Amtrak LD trains always carry two engines

[AlanB]

And in fact, because of that failure rate, CSX now requires Amtrak to always have 2 locos on all LD's that run on CSX tracks. That "agreement" has been in effect now for about 3 or 4 years IIRC.

What about the frequency of 3 locos on the Empire Builder during winter? Does BNSF formally request that Amtrak adds that third unit?

I'm not aware of any request by BNSF to add another loco, much less that it is actually happening with regular consistancy during the winter months. Not saying that it isn't happening, just that I've not heard anything about it.

 

[ColdRain&Snow]

And in fact, because of that failure rate, CSX now requires Amtrak to always have 2 locos on all LD's that run on CSX tracks. That "agreement" has been in effect now for about 3 or 4 years IIRC.

What about the frequency of 3 locos on the Empire Builder during winter? Does BNSF formally request that Amtrak adds that third unit?

I'm not aware of any request by BNSF to add another loco, much less that it is actually happening with regular consistancy during the winter months. Not saying that it isn't happening, just that I've not heard anything about it.

To facilitate ongoing learning, I usually watch each day's Amtrak videos posted to youtube. I try to do this nightly but can't always do so. But it was especially in the EB videos during winter that I noticed the pattern of three engines in many consists. And I saw it on consists I rode too including twice this winter. It made me wonder if it was a mandate, but perhaps it's just Amtrak doing it for operational reasons at various times.

 

[Trogdor]

And in fact, because of that failure rate, CSX now requires Amtrak to always have 2 locos on all LD's that run on CSX tracks. That "agreement" has been in effect now for about 3 or 4 years IIRC.

What about the frequency of 3 locos on the Empire Builder during winter? Does BNSF formally request that Amtrak adds that third unit?

I'm not aware of any request by BNSF to add another loco, much less that it is actually happening with regular consistancy during the winter months. Not saying that it isn't happening, just that I've not heard anything about it.

To facilitate ongoing learning, I usually watch each day's Amtrak videos posted to youtube. I try to do this nightly but can't always do so. But it was especially in the EB videos during winter that I noticed the pattern of three engines in many consists. And I saw it on consists I rode too including twice this winter. It made me wonder if it was a mandate, but perhaps it's just Amtrak doing it for operational reasons at various times.

This past winter, BNSF did require three engines on the Builder. That's why many trains operated with a freight unit right out of the gate, because Amtrak didn't have enough good units to equip every train with three.

 

[ColdRain&Snow]

This is what I saw the month before in February and have seen on other occassions. Does anyone know if it's a BNSF mandate or just prudence on Amtrak's part given the tempestuous weather on the Hi Line?

CR&S: Awesome photos, especially of the train waiting in the snow! How long did you have to wait? Must have been an awesome delay.

That was quite an interesting day on the railroad. We were held at Reno while Omaha made the decision about whether we could ascend Donner. By the time we passed Truckee, houses were snowed in up to their roofs and cars were covered up. As we ascended the pass, the "snow hat" formed on top of the lead Genesis which was pretty funny. We were held east of Emigrant Gap for about 6+ hours while the UP summoned its flanger and cleared a disabled freight. It was rather funny to see #6 the next morning still wearing its frosty hat.

 

[cirdan]

And in fact, because of that failure rate, CSX now requires Amtrak to always have 2 locos on all LD's that run on CSX tracks. That "agreement" has been in effect now for about 3 or 4 years IIRC.

What about the frequency of 3 locos on the Empire Builder during winter? Does BNSF formally request that Amtrak adds that third unit?

I'm not aware of any request by BNSF to add another loco, much less that it is actually happening with regular consistancy during the winter months. Not saying that it isn't happening, just that I've not heard anything about it.

yes, sometimes when you see three locos it's just about transferring a loco to another location, maybe as part of the maintenance roster, and attaching that loco to a train that's running anyway is cheaper and simpler than sending the loco off by itself as you don't need to book an additional engineer or organise track paths.

