form of transportation? The table at right shows how things shake out among different types of transit.

Another report, this one from the Office of the Legislative Auditor, compared the efficiency of the Twin Cities LRT to systems in other cities.  And, you'll be happy to know that we ranked fourth on subsidy per passenger. That is to say, only three other cities, Denver (98 cents), Portland ($1.35) and San Diego (82 cents) spent less than our $1.44. Pittsburgh paid the highest subsidy, $5.22. Fares provided 38 percent of the cost in the Twin Cities. Only Denver and San Diego did better, and fares in Seattle covered only 5 percent of outlays.

Your next question is going to be: How does that compare with driving?

After sweating over my calculator for a couple of hours, I realized that there's no easy way to calculate that. But using my own form of goofy-nomics, here's what I came up with.

From a report done by the University of Minnesota called "The Full Cost of Transportation in the Twin Cities Region" (PDF),  I learned that in 1998, state and local governments spent upward of $1.5 billion on roads and highways (MN). Using an inflation calculator, I updated that to 2010 (the furthest I could go) and came up with a figure of $2.04 billion in government expenditures, give or take.

Divide that by 365 days, and you see that governments spend $5.59 million per day fixing and paving all those roads.

Back in 1998, Twin Cities metro drivers covered 71 million miles a day. Interpolating that with the report's projections for 2020 gave me 89.8 million miles. I subtracted 15 percent of that to cover all the transit riders and was left with 76.3 million miles.

According to the report, Twin Cities drivers averaged about 32 miles per trip. I upped that to 35 for no other reason than that we have more sprawl than we had 14 years ago and probably drive a little bit further. After dividing trips into miles, it turns out that Twin Cities drivers make 2.18 million trips a day. That sounds like a lot, but remember, many people take at least two trips a day, to go to and from work. And just think of all the grocery shopping, child pick-ups, medical appointments, van deliveries and so on, and the number starts to seem reasonable.

OK, so then you take the number of trips per day (2.18 million) and divide it into the daily cost of $5.59 million, and you get $2.56. That's about how much tax money goes to subsidize the average car trip."

I haven't much liked the looks of any electric outside of the New Haven EP5.  But this one I kind of like.  It reminds me of some of the current crop of "nasty looking" autos.

The name that came to my mind is..."Darth Toaster"

I read somewhere that automobiles with angry-looking grill/headlight arrangements routinely outsell those with neutral or happy-looking "faces". I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a factor in the design--you can even see this effect in modern city buses:

(yes, I know about the Nova LFS--that's about the only exception)

And just think I thought the toasters were ugly! They couldn't come up with anything better looking,geez.

That bus looks like it should be in the "Cars" movie!

Well, they sould have cabs like the contol cars of the new Oregon Talgo trains.

IIRC, the last EMD E9s were put together around 1964...and that was the end of good looking passenger units....probably forever, at this rate!

Most people would resond like Rhet in the movie GONE WITH THE WIND when it comes the looks of locomotive power:  Franly dear, I don't give a D#@&!

Rialride .... Darth Toaster is funny. I was at the Siemens for the rollout and many of the photos other than those credited to AP were mine and another Asst. Supt of Road Ops. from Boston. Many of us had a hand in the final design, my group was more focused on the operating cab and controls, due to my oversight of Locomotive Engineers.

Remember back to the AEM-7's debut, similar comments were opined at that time. Or how about that stick of butter with a pantograph ... E-60?

Oh well when a name sticks, we all could laugh.When someone suggest the cartoon angle, and the "mad" look, I thought of the "Angry Birds". Maybe some of you artsy guys can post an Angry Bird and ACS-64 side by side for the group.

I'm looking forward to improved reliability and availability of the Loco's for service on the NEC.

Have fun with this thread. They will look pretty mean blasting down the Corridor at 125 MPH

SAM

It appears that sometimes too little effort or money is spent on the design of such things so that they are not only utilitarian, but they also look great while doing their job.

If nothing else, it's a bit difficult to square the appearance of this engine with the design of the Acela.