How 'bout a Pantograph on the new Diners?

[user 1215]

OK - flame away.

But I'm quasi serious here. Why didn't they think about adding a pantograph to the new Viewliner diners? I guess I'm not over the fact that trains come into WAS during meal times, but dining service is disrupted for between 10 and 20 minutes while power is being switched to/from diesel to/from electric. My previous idea to hook up hotel power was completely flamed off the planet because apparently no railroad electric engineer can come up with a single step process to plug a train into hotel power when they disconnect the locomotive. I get all the explanations that were given in that thread, though I don't necessarily agree. So my next brainwave I borrowed came up with this idea. Why not have a pantograph that can be deployed during engine swaps? Have some sort of relay to allow hot swapping of engines so that there is seamless power disruption.

I guess I have eternal hope that this simple, unappreciated nuance can someday be addressed in the future. How long did third rail trains lose power to a given car when the power rail switched from left to right or was missing through a switch or grade crossing? They eventually figured out how to distribute the power from all the pick ups to all the cars without blowing anything up. They can do that here, too.

The obvious other benefits would be that the pantograph could then provide power to the rest of the train so no one is inconvenienced during the power swap.

 

[Ryan]

For the same reasons - having the train powered up while switching will kill people.

 

[FormerOBS]

Above my pay grade.

 

[jis]

This is discussed about once every year, and each time the bottom line that comes out is that you'd lose too much revenue space to accommodate the HV equipment (transformer, rectifier, alternator to handle multiple frequency input to 60Hz 120v/240v output) to make it worthwhile for something that would work in a miniscule portion of the Amtrak network, even for the single level LD/MD fleet anyway.

An alternative place to add such would be in the baggage car. Indeed Indian Railways which has way more universal 25kV electrification than the US (In India all major trunk routes are fully electrified end to end except maybe two or three), and which uses diesel Hotel Power Generator Cars (Luggage Brake and Generator Car) on all fully A/C trains. However, they have not done it so far for reasons that I do not know, but if I had to make a guess, they did not want train hotel power to depend on power being available through the catenary. As things stand now, even when there is power failure in the catenary, which does happen, train hotel power is not lost, which is a good thing in a very hot country with sealed A/C cars. The situation in US where hotel power is delivered from the engine, is somewhat different. Also, since hotel power is not dependent on the engine changing engines or even not having an engine attached to the train at all has no impact on the hotel power supply. The reluctance to use HEP apparently is institutional since the Customer Service department which owns what happens in the train is extrmely separate from the Power department, which owns what happens in locomotives.

Again in the US it would be a matter of taking away maybe 10 feet car length's worth of space in each baggage car and install expensive equipment there which will be of any use only on the NEC and nowhere else. So only 4 LD trains on the NEC plus a handful of MD trains on the NEC would have any use of the expensive equipment. Most of them will be running around on Superliner trains out west as dead weight.

Of course a small subgroup of such baggage cars could be created, but then that reduces flexibility of allocation and effectively reduces the total number of cars available for service at any given time.

Incidentally, the Swiss Railways have used pantographs on their diners (Powered Restaurant Car) to provide hotel power. One thing they have going in their favor is their use of much lower voltage thus reducing the weight and space required for the electrical equipment considerably.and also since the Swiss Federal Railway is universally electrified it makes more sense for them to do this than where only a very small portion of the mainline system is electrified.

Hope this is viewed as a considered presentation of the issues and pros and cons, rather than as a flame, because it really is not intended to be a flame at all.

 

[Hal]

For the same reasons - having the train powered up while switching will kill people.

In addition you would have to a transformer in Diner to step down 11,000 volts.

I think the problem is solvable. That would be backup battery power. The lighting for sure could stay on. I don't know if they have designed that into the new diners but it seems logical it would be. The Viewliner sleepers now don't go dark when the power goes down.

 

[jis]

For the same reasons - having the train powered up while switching will kill people.

Actually as long as cars are not being switched out and hotel power is not delivered from the engine, there is no reason that a train could not have its hotel power on, while engines are getting changed out. That is pretty normal operation in many parts of the rest of the world.

In addition you would have to a transformer in Diner to step down 11,000 volts.

I think the problem is solvable. That would be backup battery power. The lighting for sure could stay on. I don't know if they have designed that into the new diners but it seems logical it would be. The Viewliner sleepers now don't go dark when the power goes down.

Indeed, I have never understood the apparent habit of the Amtrak era Americans to short change their passengers by skimping on the amount of battery available to provide at least enough power for lighting for relatively extended periods of time while HEP is out. Running a whole electric kitchen of HVAC is a different matter.

