No smoking at MKE platform, effective May 2017

I've been watching too much TV lately but noticed an "ad" where they show a man who had lung cancer but never smoked himself (he got it from second hand smoke). I believe the man was in his 50's so he has me by a decade and there were fewer restrictions on smoking as they are today. If I had to guess he was in an office/factory where his co-workers smoked a lot. I don't think this will be as much an issue 20-30 years from now when fewer people will be trapped in an area where people smoke.

ehbowen said:

Deni said:

The smoking compartments on the Western LD trains (lower level of one of the coaches, what are now usually lower level coach seating) were the best parties back in the 90s to early 2000s. I had so much fun hanging out in them when I used to take the EB on a regular basis between SEA and CUS when I was in my 20s and early 30s. But as an ex-smoker now if they still existed I'm sure I would be annoyed by them.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the atmosphere in those enclosed smoking rooms became so disgusting that the smokers regularly propped the door open...which kind of defeated the whole purpose.

Click to expand...

I can't say I ever saw that myself. The venting in them was surprisingly good and only got too smoke filled if it got too crowded at one time. Every time I ever was on the EB nobody would have ever propped open the door to let out the smoke, because some of that smoke was coming from something other than cigarettes much of the time and they would not have wanted the smell to escape.

dlagrua said:

What needs to be done is to install a small airtight smoking room at the long station stops that is not vented to the outside. . This way non-smokers can breathe in fresh air and smokers can take in the largest possible amount of high density cigarette smoke.

Click to expand...

Not a bad idea, but it needs a couple of things to make it feasible:

A fee-for-entry system. Could be accomplished with a simple credit-card reader. I'm guessing most smokers would gladly pay $5 for the privilege of lighting up. Sure, they'd just have one person pay and everybody else would rush in, but at least it's *something*. I don't know, I'm sure there's a way to build/program it to reduce abuse of the system. Maybe the $5 turns on the exhaust fan for 2 minutes. Want the fan to continue, swipe your card again.

I have a friend for whom the experience of riding the CS above (IIRC) the smoking room/lounge ruined Amtrak for her forever.

So now they have to find a worker willing to clean the smoking lounges? Might that not have OSHA implications....

The person who cleans the room has to take precautions and follow strict procedures so Amtrak isn't filed against.

From one story I heard one of the reasons the smoking lounge was done away with was the tremendous mess the smokers made. Butts and cigarette ash all over the place and they didn't try to clean up after themselves, creating the huge mess for Amtrak personnel to clean up. Guess you could say they made ashes and butts of themselves. :lol:

The one thing that I have found is if the conductor smokes, most stops that are non-smoking become smoking stops. This includes Chicago Union Station. I had a conductor tell me once (as well as every sleeper car attendant I have ever came across ) that they did not care if anybody smokes while waiting for the train to leave. He said the smoking ban makes no sense, because you have all the engines under the train shed that is putting out a hell of a lot more stuff that can kill you then somebody and their cigarette.

Reno89502 said:

The one thing that I have found is if the conductor smokes, most stops that are non-smoking become smoking stops. This includes Chicago Union Station. I had a conductor tell me once (as well as every sleeper car attendant I have ever came across ) that they did not care if anybody smokes while waiting for the train to leave. He said the smoking ban makes no sense, because you have all the engines under the train shed that is putting out a hell of a lot more stuff that can kill you then somebody and their cigarette.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the Surgeon General was moonlighting as an Amtrak conductor.

To be fair, it does have a logic to it. Like throwing a match into a roaring fireplace, I'm not sure you made a difference.

It is also possible, based on the actual substances, concentrations, and overall volume thereof, that the bubble of cigarette smoke is actually less toxic.

How would a smoker, inhaling the allegedly toxic fumes and mixing them with cigarette smoke, make the exhaled mixture less toxic? How would the originally toxic fumes trapped in the train shed, when cigarette smoke is added, become less toxic? I am missing some step in the logic.

Toxic air plus toxic air doesn't equal fresh air, rather it is more toxic.

His point is that given the choice between breathing air polluted by a diesel locomotive and air polluted by a cigarette, the cigarette would be the preferable option, being less toxic than diesel exhaust.

Not rocket surgery, and I'm staying at a Marriott, not a Holiday Inn Express.

But that wasn't the choice. It's a choice between air polluted by a diesel engine or air polluted by a diesel engine and a cigarette.

Is there a claim that the cigarette removes the diesel engine pollution?

willem said:

But that wasn't the choice. It's a choice between air polluted by a diesel engine or air polluted by a diesel engine and a cigarette. Is there a claim that the cigarette removes the diesel engine pollution?

Click to expand...

How about a rule that Amtrak needs to shut down their locomotives when they're sitting in the station for hours on end? They leave the TE's engine running while parked at SAS for nine hours straight. I always remember that whenever I see Amtrak talking about running an efficient environmentally focused operation.

I don't know the intricacies of starting a diesel locomotive, especially one providing head end power, from a cold condition, and I have heard that diesel engines consume very little fuel while idling. Nonetheless, "very little" is more than none, and it does seem like it wouldn't take much planning to restart the locomotive in time to allow a sufficient warm-up.

In the case of Chicago Union Station (or any terminal point with a somewhat enclosed area), it seems like the train could be positioned and the engine shut down. Yes, this means no toilets and limited lights. Probably the reason not to do this with Amtrak engines is they might not restart in a fully functional mode.

My recollection is that head end power is often shut off for a time in the station at Denver, Saint Paul, Portland, and other locations. Does anyone know why this is? If the head end power can be shut down, could the entire locomotive be shut down during a long station stop? Does shutting down and starting up increase the chance of the locomotive breaking down?

The problem here is, *again*, lack of capital funding. St. Paul, Denver, Portland, and others have "shore power" -- the train can be plugged into the ground power and the locomotive can be turned off. I believe San Antonios doesn't. It should.

In cold areas, diesel engines have to be plugged in overnight to prevent the fuel from gelling -- and if they can't be plugged in, they have to idle. I think Amtrak's locomotives are too old to run the anti-gelling heating off of shore power. Modern locomotives can heat up quickly. Amtrak's locomotives are not modern.

Starting a large diesel when cold requires quite a bit of power. Batteries deliver less power when cold, and it can be difficult to start truck, bus, or locomotive diesels when they have been out in the cold for a bunch of reasons. Keeping fuel and oil warm alone takes a fair amount of power. The bus depots here are notorious for running buses overnight so they know they won't be dead for morning rush. Really large diesels and gas turbines (like ship or peak demand power plant size) are often started with compressed air, but again, you would need power to run the compressor. Shore power is a huge plus. Look at the side of any new bus, you will see a place for plug in.

It may take more power to shut off and restart a locomotive than simpy letting it idle, as most trains are not staying in CUS for a long time. The Amtrak employees probably know more than we do, and it is unlikely they would waste money on fuel while idling in the station. I think a better idea would be to require all trains to have their locomotives facing away from the terminal. Metra already does this and it should be fairly easy for the bi-directional Amtrak trains. Departing single cab trains would hold the same positions as they do now, but arriving trains would have to back in. This would add a few minutes to the schedule, but could actually save Amtrak money as they would no longer have to make a non-revenue move all the way to the wye to turn around. The only train this would not work for would be the eastbound Empire Builder, which could be run through the station with passengers detraining from the south concourse.

neroden said:

St. Paul, Denver, Portland, and others have "shore power" -- the train can be plugged into the ground power and the locomotive can be turned off. I believe San Antonios doesn't. It should.

Click to expand...

San Antonio does have shore power, both at the station platform and at the protect car holding track across the street.

brianpmcdonnell17 said:

The Amtrak employees probably know more than we do, and it is unlikely they would waste money on fuel while idling in the station.

Click to expand...

The Amtrak employees in charge of platform operations are probably operating under the guidance of inertia from when the P42's were delivered two decades ago. Why risk exposing poorly maintained starter batteries with little or no charge when you can simply leave everything running and move on to the next task? I'm sure there are other considerations that are unknown to us, but if running green was important to Amtrak they could probably find ways to cut back on some of their idling, at least in warm locations with shore power like SAS.

Of course if Amtrak used so called "Clean Diesel" it would contribute greatly to the

Green Theme!

One difference between Chicago and San Antonio is that three days a week there are passengers in the Coach and Sleeper either waiting for the SL to get west or the TE to go north. Also, everyday the TE DC and SSL need power for their food storage for the return trip..

Lonestar648 said:

One difference between Chicago and San Antonio is that three days a week there are passengers in the Coach and Sleeper either waiting for the SL to get west or the TE to go north. Also, everyday the TE DC and SSL need power for their food storage for the return trip..

Click to expand...

Which is why we have shore power. The engine isn't supplying HEP during the layover.

neroden said:

In cold areas, diesel engines have to be plugged in overnight to prevent the fuel from gelling -- and if they can't be plugged in, they have to idle. I think Amtrak's locomotives are too old to run the anti-gelling heating off of shore power. Modern locomotives can heat up quickly. Amtrak's locomotives are not modern.

Click to expand...

We have a voluntary program to help eliminate engine idling to both reduce emissions and reduce fuel use. And we were told by the railroads that in cold areas, it's not just that the fuel gels, but that locomotive engines don't use antifreeze for coolant, they just use plain water. Thus, all you need is for the temperature to go down below 32 F, and you have a problem.

https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-idling-reduction-locomotives

When I started riding MARC regularly in 2000, the air in the "train shed" (actually the cramped area under the parking garage) at Washington Union Station was barely breathable. I remember hot summer afternoons in 2001 running to ctch my train in the afternoon rush hour and holding my breath to minimize the amount of diesel fumes I had to suck into my lungs. I will say that the situation is much better now with the new locomotives, but on a warm day, you can still smell the diesel fumes. MARC does position all its trains so that the locomotives are facing north, mostly out in the open. I don't know what's going to happen when the finish their grand plan for the station that calls for a more or less continuously covered train shed.

On Sunday, May 21st, Milwaukee was neither a smoke stop nor a fresh air stop for train 7 - we we on time or close to it so it was not a timing problem.

This rule is only specifically for the Milwaukee station, or for all other Amtrak WI stops served by the Empire Builder? I'll guess it's only for Milwaukee, since the renovated station does have a roof and is enclosed, unlike the other WI Amtrak EB stops. I kinda wish they had a designated area at the east or west end of that station platform, where there wasn't a roof. Since my recollection when I was last there, was that there was a tiny bit of platform at the ends that didn't have a roof. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, based on when I last took the Hiawatha and saw how far progress had gotten on the platform renovations there. It started to remind me a little bit, of how the Amtrak platform in Saint Louis looks like.

Not sure if Amtrak usually in the past hadn't called any smoking stops in WI other than Milwaukee, but to me that's kinda a sad development to hear. Smokers should have a few designated smoking stops, but that's just me.