Passenger Trains > Alternatives to Siemens?

With all the problems that have cropped up with the Siemens SC and AC units, are there any other offerings out there who would be competitors?  Or at least soon-to-be competitors?  All I'm familiar with are the F125 units from EMD/Progress and apparently they have their own problems since nobody seems to be purchasing them these days.

What about outfiits like Alstom, etc?  Do any of them have something on the drawing boards?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/26 21:41 by calumet.

Any other new engine in the short term is out of the question. 

Best amtk could do is
1. Keep as many P42's in operation as possible.
2. Lease any extra F40's, F59's, MP36's etc that are available.   Of course, leasing engines means spending money.  Obviously they would rather not spend money than keep the trains running.

I think it has more to do with continuing to spend money in the NEC at the expense of the rest of the country, though even in the NEC, more problems are starting to crop up.

I don't hear about recent breakdowns with the F125 locomotives on Metrolink. There were some problems in the beginning but perhaps they have been worked out.   

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

Boston-based Rolling Stock Solutions has acquired a fleet of F40PH cores for remanufacturing into F40PH-4C's
extending service life by another 20 years.  The work is performed by Montreal-based CAD Railway Industries 
with support from Metro East Industries of E. St. Louis, IL.  The first unit completed is the RSTX1002
(ex- Amtrak 294). 
https://www.rollingstocksolutions.com/

Their business model is based on leasing to commuter lines.  Uncertain if they are planning on outright sales.
As long as they have sufficient fuel capacity there does not seem to be any reason they could not be used on
corridor or longer distance services.

This is a rebuild/remanufacturing and not considered a new locomotive so do not have to meet latest emissions
standards--they are Tier 0+ compliant.  Specifications:
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/625998bdf0b499fe829610b2/6849a2676b514b5165f25a69_RSS_Sales_SpecSheet_Revision_7%20(1).pdf

---

I believe CAD does good work too.  I think they re-did the VIA Rail F40s, and as far as I know, they're still working a lot better than Amtrak's Chargers.

One would hope there are warrenties and contract provisions for Siemens to correct these issues. Their reputation is on the line

Posted from Android

All of these seem to be reasonable solutions. But as has been discussed thoroughly before, particularly in relation to units like Metra's rebuilt SD70MACH engines, any purchase (and probably any lease) by Amtrak because of its quasi-federal status might require that the locomotives are compliant to the latest Tier 4 emissions standards. The Tier 4 requirement is apparently what landed Amtrak in Siemens' lap in the first place. Only their Chargers and EMD's F125 were Tier 4 complaint with the use of DEF after-treatment, which was Amtrak's specification to meet Tier 4.

If the EMD F125's have solved their teething problems in California, they would seem to perhaps be a better solution, as new, than a rebuild. Maybe lease one and try it in the Midwest cold, snow and ice. Amtrak has borrowed from California services before while it was trying to solve the signal shunting problems in the Midwest.

However, I for one would be just as open to rebuilds, if they can get around the Tier 4 issue. And the answer there, to me, is to seek a variance or waiver. That would of course set off a political firestorm in some quarters that are more liberal and are traditional passenger rail supporters. But the need is real, and a solution must be found. Siemens is proving that they are not up to the task, unless some modifications that are being made prove successful - finally. The jury still seems to be out on that.

And right now Amtrak is in a relatively good place politically, it seems. So many here on TO expected it to be eviscerated a year ago when the Trump administration took office - but it didn't happen. Perhaps for a reason: Amtrak trains serve a lot of places that are ruby red politically, and are otherwise under-served by intercity public transportation. The residents of those areas like Amtrak and use it, especially LD trains in the West. Or they at least tolerate it because of their few public intercity transportation options. A few Republican senators with Trumpist leanings have proven to be good Amtrak supporters. Because Amtrak is something that their populist constituents, who often feel that the federal government does little for them, either want, or are tolerant of.

Politics sometimes makes for strange bedfellows, as the old saying goes. And this is one of those circumstances. Amtrak had only minor budget cuts in this year's bruising budget battles. There has to be a reason for that, and how it escaped the DOGE teams running around Washington. But whatever political situation or goodwill that's allowing that to happen won't last if there is not reliability in performance. If these Siemens engines keep up their poor service record, goodwill or tolerance, whichever it is, can disappear in an instant.

Amtrak and the states must face this situation squarely and solve it - right away. It can't fester or be slow-walked. If the unreliability of these federally-financed locomotives breaks out in general news coverage and gets a lot more attention than it does among us on railfan sites, there can be real and undesirable consequences. So first, turn up the pressure - hard - on Siemens for solid fixes. If that doesn't work, consider legal action, although that can bring the situation to public scrutiny in the media.

And so, maybe the best course is to get the Tier 4 waivers that would allow the lease or purchase and use of good quality rebuilds, like those mentioned in  this thread.. Sadly, again, the pragmatic political game must be played, like it or not. The R's are not pro-emissions standards, and could perhaps get the variances passed - before they possibly lose their majority in the midterm elections. Then buy or lease the high-quality rebuilds and get them into service - fast.

Or maybe it just gets done in the states for the regional units, like in the four Amtrak Midwest states. They get the waivers and obtain the rebuilt units. Or, skip the waivers and buy or lease other Tier 4-compliant new locomotives like the EMD F125 or the MPI MP54AC, if they can be proven to be worthwhile in actual testing on the routes and conditions that are throwing the Chargers problems.

There's a reasonable case for the waivers - the increase in point emissions by these locomotives is very small, and has to be weighed against overall reliability and the positive environmental impact that rail travel has as compared to other modes. If other power is obtained, then the states sell or lease their SC-model regional Chargers to Amtrak for use as less-critical second or third and backup or protection units on LD trains for more reliability on those LD trains. There's more tolerance for their failures as second or third units, or as protection engines, than to rely on them as single-unit power for regional trains. And maybe while they are in such service Siemens and Amtrak can - finally - find the solutions to make them reliable. If the states have leased rebuilt power to cover in the meantime, then maybe the hopefully-now-reliable Chargers can return to regular service on state-supported corridors.

I hate even thinking about such pragmatic political solutions. It's not my way. But at some point practicality must be recognized. The Chargers, particularly the regional SC units, are lemons for all intents and purposes. Regional services like Amtrak Midwest are suffering at a time when they should be able to prove their worth as all-weather transportation in all but the worst weather. Speaking as a Michigander who has watched our services become a mockery of reliability in the last two weeks, some practicality and urgency must be found. 

Open to other good ideas. But a solution must be found, and soon, whatever it is.

MC



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/26 15:11 by ironmtn.

Given his shameless abolition of clean air, water, and power plant standards, Energy Secretary Zeldin would hand out Tier 4 variances like candy on Halloween. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/26 06:52 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given his shameless abolition of clean air, water,
> and power plant standards, Energy Secretary Zeldin
> would hand out Tier 4 variances like candy on
> Halloween. 

Lee Zeldin is the EPA administrator.

Chris Wright is the energy secretary.



Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/26 07:42 by RuleG.

Scrolling throigh the following roster identifies 12 former Amtrak F40PH's purchased by
Rolling Stock Solutions:
https://on-track-on-line.com/amtkrinf-f40activ.shtml

The RSTX 1001 and 1002 are shown as leased to Keolis for MBTA service.

The new GE and Progress rail freight engines do not use DEF to reach tier 4 standard. The class 1 roads want nothing to do with DEF.

Exhaust Gas Recirculation and diesel particulate filters are employed. Search GE T4.

So why can't a P42 retrofit with the same system reach tier 4.

Posted from Android

RuleG Wrote:

> Lee Zeldin is the EPA administrator.
>
> Chris Wright is the energy secretary.

Correct, Brain fart.

Regarding Tier 4 emissions, have the EPA guidelinse been relaxed (I could imagine so given the administration).  A new PR states that Norfolk Southern is purchasing new ES44AC locomotives this year.  These are NOT the Tier 4 units (ET44AC) so is there some sort of financial penalty they felt justified to absorb?  Could Amtrak look at non-Tier 4 locomotives?

https://www.norfolksouthern.com/en/newsroom/story-yard/norfolk-southern-advances-fleet-modernization-with-40-new-locomotives

Thanks,
Sean

I have never understood why Amtrak didn’t just purchase passenger versions of the current Tier 4 SD70 or ET44 models. I get that they might not be suited for corridor services, but they seem perfect for long distance trains.

I do not respect the argument that “they look like freight engines”. They are functionally designed, they are much safer for employees to board and detrain, and assuming Amtrak went back to a side control stand as the freight carriers have, they are much more operationally flexible (no need to worry which way the trailing unit is facing if there’s a service disruption). I worked a lot of trains powered by 500 class P32-8s back when they were common in road service, and never once heard a complaint from a passenger about how they looked.

As to the SDP40F causing a phobia against 6 axle passenger engines, that was a single model of locomotive over 4 decades ago, and whether or not there was anything actually wrong with it is a subject that is debated to this day, including on this very forum. Considering the many long standing practices that Amtrak has abandoned in recent years, it seems silly to cling to this one.

