ACS-64: First peak at Amtrak's newest locomotive

[wkwood]

What's disturbing is that the taxpayer is paying more for locomotives with an ever-shorter service life. The PRR GG-1 lasted close to 50 years, and probably would have stayed in service longer than it did had the former PRR lines not de-electrified (BTW, thanks, Amtrak, another good one!) The AEM-7's service life will be 35-40 years, depending on exactly when they are retired. The E-60's service span on Amtrak was 29 years - and, actually, quite a bit less for much of the fleet. If Amtrak is indeed going to fully replace the HHP-8 with the new locos, that'll mean the HHP-8 will have had a service life of less than 15 years. I've had cars that lasted longer than that.

But, it's only taxpayer money Amtrak's playing with. Who needs good design, when the taxpayer will be forced to buy replacements every couple of years?

Well hang on. the GG1s were great but were huge power consumers and they were great technology for the time but let's face it, 50 years for transportation technology is a bit long. Would you still fly in a DC-9 or a 707 if it were available to fly coast to coast or would you prefer a new 737 or a 777 without a Korean training pilot? The AEM-7s have done a remarkable stint but their technology is very, very old. Yes like the GG1s, they would still work as long as they were properly maintained, which they are, but I do know
that Wilmington has to make a ton of the parts just to go in them which increases maintenance costs. And while the new locomotives are being purchased with a loan from the US government of $466m, it's not a subsidy and with Amtrak doing record business on the corridor, they'll pay for themselves by being more available to haul trains, have fewer breakdowns (having been stuck on one or two Acelas and Regionals hauled by AEM-7s and HHP-8s, it's no fun "walking the plank" to another train) and being more energy efficient. They also have more sophisticated diagnostic systems onboard to help avoid service outages by alerting Amtrak's mechanical department of issues before a train breaks down.

So yes, spending $6m for each locomotive is expensive but I think Amtrak has done its homework here and that these new locomotives will do just fine for them and the taxpayers won't be out a dime.

 

[RRSignal]

Well hang on. the GG1s were great but were huge power consumers and they were great technology for the time but let's face it, 50 years for transportation technology is a bit long. Would you still fly in a DC-9 or a 707 if it were available to fly coast to coast or would you prefer a new 737 or a 777 without a Korean training pilot? The AEM-7s have done a remarkable stint but their technology is very, very old. Yes like the GG1s, they would still work as long as they were properly maintained, which they are, but I do know
that Wilmington has to make a ton of the parts just to go in them which increases maintenance costs. And while the new locomotives are being purchased with a loan from the US government of $466m, it's not a subsidy and with Amtrak doing record business on the corridor, they'll pay for themselves by being more available to haul trains, have fewer breakdowns (having been stuck on one or two Acelas and Regionals hauled by AEM-7s and HHP-8s, it's no fun "walking the plank" to another train) and being more energy efficient. They also have more sophisticated diagnostic systems onboard to help avoid service outages by alerting Amtrak's mechanical department of issues before a train breaks down.

So yes, spending $6m for each locomotive is expensive but I think Amtrak has done its homework here and that these new locomotives will do just fine for them and the taxpayers won't be out a dime.

What's wrong with better engineering, though? If you can build a locomotive to last 50 years, why not? Sure, there comes a point of diminishing returns, where reliability and parts availability become an issue, but that doesn't mean we have to settle for Walmart-quality trains. That may actually mean unit cost will be higher, since it may require a bit of overbuilding, as previous locomotive builders tended to do, as well as longer-term parts contracts from the manufacturer. But, it's well worth it if it gets the Total Cost of Ownership down. Lastly, one has to consider that the replacement costs of these new locomotives is probably going to be considerably higher (due to inflation) in 30 or 40 years than it is now (consider that the AEM-7 cost the equivalent of $5.4m each in 1979 dollars, versus $6m for the ACS-64.) That also means not necessarily settling with the lowest bidder, as tend to happen with government contracts, nor does it necessarily exclude the future possibility of overhauls.

The flipside is that the ACS-64 could very well turn out to be a total lemon, like the HHP-8 of today and the E60 of the past. Tech is always "new" at some point, but that doesn't make it better. With large machines like these, it tends to make sense to build on a proven framework, adding reasonable, but not radical, enhancements. This at least reduces the chances of a total flub.

