Passengers stuck on Amtrak train w/o bathroom, AC

[Richmond]

http://wtvr.com/2014/07/05/passengers-stuck-on-amtrak-train-without-bathroom-air-conditioning/

 

[xyzzy]

Any Amtrak train powered by a single locomotive is subject to this. Seems to happen at least once every summer, somewhere. Alas, the days of a passenger locomotive with internal redundancy -- the E series -- are long gone, nor is Amtrak inclined to double-up on locomotive assignments for short trains to prevent the occasional problem, nor does Amtrak position "protection" locomotives in places like Richmond. All a question of money.

 

[jis]

NJT's ALP45-DPs have internal redundancy.... in the form of two prime movers.

 

[Bob Dylan]

This is happening too often on P-42 single engine trains such as the Texas Eagle! ( 4 times for me resulting in long delays while waiting for a rescue freight engine or even a bustitution!)

Weve discussed this several times and while its an ongoing truth that Amtrak is short of equipment due to shortage of funds, its a basic truth that the fanciest cars in the world aren't going anywhere without head end power!

The 60 Mass Brain trust needs to have a real meeting that comes up with a workable plan to acquire more locomotive's for the LD Trains instead of having bean counter cutting pow-wows!

 

[xyzzy]

NJT's ALP45-DPs have internal redundancy.... in the form of two prime movers.

Good point. But the multistate RFP for diesels appears to be headed for single prime mover designs, and I assume that Amtrak will go the same direction if and when they can replace the P40/P42 fleet.

 

[tonys96]

Any Amtrak train powered by a single locomotive is subject to this. Seems to happen at least once every summer, somewhere. Alas, the days of a passenger locomotive with internal redundancy -- the E series -- are long gone, nor is Amtrak inclined to double-up on locomotive assignments for short trains to prevent the occasional problem, nor does Amtrak position "protection" locomotives in places like Richmond. All a question of money.

The TE is not a "short train" and it has this problem over and over again.

 

[brentrain17]

these things happen, train , plane or even auto. travel can be an adventure.

 

[xyzzy]

"Short" and "long" are imprecise terms, and trains are shorter on average than in the 1970s. If a train has six or fewer passenger-carrying cars -- by that I mean coaches or sleepers -- then I'd classify it as short. At some point Amtrak has to assign a second locomotive just to get the train over the road on schedule.

 

[MetraUPWest]

I can only hope that Amtrak's next diesel order is large enough that EVERY train gets 2 locomotives. Single engine ops are fine for commuter roads where a replacement engine is within a short distance, but NO LD or even corridor train should be run with a single locomotive.

 

[xyzzy]

The economics of putting a second locomotive on a four-car corridor train (e.g. Charlotte-Raleigh) are prohibitive. It's not just about the money to purchase locomotives; it's the money to maintain them over time.

 

[jis]

Actually, I think the locomotives should be maintained better, using well known techniques like those used for the Acelas for example. Locomotives are not supposed to break down every so often provided they are properly maintained. The problem is trying to run everything on a shoestring budget. That is what cause locomotives to fail, causing people to demand exceedingly expensive solutions like using two locomotives which will now produce even worse maintenance given the limited funds causing even more road failures all voer the place causing lot of dead locomotives being dragged around and eventually parked while precious money is spent in getting even more locomotives.

It is better to work smarter and fund maintenance than to work dumber and keep buying new stuff and just running them into the ground.

When an allegedly third world country like India manages to run express LD trains that run on for two or three days from origin to destination using a single locomotive with relatively few failures, there is no reason that the most technologically sophisticated country in the world cannot pull it off too, except for utter incompetence somewhere in the value chain.

 

[William W.]

How can Amtrak keep passengers inside a sealed tube for hours without AC during the summer? Airlines aren't allowed to do that anymore, why can Amtrak? I wonder how close they've come to a passenger revolt in these sorts of situations.

If the Texas Eagle is constantly having this problem, why don't they just buy/rent a couple of surplus freight locomotives, and stash them in places where they can be quickly brought up? If they aren't willing to run it with two locomotives, this seems like the only other option. This seems like a clear case of wanton incompetence to me.

 

[jis]

Or lack of funds. The problem would also get fixed if said service was just discontinued too, unfortunately. If the goal is to minimize en route unplanned stops between stations due to equipment failure, one solution would be to not let a train leave a station if there is more than a threshold chance perceived for a failure en route. This is the solution that airlines use these days for fear of having to fay huge fines. They simply cancel many hundreds of flights at the whiff of a storm. Of course ultimately the best solution is better and more timely maintenance.

One effect of the airline rules change has been more aggressive cancellation of flights. In the past the sort of flights that would eventually get out after delays, are simply cancelled before hand now. The airlines love it in some sense, and some passengers are happy. But those that used to be able to complete their journey instead of looking for hotels are not happy campers.

 

[William W.]

It can't be that much for Amtrak to rent a few currently idle locomotives. From what I understand, the freight companies have dozens just sitting around, not being used. I'm sure they could work something out for a reasonable price.

 

[MetraUPWest]

The freight railroads don't have enough locomotives to run their own trains let alone lease them to Amtrak. Freight locomotives aren't HEP capable, either, so that doesn't really solve anything.

I wholeheartedly agree that more money should be put towards properly maintaining the locomotives, but at this point the Genesis units are so worn out that Amtrak would be better off just replacing them, and make sure to maintain the new fleet a lot better than the Genesis was.

That brings me to another point. Amtrak just mass orders which makes sense financially, but it also hurts them because you have an entire fleet that's worn out now as opposed to freight railroads which are able to order smaller quantities over a much longer period.

Just because a train has 2 locomotives doesn't mean you need to have both running, either. In fact it is common practice for many Amtrak trains that the trailing unit is not being used for power.

 

[TinCan782]

If the Texas Eagle is constantly having this problem, why don't they just buy/rent a couple of surplus freight locomotives, and stash them in places where they can be quickly brought up? If they aren't willing to run it with two locomotives, this seems like the only other option. This seems like a clear case of wanton incompetence to me.

If Amtrak would stop leasing P-42's to California, they might have a couple around to add to the Texas Eagle. A couple of P-42s are common on the Pacific Surfliner, can't comment about the San Joaquins. Must be a better "return" leasing them vs using them on their own trains.

 

[William W.]

A lot of the Michigan Service trains run with a locomotive on each end (so that they don't have to turn around), right? If that's the case, that seems like a huge waste to me. Sounds like they need to order some new cab cars, or rebuilt some of the Amfleet Is into cab cars.

 

[jis]

No. They need the two locomotives to achieve their track speed quickly and maintain such over longer distance, which they need to do to meet the new accelerated schedule.

 

[MetraUPWest]

The Lincoln trains are the same. The ones that run 110mph get 2 locomotives, the trains that only run 79 get 1.

I wouldn't be surprised if the new HSR Siemens diesel will be able to run the HSR trains with only 1 locomotive rather than 2.

 

[xyzzy]

Jis is right. Merely adding a 2nd locomotive to short trains that run slower than 80 mph will compound the problem; there will be twice as many locomotives to fail. The question is why do locomotives fail in the first place and what does it take to reduce the failure rate by 80-90%.

Airlines aren't the same as trains when it comes to passengers held captive by lengthy delays. In theory an airplane can taxi to an unoccupied gate or to a spot on the tarmac where air-stairs can be driven up for unloading passengers. If a train can't move, it can't move -- and it often happens in an inaccessible location. You really don't want passengers dismounting and scrambling around on ballast and ties, dealing with the detritus that is often found along the tracks.. not to mention trestles, etc. The real question is one of design: how to ensure that HEP is available 99.99% of the time, even if the prime mover of the locomotive goes down, even if a traction motor freezes up an axle, etc.

 

[jis]

Here is a case for dual prime mover locomotives! At least one will keep working allowing HEP to continue and train to be able to limp along to some reasonable place. There is proof, sort of, that such an engine can be built delivering 4100hp net with about 3100hp for propulsion at full HEP load. With one PM dead you'd have only 1100HP for propulsion at full HEP load. But there is no Amtrak train except the Auto Train which draws anywhere near full HEP load that is run by a single engine anyway. But all that comes at a much greater cost, and greater maintenance cost too. There is no free lunch.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

You could also install a pup, either as primary or a backup for HEP.

 

[afigg]

If Amtrak would stop leasing P-42's to California, they might have a couple around to add to the Texas Eagle. A couple of P-42s are common on the Pacific Surfliner, can't comment about the San Joaquins. Must be a better "return" leasing them vs using them on their own trains.

Amtrak may be seeking to do just that, free up P-42s from the CA corridor services. There is a Request For Information (RFI) on the Amtrak procurement portal for procurement of "up to 15 new Tier 4 Diesel-Electric Locomotives and 1 Diesel Switch/Yard Locomotive in Conjunction with Amtrak's application to the Carl Moyer Grant Program". The Carl Moyer grant program is a CA state funded air quality standards program to fund buying of cleaner engines.
This RFI is obviously directed at Siemens, but has to be publicly posted. So Amtrak is looking to submit an application to the CA program to buy new cleaner Iier 4 diesels. If their application is selected, they and/or CalTrans can buy 15 additional locomotives using part of the option for 225 locomotives on the Siemens contract. That the Siemens locomotives will be built in Sacramento obviously does not hurt with the politics of landing the grant.

 

[afigg]

Actually, I think the locomotives should be maintained better, using well known techniques like those used for the Acelas for example. Locomotives are not supposed to break down every so often provided they are properly maintained. The problem is trying to run everything on a shoestring budget. That is what cause locomotives to fail, causing people to demand exceedingly expensive solutions like using two locomotives which will now produce even worse maintenance given the limited funds causing even more road failures all voer the place causing lot of dead locomotives being dragged around and eventually parked while precious money is spent in getting even more locomotives.

It is better to work smarter and fund maintenance than to work dumber and keep buying new stuff and just running them into the ground.

The P-42s appear to be breaking down in revenue service way too often. I understand the maintenance budget issues, but these breakdowns and service interuptions cost money as well. From the outside, can't say how much ofthe poor reliability is due to aging P-42s, inadequate maintenance budget, poor work at the maintenance shops, corporate culture that resists more modern RCM practices, management not able to get on top of the situation and so on.
When the states get the Siemens Charger locomotives, if they are not happy with the Amtrak shops, they may farm out the maintenance of the new locomotives. Could contract with Siemens to maintain them. The states DOTs may already be looking at doing this.

 

[henryj]

The heartland flyer is a three car train and has an engine on each end. The Eagle is a LD train of six or seven cars and gets one engine.