Passenger Trains > All the Blather about the Chargers

I find all of the hubbub interesting about the new Charger units and long distance train cutbacks.  I like how bureaucrats and politicians play with money that is not their own.  Take the Charger, $225 million for 35 units..My old fashioned math says $6 million plus each... BNSF maybe pays $2 million for an ES44....  someone is getting taken to the cleaners, the taxpayer.  "Oh, but these are  special locomotives designed to pull passenger trains..". Put an HEP on an ES44 for $25k and go pull a train and save some 💰 money 

Another example.. How much did Washinton DOT pay a design firm for the scheme?  Bet it was more than most of us make in a year..

Take the money wasted on overnight trains and put it into cooridor runs where they ACTUALLY take cars off the road.  But the politicians, via the taxpayer, subsidizes the two passengers who get off a Glasgow, Montana to the tune of a few thousand dollars. Amtrak can spend millions on station renovations while sleeping cars still leak snow..

Oh, it's not their money, spend, spend, spend...  if you are going to spend, put the money where it does some good..

On the count of three, shoot me!
One, Two, Three.... Kabam! 



 

YukonYeti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find all of the hubbub interesting about the new
> Charger units and long distance train cutbacks.
>  I like how bureaucrats and politicians play with
> money that is not their own.  Take the Charger,
> $225 million for 35 units..My old fashioned math
> says $6 million plus each... BNSF maybe pays $2
> million for an ES44....  someone is getting taken
> to the cleaners, the taxpayer.  "Oh, but these
> are  special locomotives designed to pull
> passenger trains..". Put an HEP on an ES44 for
> $25k and go pull a train and save some 💰
> money 

It's like we are trying to price rail out of consideration.

YukonYeti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find all of the hubbub interesting about the new
> Charger units and long distance train cutbacks.
>  I like how bureaucrats and politicians play with
> money that is not their own.  Take the Charger,
> $225 million for 35 units..My old fashioned math
> says $6 million plus each... BNSF maybe pays $2
> million for an ES44....  someone is getting taken
> to the cleaners, the taxpayer.  "Oh, but these
> are  special locomotives designed to pull
> passenger trains..". Put an HEP on an ES44 for
> $25k and go pull a train and save some 💰
> money 
>
> Another example.. How much did Washinton DOT pay a
> design firm for the scheme?  Bet it was more than
> most of us make in a year..
>
> Take the money wasted on overnight trains and put
> it into cooridor runs where they ACTUALLY take
> cars off the road.  But the politicians, via the
> taxpayer, subsidizes the two passengers who get
> off a Glasgow, Montana to the tune of a few
> thousand dollars. Amtrak can spend millions on
> station renovations while sleeping cars still leak
> snow..
>
> Oh, it's not their money, spend, spend, spend...
>  if you are going to spend, put the money where
> it does some good..
>
> On the count of three, shoot me!
> One, Two, Three.... Kabam! 
>
>
>
>  

Nah, we won't shoot ya. We'll keep you alive so you can continue to suffer!!!        ;-)

< Take the money wasted on overnight trains and put it into cooridor runs where they ACTUALLY take cars off the road.  But the politicians, via the taxpayer, subsidizes the two passengers who get off a Glasgow, Montana to the tune of a few thousand dollars. Amtrak can spend millions on station renovations while sleeping cars still leak snow.. >

The only blather here is you and your untrue display of facts and sarcasm.

GE and EMD haven't had a passenger offering since about 2005.  Likely, neither is interested in the specialized market, because it would cost a lot to design and develop for small orders.  With a small run compared to fright units, there's little to no reduced costs that result from standardization and learning curves. 

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/17 14:58 by darkcloud.

OK lets see, a ES 44 at 110 mph .   

Corridors and State operations, except for the NEC are paid for by the States.   How much federal funds go into these operations.?  I do not know.

Course with the LD trains gone, the remaining terminal / passenger yard costs will see the states paying more money. which just might kill that service too!

The LD trains feed the corridor/State operations with passengers, sometimes with good heavy counts.  California, Virginia and Chicago Hub trains are a good example of this..   So with LD gone, less ridership on the others.

Their are several sides to the story, regardless of what comes out of the White House.

But I do agree that the costs of the locomotives are out of line, just like all the stuff the Military purchases.   Look at the jet fighters and ships pricing today! 

What does a GP40-2 rebuilt for passenger service cost? How much did VRE pay for its power?

Posted from Android

The last I saw a Cascades or any other regional train on the west coast hit 110 was never...

There is no sarcasm here and no misstatements...  

Auto traffic in the corridors is the pits yet places like Glasgow, McCook get a train a day...

priorities.. over nostalgia...

YukonYeti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The last I saw a Cascades or any other regional
> train on the west coast hit 110 was never...

