posted
As we are preparing for our first long distance Amtrak travel tomorrow ... with complete satisfaction and appreciation for the valuable information we have gained from this forum ... I thought I'd ask a question out of curiosity. Somewhere, I believe I read that the trains have a maximum speed limit of 69 MPH. Yet I read on these forum pages that some trains manage to make up significant behind schedule times. Is there an unofficial rule to "make up lost time" that takes priority over the maximum MPH rule? Just curious.
-------------------- Big Al Posts: 9 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maximum speeds must be adhered to; period...end of sentence. The days of Locomotive Engineers "interpreting" speed limits as they saw fit are over.
However, on your Chief #3 journey, the max speed is 90. 79 is the normal speed allowed.
There is "pad" built into the schedules; on that point Miss Vickie reported to the forum that her #11(17) was 2hrs late near Oakland, yet it arrived into LA some 1'15" late.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that's 79 mph. The second answer is no, they make up time due to liberal 'padding' in the schedule. If you study a given train's schedule you'll see that sometimes several hours is allowed to travel relatively few miles. This gives the train the opportunity to get back on schedule sometimes. For example, #21 TX Eagle allows 3.5 hrs to cover the final 70 miles between Austin and San Antonio.
Posts: 326 | From: San Antonio Texas USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
In cases where trains make up an amazing amount of time, the schedules are 'padded' or given extra time to catch up.
An example that comes to mind is the 'Southwest Chief'. Pull up the timetable at the Amtrak website and notice what time #3 wesbound is scheduled to depart Fullerton and what time it is due to arrive in Los Angeles.
Then......look at #4 eastbound. What time does it depart Los Angeles and what time does it arrive Fullerton? If memory serves, number 3 is allowed about three times longer to cover the same distance. This is an example of schedule padding. It's also why an otherwise on-time #3 is often early.......very early into LAX.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To follow up on Messrs. Miami and Presley's point, I can recall a 2002 journey on the now-discontinued (whoops, "suspended") Sunset East, where I met a couple who were "going all the way'. I can recall, as we sipped one another's "private stock" in their Bedroom, she looked at the schedule and noted the then applicable arrival in Pomona of 345A and then the 7AM arrival at LAUPT. Her comment to me was "what must we do at Pomona, get out and push the train to LA"?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Mr. Norman says, the Southwest Chief does 90 mph on some segments. I believe ABQ-LAX includes quite a few of those.
I really like doing 90 in the wide open spaces. But what is nice in the mountains is that the train usually goes very slow due to terrain in the most scenic areas.
The tracks I live by are an example of "padding" in the schedule. From St. Cloud MN to St. Paul is 65 rail miles on double track that is mostly 79 mph. The eastbound Empire Builder gets 1:51 on the schedule to do it. The westbound time is 1:25. So a half hour late #8 can get into MSP almost on time. Padding usually occurs into service stops, so an ontime train may give a longer fresh air break than what shows on the schedule. ABQ is one of these.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Big Al StormTight may be wondering at this point why most speed limits are 79 MPH and not 80 MPH.
My knowledge of this is somewhat incomplete, and I'm sure Messrs Kisor and Harris can fill in any gaps. It relates to an unfunded federal mandate circa 1950. The federal gubbermint decreed that upgraded signaling systems needed to be installed for trains running 80 MPH or faster. Lacking sufficient capital to make systemwide upgrades, the railroads simply said "screw it" and lowered maximum speed limits to 79 and thus it has been ever since on most routes.
Amtrak long distance trains are actually capable of running 100 MPH if not more, but track conditions prohibit the trains from reaching their full potential. In the 1940s the United States had the fastest trains in the world, and speeds of 90-110 MPH were routine.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Toy's explanation covers the basic facts quite well. It was an Interstate Commerce Commission order of 1947 (somebody correct me if I miss any of these dates) that was supposed to be in effect in 1953. Some companies may have been given a couple of years more. At that time, the ICC also did the accident investigation and reports now done by the NTSB. If you read any of these old reports they seemed to always be quick to blame lack of signals for any accident possible. If there was an accident of the same nature on a line with signals, then you would see the blame placed on whatever rules violations or other circumstances that lead to the accident. Then they would go the step further and talk about the need for ATS, or for cab signals to prevent misreading of signals or any of the other lights, bells, and whistles that were in the 1947 order. But then there were also accidents on lines that had all this wonderful stuff, despite it being there.
