Amtrak announce bying 75 SC-44s for delivery in summer and service in fall 2021. Wonder if this delivery schedule was the earliest construction slots available ?
https://media.amtrak.com/2018/12/amtrak-to-improve-national-network-with-new-locomotives/?fbclid=IwAR3b8VbmRejkrZTWN95TQpdgZ0bZIDWijpTw1hzy4Bn-qaJ7BHKbOPFVXpM
https://media.amtrak.com/2018/12/amtrak-to-improve-national-network-with-new-locomotives/
blue streak 1 Amtrak announce bying 75 SC-44s for delivery in summer and service in fall 2021. Wonder if this delivery schedule was the earliest construction slots available ? https://media.amtrak.com/2018/12/amtrak-to-improve-national-network-with-new-locomotives/?fbclid=IwAR3b8VbmRejkrZTWN95TQpdgZ0bZIDWijpTw1hzy4Bn-qaJ7BHKbOPFVXpM https://media.amtrak.com/2018/12/amtrak-to-improve-national-network-with-new-locomotives/
JPS1 blue streak 1 Amtrak announce bying 75 SC-44s for delivery in summer and service in fall 2021. Wonder if this delivery schedule was the earliest construction slots available ? https://media.amtrak.com/2018/12/amtrak-to-improve-national-network-with-new-locomotives/?fbclid=IwAR3b8VbmRejkrZTWN95TQpdgZ0bZIDWijpTw1hzy4Bn-qaJ7BHKbOPFVXpM https://media.amtrak.com/2018/12/amtrak-to-improve-national-network-with-new-locomotives/ Given the intended uses of the new locomotives, i.e. mostly long-distance trains, it is a bit difficult to understand how this squares with the contention that Anderson is out to kill Amtrak.
A lot of aircraft orders get placed - a number of them get cancelled.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD A lot of aircraft orders get placed - a number of them get cancelled.
A relatively small number of them get cancelled, although it appears Boeing will take a hit from Lion Air, which is ticked-off at Boeing. Rumor has it that Lion Air may cancel its large order for the 737Max because of the crash that it sustained.
Backing out of a firm order can be costly. Once an organization has signed on the dotted line, it cannot simply walk away from the contract without a penalty.
The smart thing to do would be to kill the long-distance trains, in which case Amtrak would not need to replace its current aging power.
Right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing?
Delivery to begin SUMMER OF 2021 - 2 1/2 years to cancel
Engines have good resale value, passenger cars not so much.
After some thought we must consider that this could be a diversion. The Chargers could very easily go to a commter agency(s) that would need replacements by first delivery time. The fuel tank difference is no biggie. We need to get Amtrak advocates to keep pressure on to protect LD trains. Example where are the Final 34 V-2s ?
Some one who has the information can tell us what agency(s) would need them by then due to expansions or present locos being worn out ?. Know that ATlanta's MARTA might need 4 or 5 if they can get their SE commuter rail going.
Amtrak is using its own money to buy the locomotives as well. It would lease vs. buy if Long Distance was as uncertain as some think. Internal debate on Superliners but I read it too has been settled in that there would be no more rebuilding of the Superliner equipment beyond patches to keep them running until they can be replaced. They need to replace Amfleet I first....in my view to at least protect some of the Corridor business in which they do not recieve a state subsidy......then they can do an RFP for Superliner replacement. Amtraks priority for replacing equipment seems logical to me.
blue streak 1 After some thought we must consider that this could be a diversion. The Chargers could very easily go to a commter agency(s) that would need replacements by first delivery time. The fuel tank difference is no biggie. We need to get Amtrak advocates to keep pressure on to protect LD trains. Example where are the Final 34 V-2s ? Some one who has the information can tell us what agency(s) would need them by then due to expansions or present locos being worn out ?. Know that ATlanta's MARTA might need 4 or 5 if they can get their SE commuter rail going.
The specs are slightly different between Commuter service and Corridor / long distance service. I thought comparing HEP needs for Amtrak LD train vs METRA......METRA trains need much more juice to run from the HEP. Not sure how that change is made. I suspect other changes might be needed as well.
CMStPnPMETRA trains need much more juice to run from the HEP
When long-distance F40s were new their 800 kW HEP was supposed to handle 18 Superliners. Why would METRA cars need more?
The last fleet replacement report which is 4 - 5 years old says Amtrak needs to replace Amfleet-2s as they have 40 - 50% more miles than the Amfleet 1s.