 

[user 1215]

For the same reasons - having the train powered up while switching will kill people.

Another useless reply with no backup or alternative suggestion. Perhaps the current configuration, no, but a clean sheet design would certainly be able to avoid this. The pantographs are actuated by pneumatics and no direct human contact is required.

This is discussed about once every year, and each time the bottom line that comes out is that you'd lose too much revenue space to accommodate the HV equipment...

An alternative place to add such would be in the baggage car...

Hope this is viewed as a considered presentation of the issues and pros and cons, rather than as a flame, because it really is not intended to be a flame at all.

A much better, though out explanation of the pros and cons. Thank you. I do like the baggage car idea.

I think the problem is solvable. That would be backup battery power. The lighting for sure could stay on. I don't know if they have designed that into the new diners but it seems logical it would be. The Viewliner sleepers now don't go dark when the power goes down.

With LED lighting that would work great for just about everything but being able to cook in the Diner. But hey - if you're going to have a battery back up, why not solar cells? Again for lights it would be sufficient, but as jis mentions below, a battery wouldn't probably last 10 minutes for 10 cars worth of HVAC plus an active diner (even if all they are using is a microwave).

Indeed, I have never understood the apparent habit of the Amtrak era Americans to short change their passengers by skimping on the amount of battery available to provide at least enough power for lighting for relatively extended periods of time while HEP is out. Running a whole electric kitchen of HVAC is a different matter.

Indeed.

So, yes, real estate in the diner is very limited. But the baggage car idea is very interesting. First, it has more available room. Second, it is off limits to passengers. Third, there is one on just about every train that requires a power car change in DC, except for a few regionals. As far as asset allocation/scheduling, it would just take a bit more proactive planning.

Thanks for the useful replies.

 

[AmtrakLKL]

Amtrak is starved for funding. Do you really want to spend a few million dollars designing and equipping 25 dining cars with extra equipment that would be used once for 20 minutes every couple of days? Now you have higher maintenance costs and introduce additional drag, increasing fuel costs at all other times. Can't provide power to the rest of the train as the cables adjacent to the locomotives would be energized thus prohibiting employees from going in to uncouple and couple the locomotives. You'd have to unplug the HEP cables between the diner and rest of the train cars after engine power drops and before the diner photograph can be raised. It'll increase dwell times as the mechanics run back and forth between diner and engines.

What exactly are you wanting to keep running during the change-over? Air conditioning and cooking equipment? Credit card machine?

For the same reasons - having the train powered up while switching will kill people.

In addition you would have to a transformer in Diner to step down 11,000 volts.

I think the problem is solvable. That would be backup battery power. The lighting for sure could stay on. I don't know if they have designed that into the new diners but it seems logical it would be. The Viewliner sleepers now don't go dark when the power goes down.

All equipment has battery backup for lighting and PA systems, however the Heritage batteries and electrical systems are really old. The lighting can be quite dim and while the batteries don't last as long as newer equipment, the lights certainly stay on during engine swaps. The original Viewliner sleepers and new Viewliner baggage cars stay brightly lit and run for hours on DC battery power. I'm sure the new diners will provide much, much better lighting on battery power during the swaps, but you won't have air conditioning or cooking equipment.

 

[Ryan]

Actually as long as cars are not being switched out and hotel power is not delivered from the engine, there is no reason that a train could not have its hotel power on, while engines are getting changed out. That is pretty normal operation in many parts of the rest of the world.

Agreed completely. I doubt Amtrak would undertake such a completely paradigm change to sole a nonexistent problem. Wonder what the FRA would say about hotel power coming from an unmanned car.

 

[niemi24s]

In addition you would have to a transformer in Diner to step down 11,000 volts.

Whatever the catenary voltage happens to be, I suspect it's a DC voltage. If so, a transformer cannot be used to reduce it or step it down unless it is first converted (inverted) to an AC voltage. Or a motor-generator could be used to provide AC power.

 

[sitzplatz17]

Incidentally, the Swiss Railways have used pantographs on their diners (Powered Restaurant Car) to provide hotel power. One thing they have going in their favor is their use of much lower voltage thus reducing the weight and space required for the electrical equipment considerably.and also since the Swiss Federal Railway is universally electrified it makes more sense for them to do this than where only a very small portion of the mainline system is electrified.

We had them when I lived in Germany as well. I remember in my days of spotting by one of the mainlines I'd see plenty of InterCity trains go by with "Bord restaurants" (dining cars) like this one:

(Apologies that it's also a model train one, but I promise they exist in reality as well - I just couldn't find one even after a few pages of google searching)

In all my years of spotting over there i never ever saw one with the pantograph up and being used though.

While i like the idea, for some reason it wasn't deemed practical and i think most of them had their pantographs removed in the retrofits.

 

[Ryan]

Whatever the catenary voltage happens to be, I suspect it's a DC voltage.

Your suspicion is wrong, the catenary in DCWashington is 25Hz AC.

(referring to Washington as "DC" in a conversation about AC/DC would probably get real confusing, real fast)

 

[jis]

Actually as long as cars are not being switched out and hotel power is not delivered from the engine, there is no reason that a train could not have its hotel power on, while engines are getting changed out. That is pretty normal operation in many parts of the rest of the world.

Agreed completely. I doubt Amtrak would undertake such a completely paradigm change to sole a nonexistent problem. Wonder what the FRA would say about hotel power coming from an unmanned car.

When Amtrak converted its NEC rolling stock to HEP with the introduction of Amfleets, while it had no HEP locomotives. Amtrak regularly ran Amfleet trains with ex-Army Kitchen Cars converted to hotel power generator providing power to trains pulled by GG-1s. So this is not a new or unheard of concept and FRA is fine with such.

The car immediately behind the GG-1 is such a Generator Car.

However, I hasten to add that the idea of adding pantograph and power gear to baggage cars is simply not going to happen because the advantages gained are simply not enough to justify the creation of a new subtype of equipment and the capital expenditure to buy, install and maintain the gear necessary.

 

[user 1215]

Actually as long as cars are not being switched out and hotel power is not delivered from the engine, there is no reason that a train could not have its hotel power on, while engines are getting changed out. That is pretty normal operation in many parts of the rest of the world.

Agreed completely. I doubt Amtrak would undertake such a completely paradigm change to sole a nonexistent problem. Wonder what the FRA would say about hotel power coming from an unmanned car.

Whereas I understand that you probably would consider this a nonexistent problem, I do consider it a problem and quite an annoyance on trips through DC. Losing AC for up to 30 minutes in August is not comfortable. It's stifling. Being told 5 minutes after the diner opens that they have to close for 20 minutes for the power change is annoying. It's not "non-existent". Once again, you have determined that since this doesn't bother YOU, the problem is nonexistent.

I get it about cost and what-not. Sure, to incorporate them now would be prohibitively expensive. But to have them designed in with the new baggage cars? Would have rolled a number after the decimal point on the cost. Fact is that perhaps it wasn't enough of an issue (far be it from nonexistent) to have even been considered. Engineering makes adjustments all the time to designs - some noticeable and some not so much.

 

[Hal]

Actually as long as cars are not being switched out and hotel power is not delivered from the engine, there is no reason that a train could not have its hotel power on, while engines are getting changed out. That is pretty normal operation in many parts of the rest of the world.

Agreed completely. I doubt Amtrak would undertake such a completely paradigm change to sole a nonexistent problem. Wonder what the FRA would say about hotel power coming from an unmanned car.

Whereas I understand that you probably would consider this a nonexistent problem, I do consider it a problem and quite an annoyance on trips through DC. Losing AC for up to 30 minutes in August is not comfortable. It's stifling. Being told 5 minutes after the diner opens that they have to close for 20 minutes for the power change is annoying. It's not "non-existent". Once again, you have determined that since this doesn't bother YOU, the problem is nonexistent.

I get it about cost and what-not. Sure, to incorporate them now would be prohibitively expensive. But to have them designed in with the new baggage cars? Would have rolled a number after the decimal point on the cost. Fact is that perhaps it wasn't enough of an issue (far be it from nonexistent) to have even been considered. Engineering makes adjustments all the time to designs - some noticeable and some not so much.

I am sure it would not be enough of an issue to be considered. There are only a few trains a day at the terminal that are affected that have baggage cars.

The whole change should not take 30 minutes. It could be done in 10 although 15 seems about average.

 

[Braniff747SP]

Simple. Cost.

The diners don't make money anyway -- why cut in more to the capital expenses budget to relieve an inconvenience which only happens on a couple of routes for half an hour at most?

It just doesn't make sense. Even when you're designing a car from the ground up, you're adding tens of thousands (if not over a hundred thousand) dollars to the cost of the car.

Now, why the cars weren't designed with a connection for ground power, I don't know -- that would be the sensical option that should have come from the factory, but I guess it's just another example of American railroad quirks.

 

[jis]

Now, why the cars weren't designed with a connection for ground power, I don't know -- that would be the sensical option that should have come from the factory, but I guess it's just another example of American railroad quirks.

Wait! I am still trying to figure out how one could possibly design a car that can be connected to power from the Engine but cannot be connected to ground power. After all the same HEP receptacle used for connecting the power from the loco can of course be used for connecting it to ground power, or as it is often called Shore Power.
The issue usually is lack of Shore Power connecting posts located at the right places at the station platforms, not that the cars cannot be connected to Shore Power.

 

[railiner]

Going back in history....before the HEP conversion on Heritage cars...

Each car was self-sufficient, as far as electricity was concerned...they all had large batteries that could supply enough electricity to meet the hotel power required. Most had simple axle generators to recharge the batteries, as the train moved. Other's had their own diesel generator's. And if a car had a weak battery, it could be "train-lined" to borrow some power from adjacent cars. IIRC, it was all 64 volt DC.

Of course in that era, many diner's cooked using ancient "presto-logs", or other's propane. So diner's kept merrily at their tasks during engine changes.

Now that may sound better than what the situation is today, but in reality, in the twilight years of the pre-HEP Heritage equipment, the batteries and generators failed, as much as they worked, it seemed, and the HEP solution proved much better overall....

 

[Ryan]

When Amtrak converted its NEC rolling stock to HEP with the introduction of Amfleets, while it had no HEP locomotives. Amtrak regularly ran Amfleet trains with ex-Army Kitchen Cars converted to hotel power generator providing power to trains pulled by GG-1s. So this is not a new or unheard of concept and FRA is fine with such.

That was quite some time ago, and my understanding of the reasoning for the HEP limits on the Auto Train included not being able to run a generator car at the rear of the passenger section without putting a person in the car to shut off power if required.

49 CFR 238.445 says that you have to monitor HEP status and alert the operator to an unsafe condition so that they can take corrective action. While I'm sure you could rig something up for power generated somewhere other than the locomotive, it's just one more hurdle that makes doing something out this non-issue impractical.

 

[trainman74]

In addition you would have to a transformer in Diner to step down 11,000 volts.

Or amaze people when their well-done steak arrives 18 seconds after they ordered it.

(Yes, I know it wouldn't really work that way.)

 

[jis]

When Amtrak converted its NEC rolling stock to HEP with the introduction of Amfleets, while it had no HEP locomotives. Amtrak regularly ran Amfleet trains with ex-Army Kitchen Cars converted to hotel power generator providing power to trains pulled by GG-1s. So this is not a new or unheard of concept and FRA is fine with such.

That was quite some time ago, and my understanding of the reasoning for the HEP limits on the Auto Train included not being able to run a generator car at the rear of the passenger section without putting a person in the car to shut off power if required.

49 CFR 238.445 says that you have to monitor HEP status and alert the operator to an unsafe condition so that they can take corrective action. While I'm sure you could rig something up for power generated somewhere other than the locomotive, it's just one more hurdle that makes doing something out this non-issue impractical.

Well of course my assumption is that when one designs such a thing they'd do something better than a half assed job. All that I am saying is I don't believe there is anything in any CFR that precludes a solution consistent with all rules involving an off locomotive source of hotel power. The issue with Auto Train is that no one is talking of rationally sitting down and designing such a system. What is being talked about is can we jury-rig something with what we have spending as little money as possible. that is a different question, and the answer appears to be obvious.

 

[Ryan]

I think we're in violent agreement here. Done with new hardware all around (power cars and locomotives), it's possible to do so (obvious, since it's done today elsewhere).

There's just not a compelling reason for Amtrak to go down that road.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

North Korea has been reported to use a Coach with pantograph in the center of there trains with the purpose to provider "Hotel Power" to all of the other coaches.

Germany kitchen cars had there own pantograph due the load need to run the kitchen. On shorter trains they were not need. My understand is someone got the electrical needs under control, so it was only a short timeframe that you could see them on trains. Of course today your hard press to find a dinning car....

As for the OP yes Amtrak can do better, however the cost benefit would not be there for new equipment. Cheaper for the switch crews to step it up and swap out the equipment faster. I always thought Washington DC was good, I am thinking of Albany myself.

 

[seat38a]

Considering how they are experimenting with removing the dining car on one of the Silver's, there is a much better chance that they will remove the dining car before spending a dime on adding power to be able to serve food while in the station.

 

[StriderGDM]

And considering that a large number of trains with diners never go anywhere near Washington, this would seem to be a solution in search of a problem.