Don't they have former F40 "cabbages" for that train?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Sometimes Amtrak motive power assignments astound me.
Apparently in their wisdom, Amtrak has decided that no train operating East of New Orleans and South of Jacksonville will have more than one P-42 assigned. OK, the terrain is essentially "flat", but engines (even relatively new ones) can "break down"; and I would think that if an engine hauling #1 or #2 called it quits in the bayous, CSX would be less than happy about the whole incident.
But on the flip side, if such happened South of Auburndale, I guess CSX would simply say "that's Amtrak's problem; after all, we pretty well just maintain a railroad for their's and Tri Rail's convenience".
However, by my home here, #347-348, Illinois Zephyr, operates double ended with P-42's. Even though one unit is shut down, that still seems to be a waste of motive power. I have further observed the same operating practice on the #350 et seq Michigan trains. Specific observation: #352 April 26 through Michiana Shores, IN.
I thought the F-40 "cabbage" conversions were made to relieve this inconsistent and wasteful operating practice. Or is Amtrak reluctant to "own up" to that they simply have more motive power laying around than they know what to do with?
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
Often power requirements are determined by operating limitations. For example, if an engine cannot turn around when it gets to its destination, then there has to be another engine on the back to haul it back to the origin.
Sometimes you'll see extra engines just being moved from one area to another, just to keep the balance right.
Finally, if there aren't staff around who can attach/detach engines when they're no longer needed (eg after a mountain range descent), then the engines might be carried a lot further than they need to be. I think this happens on the Empire Builder - nothing too strenuous east of Montana, but the same engines stay on all the way to/from Chicago.
Amongst other reasons, of course.
Geoff M.
Posted by K.O.Pectate (Member # 1604) on :
Many times there will be two units on push pull trains, i.e. 347-348, Hiawathas, Michigan trains due to the lack of serviceable NPCU's. Power requirements, on long distance trains, are dictated by the train size, schedule requirements and physical characteristics of the route. The use of one unit on a passenger has been practice on many Amtrak routes for 30 years. Just because the Florida trains are running with one unit, that does not necessarily make it bad....south of Aurburndale for quite sometime, the Tampa and Miami sections operated with one unit every day. Many freight carriers operate freight trains with one unit. Most commuter roads operate their trains with one unit...will there be failures, yes, as with all machines, they will fail once in a while. Can Amtrak afford to operate two units when only one is needed? No, not anymore than anyone else. Another reason why there is a necessity to keep the NPCU's serviceable.
Posted by DC2001 (Member # 542) on :
quote:Originally posted by K.O.Pectate: [B]Many times there will be two units on push pull trains, i.e. 347-348, Hiawathas, Michigan trains due to the lack of serviceable NPCU's[B]
Why are there so many unservicable NPCU's anyway? Neglected maintenance, or just rebuilt "on the cheap"?
I can see perhaps using two units (for protection) on trains moving long distances between terminals, but for something like the Illinois Zephyr it does seem like a waste.
Posted by K.O.Pectate (Member # 1604) on :
Although the idea of using F-40's for cab cars and baggage cars in the same vehicle is good, there have been some problems with suspension and ride quality due to the difference in weight of the two vehicles...F-40 vs. NPCU.
One NPCU is out of service as it hit a semi-truck at the IL-WI border a couple of weeks ago. There only a few equipped with Michigan cab signals. Should one or two NPCU's be out of service for maintainence, periodic inspection, etc., the fleet gets fairly tight on any given day. There were NPCU's being used to Louisville instead of a second unit. I am not certain if this is still true. Also, if a locomotive has been recently shopped for serious problems, this is a good way to test it and not have it far from home.
Posted by Silver Star (Member # 1570) on :
The use of one engine on a long haul train is a bad practice in my opinion. Everytime they try it on the Sunset east of New Orleans, it eventually backfires bigtime. In one notable incident 3 or 4 years ago, the solo engine more or less broke down at Madison, FL, limped to the next staffed station, Tallahassee, and the train was annulled in the middle of the night. Passengers had to be flown to their destinations at great expense after busses could not be located. This was not the only time it happened on the Sunset.
Many years ago I was aboard the Silver Star when its sole engine failed north of Ft. Lauderdale, tying up the mainline and delaying us for a couple hours. It is an ugly event when that happens.
True, an extra engine costs money to run but it is a redundancy that I believe is worthwhile as a modern passenger train cannot function without head end power. Thus a substitute freight engine is of little help if the engine completely dies or is damaged in a grade crossing collision. The nearest substitute passenger engine may be 12 or more hours away. This is one practice that is penny wise and pound foolish.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
Not being rude here, but do you really think Amtrak has the money to buy a couple of dozen more engines at millions of dollars each, just in case of the odd failure?
Geoff M.
Posted by ENR3877 (Member # 1573) on :
while I can't speak for Amtrak on this one, I can speak for the Pacific Wilderness. What we used to do is because the siding were the trains turned around was too small to handle all the cars we would have two units on the head end to pull the train up the steep grade and, the third unit would be idling on the tail end, when they'd get to the siding instead of running around the train(too long for the siding) the crew would head to the unit on the tail end for the return trip, on the return trip the units that were on the head end became the tail end, and ran back down to Victoria idling.
Posted by Kairho (Member # 1567) on :
When there are more than 1 engines do they all operate at all times? Or does one or more just get pulled around as a backup and only active as needed?
Posted by Stanley Steamer (Member # 950) on :
I think that most of the replies posted here are mere guesses as to what the reasons Amtrak has for using certain types of power consists, just for instance we run 250 miles from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh with normally around 30 loaded cars and we need 2 p42 units to pull the train due to the weight, three would be nice but 2 is all we get and we still get there. So I tend to think that whatever the conditions require such as weather conditions or train weight or maybe even speed or fuel consumption, who knows maybe even state or local laws where the train runs, the company acts accordingly to its unique power needs whereever they may be.
Posted by earmond (Member # 186) on :
The date is February 23, 2002, Train 14. We have 2 P42's at the head, with 12 superliner pieces of equipment and deheading 3 pieces of California cars at the rear. We departed San Luis Obispo relatively on time. Go up Horseshoe curve at speed. After Horseshoe, we start slowing down. I get on the scanner and hear that the trailing P42 is shutting down. The Computer is sensing traction slipping, and has been, all the way up from SLO. Finally the consist comes to a stop, some distance from the top of the grade. After the onboard engineer has attempted several times to get the computer to bypass the fault, with some assistance from the dispatcher and additional personnel, it is decided rebooting is to no avail and to ask for the UP helper out of SLO. 4 HOURS LATER, the helper shows up and we never catch up the time. Thanks to even more slow orders and other delays, the train is annulled at Portland, 12 hrs late. We are put on busses to further destinations.
1. Is there no manual bypass of the computer that would have allowed the human Engineer to make a decision about the whether the second unit is allowed to stay online or not?
2. In some cases, even 2 P42's is not enough.
3. Amtrak's satisfaction guarantee came through for the voucher.
Comments anyone?
Ernie
Posted by Eric (Member # 674) on :
1. If the computer thinks something is wrong (a small problem), and the engineer doesn't, he can probably reset the system and try to get the unit going again. But I guess the computer can say, "We have a problem, and this unit has to be shut down." And that's that.
2. Amtrak could start carrying another unit dead-in-tow, just in case one of the others fails. But the ratio of engine failures to the cost of carrying a backup unit might not be an economically sound idea.
3. Good to hear!
[This message has been edited by Eric (edited 05-22-2002).]
Posted by locomotiveguy (Member # 1445) on :
If you are in the middle of the desert in the summer, or running along the Canadian border in the winter, do you want all your head end power eggs in one basket? People could die. How many millions will that cost? No long distance train should run with one engine.
Posted by Kairho (Member # 1567) on :
...which brings me to a question that I've been trying to find an answer to. In such a case where there are multiple engines, but not all are physically needed to pull, are all of them still used?