Have no idea what the power HEP for the commuter locos are but the Amtrak ones are going to have the max 1000Kw that the locos can provide. That is more Kw thanany Amtrak locos except the P-40s on Auto Train. As well the Siemens ACS-64s also have dual 1000 Kw power supplys as well probably for spare parts compatible .
The Metra locos are not wired the same as Amtrak so they cannot be used on a quick basis as th 3 phase rotates in the opposite direction. At one time there were adapter connectors but believe that proactice has been discontinued. Now some internal wiring changes have to be done to allow Amtrak's locos to operate on Metra. Now that is one items that will be done for theee F-59s to start operating on Metra.
As for other commuter agencies have no idea although suspect SO CAL and NO CAL are Amtrak compatible .
CMStPnP Amtrak is using its own money to buy the locomotives as well. It would lease vs. buy if Long Distance was as uncertain as some think. Internal debate on Superliners but I read it too has been settled in that there would be no more rebuilding of the Superliner equipment beyond patches to keep them running until they can be replaced. They need to replace Amfleet I first....in my view to at least protect some of the Corridor business in which they do not recieve a state subsidy......then they can do an RFP for Superliner replacement. Amtraks priority for replacing equipment seems logical to me.
Read on TrainOrders that the Superliner replacement "may" be the Siemens Viaggio Twin bilevel. We will see.
The Superliners are too old and I imagine the replacement parts must be fabricated by Amtrak themselves. Probably cheaper to buy from Siemens and have them throw in a maintenance contract along with a free pair of floor mats.
timzWhy? When long-distance F40s were new their 800 kW HEP was supposed to handle 18 Superliners. Why would METRA cars need more?
No idea but there is also the incompatibility between GO Transit locos and Amtrak due to HEP. Not sure why they would use more juice per train.
Just a guess it might have something to do with the HVAC on the cars having to replace the heated or cooled air from the large vestibule in the center open and closing at each stop? Though the bombardier cars of GO Transit are a different design......they open 4 doors on the boarding side of each car, vs. one or two. Could also be other reasons but you have to check the electrical specs of the commuter cars.
JPS1 Amtrak’s December 21, 2018 media release regarding the Siemen’s Chargers says, “Amtrak will acquire new mainline passenger diesel locomotives from Siemens Mobility to replace its aging National Network locomotive fleet.” Acquire could mean buy or lease. Amtrak purchased the ACS-64 locomotives with a 2011 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan. However, upon placing each locomotive in service, the RRIF loan converted to a capital lease for accounting purposes. Once all of the locomotives had been placed in service, the loan was paid off, and the lease obligations placed on the company’s books. Sound a bit murky? It wasn’t over. In 2016 the company issued 3.6 percent senior notes to buy out the leases. It put the new debt on its books; it will mature in 2033. So how Amtrak will fund the Chargers remains to be seen. If precedent is prologue, it will be full of twists and turns. “Amtrak is paying for the new locomotives through available funds.” Available funds could mean cash, loans, or leases. Amtrak does not generate enough cash from operations to pay for new property, plant, and equipment. In FY16 it had a net cash flow from operations of minus $92 million. In FY17 it was minus $355.9 million. So, it will have to borrow the money for the Chargers, lease them, or get a grant from the federal government. The RRIF Program has $35 billion for loans to railroads that meet its guidelines. To date it has made loans of approximately $6.3 billion, of which $3.1 billion has gone to Amtrak. So, it appears that Amtrak could go to the well again for the money necessary to acquire the Chargers.
CMStPnP JPS1 Amtrak’s December 21, 2018 media release regarding the Siemen’s Chargers says, “Amtrak will acquire new mainline passenger diesel locomotives from Siemens Mobility to replace its aging National Network locomotive fleet.” Acquire could mean buy or lease. Amtrak purchased the ACS-64 locomotives with a 2011 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan. However, upon placing each locomotive in service, the RRIF loan converted to a capital lease for accounting purposes. Once all of the locomotives had been placed in service, the loan was paid off, and the lease obligations placed on the company’s books. Sound a bit murky? It wasn’t over. In 2016 the company issued 3.6 percent senior notes to buy out the leases. It put the new debt on its books; it will mature in 2033. So how Amtrak will fund the Chargers remains to be seen. If precedent is prologue, it will be full of twists and turns. “Amtrak is paying for the new locomotives through available funds.” Available funds could mean cash, loans, or leases. Amtrak does not generate enough cash from operations to pay for new property, plant, and equipment. In FY16 it had a net cash flow from operations of minus $92 million. In FY17 it was minus $355.9 million. So, it will have to borrow the money for the Chargers, lease them, or get a grant from the federal government. The RRIF Program has $35 billion for loans to railroads that meet its guidelines. To date it has made loans of approximately $6.3 billion, of which $3.1 billion has gone to Amtrak. So, it appears that Amtrak could go to the well again for the money necessary to acquire the Chargers. It is very clear: "Amtrak is paying for the new locomotives through available funds and will comply with Buy American provisions. " Most people interpret "Available Funds" as not a lease program or a future borrowing program rather as funds already on hand and obtained.
