Trains.com

What is the future for AEM-7s?

3738 views
16 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 202 posts
What is the future for AEM-7s?
Posted by zkr123 on Monday, October 6, 2014 6:49 PM
With 70 ACS64'S, and 15 HHP-8's, why not keep AEM-7s for routes that require power change. Instead of removing the electric locomotive, just add or take away the diesel locomotive to increase on time performance.
  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Tuesday, October 7, 2014 5:43 PM

The only routes that have a power change are FL-bound trains, and the power is switched in DC. There is a smoking stop there, IIRC, so there is no reason to speed up this stop. The AEM-7s are also worn out.

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1 posts
Posted by MitchellT on Monday, October 13, 2014 8:31 PM

Sorry "Northwest" that's incorrect regarding "only routes with a power change are FL-bound".

Trains coming only as far South as Virginia and North Carolina have that "smoking stop" in DC, as well as the Crescent to New Orleans, and the Cardinal to Chicago.  If nothing else, it would be great to reduce the 30 minute stopover for Richmond-bound trains to reduce transit time from the upper NEC, and it wouldn't require any high speed rail to be laid!     However, the AEM-7 isn't going to help with this problem, only a dual-mode diesel/catenary locomotive could fix this issue.  We've been dreaming of that for years, but its only a dream.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, October 14, 2014 11:45 AM

NOTE THAT THE POWER CHANGE ON THE PITTSBURGH SERVICE IS NOT DONE CLASSICALLY AT HARRISBURG, BUT AT PHILADELPHIA 30TH STREET WHERE THE DIESEL IS ADDED AT ONE END WHILE THE ELECTRIC LEAVES AT THE OTHER.

I STILL THINK SOMEONE WEALTHY ENOUGH SHOULD BUY UP THE INNARDS OF THE DC AEM7S FOR USE IN AN UPGRADED RESTORED GG1 WITH THE 25HZ MOTORS OF THE GG1 RETAINED BUT OPERATING ON DC, WHICH THEY CAN DO WITHOUT PROBLEMS SINCE THEY ARE COMMUTATOR MOTORS.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:32 PM

In addition to reasons above and others that will be posted.

1.  The reliability of HHP-8s is only about 12 days MTBF ( failure ) as compared to AEM-7s 25 ?. 

2.  HHPs were often assigned to LD trains as they nominally would move them faster than the AEM-7s with their higher HP.

3.  ACS-64s are so far demonstrating a much higher reliability.

4.  ACS-64s appear to accelerate the LD trains faster than the HHP-8 as tLDs are often 10 - 12 cars compared to the shorter Regional trains ( 7 - 9 ).  As soon as the ACS-64s passed all their break in periods they were generally assigned to the LD trains.

5.  Once  the new baggage and dinning cars  ( Viewliner-2s ) replace heritage cars the ACS-64s will be needed for the 125 MPH operation that is not presently allowed.

6.  Carrying the weight of dead motors on diesel only routes wastes fuel.  Another problem is longer trains may foul some crossings at station stops.

7.  Tractive effort per KWH is somewhat better and the dual HEP capabilities of ACS-64s  significantly reduces possible loss of HEP.

8.  Regenerative braking down to stop cuts power bills.  Note regen first goes to HEP power supply.

However there Could be a use for reliable AEMs.  If AEMs are kept the costs to keep them road worthy and their periodic inspections would need to be considered.

11.  Amtrak will probably have extra ACS-64s parked a WASH, PHL. NY. BOS. Maybe at Bear Maintenance facility ?

12.  AEMs could be parked for standby motors or power at locations such as Baltimore, Wilmington, Harrisburg, Trenton, Newark, Stamford, New Haven, Providence.  Then in the case of a ACS-64 failure delays would not be as long bringing them to stalled train ? 

13.  There may even be other locations that the surplus AEMs could be parked ?  Anyone ?

At present it appears that MARC, SEPTA, NJT, SLE,  MBTA are not interested in any of the AEMs ?

 

 

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:08 AM

blue streak 1

In addition to reasons above and others that will be posted.

1.  The reliability of HHP-8s is only about 12 days MTBF ( failure ) as compared to AEM-7s 25 ?. 

2.  HHPs were often assigned to LD trains as they nominally would move them faster than the AEM-7s with their higher HP.

3.  ACS-64s are so far demonstrating a much higher reliability.

4.  ACS-64s appear to accelerate the LD trains faster than the HHP-8 as tLDs are often 10 - 12 cars compared to the shorter Regional trains ( 7 - 9 ).  As soon as the ACS-64s passed all their break in periods they were generally assigned to the LD trains.

5.  Once  the new baggage and dinning cars  ( Viewliner-2s ) replace heritage cars the ACS-64s will be needed for the 125 MPH operation that is not presently allowed.

6.  Carrying the weight of dead motors on diesel only routes wastes fuel.  Another problem is longer trains may foul some crossings at station stops.

7.  Tractive effort per KWH is somewhat better and the dual HEP capabilities of ACS-64s  significantly reduces possible loss of HEP.

8.  Regenerative braking down to stop cuts power bills.  Note regen first goes to HEP power supply.

However there Could be a use for reliable AEMs.  If AEMs are kept the costs to keep them road worthy and their periodic inspections would need to be considered.

11.  Amtrak will probably have extra ACS-64s parked a WASH, PHL. NY. BOS. Maybe at Bear Maintenance facility ?

12.  AEMs could be parked for standby motors or power at locations such as Baltimore, Wilmington, Harrisburg, Trenton, Newark, Stamford, New Haven, Providence.  Then in the case of a ACS-64 failure delays would not be as long bringing them to stalled train ? 

13.  There may even be other locations that the surplus AEMs could be parked ?  Anyone ?

At present it appears that MARC, SEPTA, NJT, SLE,  MBTA are not interested in any of the AEMs ?

 

 

 

 I would imagine if any of the AEM-7 fleet get a reprieve it will be some of the units converted to AC traction...

 

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:03 PM

KEEPING A FEW OF THE AC AEM7S FOR SWITCHERS AT PENN STA MANHATTAN WOULD BE AN INTELLIGENT MOVE

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, October 17, 2014 7:58 AM

AEM7's are boxcabs and as such lack the visibility to be very useful as switchers.  Besides, most passenger switching is performed in the open air at Sunnyside with entire consists being moved into Penn Station from there.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 177 posts
Posted by nfotis on Friday, October 17, 2014 10:40 AM

MitchellT

However, the AEM-7 isn't going to help with this problem, only a dual-mode diesel/catenary locomotive could fix this issue.  We've been dreaming of that for years, but its only a dream.

Um, isn't there already the Bombardier-built ALP-45DP for exactly this kind of situations?

N.F.

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:00 AM

nfotis

 

 
MitchellT

However, the AEM-7 isn't going to help with this problem, only a dual-mode diesel/catenary locomotive could fix this issue.  We've been dreaming of that for years, but its only a dream.

 

 

Um, isn't there already the Bombardier-built ALP-45DP for exactly this kind of situations?

N.F.

 

 

But at $10 to $12M a pop an expensive way to go about it.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:08 PM

 

box cabs make excellent switchers, just requiring the engineers to move from one end to the other when reversing.   not hard to do in an aem7.    diesels are ok at sunnyside, but one or two electric switchers are required at Penn, NYC, and at 30th St. Philly.

  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 177 posts
Posted by nfotis on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:41 AM

Buslist

But at $10 to $12M a pop an expensive way to go about it.

There is a reason why the big locomotive manufacturers are asking a 50-copies minimum order for non-standard locomotives (R&D costs, procuring new items from subcontractors, setting up a new production line, etc., all these do not come cheap).

A standard 4-axle TRAXX electric locomotive from Bombardier costs nearly 3.5 million Euros (4+ million dollars).

Also, a TRAXX DE (diesel-electric) with 2.4 MW prime mover costs approximately the same amount.

N.F.

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:30 PM

The fate of the AEM-7's (and other retired rolling stock) was discussed in AMTK's PRIIA document several years back.

 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 202 posts
Posted by zkr123 on Wednesday, November 5, 2014 10:21 AM
Is this the same fate for the HHP-8's?
  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Wednesday, November 5, 2014 10:28 AM

Yes, which would be retirement and disposal for scrap. By doing this, the manufacturer is relieved from the responsibility for further field support of obsolete equipment and the market for new equipment is stabilized.

As an aside, I note that Siemens has been contracted to support the new ACS-64 fleet outside the realm of the standard warranty issues. This type of outsourcing on the part of Amtrak may become the rule in the future.

 

CPM500

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Wednesday, November 5, 2014 5:39 PM

Rumor is, though, that the HHP-8s are still on lease from Bombardier, and will be stored until the lease is up.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 6, 2014 3:14 AM

again, amtrak will need electric switchers for sunnyside once the real estate is pofitable and the ac aem7s would fit the bill nicely.   i hope this won't be just another example of amtrak shortsightedness, similar to building new shells for the bags with all those metro-north  m-1 - m-6 stainless steel bodies available.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy