Consist Question

[Rob_C]

I noticed the Texas Eagle almost always runs with one locomotive, while the four car stub of the Empire Builder runs with 2 locomotives. What's the reasoning here? The TE is a much longer train, running a much longer route than the EB stub. (IE more chances to break down).

Just scratching my head a little...

 

[AlanB]

Is the EB's loco's running back to back, or elephant style?

If back to back, then my money would be on the fact that they can't turn the train around at the other end of the run. So they unhook the two engines, run around the train and what was the trailing engine before now becomes the lead engine. Then the crew just turns the seats around in the cars.

 

[Neil_M]

Is the EB's loco's running back to back, or elephant style?
If back to back, then my money would be on the fact that they can't turn the train around at the other end of the run. So they unhook the two engines, run around the train and what was the trailing engine before now becomes the lead engine. Then the crew just turns the seats around in the cars.

When I was in Portland in March, the EB portion was a single loco and it was turned on the triangle over the other side of the Steel Bridge each day.

 

[VentureForth]

This is an undocumented rumor, but I heard that the TE used to have 2 locos, but the terrain only requires one. It was deemed to be more cost productive to run with one instead of two, hense the dropping of one. Unfortunately, that means if it breaks, it's doomed 'til a replacement gets hooked up.

I imagine, without looking at a timetable, the EB, SWC and CZ have a considerable amount of elevation to conquer. What I personally don't get is why trains like the Silvers that barely get any elevation change and carry a much lighter consist than the Superliners continue to operate with two. IMHO, it's a waste of fuel.

 

[Long Train Runnin']

Alan explained that CSX requires 2 loco's south of Richmond so they don't have trains lying dead on there mainline. I just can't imagine that running 2 loco's costs that much more.

 

[VentureForth]

Alan explained that CSX requires 2 loco's south of Richmond so they don't have trains lying dead on there mainline. I just can't imagine that running 2 loco's costs that much more.

But it does cost more, ties up a very valuable asset, and quite frankly isn't needed. When was the last time the single loco on a TE just 'died' enroute? Not to mention, there is 3x as much AMTRAK traffic on the CSX that could bump a dead train into the next station if CSX didn't want to get their little locos dirty. Much more double tracking on the CSX to navigate around a dead train as well, leaving the likelyhood of being stranded on a single track stretch much less.

CSX should be a little more considerate. :angry:

 

[battalion51]

Oye! Issues to cover!

The EB carries two ponies (in general) SPK-SEA, this from what I understand is the road power all the way from CHI-SEA. There is another motor that is turned to do the work from PDX-SPK. I believe. I could be wrong on this. I believe they don't want to separate power mid-run unless they absolutely have to. I could be wrong on this.

The Eagle also did carry two motors at one point, IIRC. However, I think you have to go back to the late F-40 days, because a quick browse of P-42's in Texas only shows the Sunset carrying two motors...

Venture, while I will not argue that the EB, CZ, SWC, and Sunset all have much tougher terrain to tackle, there are some decent grades through the Carolinas. Also don't forget you have the monster bridge down at the (beautiful) New River in Ft. Lauderdale. These aren't mountain passes, but the train moves much better with two motors. Also, don't forget the LSL and Crescent carry two motors, and have identical consists (well not so much the LSL anymore, but they did).

 

[amtkstn]

Back about before 2006 when Amtrak was hauling mail and express the Chief had three and four P42's.

 

[Ryan]

I would expect with the P40's coming back into active service that we'll see two powers sources on all the LD trains here shortly.

 

[printman2000]

Alan explained that CSX requires 2 loco's south of Richmond so they don't have trains lying dead on there mainline. I just can't imagine that running 2 loco's costs that much more.

But it does cost more, ties up a very valuable asset, and quite frankly isn't needed. When was the last time the single loco on a TE just 'died' enroute? Not to mention, there is 3x as much AMTRAK traffic on the CSX that could bump a dead train into the next station if CSX didn't want to get their little locos dirty. Much more double tracking on the CSX to navigate around a dead train as well, leaving the likelyhood of being stranded on a single track stretch much less.

CSX should be a little more considerate. :angry:

Last summer on the SWC, both locos died. Fortunately, one was still able to keep HEP so a BNSF unit pulled it the rest of the way to LAX. It can and does happen. I would much rather be on a train with two, especially if I am trying to make a connection.

 

[had8ley]

This is an undocumented rumor, but I heard that the TE used to have 2 locos, but the terrain only requires one. It was deemed to be more cost productive to run with one instead of two, hense the dropping of one. Unfortunately, that means if it breaks, it's doomed 'til a replacement gets hooked up.
I imagine, without looking at a timetable, the EB, SWC and CZ have a considerable amount of elevation to conquer. What I personally don't get is why trains like the Silvers that barely get any elevation change and carry a much lighter consist than the Superliners continue to operate with two. IMHO, it's a waste of fuel.

Diesel fuel savings combined with similar terrain were also a factor in one unit for the City. Only problem is when that one unit goes down you're at the mercy of the host RR; and who knows if and when they might have a spare loco to pull you with no HEP. Not exactly comforting in the dead of winter or middle of summer not to mention no hot foods.

 

[AlanB]

Guys, perhaps I'm wrong in my reading of things, but Rob did say "Stub train". I interpreted that to mean that he was referring to the short, stub train that Amtrak ran out of Chicago during the suspension of through service to the west coast due to flooding. Hence my thoughts on why two engines were required and my question about BtB vs. elephant.

 

[DAWall]

I would expect with the P40's coming back into active service that we'll see two powers sources on all the LD trains here shortly.

There is the Horsepower per ton issue, two locomotives double the HP per ton, which helps with acceleration. getting the train up to speed much faster, which in turn, helps with on time performance. Once the train is up to speed on flat terrain, the second unit really is just along for the ride.

I think this is a big factor in bringing the P40's back in service

 

[battalion51]

I'm still praying Auto Train gets their captive fleet back.

 

[Rob_C]

Thanks, I had the Portland section of the EB in mind when comparing to the Eagle (or City). The Portland section ran with two engines in February. Not sure if that's the norm or not. But perhaps this had more to do with winter safety (to protect against total HEP failure in the cold?) than actual pulling power.

I'm guessing when all four engines (two from Seattle and two from Portland) reach Spokane, three continue onto Chicago and one returns to Portland with the engines coming off the westbound train the next morning. That would further support the theory that it's just HEP/colossal failure protection. But that begs the question: Chicago's winters get just as gnarly as the Pacific Northwest, the Eagle and the City are just as likely to conk out somewhere in Illinois as the EB is in Washington/Oregon.

So maybe they deem it a bigger problem if #28 delays #8 due to breakdown than the possibility of cold passengers?

Just some musings...

Rob

 

[battalion51]

I'm guessing the day you saw that section of the Builder it was actually just a power move. Generally the PDX side only carries one motor. If there's been an engine failure they obviously have to run it in tandem with a live motor. Also, if one of the engines has just received a repair after a failure its typically paired up with a strong motor just in case. Generally we don't notice that sort of thing since so many of our trains run with two engines. This is typically most noticeable on the NEC with the electrics or on commuter roads.

 

[the_traveler]

When I was on the EB in October, I went CHI-PDX and then SEA-CHI. On both trains, there were 3 motors from CHI-SPK. Then 1 ran SPK-PDX and 2 ran SPK-SEA. This happened both ways, and this was before the snow.

 

[Amtrak839]

I'm still praying Auto Train gets their captive fleet back.

The P40s did a great job with the AT. It was the first train to get them and the last train to lose them for a reason. I'll be disappointed if they don't get their pool back.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Thanks, I had the Portland section of the EB in mind when comparing to the Eagle (or City). The Portland section ran with two engines in February. Not sure if that's the norm or not. But perhaps this had more to do with winter safety (to protect against total HEP failure in the cold?) than actual pulling power.
I'm guessing when all four engines (two from Seattle and two from Portland) reach Spokane, three continue onto Chicago and one returns to Portland with the engines coming off the westbound train the next morning. That would further support the theory that it's just HEP/colossal failure protection. But that begs the question: Chicago's winters get just as gnarly as the Pacific Northwest, the Eagle and the City are just as likely to conk out somewhere in Illinois as the EB is in Washington/Oregon.

So maybe they deem it a bigger problem if #28 delays #8 due to breakdown than the possibility of cold passengers?

Just some musings...

Rob

During the Eagles trip in the cold sections, its running on the Lincoln corridor. Plenty of Amtrak power, never more than a few hours away. During the City's trip in the cold sections its still be served by the Illini and Saluki. By the time its more than two and a half hours from an a plausible rescue locomotive, the City is in Tennessee, while the Eagle is practically in Arkansas. For the Eagle, there is only a 400 mile place where its more than 2.5 hours from Amtrak rescue period, and its fairly temperate in climate.

On the other hand, the Empire Builder, CZ, or SWC can be as much as 900, 1100, or 1100 miles from the nearest Amtrak power. And in their cases, this is in northern tundra (EB), the Rocky Mountains (CZ), or the New Mexican desert (SWC). Failure on the CONO or TE is much less of a big deal.

 

[printman2000]

During the Eagles trip in the cold sections, its running on the Lincoln corridor. Plenty of Amtrak power, never more than a few hours away. During the City's trip in the cold sections its still be served by the Illini and Saluki. By the time its more than two and a half hours from an a plausible rescue locomotive, the City is in Tennessee, while the Eagle is practically in Arkansas. For the Eagle, there is only a 400 mile place where its more than 2.5 hours from Amtrak rescue period, and its fairly temperate in climate.
On the other hand, the Empire Builder, CZ, or SWC can be as much as 900, 1100, or 1100 miles from the nearest Amtrak power. And in their cases, this is in northern tundra (EB), the Rocky Mountains (CZ), or the New Mexican desert (SWC). Failure on the CONO or TE is much less of a big deal.

And that is probably the thinking behind it (lets hope). While I agree it is less than of a big deal, it is still a big deal if you break down. Lets hope those two will again see a second unit.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

There is the Horsepower per ton issue, two locomotives double the HP per ton, which helps with acceleration. getting the train up to speed much faster, which in turn, helps with on time performance. Once the train is up to speed on flat terrain, the second unit really is just along for the ride.

Actually, since the second locomotive doesn't correspond to any increase in HEP loads, the second locomotive more than doubles the horsepower available to the traction motors.

 

[battalion51]

In all reality one of the motors is very rarely "along for the ride." They'd have to take the leader offline, and for the most part it's not very practical to do so. Rather than running in a cruising notch of 5 or 6 you're more likely to be in 3.

 

[abqdave]

It is interesting to read this post and then compare how many locomotives Amtrak uses to haul x number of coaches vs. Indian Railways, for example. I have watched many videos of them on Youtube, and am amazed how many cars they haul with their locomotives. They often use one WAP4 electric locomotive to haul 24 coaches. The WAP4 is 5000 horsepower and is rated to haul up to 26 coaches at 160 kph (100 mph). Amtrak's AEM 7 is 7000 hp; I don't know how many coaches they are rated to haul, but I don't think they haul anywhere near that number anywhere on the NEC.

Maybe one reason is (I think) the WAP4 uses an extra power car where the AEM 7 generates HEP itself?

 

[AlanB]

It is interesting to read this post and then compare how many locomotives Amtrak uses to haul x number of coaches vs. Indian Railways, for example. I have watched many videos of them on Youtube, and am amazed how many cars they haul with their locomotives. They often use one WAP4 electric locomotive to haul 24 coaches. The WAP4 is 5000 horsepower and is rated to haul up to 26 coaches at 160 kph (100 mph). Amtrak's AEM 7 is 7000 hp; I don't know how many coaches they are rated to haul, but I don't think they haul anywhere near that number anywhere on the NEC.
Maybe one reason is (I think) the WAP4 uses an extra power car where the AEM 7 generates HEP itself?

India doesn't have FRA rules in effect, therefore their cars weigh less than Amtrak cars do, that allows their engines to pull more cars.

I believe that an AEM-7 can haul around 15 to 16 cars without too much trouble. And the AEM-7 doesn't generate HEP power, it just converts the catenary power to HEP. Unlike with a diesel engine, you're not stealing power from the traction motors to provide HEP. A P42 is rated for 4,200 HP. However if it's providing HEP, you're probably only getting around 3,700 to 3,800 HP in tractive effort, the remainder is going into HEP.

With an AEM-7 you're getting 7,000 HP regardless of whether or not the motor is also providing HEP. You've got a very large power comany at the other end of that long wire, so you can draw as much power as you need provided that you don't overload the electronic equipment in the locomotive.

 

[PRR 60]

...You've got a very large power comany at the other end of that long wire, so you can draw as much power as you need provided that you don't overload the electronic equipment in the locomotive.

Within reason, of course.