Had you read the comments carefully, or taken the time to look closely at Amtrak's cash flow statements for the past three years, you would have seen that the company does not have an readily available funds.
For FY17 and FY16 Amtrak did not even generate enough cash to cover its operating requirements, it was dependent on infusions from the federal governnment and state governments to cover the shortfalls.
You have no idea how most people interpret "available funds", unless you have taken a valid statistical sample of the population as a whole.
The Chargers probably will be acquired with an RRIF loan, which could be converted into a lease, as was the case initially with the ACS-64 locomotives.
To understand how Amtrak acquires equipment, you might consider reading through the notes in the company's audited financial statements. They are insightful, and they contain more depth than "Amtrak is paying for the locomotives through available funds", which is a relatively meaningless statement. Even more meaningless is the reference to "Buy American provisions", which has nothing to do with how the acquisitions will be funded.
JPS1Had you read the comments carefully, or taken the time to look closely at Amtrak's cash flow statements for the past three years, you would have seen that the company does not have an readily available funds. For FY17 and FY16 Amtrak did not even generate enough cash to cover its operating requirements, it was dependent on infusions from the federal governnment and state governments to cover the shortfalls.
None of the above rebuts the fact they are going to use available funds for the purchase. Note I said available funds not your redefinition of "readily available funds" which you just made up. Also, this is not a household it is a Corporation.
Available Funds does not necessarily mean "cash on hand" or "cash flow from operations". It means funds already obtained.
Yes, buy America Provisions mean something if your a quasi-governmental corporation and even if your just a plain old C Corporation.
Appropriated Funds by Congress are sometimes restricted in their use. It isn't a suitcase of cash delivered by the Speaker of the House to the Amtrak CEO. Why I have to tell someone with an "accounting background" this is just beyond my comprehension.
And so I stand by my original point before all this background noise was introduced to the thread. The company would use another financing approach if it felt the locomotives would be disposed of to another company or firm.
CMStPnPNone of the above rebuts the fact they are going to use available funds for the purchase. Note I said available funds not your redefinition of "readily available funds" which you just made up.
In case you missed it, I was not responding to you. My post was in response to Amtrak's announcement, which appears on its webpage. It was also included in Railway Age and several news outlets.
Available funds usually refers to cash and cash equivalents. On the other hand, if the announcement said available financing, then it could be a variety of sources, i.e. line of credit, loan commitment, grant arrangement, etc.
Amtrak does not have any available funds to acquire the new locomotives. It will have to borrow the money, get a grant from the federal government or lease the equipment to take control of it. Doing so usually involves negotiations, especially if the company goes for an RRIF loan, which is how it acquired the ACS-64 locos.
Amtrak does not generate enough cash to cover its current operating expenses, which you would know if you took the time to read the company's recent cash flow statements. It does not have any available funds.
Don't feel compelled to explain anything to me. You don't know anything about me; I don't care what you say. Especially regarding accounting and finance, which you seemingly know very little about.
JPS1Available funds usually refers to cash and cash equivalents. On the other hand, if the announcement said available financing, then it could be a variety of sources, i.e. line of credit, loan commitment, grant arrangement, etc.
Quite a change from it being meaningless from your last post. Wouldn't you say? Your definition of available funds spun to fit your narrative of course and your absolutely incorrect in your definition above. Available funds mean just what the term says as I stated above. It's not "readily avaliable funds" and it's not defined to be only cash as you state.
JPS1Amtrak does not generate enough cash to cover its current operating expenses, which you would know if you took the time to read the company's recent cash flow statements.
Cash Flow is not the total definition of "available funds" anymore than Cash means Total Assets. I can run a C Corp with negative cash flow as easily as with positive cash flow. Available funds are not defined by cash flow from operations. Most especially when your dealing with a Corporation that gets appropriations from Congress and mixes them with private investments and regular bank financing.
JPS1Don't feel compelled to explain anything to me. You don't know anything about me; I don't care what you say. Especially regarding accounting and finance, which you seemingly know very little about.
Agree it is a futile effort....
You invent Accounting and Finance definitions and rules as you see fit to fit your specific post narrative and your definitions change from thread to thread and are wildly inconsistent or narrowly tailored just for your means.
