A friend (Amtrak/Marc employee) who is going to be in the cab for the trip.

Your friend is apparently pulling your leg.

I just now got a text message from a RR Museum of Pa. representative saying "Our AEM7 isn't leaving the fenceline that day."

Ahhh so they're installing some catenary at the museum to run the engine back and forth - within the fence line, huh? ;)

Amtrak's own publicity for the excursion and the train number of the excursion would indicate that AEM-7 #942 is going to be one of the units on the train. I'm guessing that unit number has not been retired yet? Now if we can get it sent straight from operating to preservation...

Well, it took a few days, but my article on the farewell trip is up for viewing on the Akron Railroad Club blog. Surprisingly, there are not many reports on the trip up on the interwebs. Hope some of you enjoy reading this.

Link: https://akronrrclub.wordpress.com/2016/ ... ladelphia/

Saw a photo on FB featuring Amtrak AEM-7 numbers 942 and 928 in tow at Point of Rocks, MD sandwiched into a passenger train with rumors of a sale to the DOT in Pueblo.

FYI, and /or - anyone have further information?

Whoops, sorry, didn't see new thread.
"Crash test dummies", apparently...

Other than that - has anyone suggested any interest in the preservation of additional units other than No 915 at the Railroad Museum of PA? St. Louis, perhaps? Illinois Railway Museum? And... then there was that ultra long shot rumor of the CA HSR using some, or was that CA regular speed rail?

/Mitch

After what has happened with everyone dropping the ball with the F40PH ( which except for its lack of ability to run backwards would be great from museume service) I doubt a locomotive that requires overhead will find a taker.

It is a real shame that no AEM-7s may be preserved. Yes, they need overhead wires, but, then, so do our beloved GG1s, yet quite a few of those have been preserved, even though none will ever run again. So why should not being able to run be a good reason for not preserving at least one example of such a successful locomotive? I would think that a museum that already has a GG1 would be a great place for a preserved AEM-7, which could be placed next to their GG1, and used to educate the public about the reasons for the many differences in style and internals between those two models of electric-powered locomotives.

And about F40PHs:
Don't you mean that they don't have hostler's controls in the rear, so they cannot run safely in reverse at a museum that does not do push-pull operations? F40PHs can, indeed, run in reverse, which the 23 used by Caltrain here on the SF Peninsula do many times every day. Ditto (I think!) on Chicago's Metra. But these locomotives are in regular service, so I think we can put our efforts to preserve a few F40s on the back burner for now. But any museum that wants a working F40PH should keep an eye on Caltrain's electrification project, because once it is done and all 96 Stadler EMUs are in service, Caltrain will probably want to dispose of many of their F40PHs. Caltrain will still need to keep some of their F40PHs until they get enough EMUs to replace all their diesel-powered trains. That is not going to happen any time soon.

You're basically describing the outdoor yard at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, which not only has a former Amtrak AEM-7 on display but the original GG1 "Old Rivets" just a few feet away from it.

Ummmmmmmm............ you haven't been paying attention.

One HAS been preserved: 915 at the RR Museum of Pa., right alongside the Budd Metroliner, the GE E60CP, and two GG1's--all built/assembled in Pennsylvania.

And there still exists the possibility, if not probability, that another will be saved somewhere--either another Amtrak one, or one of the ones on SEPTA or MARC.

AEM-7ACs 942 & 928 departing Chicago on ATK 3(13) reportedly bound for the DOT / AAR test track in Colorado. So those are two that ought to be around for some time.

Are those RV package air conditioners over the cab roofs? Best we could come up with?

928 and 942 will be around long enough for them to give the last full-measure as test crash subjects.

It has been thoroughly speculated elsewhere about these two being "crash test dummies."

People in a much better position to know have stated that no only is there no need or use for crash data from a now-obsolete model, such data has already been unwittingly provided by "sacrificial lambs" 900 and 903 at Chase, Md. in 1987.

Thus, it is exceedingly unlikely that these will be used in crash tests of any sort. There are all kinds of more common (and thus relevant) disused locomotives lying about MUCH closer to Pueblo if such tests are needed.

Provided that said identification is even accurate:
Is there any proof that "off the shelf" technology already readily available and serviceable was/is somehow inferior to something custom-built at greater expense?