Turbines are not known for being fuel-efficient. I don't know if HEP on that thing is diesel or whether it is powered by a PTO on the turbine. If the latter, then Sunset might have to have a tank-car immediately following the turbine loco just to survive all of the UP's siding "parking lots". I recall hearing a number of times now that jet airliners typically have about the same fuel flows in gpm at idle on the runway as they do cruising at altitude. The positives for a jet turbine are relatively few moving parts, non-reciprocating parts (i.e., the parts run in a continuous circle rather than changing direction of travel constantly, like the pistons in "regular" engines), wonderful reliability (at least for modern aircraft engines), and truly astounding power-to-weight ratios. The negative is primarily fuel efficiency as far as pure operating costs are concerned. And of course for Amtrak or any other organization wanting to use something like that for revenue-generating business service, what do you do about maintenance, parts-stocks, repair facilities and specially-trained personnel? You would probably have to have an infrastructure in place for that engine that would cost easily several times the cost of the engine itself, but in this case that cost is not apportionable across hundreds of locos, so the per-loco cost becomes astronomical. And those costs would be continuing, ongoing costs for as long as you had (and used) that loco. As I see it, the main value of that loco is the novelty, the idea, for pax that they are being pulled by a jet engine. The practical utility of it just isn't there.