CMStPnP JPS1 Available funds usually refers to cash and cash equivalents. On the other hand, if the announcement said available financing, then it could be a variety of sources, i.e. line of credit, loan commitment, grant arrangement, etc. Quite a change from it being meaningless from your last post. Wouldn't you say? Your definition of available funds spun to fit your narrative of course and your absolutely incorrect in your definition above. Available funds mean just what the term says as I stated above. It's not "readily avaliable funds" and it's not defined to be only cash as you state. JPS1 Amtrak does not generate enough cash to cover its current operating expenses, which you would know if you took the time to read the company's recent cash flow statements. Cash Flow is not the total definition of "available funds" anymore than Cash means Total Assets. I can run a C Corp with negative cash flow as easily as with positive cash flow. Available funds are not defined by cash flow from operations. Most especially when your dealing with a Corporation that gets appropriations from Congress and mixes them with private investments and regular bank financing. JPS1 Don't feel compelled to explain anything to me. You don't know anything about me; I don't care what you say. Especially regarding accounting and finance, which you seemingly know very little about. Agree it is a futile effort.... You invent Accounting and Finance definitions and rules as you see fit to fit your specific post narrative and your definitions change from thread to thread and are wildly inconsistent or narrowly tailored just for your means.
JPS1 Available funds usually refers to cash and cash equivalents. On the other hand, if the announcement said available financing, then it could be a variety of sources, i.e. line of credit, loan commitment, grant arrangement, etc.
JPS1 Amtrak does not generate enough cash to cover its current operating expenses, which you would know if you took the time to read the company's recent cash flow statements.
JPS1 Don't feel compelled to explain anything to me. You don't know anything about me; I don't care what you say. Especially regarding accounting and finance, which you seemingly know very little about.
JPS1It is clear that you have not read any of Amtrak’s financial statements. You should take the time to do so. Make sure you read the accompany notes since they are an integral part of the statements. They contain important insights into how Amtrak has financed its equipment acquisitions.
Just an FYI here since it seems to be unknown to you. How railroads finance equipment purchases was a topic in my Intermediate Accounting course as I am sure it is covered at other reputable Universities.........did you miss that course or not remember it?
At any rate, past equipment acquisitions were announced in the press release they would be acquired via loans. Such as with the Accela replacement:
Amtrak is funding the trainsets and infrastructure improvements through the FRA’s Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing program that will be repaid through growth in NEC revenues.
I do not see the key phrase "available funds" in the above. According to you though press releases concerning financing are meaningless and a company can state anything they want.....then change course on a whim (which for some reason I think got Elon Musk in trouble not too long ago). I haven't seen that happen in the past with Amtrak specifically.......and think that statement is not supported as well.
JPS1Amtrak does not have money on-hand to pay for the locomotives.
Again statement says funds NOT "cash on hand" nor does it say "cash from operations". Your attempt to keep changing the definition tells me your deliberately not being precise or your sloppy in your interpretations of financial statements. I've run a C Corporation with a negative cash flow and it never went bankrupt because I had "available funds".
JPS1But, as I indicated, it has available financing, which is slightly different.
Another redefinition attempt. Seriously, how many definitions are you going to attempt here for one phrase, that I think is self-explanatory all by itself.
JPS1Had you read my comments carefully
I have and as I said your bending definitions of phrases and terms to fit your narrative. Where is the proof for example that Amtrak has misled in past press releases as to where the funds would come from? I don't see any evidence of that looking at past press releases on buying equipment.
JPS1Clearly you are not an accountant and have not taken the time to study Amtrak's financial statements.
........yet here you are, attempting to make a case you know better.
So I am curious..... whatever happened to the last line a few threads back that Amtrak Financial Statements could not be relied on and that nobody could make statements about financial viability unless they worked for Amtrak and had inside information? How did we get to Amtrak Financial statements are not opaque and are golden? I think I missed that transformation somewhere in a unknown thread.
CMStPnP At any rate, past equipment acquisitions were announced in the press release they would be acquired via loans.
At any rate, past equipment acquisitions were announced in the press release they would be acquired via loans.
Wow! Intermediate Accounting Course! How many years ago? Unless you worked in accounting for years, an accountant you are not.
I am not interested in your uninformed views. Save them for someone who cares. Bye!
JPS1'Available funds could mean existing internally generated cash, existing loans, existing finance leases, existing surplus paid in capital such as a leftover Congressional appropriation for equipment purchase, extended lines of credit, etc, . '
Fixed it for you. :)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.