Passenger Trains > The Amtrak Genesis fleet gets thinner

So on one day, Amtrak lost the AMTK 102 and AMTK 824 to a wreck and
a grade crossing collision...two more Genesis units to languish as
they await repair that may never come, along with many others at Beech
Grove.

Meanwhile, at least one Michigan set is running single unit and all
of the Lincoln sets are single unit today. With only one unit,
these trains cannot run 110mph as they are supposed to (on the
Lincoln Service, for a pitiful few miles). These are services on
which the states are paying all the bills, which Amtrak is contracted
to operate at a specified level of service with a specified level of
equipment...and that is not being met.

There is no order for new Amtrak diesel locomotives forthcoming.

Meanwhile, the states are waiting for Siemens to build their new
engines (that's why no new Amtrak road diesels) while Amtrak lets its
Off-Corridor Genesis fleet dwindle.

Pure opinion with no fact, with the exception we lost two diesels (no lives lost in either case).

Perhaps those states decided one unit was power enough, which is a true statement and perhaps if there was a funding mechanism to purchase power, that too would happen.

Then again, as usual with your reporting, that wouldn't make a good story.

Posted from iPhone

Why can they not run at 110 with a single unit?  I've hit 110 multiple times behind a single, less powerful P32AC-DM along the Hudson in New York.

And perhaps it's time to pull some of the remaining stored 800 series P40s out of storage.  Heck, Amtrak still has F40s sitting in storage as well.

Nothing will change untill they fire NEC Joe and get someone who wants to run trains outside the NEC cause joe is running Amtrak into the ground.

Posted from Android

Really?  Because I remember the P32 engines really struggling to get up to 110 mph with a 4-car or 5-car train in the 17 miles of 110-mph railroad between Rensselaer and Castleton.  Yes, they're less powerful than the P42s.  They had no trouble with the 90 mph the rest of the way between Castleton and Poughkeepsie, especially with the short 5-car Empire Region trains that are common.

The 32's have no problem maintaining track speed with 5-6 cars and regularly make 100+.

Posted from iPhone

Weren't the remaining P40 800 units stripped of their trucks to keep the 100s running?

A little off the beaten path, but maybe it's time for Amtrak to lease a few additional engines for its profitable AutoTrain and Silver Service operations.  NJ Transit seems to have an abundance of diesel engines right now. Put these units on trains not requiring 110 mph, like the Cardinal, Capitol, etc.

or, sell some of the 800s to a private investment firm which would rebuild the units and lease them back to Amtrak. If Amtrak can't find the funds to do the rebuild itself.

Profitable?  Silver Service and Auto Train profitable?

No, no, no!  Only the Northeast Corridor is profitable!  Well, and the Lynchburg train.  I've heard it from Amtrak!  I've heard it from Virginia spokesmen themselves!  It must be true!  No other state-supported service "makes money," but the Lynchburg train does!  The VADOT manager actually told me that the profits from the Lynchburg train help fund the Norfolk train.  It's a miracle!

California, Washington, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, Indiana, New York, Vermont, Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, all of you should take lessons from Virginia on how to run "profitable" state-supported trains.

Pay no attention to those billion-dollar-a-year checks that pay the capital necessary for the "profitable" NEC. 

In any other business, "profit" is calculated after paying your capital expenses.  Not at Amtrak, and certainly not on the NEC. 

We need the NEC.  It provides a valuable service to the Northeast region, to Amtrak riders there, to commuter agencies and as a popular mode of travel as opposed to driving, buses and airlines. 

But we need to be honest that it's a public-policy decision to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to support the NEC infrastructure.  It's not "profitable" by any stretch of the imagination, but Amtrak and the media keep repeating it, hoping it'll be so.

If you strip out capital costs, and ignore much of the overhead, anything can show a profit...

That's part of the uproar in NYC, where Mayor DiBlasio points to subway fares that pay 75% of the operating costs and says that's the "city's contribution".  Governor Cuomo says the lines need new signals, new equipment, and years of deferred capital construction. More $$$

knotch8 ---
AMEN!!  It is a real shame that so very many people
are being lied to about the NEC being "profitable", and
they do not have the facts, so they believe the lies

And poor old Amtrak has to make do every year with
an operating budget/subsidy that is smaller that what
the San Francisco Municipal Railway spends on its
buses and streetrcars and cable cars.  What a shame.....

