Something weird with that link---not working on my end.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Change check=1 to check=0, and it works.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Check=1 works for me -- why not for everyone else? Maybe the Internet is running out of fuel, too.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
That's weird.....okay, it worked fine after changing the "1" to a "0".
So the passengers sat for 2 hours with no power, no air conditioning, and no flushing toilets? Lovely, just lovely......
See why I'm no longer an Amtrak customer? It just keeps getting worse. SOMETHING FISHY IS GOING ON AT AMTRAK! When I figure it out, I'll be the first one to say something. Right now it's a mystery.
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
I had to change it to a "0", too.
I don't think there was anything in the Los Angeles Times about this today. Interesting that the Mercury had the story.
Frank in Sunny SBA
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
The San Diego Union-Tribune's web site reports that the train is said to have stalled (but doesn't say who said so) owing to either a faulty fuel sensor or faulty fuel pump. Let's hope it was one of those rather than low go-juice or maybe the engineer didn't have enough money left on his credit card . . .
Later: Now the LA Times reports that an Amtrak spokeswoman said the locomotive indeed ran out of fuel, but they were still investigating to see if there was a mechanical reason for that. She added that it's not unheard of for engines to run short of fuel on that route.
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
Now that I think about it, the print edition of The Times that we get goes to press to early for this story to have made it. I'll double check tomorrow.
Frank in muggy SBA
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
That's a new one to me -- an AMTRAK loco running out of fuel. I don't think that has ever happened to me.
By the way, I too had to change the "1" to a "0" on the link.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Very hard for these to run out of fuel. Of course, the longer the NEC goes without investment, the more likely the power outages will be.
(That doesn't mean that this is no longer the desirable kind of locomotion for CA passenger rail.)
Posted by Ham Radio (Member # 6587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Later: Now the LA Times reports that an Amtrak spokeswoman said the locomotive indeed ran out of fuel, but they were still investigating to see if there was a mechanical reason for that. She added that it's not unheard of for engines to run short of fuel on that route.
I've got news for the Amtrak spokesperson: The "mechanical reason" for the engine running out of fuel was a prior lack of a hose and nozzle attached to the fuel tank filler cap. In other words, no fuel enroute.
My employer (UPRR) contracts with local diesel suppliers who (with road access) can drive their tanker trucks right to the engines in a siding or station. Amtrak can do the same, just specify where and when the meet is to be held.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ham Radio: I've got news for the Amtrak spokesperson: The "mechanical reason" for the engine running out of fuel was a prior lack of a hose and nozzle attached to the fuel tank filler cap. In other words, no fuel enroute.
To be fair, there are two common reasons for this happening: 1. The engine was swapped in place for another at the last minute and the fuel calculations weren't similarly updated. 2. There was a fuel leak.
quote:Originally posted by Ham Radio: My employer (UPRR) contracts with local diesel suppliers who (with road access) can drive their tanker trucks right to the engines in a siding or station. Amtrak can do the same, just specify where and when the meet is to be held.
Indeed: I remember being on the southbound Crescent when we stopped around 7am somewhere where there was a tanker truck waiting for us. Twenty minutes later, fully juiced up, we were on our way again. I don't know whether that was a scheduled refuel.