 

[PanAm98]

I took the SWC from CUS to LAUS this past February and we added a third power unit at ABQ. They announced they were going to do it just before we got there, but they didn't say why. It was my first ride on the SWC, so I thought it was routine. When we got to ABQ, they uncoupled both existing units and moved them to the service area, then a while later came back with three units and hooked them all up. We were about an hour late pulling out of ABQ because of it. In retrospect, I'm not sure if they just needed to send a unit down the line, or if it had something to do with the announced reports heavy snow (about 18") falling in the mountains around Flagstaff, or what.

 

[Rafi]

The LSL, Auto Train, and EB all require 2 engines simply due to the fact of how many cars they are hauling. Without a second engine, acceleration from a stop would be very poor and would gradually snow ball into a late train. Any other Amtrak train crossing mountains also needs a second engine in order to make the climb at a reasonable rate of speed; that would include the Capitol, Zephyr, Starlight, & SW Chief. The Sunset is probably borderline, so it generally gets a second engine.

But that leaves the Crescent, Silvers, City, and the Eagle all of which could run with one engine. As other's have noted, the wisdom of doing so is very debatable, especially considering the failure rate of the P42's. And in fact, because of that failure rate, CSX now requires Amtrak to always have 2 locos on all LD's that run on CSX tracks. That "agreement" has been in effect now for about 3 or 4 years IIRC.

Alan,

Thanks for chiming in and setting the record straight. It seems like we have this discussion about once every two years or so on the board!

Just for the record, the one LD you didn't mention, which is something of an exception to the above criteria, is the Cardinal. It goes through the mountains, and it travels over CSX trackage, yet it typically only runs with one loco. My understanding (which is second hand) is that the reason is because of the relatively short consist of the train, although they do typically add a second engine if the train is carrying 2 or more private cars in my experience.

Rafi

 

[Bierboy]

...This past winter, BNSF did require three engines on the Builder. That's why many trains operated with a freight unit right out of the gate, because Amtrak didn't have enough good units to equip every train with three.

Well I guess it depends on your definition of winter, then, because, as I stated, we had TWO locos on the EB when we rode during the first half of March. And, in that part of the country, I believe early March would still be considered winter...

 

[Trogdor]

...This past winter, BNSF did require three engines on the Builder. That's why many trains operated with a freight unit right out of the gate, because Amtrak didn't have enough good units to equip every train with three.

Well I guess it depends on your definition of winter, then, because, as I stated, we had TWO locos on the EB when we rode during the first half of March. And, in that part of the country, I believe early March would still be considered winter...

Per the calendar, technically yes, but this has more to do with weather conditions than the timing of the vernal equinox.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

The Pennsylvanian only runs one... doesn't that count as a long distance?

When they do run two engines on an LD train, why do they seem to orient them both cab forward rather than have them back to back? I would think having them back to back would allow for easier switching when it needed to be on the other end of the train.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

When they do run two engines on an LD train, why do they seem to orient them both cab forward rather than have them back to back? I would think having them back to back would allow for easier switching when it needed to be on the other end of the train.

Seems to be an Amtrak thing. I think they even have a special name for it. "Elephant style" or something like that. I'm with you though, it seems a lot more practical to place them in alternate orientations so they don't need to worry as much about having to reorient them later on.

 

[Trogdor]

The Pennsylvanian only runs one... doesn't that count as a long distance?

When they do run two engines on an LD train, why do they seem to orient them both cab forward rather than have them back to back? I would think having them back to back would allow for easier switching when it needed to be on the other end of the train.

Back-to-back allows the other cab to be in the correct direction if one engine has to be set out or switched out of the lead. That occurs far more often than having to run the engines around the train and have them pull in the other direction.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Back-to-back allows the other cab to be in the correct direction if one engine has to be set out or switched out of the lead. That occurs far more often than having to run the engines around the train and have them pull in the other direction.

I don't doubt you, but doesn't that mean Amtrak either bought the wrong hardware or they aren't properly maintaining it?! It just seems so pathetic that they need to orient their locomotives in such a way that they can routinely dump them by the wayside as they fail to the point they can't even deadhead to the next service stop.