Also as part of this same ICC order came the 59 mph for passenger trains, 49 mph for freight trains for lines that did not have signals.
Before that time, there were lines such as the Burlington - Rock Island line between Dallas and Houston that had a passenger train speed limit of 90 mph with no signals at all. After the order, they did install sufficient signals to be allowed to run 79 mph.
Some of their commentary verged on the silly, like saying signals were needed on a marginal GM&O line that had an "average of 4.3 trains per day" where the engineer overran a meet point. That is two per direction giving a meet about every six hours.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Big Al - you leave tomorrow and I won't have my trip report ready until then. In reference to the Alaska cruise, we shared ports with the Golden Princess several times, a beautiful ship, lots of balconies. You will have a great time. We enjoyed our excursions in smaller boats in Juneau, Sitka and Victoria. Saw lots of whales and other wildlife, lots of bald eagles.
In reference to track speed, I carry a GPS on the train. The train does indeed go 90 mph between Barstow and Needles on the SW Chief route. Enjoy that trip too as well as the Starlight. If Rich Ruiz, Cruz or Regina are among the staff send our regards. They were all great amd represented Amtrak well.
-------------------- Vicki in usually sunny Southern California Posts: 951 | From: Redondo Beach, CA | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was slightly surprised to be doing a reported 85mph on the California Zephyr over the plains where the maximum speed was 79mph. Reported by a defect detector which perhaps is not accurate. Judging by the axle counts that those things give out, where we gained and lost axles whilst on the move (a slip coach perhaps?), perhaps not.
Having said that, given that modern locomotives have electronic storage of speed and other data (aka black boxes), it's unlikely that an engineer would risk his/her job to make up time but then the odd mph over the limit for a minute or two is something everybody unintentionally experiences once in a while whilst driving a car or a train.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just back from our WOR-SAS / SAS-WOR trip. With our Garmin GPS we noticed mostly speeds of 79 (78-80) MPH during most portions. However...between SDY and ALB we saw the garmin display speeds up to 103MPH!
Erik
Posts: 26 | From: southbridge, MA USA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: However, on your Chief #3 journey, the max speed is 90. 79 is the normal speed allowed.
There is "pad" built into the schedules; on that point Miss Vickie reported to the forum that her #11(17) was 2hrs late near Oakland, yet it arrived into LA some 1'15" late.
The Chief runs about 90 on the stretch of the BNSF that still has ATS working. Where the ATS is not functioning it is down to 79.
JIM
Posts: 14 | From: SE KS/SW MO | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Small correction to Mr. Harris' post. The Federal Railroad Administration, not NTSB, has replaced the ICC in the role of investigating accidents and maintaining accident records. NTSB only investigates particularly severe accidents.
And the ICC rule specified that trains must operate at "less than 80 MPH" on signaled track without automatic train stop or cab signals with enforcement. On unsignaled track, passenger trains were required to operate at "less than 60 MPH" and freights at "less than 50 MPH", hence 79, 59, and 49.
Why these regs haven't been updated is a good question, since they conflict with FRA track standards (the lowest applicable speeds apply in all cases). FRA Class 5 track allows operation at "up to 80 MPH" for passenger and freight, and Class 4 "up to 80 MPH" for passenger, and "up to 60 MPH" for freight. Class 3 is 40/60, Class 2 is 25/40, Class 1 is 10/15. So on unsignaled Class 4 track freights would be limited to 49 MPH. Most likely, the railroad would choose to lower the track to Class 3 and set the speed at 40.
Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