Specific example. When I took the Sunset Limited from Florida last month there were two engines. In New Orleans they swapped them out for 3. I asked and was told that the third was just in case there was a problem, in the remote areas. So, will they run with 2 or all 3?
Posted by atsf3751 (Member # 1538) on :
I have always wondered what how Amtrak assigns locomotives. Whenever I see the Southwest Chief leaving or heading to LA through Fullerton, it almost always has four P42s, sometimes even 5. The Sunset also often has 3 or 4 P42s when it comes into LA. I imagine the SW Chief gets a lot of engines because it is a heavy train (often exceeding 20 cars), but four seems to be a lot when you compare it to a freight train that might have 2-4 engines and 100+ cars. Maybe Amtrak assigns more engines on western trains to maintain reasonable speeds on the steeper terrain.
Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :
I've spent a fair bit of time running computer simulations of train operations. The relationship between tractive effort and horsepower doesn't seem to be well understood by railfans. Basically, tractive effort gets the train started and keeps it moving on grades. Horsepower determines how fast you can go.
With 16,000 HP and 20 cars, #3 and #4 are grossly overpowered in HP terms. For comparison, a unit coal train gets, typically, 1 HP per ton. Intermodal trains get 2.5 to 3 HP per ton. A 20-car passenger train would certainly weigh less than 2,500 tons, for 6.4 HP per ton. That should enable it to climb trees...except that four-axle power doesn't have a lot of tractive effort. A four-axle diesel weighs about 140 tons. These are DC units, so their adhesion ratio is probably about 25% (the percentage of weight that can be turned into tractive effort). Max tractive effort is thus about 70,000 lbs. per unit. With four units, you get 280,000 lbs. max tractive -- probably about the most the couplers can stand, and quite sufficient for a 3% grade. Again by comparison, 375,000 lbs. tractive will take a 15,000 ton coal train up a 1% grade.
So my guess is that the 3% grades on Raton and Glorieta, combined with train size, are the reason for the four units. Still, I rode the Super Chief in 1971 and we got the job done with 6 F units (9,000 HP), but then we had no MHCs or Roadrailers in the consist.
Posted by K.O.Pectate (Member # 1604) on :
Normal locotmotive consist for Trains 7 and 8 between Chicago and Seattle is two units and between Spokane and Portland (27/28) is one unit. During the winter months, due to the normally severe weather across the Gn High Line, these trains are assigned 3 units between Chicago and Spokane. I note that 5 and 6 have been assigned three units due to the increase in mail and express business. Trains 3 and 4 operate normally with 4 units, one of which is isolated, normally, between Chicago and La Junta to save fuel. Mr. Stanley Steamer mentioned about 40-41-43-44 assigned two units and could use three. Normal consist for those trains has been two units even in the F-40 days, albeit 40-41 were not as big then and 43-44 did not exist west of Pittsburgh. The bottom line is that Amtrak assigns locomotives based on the geographical profile of the route, the normal size of the train, and the schedule.
Posted by Eric (Member # 674) on :
"Trains 3 and 4 operate normally with 4 units, one of which is isolated, normally, between Chicago and La Junta to save fuel."
These trains are operating with 5 units quite often these days, so I guess they'll probably be isolating two of them now. It seems like they could tack on the two units at La Junta, but that might be too time consuming.
Posted by K.O.Pectate (Member # 1604) on :
Adding/removing a unit at La Junta was tried not too long ago, but was discontinued due to the legnth of time required, including turning (wyeing)the inbound unit off 4 for 3 the next day. There are no longer the Santa Fe (now BNSF) personnel available to help as when this move was done during the SDP-40F era.
Posted by BTrain (Member # 1687) on :
oops,sorry.
[This message has been edited by BTrain (edited 05-31-2002).]
Posted by BTrain (Member # 1687) on :
Ah, the beauty of the F40's-no computerized crap-everything manual. They were nothing like these new 'smart-locos', the F59's and the often tempermental P42's. An engineer could kick the side of a F40 and it would fire right up---too bad they had such bad fuel efficiency, they were noisy, and they can't seem to pass most state emissions standards.