Any news yet on how the testing went

[iowa train fan]

By any chance has anyone heard how the testing is going for the BNSF line that the CZ runs on through southern IL?. Last word was if all went well, BNSF would statrt operations tomorrow morning on that trackage. Is there any real push for Amtrak to restore full CZ service? are they loosing money by having to charter buses from Omaha to Denver?

 

[wayman]

By any chance has anyone heard how the testing is going for the BNSF line that the CZ runs on through southern IL?. Last word was if all went well, BNSF would statrt operations tomorrow morning on that trackage. Is there any real push for Amtrak to restore full CZ service? are they loosing money by having to charter buses from Omaha to Denver?

I'm curious about the fuel costs. Ignoring all other costs--and just looking at fuel cost per passenger mile--how does the cost of operating a train OMA-DEN compare with operating buses, assuming the train is full to capacity so you'd need an equivalent number of bus seats? Basically, I have no idea of the gas mileage of a tourbus, the gas mileage of two P42s, what type of fuel P42s run on (how does it compare to 87 octane unleaded?), and the number of seats on a tourbus (and hence the number of tourbuses required to bus a full train)?

Or in practice does Amtrak need far fewer bus-seats than that for OMA-DEN, since there are no intermediate stops (right? or are there?) and hence fewer passengers overall?

 

[iowa train fan]

By any chance has anyone heard how the testing is going for the BNSF line that the CZ runs on through southern IL?. Last word was if all went well, BNSF would statrt operations tomorrow morning on that trackage. Is there any real push for Amtrak to restore full CZ service? are they loosing money by having to charter buses from Omaha to Denver?

I'm curious about the fuel costs. Ignoring all other costs--and just looking at fuel cost per passenger mile--how does the cost of operating a train OMA-DEN compare with operating buses, assuming the train is full to capacity so you'd need an equivalent number of bus seats? Basically, I have no idea of the gas mileage of a tourbus, the gas mileage of two P42s, what type of fuel P42s run on (how does it compare to 87 octane unleaded?), and the number of seats on a tourbus (and hence the number of tourbuses required to bus a full train)?

Or in practice does Amtrak need far fewer bus-seats than that for OMA-DEN, since there are no intermediate stops (right? or are there?) and hence fewer passengers overall?

I will find out for sure tomorrow as I will be on the bus from Oma-Den. As far as I know, it makes stops at all the normal Amtrak stations. Don't know if they skip if there are no waiting passengers.

 

[the_traveler]

As far as the amount of buses needed, don't forget that it's not a full train! Just assuming there would be 250 people on the CZ from CHI-DEN, there would not be 250 pax starting in OMA. Since there is no service across Iowa, the only people boarding the bus in OMA would be those starting in OMA!

I don't know the boarding, but assume 10 people would get on in OMA, so that 250 just got down to 10! I think they could all fit on 1 bus!

 

[wayman]

As far as the amount of buses needed, don't forget that it's not a full train! Just assuming there would be 250 people on the CZ from CHI-DEN, there would not be 250 pax starting in OMA. Since there is no service across Iowa, the only people boarding the bus in OMA would be those starting in OMA!
I don't know the boarding, but assume 10 people would get on in OMA, so that 250 just got down to 10! I think they could all fit on 1 bus!

There I go, overlooking the obvious again! :unsure: :lol:

 

[the_traveler]

There I go, overlooking the obvious again! :unsure: :lol:

That qualifies you to run for office!

 

[jackal]

Buses and locomotives both run on diesel (not 87-octane unleaded). I'm fairly sure there's nothing special about the diesel--it's the same diesel you can get at a truck stop.

From what I understand, buses are, from a passenger-mile-per-gallon standpoint, fairly efficient when they are full. Their gas mileage (diesel mileage?) is in the single digits, but they also carry around 40 or so passengers (or something like that).

Trains are still inherently more fuel-efficient simply because of less rolling resistance (steel on steel) and the shallower grades they usually traverse, but since trains do not typically run completely full and it's easier to fill a bus than a train (40 vs. 300+ seats), and there's a lot less unnecessary weight per-passenger to carry (no excess lounges or dining cars or a dozen staff members), running buses isn't breaking Amtrak's bank.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm curious about the fuel costs. Ignoring all other costs--and just looking at fuel cost per passenger mile--how does the cost of operating a train OMA-DEN compare with operating buses, assuming the train is full to capacity so you'd need an equivalent number of bus seats? Basically, I have no idea of the gas mileage of a tourbus, the gas mileage of two P42s, what type of fuel P42s run on (how does it compare to 87 octane unleaded?), and the number of seats on a tourbus (and hence the number of tourbuses required to bus a full train)?
Or in practice does Amtrak need far fewer bus-seats than that for OMA-DEN, since there are no intermediate stops (right? or are there?) and hence fewer passengers overall?

I'd guess Amtrak trains run on a somewhat lower grade of diesel fuel than a car does. A lot of newer cars require low-sulfer diesel fuel, while, for instance, while mine runs just fine on it, it doesn't need it. Actually, when its warm, my car can run on a huge variety of fuels more modern ones can't. My car runs ok on most vegetable oils, home heating oil (I've used it when I'm at my uncles ranch), peanut oil, waste vegetable oil, and so on. (No, I don't have a conversion to allow my car to run Straight Vegetable Oil from start up to shut down)

Most new cars can't handle any of the above. It would screw with their emissions equipment, their piezo injectors, common rail injectors, pre burn set ups, and so on. Also, it wrecks havoc on electric fuel delivery systems (mines purely mechanical). While I can't be sure, I can't think of a reason why the P42 would be equipped with such an engine. Such systems are designed for reducing emissions, and improving top-end horsepower.