And the last time a train in the Midwest hit 110 was earlier today. So 110 capability is required. Unless you wanted WDOT/ODOT to make their own order for 79 mph locomotives, but I have no doubt a measly 8 unit order would cost even more per unit.

Also, MBTA's order of Tier 3 HSP46 locomotives also cost $6 million apiece, so the Chargers don't seem overpriced in comparison. In fact, since you get Tier 4 in the Chargers, maybe we the taxpayers are getting a pretty good deal.

The chargers will hit 110 nph on the Chicago Hub Trains.

Some day 90 on the Cascades and the San Joaquins.
Design/built for the hopefully future track upgrades.

Need 90 right now on the Surfliners.

Yes rebuilding existing power was a large mistake of Amtrak.

Just like scarpping the postward Budd passenger car fleet.
 

We have a dozen 700kW HEP equipped SD70MACs in Alaska. Four of those are DP equipped, and all of them now have full PTC gear on board. While our max speed is 60, I'm sure they could be geared for higher speed operation. They work perfectly well, pull well, they are reliable, and relatively simple to service since most of the parts and service procedures are standard for most modern EMDs. I don't see why EMD or GE couldn't quickly and realtively inexpensively adapt some of their current freight offerings in a similar fashion.

Seems like many of these transportation agencies are unnecessarily trying to redefine what a diesel-electric passenger locomotive is and the red tape they create is causing apathy with the locomotive manufacturers. It must be a pretty big CF to try to accommodate all the mandates these agencies dream up in their committee meetings. If I was a locomotive builder, I'd probably shy away from that business too. Too much hassle for too little return.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have a dozen 700kW HEP equipped SD70MACs in
> Alaska. Four of those are DP equipped, and all of
> them now have full PTC gear on board. While our
> max speed is 60, I'm sure they could be geared for
> higher speed operation. They work perfectly well,
> pull well, they are reliable, and relatively
> simple to service since most of the parts and
> service procedures are standard for most modern
> EMDs. I don't see why EMD or GE couldn't quickly
> and realtively inexpensively adapt some of their
> current freight offerings in a similar fashion.
>
> Seems like many of these transportation agencies
> are unnecessarily trying to redefine what a
> diesel-electric passenger locomotive is and the
> red tape they create is causing apathy with the
> locomotive manufacturers. It must be a pretty big
> CF to try to accommodate all the mandates these
> agencies dream up in their committee meetings. If
> I was a locomotive builder, I'd probably shy away
> from that business too. Too much hassle for too
> little return.

I take everyone's point about high cost for the chargers but the idea of re-gearing a 70mac or a gevo to do 110mph is pretty non-sensical. Those mothers weigh nearly 200 tonnes - the forces that would be transmitted to the track at speeds above 100mph would be frightening. It really isn't as simple as re-gearing an existing loco.

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I take everyone's point about high cost for the
> chargers but the idea of re-gearing a 70mac or a
> gevo to do 110mph is pretty non-sensical.

I was thinking more along the lines of 79 for LD service.

To put this into perspective look at the cost of a normal Camaro, its base is 26,900 MSRP.    A top of the line Camaro ZR1 is 62,135 MSRP.   Its what you are looking for and how many they are going to produce of a given model that makes the price.  Alot more base price Camaros get sold than the top of the line one, just simple fact they don't have as many produced to share the cost associated with develping and making each model.

What does a state order for locomotives have to do with LD trains?

Also, Brightline purchased 10 Chargers, with 10 more coming when phase 2 is finally built (eventually). 

MPI offers a 110 mph capable passenger locomotive still...

An ACe is around 400k lbs (says thedieselshop.us...not the "heavy" versions), or around 67k per axle.  A Charger is 265k lbs (says wikipedia), or around 66k per axle.  So the question for any MOW folks who may be reading:  What matters more to how badly your track gets beat up, total weight or axle loading?

There'd be other things for EMD to worry about too, like whether they need to re-tune their suspension, what components will vibrate apart at 110 mph that won't at 70...and so forth.  It might just be a truck redesign, if they are able to tweak the suspension to keep vibration through the rest of the locomotive equal to what they currently have.  Would putting that work into it end up costing the same as a new Charger?  I doubt anybody knows.


exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I take everyone's point about high cost for the
> chargers but the idea of re-gearing a 70mac or a
> gevo to do 110mph is pretty non-sensical. Those
> mothers weigh nearly 200 tonnes - the forces that
> would be transmitted to the track at speeds above
> 100mph would be frightening. It really isn't as
> simple as re-gearing an existing loco.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/17 16:54 by Nomad.

altoonafn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GE and EMD haven't had a passenger offering since
> about 2005.  Likely, neither is interested in the
> specialized market, because it would cost a lot to
> design and develop for small orders.  With a
> small run compared to fright units, there's little
> to no reduced costs that result from
> standardization and learning curves. 


F125 anyone?