Anyway, that’s all academic, what’s done is done.

Brookville locomotive is said to hold the US rights for the MTU locomotive engine.  Their 2000 hp and 4000 hp locomotive populsion systems are widely used in Europe and apparently meet the tougher EU emissions standards.

(I believe MTU is an affiliate of Rolls Royce power systems)

CP8888 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The new GE and Progress rail freight engines do
> not use DEF to reach tier 4 standard. The class 1
> roads want nothing to do with DEF.
>
> Exhaust Gas Recirculation and diesel particulate
> filters are employed. Search GE T4.
>
> So why can't a P42 retrofit with the same system
> reach tier 4.
>
> Posted from Android

I do belive the engine is too tall to fit into the GE carbody.

I think the key factor that many are missing is that because there were federal dollars that bought the locomotives, they had to be Tier 4 compliant. This point has been made repeatedly in many prior discussions here on TO. Buy them with non-federal funds, as Metra did for the SD70MACH units, and you can buy lower level compliance than Tier 4.

From a government perspective, that makes perfect sense. If you as the federal government are funding a purchase, why would you not insist that the most current regulatory standard be followed? That's just being consistent policy-wise. The public, the media and politicians would be up in arms if government set a standard, and then didn't follow their own rule or statute. And in fact it would logically be pretty hypocritical. And would open the agency or entity that did so to a lawsuit.

Use your own money as a private or public non-governmental company, or other non-federal funds, and you can buy what you want as long as it is legal at a lower compliance standard. But the states and Amtrak used federal dollars for the Charger purchase. They therefore had to be Tier 4 compliant - no choice.

That's why I believe that if Amtrak and/or the states purchased or leased non-Tier 4 locomotives, such as rebuilds, to get out of this mess, they would need a waiver on Tier 4 compliance. Or, they could purchase or lease another Tier 4 compliant locomotive, such as the EMD F125, or the MPI MP54AC. I actually would favor this course over going to a rebuilt or remanufactured non-Tier 4 locomotive with a waiver, if the F125 or the MP54AC could prove itself in the very service that the Chargers are struggling in. That's why I suggest that Amtrak borrow one or two from Metrolink in California (F125) or GO Transit in Ontario (MP54AC), perhaps with some type of swap, and try them out in actual service for several months.

If Amtrak had some non-federal financing, could they buy or lease non-Tier 4 engines? Theoretically, maybe yes. But where would that money come from? And would Amtrak's unique status as a quasi-governmental entity (their stock is owned by the federal government through DOT) still require Tier 4 compliance even with external non-federal financing? Maybe. In any case, there is not a clear or easy path on this issue. Note that I am not an attorney, just Joe Ordinary Citizen seeking a solution.

This is my understanding from many previous threads here in TO, and from reading elsewhere. I welcome any corrections, revisions or added information. Please feel free to chime in if I've got this wrong. It's potentially important to a solution. And we all need to be on the same page factually - and accurately - on this matter.

MC
Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/26 14:55 by ironmtn.

NPRocky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe CAD does good work too.  I think they
> re-did the VIA Rail F40s, and as far as I know,
> they're still working a lot better than Amtrak's
> Chargers.

“As far as I know” translation you have no evidence other than your prior held beliefs. Prove it with factual data.

CluelessTrainman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have never understood why Amtrak didn’t just
> purchase passenger versions of the current Tier 4
> SD70 or ET44 models. I get that they might not be
> suited for corridor services, but they seem
> perfect for long distance trains.
>
> I do not respect the argument that “they look
> like freight engines”. They are functionally
> designed, they are much safer for employees to
> board and detrain, and assuming Amtrak went back
> to a side control stand as the freight carriers
> have, they are much more operationally flexible
> (no need to worry which way the trailing unit is
> facing if there’s a service disruption). I
> worked a lot of trains powered by 500 class P32-8s
> back when they were common in road service, and
> never once heard a complaint from a passenger
> about how they looked.
>
> As to the SDP40F causing a phobia against 6 axle
> passenger engines, that was a single model of
> locomotive over 4 decades ago, and whether or not
> there was anything actually wrong with it is a
> subject that is debated to this day, including on
> this very forum. Considering the many long
> standing practices that Amtrak has abandoned in
> recent years, it seems silly to cling to this
> one.
>
> Anyway, that’s all academic, what’s done is
> done.

The Tier IV SD70 has mostly been avoided due it it’s less reliable 1010 prime mover. The unit hasn’t sold well.