 

[AlanB]

The Pennsylvanian only runs one... doesn't that count as a long distance?

Nope, the Pennsy falls into the short/medium haul category.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Back-to-back allows the other cab to be in the correct direction if one engine has to be set out or switched out of the lead. That occurs far more often than having to run the engines around the train and have them pull in the other direction.

I don't doubt you, but doesn't that mean Amtrak either bought the wrong hardware or they aren't properly maintaining it?! It just seems so pathetic that they need to orient their locomotives in such a way that they can routinely dump them by the wayside as they fail to the point they can't even deadhead to the next service stop.

hasn't it been clear for a little while now that Amtrak bought the wrong hardware?

 

[VentureForth]

I almost always see them run Elephant Style...

Most of the pairs that run LD trains requiring pair retain orientation to the rest of the consist, I presume...

 

[oldtimer]

Back-to-back allows the other cab to be in the correct direction if one engine has to be set out or switched out of the lead. That occurs far more often than having to run the engines around the train and have them pull in the other direction.

I don't doubt you, but doesn't that mean Amtrak either bought the wrong hardware or they aren't properly maintaining it?! It just seems so pathetic that they need to orient their locomotives in such a way that they can routinely dump them by the wayside as they fail to the point they can't even deadhead to the next service stop.

I can tell you that i spent many years on the road for Amtrak ( as a disclaimer pre P40 & P42 days) that I have only had to set out two engines and both were due to grade crossing accidents. Two more time the lead engine and trail engine were swapped around again due to grade crossing accidents.

 

[Trogdor]

Back-to-back allows the other cab to be in the correct direction if one engine has to be set out or switched out of the lead. That occurs far more often than having to run the engines around the train and have them pull in the other direction.

I don't doubt you, but doesn't that mean Amtrak either bought the wrong hardware or they aren't properly maintaining it?! It just seems so pathetic that they need to orient their locomotives in such a way that they can routinely dump them by the wayside as they fail to the point they can't even deadhead to the next service stop.

I never said it happens all the time. But it happens more often than the need to run the engines around to the other end of the train.

Any number of issues can lead to engines needing to be "flat switched." Grade crossing collision resulting in the lead unit no longer able to lead, horn failure, failure of some cab signal equipment on board, computer problems with the lead locomotive, other cab-related defects, etc.

In fact, last year I was on a train with two engines, back-to-back, when the lead engine had a horn failure. There was no wye available to spin the engines around to put the trailing engine in the lead. Had those been elephant-style, we could have made it with a 30-40 minute delay. As it ended up, we lost three hours (have to flag every crossing when the horn doesn't work) and wound up getting coupled to the following train and pulled the rest of the way.

The need to run the engines around usually only occurs when there is some kind of line blockage and no wye available to turn the whole consist.

 

[VentureForth]

After reading about the Sunset Limited, it sounds like having two engines just means there are double the chances for something to go wrong.

 

[cirdan]

In fact, last year I was on a train with two engines, back-to-back, when the lead engine had a horn failure. There was no wye available to spin the engines around to put the trailing engine in the lead. Had those been elephant-style, we could have made it with a 30-40 minute delay. As it ended up, we lost three hours (have to flag every crossing when the horn doesn't work) and wound up getting coupled to the following train and pulled the rest of the way.

The need to run the engines around usually only occurs when there is some kind of line blockage and no wye available to turn the whole consist.

This makes me wonder, how difficult is it to swap relatively portable parts like horns between locomotives?

 

[dlagrua]

After reading about the Sunset Limited, it sounds like having two engines just means there are double the chances for something to go wrong.

Redundancy usually increases reliability and dual engines allow one train to help get a stranded single engine train get going again. On the recent Crescent trip they took one engine on our train and donated it to a stalled NEC at Charlottlesville, VA. Our train seemed to work just as well with the one engine and the 4,500HP pulled the 7 car consist very well. ( we were running without the cafe car that broke and was left in NOL) The average Amtrak engine is 26-30 years old. That should be all the reason thats needed to run two engines.

 

[Trogdor]

The average Amtrak engine is 26-30 years old. That should be all the reason thats needed to run two engines.

That's not the case.

I haven't done the math yet, but the oldest diesels are from the early 1990s, (making them, at most, 20 years old), and most of them (the P42s) are from the late 1990s and early 2000s, putting them between 10-15 years old.

If you throw in the electrics, the AEM-7s are in their 30s, but that average would be brought down somewhat by the HHP-8s which are around 10 years old (and since very few electrics, not counting the Acelas, run in pairs, obviously age is not the factor there).

 

[GPSTraveler]

I recently rode on the City of New Orleans, just a couple of weeks ago (June 12). I met an Irish Couple in the Metro Lounge in Chicago before boarding. They just came off the Texas Eagle, and complained about the AC not working on part of the trip. This made me a bit nervous because I knew that this would be the SAME train I was just about to board. The train seemed fine, just a little on the hot side..... After awakening in Memphis, it was extremely hot in the sleeping car. Our sleeping car attendant gave us the bad news that the ENTIRE TRAIN has lost AC and everyone would have to be bussed the rest of the way to New Orleans.

My questions is, if this was a head end power problem (with the single engine), why were the lights still on the entire morning? Is there emergency power during a HEP failure?

Secondly, could both incidents have been avoided, Texas Eagle and CONO loosing AC, if the CONO had 2 engines pulling it? Don't worry, I am not complaining, the CONO coming back was a perfect ride, had the same Cross Country Cafe and same dining car staff as before, but our Sleeper definately changed (shower became the old button type that you must press more frequently).

So back on topic, could a second engine stop these HEP problems on both the Texas Eage and CONO?

 

[Bob Dylan]

I recently rode on the City of New Orleans, just a couple of weeks ago (June 12). I met an Irish Couple in the Metro Lounge in Chicago before boarding. They just came off the Texas Eagle, and complained about the AC not working on part of the trip. This made me a bit nervous because I knew that this would be the SAME train I was just about to board. The train seemed fine, just a little on the hot side..... After awakening in Memphis, it was extremely hot in the sleeping car. Our sleeping car attendant gave us the bad news that the ENTIRE TRAIN has lost AC and everyone would have to be bussed the rest of the way to New Orleans.

My questions is, if this was a head end power problem (with the single engine), why were the lights still on the entire morning? Is there emergency power during a HEP failure?

Secondly, could both incidents have been avoided, Texas Eagle and CONO loosing AC, if the CONO had 2 engines pulling it?

There is About 6 Hours Difference between the Time the Eagle Arrives and the CONO Leaves from CHI. The Equipment is taken to the Yards to be Cleaned (Hopefully??? :help: ) and Serviced. IF there is a Major Problem, such as the AC Not Working, or an Engine Down, it will be Bad Ordered and other Equipment Subsituted (when Available, which in CHI is Usually No Problem!!)

The AC is a Seperate System from the Lights, there are alot of Problems on the Older Superliner Cars (UnRehabbed I's), basically the SCAs can only Reset Breakers or have a General Range of Warmer/Cooler to Try to Set the Temps in the Cars)), but in this Case I would Venture that there was Just an AC Problem, that it was a Different Car since they wouldnt have sent out a Sleeper with No AC from CHI!! Two Engines, which SHOULD BE on ALL LD Trains, Wouldn't have helped in this Case! :wacko:

 

[Devil's Advocate]

My questions is, if this was a head end power problem (with the single engine), why were the lights still on the entire morning? Is there emergency power during a HEP failure? Secondly, could both incidents have been avoided, Texas Eagle and CONO loosing AC, if the CONO had 2 engines pulling it?

There is a secondary power source for some of the lights but only one source for the AC. Other folks can probably explain it much better and more accurately than I can. It's quite possible that having a second engine would have helped. However, it's also possible that the baggage car had a problem or there was a blown HEP cable or something. I think they carry a spare HEP cable or two, but if there's a serious problem it could blow the spare just as easily as it blew the original.