NJT just sold a bunch of excess Diesel engines and Amtrak didn't bite - including F40s and former P40s they bought from Amtrak originally for the ill-fated NYC-AC service (ACES Service). Amtrak needs to borrow commuter power for say the Huawatha corridor or other short corridors; they also need to find a way to eliminate running a diesel on both ends of a train......they could potentially use cab cars that are not running on the Springfield shuttles. The Oennsylvanian could only spare one diesel if they make the engine change in Harrisburg.....

I hear Maine Eastern may have a couple of FL9s freed up after this month! :)

Posted from Android

If you look at what Amtrak did equipment wise in the 70's, it's truly amazing what they accomplished in capital aquisitions!
SDP40F's, P30CH's, Turboliners, huge Amfleet order, F40's and  the Superliner order, all within the span of a few years!
How the heck did they do it back then?  Some Capital grants with a more willing Congress?
Undoutedly, they must have taken on a heck of a debt load, something that got Amtrak into financial trouble later on.
That's something Joe knows he can't, or isn't willing to do now.

mp51w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's something Joe knows he can't, or isn't
> willing to do now.

Yet he can apparently spend $2.5 billion on replacements for the Acelas...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/15 01:28 by OTG.

Meanwhile in Canada, their rebuilt F40's carry on without any major issues....at least not reported here. And oh wait. They are running 1955 Budd cars, all rebuilt to better than new as well. Why can't or didn't Amtrak do the same?

amtrakwolverine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing will change untill they fire NEC Joe and
> get someone who wants to run trains outside the
> NEC cause joe is running Amtrak into the ground.

NEC Joe?

The first Amtrak President in decades to avoid train-offs?

The guy who ordered 125 new long distance cars?

The man who rebuilt Chicago Terminal and new long distance shops in Hialeah, Seattle, and Los Angeles, and rebuilt the Auto-Train terminals?

The person on the scene when billions of dollars in capital money was parachuted onto passenger rail and 90% of it went to not-NEC projects to develop regional service around the country and order additional cars and locomotives?

So instead of this track record, you would rather have someone completely worthless like Boyd, Downs, or Warrington?  Those would be the only three Amtrak presidents named by a Democratic administration, and they are obviously the worst, most incompetent, and most unqualified men to have held that position if you judge by a record of train-offs and equipment orders.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meanwhile in Canada, their rebuilt F40's carry on without any major issues....at least not reported
> here. And oh wait.
> They are running 1955 Budd cars, all rebuilt to better than new as well. Why can't or didn't Amtrak do the same?

Because Amtrak choose to ignore cost benefits and almost exclusively buy new equipment rather than maintain and incrementally improve what they had....aided and abetted by manufacturers who stood to profit from this approach and aficionados who wanted new toys to photograph. 

The comparative cost of rebuilding the existing Amtrak Heritage baggage cars vis-a-vis buying new ones might be an interesting example of this. Perhaps if Amtrak contracted out their marketing and had it done by VIA the results would be different. :-)

 

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So on one day, Amtrak lost the AMTK 102 and AMTK
> 824 to a wreck and
> a grade crossing collision...two more Genesis
> units to languish as
> they await repair that may never come, along with
> many others at Beech
> Grove.
>
> Meanwhile, at least one Michigan set is running
> single unit and all
> of the Lincoln sets are single unit today. With
> only one unit,
> these trains cannot run 110mph as they are
> supposed to (on the
> Lincoln Service, for a pitiful few miles). These
> are services on
> which the states are paying all the bills, which
> Amtrak is contracted
> to operate at a specified level of service with a
> specified level of
> equipment...and that is not being met.
>
> There is no order for new Amtrak diesel
> locomotives forthcoming.
>
> Meanwhile, the states are waiting for Siemens to
> build their new
> engines (that's why no new Amtrak road diesels)
> while Amtrak lets its
> Off-Corridor Genesis fleet dwindle.

I seriously doubt they will scrap the one that hit the truck, unless there are no more nose cones, headlight bulbs and windshield glass.

Posted from Android

 Where was the grade crossing accident with 824? 

phillytrainman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  Where was the grade crossing accident with
> 824? 


http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3860047