U.S. and non-U.S. locomotive builders have proven they can build durable products. Durability and new technology are not mutual-exclusive, however, and (as you pointed out) enhanced sensor and diagnostic technology, along with more-efficient propulsion systems can enhance durability.

(P.S. While I'm no longer actively flying, back when I did, some of the planes weren't exactly new stuff. Never bothered me a bit, as long as they were properly maintained.)

 

[PerRock]

That also means not necessarily settling with the lowest bidder, as tend to happen with government contracts, nor does it necessarily exclude the future possibility of overhauls.

Except the US government has to take the lowest bidder.

The flipside is that the ACS-64 could very well turn out to be a total lemon, like the HHP-8 of today and the E60 of the past. Tech is always "new" at some point, but that doesn't make it better. With large machines like these, it tends to make sense to build on a proven framework, adding reasonable, but not radical, enhancements. This at least reduces the chances of a total flub.

U.S. and non-U.S. locomotive builders have proven they can build durable products. Durability and new technology are not mutual-exclusive, however, and (as you pointed out) enhanced sensor and diagnostic technology, along with more-efficient propulsion systems can enhance durability.

The ACS isn't that new of a technology. It's basically an existing Siemens locomotive with a new shell & frame. One of the reasons it was so cheap & why I believe it'll be more reliable then say the HHP-8s.

peter

 

[nicky9499]

Except the US government has to take the lowest bidder.

Who ever thought this was a good idea? It's just forcing the government to accept the lowest quality stuff. Not all the time, but most of the time you do get what you pay for.

 

[wkwood]

What's wrong with better engineering, though? If you can build a locomotive to last 50 years, why not? Sure, there comes a point of diminishing returns, where reliability and parts availability become an issue, but that doesn't mean we have to settle for Walmart-quality trains. That may actually mean unit cost will be higher, since it may require a bit of overbuilding, as previous locomotive builders tended to do, as well as longer-term parts contracts from the manufacturer. But, it's well worth it if it gets the Total Cost of Ownership down. Lastly, one has to consider that the replacement costs of these new locomotives is probably going to be considerably higher (due to inflation) in 30 or 40 years than it is now (consider that the AEM-7 cost the equivalent of $5.4m each in 1979 dollars, versus $6m for the ACS-64.) That also means not necessarily settling with the lowest bidder, as tend to happen with government contracts, nor does it necessarily exclude the future possibility of overhauls.

The flipside is that the ACS-64 could very well turn out to be a total lemon, like the HHP-8 of today and the E60 of the past. Tech is always "new" at some point, but that doesn't make it better. With large machines like these, it tends to make sense to build on a proven framework, adding reasonable, but not radical, enhancements. This at least reduces the chances of a total flub.

U.S. and non-U.S. locomotive builders have proven they can build durable products. Durability and new technology are not mutual-exclusive, however, and (as you pointed out) enhanced sensor and diagnostic technology, along with more-efficient propulsion systems can enhance durability.

(P.S. While I'm no longer actively flying, back when I did, some of the planes weren't exactly new stuff. Never bothered me a bit, as long as they were properly maintained.)

I think it's very well engineered. In this case form follows function and it's not going to be shaped like a TGV because only out in one area will they get close to 150MPH. Most of the time these will be below 120MPH so aerodynamics isn't a big concern. Reliability and Maintainability are. In 30 years you may be saying that these lasted just as long as the older AEM-7s which have become a big maintenance headache for Amtrak. And if they wear out in 30 years, by then there'll be something newer. I just never like walking the plank is all or getting stuck with no HEP in the middle of summer either so as long as these get me to my destination safely, reliably and on time I don't care what they look like.

You know, they could always put go fast stickers on them, maybe a nice ghost flame job, would that be better?

Now the weakest link will be that old infrastructure from the Depression that they're expected to run on that'll be the next major investment hurdle.

 

[wkwood]

Who ever thought this was a good idea? It's just forcing the government to accept the lowest quality stuff. Not all the time, but most of the time you do get what you pay for.

Financial accountability laws? Actually government agencies can avoid the lowest bidder if they can demonstrate that they would get better service/value from higher bids or that the low bidders are incapable of delivery. I've done quite a few government contracts where the lowest bidder has failed. Those are the best kind of contracts ;-)