In the TRAINS Newswire(12/14/2010) There was recently a story about the State of North Carolina dedicating and naming a couple of rebuilt F59PH( built1988 for GO Transit) locomotives for $1.5 million a piece with monies from a$545 Million Grant from the American Recovery Act; destined to refurbish locomotives and cars used in the "Piedmont Rail" Commuter Service. The 3 Locomotives are part of an$20.3 Million initial phase to rebuild equipment. { I have read in other articles and storys that apparently these particular locomotives do take pretty good regular beatings in grade crossing incidents on many back road crossings with gravel trucks and log trucks and other vehicles.
I understand that locomotives are currently expensive ($2 Million +-each ) but that much( $1.5 million) to rebuild forty year old diesels. Since these units are used in service on regular passenger schedules, would not newer engines be a better, more cost-effective use of that much money? ( Let's not mix in old steam power in this discussion.)
Then, I turned up this following article from the on-line Arizona Daily Star by Rob O'Dell 12/29/2010 @
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_b12c97f3-22cd-57ff-9c5e-84b579cbb303.html?mode=story
FtA: "...Until Tuesday, the city had not met the requirements for the $63 million grant to be executed by the FTA. It has done $25.4 million worth of work on designing the streetcar and buying materials but hadn't met the federal government's requirements in other respects.
FTA: "...The 3.9-mile modern-streetcar route to connect the west side through downtown to the University of Arizona is expected to cost about $196 million.
Tucson needs to raise $26 million more to fund the entire project. The city is seeking more federal money to make up the gap.
If the city can't get the federal money in time, Glock said, it will issue either grant-anticipation notes or certificates of participation to finance the $26 million gap..."
Maybe, It is just my in ability to wrap my mind around the sums involved and the way the Governmental entities throw the large sum around. But I remember when things( and projects were mentioned with trepidation with sums in ten of thousands and some in hundreds of thousands. It seems that these projects are just swamped with major dollar{millions/billions) amounts to make them seem worth while(?)
Hopefully, somebody can ' splain this new economics to me.
This more my speed!
http://www.coolestone.com/media/1477/Couple039;s-Radio-Flyer-Turns-Heads-On-Streets/
samfp1943 In the TRAINS Newswire(12/14/2010) There was recently a story about the State of North Carolina dedicating and naming a couple of rebuilt F59PH( built1988 for GO Transit) locomotives for $1.5 million a piece with monies from a$545 Million Grant from the American Recovery Act; destined to refurbish locomotives and cars used in the "Piedmont Rail" Commuter Service. The 3 Locomotives are part of an$20.3 Million initial phase to rebuild equipment. { I have read in other articles and storys that apparently these particular locomotives do take pretty good regular beatings in grade crossing incidents on many back road crossings with gravel trucks and log trucks and other vehicles. I understand that locomotives are currently expensive ($2 Million +-each ) but that much( $1.5 million) to rebuild forty year old diesels. Since these units are used in service on regular passenger schedules, would not newer engines be a better, more cost-effective use of that much money? ( Let's not mix in old steam power in this discussion.)
As you note they are 22-year old locomotives not 40-year old locomotives. New commuter type locomotives are in the $3+ million range since they have to supply HEP. To get even that low you need to be part of a bigger order. Several US commuter agencies were lucky that GO Transit needed to upgrade to more powerful locomotives in order to operate longer trains.
Then, I turned up this following article from the on-line Arizona Daily Star by Rob O'Dell 12/29/2010 @ "City scrambled to secure funding before seating of new Congress" "US grants Tucson $63M for streetcar" http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_b12c97f3-22cd-57ff-9c5e-84b579cbb303.html?mode=story FtA: "...Until Tuesday, the city had not met the requirements for the $63 million grant to be executed by the FTA. It has done $25.4 million worth of work on designing the streetcar and buying materials but hadn't met the federal government's requirements in other respects. FTA: "...The 3.9-mile modern-streetcar route to connect the west side through downtown to the University of Arizona is expected to cost about $196 million. Tucson needs to raise $26 million more to fund the entire project. The city is seeking more federal money to make up the gap. If the city can't get the federal money in time, Glock said, it will issue either grant-anticipation notes or certificates of participation to finance the $26 million gap..." Maybe, It is just my in ability to wrap my mind around the sums involved and the way the Governmental entities throw the large sum around. But I remember when things( and projects were mentioned with trepidation with sums in ten of thousands and some in hundreds of thousands. It seems that these projects are just swamped with major dollar{millions/billions) amounts to make them seem worth while(?) Hopefully, somebody can ' splain this new economics to me. This more my speed! http://www.coolestone.com/media/1477/Couple039;s-Radio-Flyer-Turns-Heads-On-Streets/
Consider the German Stuttgart 21 project designed to replace the current terminal station with a through station, the project was approved with a budget of € 4.03 billion, opponents say that estimate is too low and the final cost will be more like € 8 billion. The project does include a lot of tunneling inside the city, but that figure does not include revenue from the sale of redundant land worth several more billion Euros in the heart of the city.
This is why everything costs so much to build today:
Incidentally, NC already had 2 of those F59PHs. Staying with the same make and model greatly reduces the cost and quantity of spare parts you need to keep on hand and minimizes the cost of training for your maint people.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Sad to think what we would done in WWII with that sort of process? Or, more recently, the moon mission?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Sad to think what we would done in WWII with that sort of process? Or, more recently, the moon mission?
True, but perhaps a shorter version would have avoided the extremely expensive clean-up required at the former nuclear weapons production sites in Washington, Ohio, and Georgia.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.