In order for a neutered AEM-7 to retain HEP capability you would need to retain at least one pantograph, the main transformer and the associated switchgear. You wouldn't have much room left for baggage. Transformers, whether in utility or rail service, don't last forever. The larger they are the shorter the service life. Thirty years is about all you can ask for from a transformer in an electric engine.
I do agree with the premise of having a separate HEP gen in the NPCUs to allow for more traction from the motive power. HEP packages are not prohibitively expensive but Amtrak has not chosen to utilize them. Apparently P40/42 reliability is still high enough to not warrant extra HEP capability.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Yes, some thoughts.
2. Why is a Metroliner cab car exhibiting the gum line recession that comes with age and less then perfect care (i.e. long in the tooth) whereas the AEM-7DC's have pink gums and white teeth?
3. What does the failure rate of the Diesel prime movers on locomotives have anything to do with the conversion of an electric locomotive to a non-powered use?
4. What does the failure of DC traction motors have to do with anything since the AEM-7's are being retired?
5. OK, so you are saying the Genesis locos won't be a source of non-powered conversions anytime soon.
6-13 Keeping the pans and HEP capability while giving up the traction capability -- what, to make room for baggage racks? -- seems even to a person not versed in the technical problems as an expensive rebuild for marginal usefulness.
Why not convert the AEM7's to just plain old baggage cars? When locomotives are depowered, they are usually ballasted to their original running weight so as to not have to redo the suspensions completely. The AEM7s run at up to 125 MPH, and as locomotives they are much lighter than Diesels that have been depowered.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Cannnot justify the costs to add capability to a near-life-expired piece of equipment.
When Amtrak starts converting the HHPs & AEM-7DCs the conversion might include a provision not stated.
Background:
1. The cabbages may allow for many more trains to have baggage service
2. If no baggage service will at least allow the long in tooth Metroliner cab cars to be retired.
3. Many of Amtrak's P-40DCs & P-42DCs have a high failure rate of prime movers.
4. Many DC traction motors fail especially in fine snow.
5. It will be many years before the P-40 & P-42s retirements will actually happen due to capital fund availability
Proposal
6. When converting retain only HEP equipment.
7. Wire the HEP to feed whenever the normal locomotive source fails.
8. These cabbage cars wired to use regenerative (dynamic) braking power to feed HEP inverter to provide HEP at least when train is moving. This is a feature of the new ACS-64s whenever they are in regenerative braking.
Results
9. For use on NEC not much gain due to ACS-64s having dual HEP sources.
10. If not too expensive retain PAN and use it to provide HEP if necessary.
11. If NEC train pulled by non HEP diesel then HEP available though if ACS-64 is attached. ---..
12. If on trains with a single diesel loco assigned if diesel fails to provide HEP then at least a standby loco from freight RRs would provide motion to supply HEP
13.. On LD trains with baggage car substitute cabbage behind regular locos to provide HEP especially on the northern routes subject to snow failures of DC traction motors that requires freight locos to pull train. This especially important on EB, CAL Z, SWC, Eagle.
Down sides
14. A capital cost.
15. would slow train somewhat
16. Still no HEP at stations or waiting at sidings.i
.Thoughts anyone ?? .
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.