Good point. But the multistate RFP for diesels appears to be headed for single prime mover designs, and I assume that Amtrak will go the same direction if and when they can replace the P40/P42 fleet.NJT's ALP45-DPs have internal redundancy.... in the form of two prime movers.
The TE is not a "short train" and it has this problem over and over again.Any Amtrak train powered by a single locomotive is subject to this. Seems to happen at least once every summer, somewhere. Alas, the days of a passenger locomotive with internal redundancy -- the E series -- are long gone, nor is Amtrak inclined to double-up on locomotive assignments for short trains to prevent the occasional problem, nor does Amtrak position "protection" locomotives in places like Richmond. All a question of money.
If Amtrak would stop leasing P-42's to California, they might have a couple around to add to the Texas Eagle. A couple of P-42s are common on the Pacific Surfliner, can't comment about the San Joaquins. Must be a better "return" leasing them vs using them on their own trains.If the Texas Eagle is constantly having this problem, why don't they just buy/rent a couple of surplus freight locomotives, and stash them in places where they can be quickly brought up? If they aren't willing to run it with two locomotives, this seems like the only other option. This seems like a clear case of wanton incompetence to me.
Amtrak may be seeking to do just that, free up P-42s from the CA corridor services. There is a Request For Information (RFI) on the Amtrak procurement portal for procurement of "up to 15 new Tier 4 Diesel-Electric Locomotives and 1 Diesel Switch/Yard Locomotive in Conjunction with Amtrak's application to the Carl Moyer Grant Program". The Carl Moyer grant program is a CA state funded air quality standards program to fund buying of cleaner engines.If Amtrak would stop leasing P-42's to California, they might have a couple around to add to the Texas Eagle. A couple of P-42s are common on the Pacific Surfliner, can't comment about the San Joaquins. Must be a better "return" leasing them vs using them on their own trains.
The P-42s appear to be breaking down in revenue service way too often. I understand the maintenance budget issues, but these breakdowns and service interuptions cost money as well. From the outside, can't say how much ofthe poor reliability is due to aging P-42s, inadequate maintenance budget, poor work at the maintenance shops, corporate culture that resists more modern RCM practices, management not able to get on top of the situation and so on.Actually, I think the locomotives should be maintained better, using well known techniques like those used for the Acelas for example. Locomotives are not supposed to break down every so often provided they are properly maintained. The problem is trying to run everything on a shoestring budget. That is what cause locomotives to fail, causing people to demand exceedingly expensive solutions like using two locomotives which will now produce even worse maintenance given the limited funds causing even more road failures all voer the place causing lot of dead locomotives being dragged around and eventually parked while precious money is spent in getting even more locomotives.
It is better to work smarter and fund maintenance than to work dumber and keep buying new stuff and just running them into the ground.
Enter your email address to join: