CZ 6 (21)

[RailFanLNK]

The crew onboard the 6 (21) was the crew on the 5(15) when I left Chicago. They were superb. The coach attendent named Dan gave me a brouchure of the Milwaukee Irish Festival. He's Irish American like I am. I was going to drop off an Irish newspaper and a celtic/punk rock cd to the station late last night but noticed the train was way behind. Then I thought I will drop it off to him personally but that was going to be around noon, then 2pm, then now its 6pm. Thats almost 13 hours late. I called the local number for Amtrak but no answer. Anyone know why its getting further and further behind? Thanks!

 

[RailBirder]

AMT6-19 had power problems somewhere west of Glenwood, but don't know what or where it happened. At Glenwood and into Denver it had a UP freight engine as it's leader, UP 9508, got to Denver about 0530 local time. I suspect the initial power problem, getting a rescue engine and UP crew to it's location, and finally running with a slower engine all did it in. Don't know if Amtrak had replacement power available in Denver or what it ran with out of Denver.

 

[PRR 60]

AMT6-19 had power problems somewhere west of Glenwood, but don't know what or where it happened. At Glenwood and into Denver it had a UP freight engine as it's leader, UP 9508, got to Denver about 0530 local time. I suspect the initial power problem, getting a rescue engine and UP crew to it's location, and finally running with a slower engine all did it in. Don't know if Amtrak had replacement power available in Denver or what it ran with out of Denver.

The west of Glenwood problem was quite a bit west of Glenwood: Oakland CA. The UP locomotive was on the train from Emeryville east.

 

[GG-1]

AMT6-19 had power problems somewhere west of Glenwood, but don't know what or where it happened. At Glenwood and into Denver it had a UP freight engine as it's leader, UP 9508, got to Denver about 0530 local time. I suspect the initial power problem, getting a rescue engine and UP crew to it's location, and finally running with a slower engine all did it in. Don't know if Amtrak had replacement power available in Denver or what it ran with out of Denver.

The west of Glenwood problem was quite a bit west of Glenwood: Oakland CA. The UP locomotive was on the train from Emeryville east.

Aloha

What you are describing seems to be the same thing that happed to me ?3 years ago about this same time.

 

[Trogdor]

Amazing that they don't have spare power in Oakland, CA.

 

[GG-1]

Amazing that they don't have spare power in Oakland, CA.

What is and was that on that trip the engine that caused the trouble on th Zephyr was the same engine that caused the Starlight to be 5 hours late to Emeryville the night before. The inbound Zephyr had a brand new Genesis that was pulled for David Gunn's use on the Starlight.

Tells us how good/not :angry: Oakland service is. Missed my connection to CONO. Now the odds are against getting on CONO AGAIN. :angry:

Aloha

 

[sechs]

Let's back up four posts and get this right.

The west of Glenwood problem was quite a bit west of Glenwood: Oakland CA. The UP locomotive was on the train from Emeryville east.

The train starts in Emeryville, so the UP engine was on from the start.

I'm quite sure that there is usually a spare engine at the Oakland maintenance facility... but it is being used by California for state corridor service. I'm not exactly sure why, but that one of the Surfliner's usual engines has been spotted with a single-level set in Washington and Oregon may have something to do with it.

Now, I suppose that they could have tried to call-up an engine from Caltrain, but why drag one of their engines up from the south bay and then half-way across the nation, when you can get one from UP pretty much right there?

 

[Trogdor]

Now, I suppose that they could have tried to call-up an engine from Caltrain, but why drag one of their engines up from the south bay and then half-way across the nation, when you can get one from UP pretty much right there?

The "why" would be (assuming such a move were approved) that the California engine should (in theory) be able to maintain passenger speeds, and therefore stay closer to schedule, whereas the freight engine would be subject to speed restrictions. They could then do an engine swap in Denver (I think they store a protect engine there, and even if not, send an extra unit on #5 that afternoon) and let the California engine go home a couple of days sooner. Then again, I'm sure that was considered, and for some reason, determined to be the less optimal of the two solutions.

 

[TRSTACIE]

Now, I suppose that they could have tried to call-up an engine from Caltrain, but why drag one of their engines up from the south bay and then half-way across the nation, when you can get one from UP pretty much right there?

The "why" would be (assuming such a move were approved) that the California engine should (in theory) be able to maintain passenger speeds, and therefore stay closer to schedule, whereas the freight engine would be subject to speed restrictions. They could then do an engine swap in Denver (I think they store a protect engine there, and even if not, send an extra unit on #5 that afternoon) and let the California engine go home a couple of days sooner. Then again, I'm sure that was considered, and for some reason, determined to be the less optimal of the two solutions.

They do keep a spare AMTRAK engine in Denver. But who knows if it was used or not. I usually see it off on the third track by itself. I did see it in use when the GrandLuxe was in town a few weeks ago. That train was very long, it took up two tracks!

 

[Penn Central]

Now, I suppose that they could have tried to call-up an engine from Caltrain, but why drag one of their engines up from the south bay and then half-way across the nation, when you can get one from UP pretty much right there?

The "why" would be (assuming such a move were approved) that the California engine should (in theory) be able to maintain passenger speeds, and therefore stay closer to schedule, whereas the freight engine would be subject to speed restrictions. They could then do an engine swap in Denver (I think they store a protect engine there, and even if not, send an extra unit on #5 that afternoon) and let the California engine go home a couple of days sooner. Then again, I'm sure that was considered, and for some reason, determined to be the less optimal of the two solutions.

Why? Maybe Caltrain simply refused to let Amtrak drag one of its engines halfway across the country. IIRC, Amtrak might operate Caltrain under contract, but Caltrain's management doesn't have to let Amtrak borrow its motive power, or anything else, for that manner.

 

[George Harris]

It would have to be more than just the freight unit. Most freight units are geared for 70 mph, and a lot of the CZ route is restricted to way less than 70 mph anyway. Think Sierra Nevada, Rockies, etc. In fact Roseville CA to Reno NV is all 40 mph or less. In fact, the time difference between running 1,000 miles at 70 instead of 79 mph would only be 97 minutes. I woulf seriously doubt that there is 1000 miles of 79 mph territory between Oakland and Chicago on the CZ route, and certainly not west of Denver. There have to be other reasons that running with a freight unit for huge delays.

 

[CA Amtrak]

It would have to be more than just the freight unit. Most freight units are geared for 70 mph, and a lot of the CZ route is restricted to way less than 70 mph anyway. Think Sierra Nevada, Rockies, etc. In fact Roseville CA to Reno NV is all 40 mph or less. In fact, the time difference between running 1,000 miles at 70 instead of 79 mph would only be 97 minutes. I woulf seriously doubt that there is 1000 miles of 79 mph territory between Oakland and Chicago on the CZ route, and certainly not west of Denver. There have to be other reasons that running with a freight unit for huge delays.

That doesn't sound good knowing that I will take a weekend trip in about two weeks from Emeryville to Reno.