Locomotives need low-end torque, not high end power.

 

[GC Station]

Let's get back on topic. Anybody know how the testing went? I'm due out on the 14th Chicago to Denver but if they can't get the train up and running by the 11th I need to cancel my hotel and car reservations so as not to incur cancellation fees. Nobody at Amtrak has been able to explain to me why they can't run a bus between Galesburg and Omaha.

 

[jackal]

I'm curious about the fuel costs. Ignoring all other costs--and just looking at fuel cost per passenger mile--how does the cost of operating a train OMA-DEN compare with operating buses, assuming the train is full to capacity so you'd need an equivalent number of bus seats? Basically, I have no idea of the gas mileage of a tourbus, the gas mileage of two P42s, what type of fuel P42s run on (how does it compare to 87 octane unleaded?), and the number of seats on a tourbus (and hence the number of tourbuses required to bus a full train)?
Or in practice does Amtrak need far fewer bus-seats than that for OMA-DEN, since there are no intermediate stops (right? or are there?) and hence fewer passengers overall?

I'd guess Amtrak trains run on a somewhat lower grade of diesel fuel than a car does. A lot of newer cars require low-sulfer diesel fuel, while, for instance, while mine runs just fine on it, it doesn't need it. Actually, when its warm, my car can run on a huge variety of fuels more modern ones can't. My car runs ok on most vegetable oils, home heating oil (I've used it when I'm at my uncles ranch), peanut oil, waste vegetable oil, and so on. (No, I don't have a conversion to allow my car to run Straight Vegetable Oil from start up to shut down)

Most new cars can't handle any of the above. It would screw with their emissions equipment, their piezo injectors, common rail injectors, pre burn set ups, and so on. Also, it wrecks havoc on electric fuel delivery systems (mines purely mechanical). While I can't be sure, I can't think of a reason why the P42 would be equipped with such an engine. Such systems are designed for reducing emissions, and improving top-end horsepower.

Locomotives need low-end torque, not high end power.

True. The typical locomotive redlines at around 900-950rpm. They also have HUGE cylinders--710 cubic inches (11.63 liters) PER cylinder displacement. Here's the Wikipedia article on the primer mover in the SD70-series.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

is this going to be another SL. where it once ran the full route but due to flooding amtrak decides the hell with the full route well just shorten the route and call it temporally suspended due to lasting effect of the flooding.

 

[AlanB]

is this going to be another SL. where it once ran the full route but due to flooding amtrak decides the hell with the full route well just shorten the route and call it temporally suspended due to lasting effect of the flooding.

Not a chance. The dynamics are far different here. You have a very popular route, a route that sees service 7 days per week, and a route that financially performs better than the Sunset does.

Besides, we're leaping to conclusions that aren't even justified since not even BNSF was running freights before Wednesday.

 

[AlanB]

Let's get back on topic. Anybody know how the testing went? I'm due out on the 14th Chicago to Denver but if they can't get the train up and running by the 11th I need to cancel my hotel and car reservations so as not to incur cancellation fees. Nobody at Amtrak has been able to explain to me why they can't run a bus between Galesburg and Omaha.

I'd say that the odds are in your favor. So far I haven't seen anything official from Amtrak, probably because BNSF is still trying to pick up the pieces and get its own act together, but as noted in the following press release, they did start running trains between Chicago and Denver yesterday/Wednesday.

07/02/2008
BNSF Service Advisory: Iowa Flood Update

BNSF is pleased to announce that service has been restored to trackage just east of Burlington, Iowa, which was affected by the recent Midwest floods. Starting today July 2, 2008 the Chicago-Denver route was returned to service and trains will begin operating via normal routes. While the trackage is open please expect some delays as we finish returning the track structure to normal. We appreciate your patience and assistance through these unusual circumstances.

 

[wayman]

is this going to be another SL. where it once ran the full route but due to flooding amtrak decides the hell with the full route well just shorten the route and call it temporally suspended due to lasting effect of the flooding.

Almost certainly not. The CZ has pretty high ridership, especially out of/into CHI, and benefits tremendously from its connections to the rest of the system there.

 

[JimInVa]

is this going to be another SL. where it once ran the full route but due to flooding amtrak decides the hell with the full route well just shorten the route and call it temporally suspended due to lasting effect of the flooding.

Almost certainly not. The CZ has pretty high ridership, especially out of/into CHI, and benefits tremendously from its connections to the rest of the system there.

I'm supposed to ship out on the CZ on Monday the 7th, and when I talked to the Amtrak folks tonight they said the *tentative* plan is for full (but verrrry) slow service to be restored on Saturday the 5th. BNSF got all the northern stuff through Iowa (Ottuma, etc.) squared away Wednesday, evidently.

I'll plan to post a bunch of pictures and a trip report for this one: CZ on the 7th from CHI to EMY; the newly relaunched Coast Starlight on the 16th, to SEA. Then pick up the Empire Builder from SEA to CHI on the 18th. Woo-HOO!