Is pulling an engine cheaper than turning the train?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Larry H.

Conductor
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
1,045
The other evening we went to the Centralia Illinois station so a friend could see the new little building they had replaced the old one with. While there we decided to stay and see the 8:10 or so Saulki come though. It ran about a half hour late going towards carbondale. When it pulled in they had it with an engine on the rear, which looked rather odd to me. A fellow who is volunteering to watch the station said that the other two chicago runs have only a front engine and after emptying at carbondale back up a half mile or so and turn the train on a "Y". The odd thing about the train with an engine on both ends is that its the train that stays overnight so time is surely no reason to do that? Ever since I saw it made me wonder about the cost of hauling a heavy engine, the waste of an engine and if there was some benefit I haven't figured out to not turning this train. Especially in light of the fact that it actually has over night to do so?
 
The other evening we went to the Centralia Illinois station so a friend could see the new little building they had replaced the old one with. While there we decided to stay and see the 8:10 or so Saulki come though. It ran about a half hour late going towards carbondale. When it pulled in they had it with an engine on the rear, which looked rather odd to me. A fellow who is volunteering to watch the station said that the other two chicago runs have only a front engine and after emptying at carbondale back up a half mile or so and turn the train on a "Y". The odd thing about the train with an engine on both ends is that its the train that stays overnight so time is surely no reason to do that? Ever since I saw it made me wonder about the cost of hauling a heavy engine, the waste of an engine and if there was some benefit I haven't figured out to not turning this train. Especially in light of the fact that it actually has over night to do so?
You've brought out some very important facts. Apparently, one of the runs is TT'ed (timetabled) to run on a "short" turn so there isn't time to turn the entire train. There might also be freight interference prohibiting the turn move. I wasn't there but if the engine # started with a 9 it was a shell of an engine that is designed to have all the engineer controls but is engineless.It is called a "cabbage" because it serves as a cab for the engineer and a baggage room for hauling baggage. The rear loco provides tractive power and Head End power for the train's needs. You don't want to know how much the freight RR's charge Amtrak to "borrow" a freight engine and Amtrak engines are high horsepower and have generators on board to supply power~ they ain't cheap !
 
Yes it is an Amtrak engine. And its a regular engine as they use it to power the train on the reverse trip. What I especially couldn't figure out is that the train they "Y" has only a couple hour lay over before returning and this train which the fellow said they do this way everyday is there at least 10 hours. It still appears to be a waste, but they must have some idea. What he did say was that they use this same train set to to to St. Louis after it goes to chicago. I don't know if that is correct or not, or what difference it might make. I think it perhaps was you who commented on the cleaning, this train was filthy and somehow I doubt its getting much cleaning time where ever its supposed to take place. Again a fault of a company not much interested in anything but collecting fare. It would seem with billions of dollars proposed to spend on amtrak that the first place they should start is fixing the existing problems.. But I doubt that will happen. They seem to be wizards at ignoring a problem.
 
It seems I've read recently that Amtrak is running short on "cabbage" units, necessitating the use of 2 locomotives (front and back) on some Midwest/Chicago-based trains. Of course, I can't recall where I read that. And, it doesn't really explain why the train isn't wyed.

As far as cleaning, are you just referring to the exterior of the train, or did you board the train and see the interior as well?
 
Ever since I saw it made me wonder about the cost of hauling a heavy engine, the waste of an engine and if there was some benefit I haven't figured out to not turning this train. Especially in light of the fact that it actually has over night to do so?
Assuming it's a motor (and not a motor-less cabbage), wouldn't it be operating -- pulling its weight, so to speak, rather than dead weight? I know both engines (fore and aft) run on the Vermonter, and I think they're communicating with each other so each provides roughly half the necessary horsepower, fine-tuned to provide the correct tension/slack on all the couplings. It's probably still less fuel-efficient (and less maintenance-efficient) than running a single engine, but it's not the huge waste that hauling a dead-weight non-running engine would be.

Also, doesn't Amtrak have a surplus of motors? If they were really tight on motors they'd be pulling the ones mothballed in Bear back into service. My sense was that the reason they need to borrow freight engines as often as they do is that Amtrak isn't able to have their spares (and crews, mainly) sprinkled around the country well enough to fill in any time a motor conks out mid-route. Not that there's a shortage of Amtrak motive power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I take this train 6 or 8 times per year. In fact,I am in Ann Arbor visiting right now and will ride the 393 home on Monday night. I'll ask the conductor why they pull an engine. Maybe I can give you some answers on Tues.

This train arrives Carbondale at 21:30 daily and sits until 07:30 the next morning for the run back to Chicago. Can't speak for the outside, but the inside is always clean to start the run... from either CHI or CDL.
 
I'm with you Larry. This is one of those things that to a laymen doesn't add up. And you probably won't get an answer here.

In the case of the CHI-QCY run, it's just the opposite. The Illinois Zephyr which spends the night in a relatively large rail yard with a wye in West Quincy runs with only one engine. The Carl Sandberg, which arrives in QCY around noon, rests in West Quincy, and departs for CHI at 5:30Pm runs with the two engines. A few years ago the IZ ran with a cabbage for a short while; and I asked the conductor why. He said it was the labor expense to turn the train. That doesn't explain why it went back to 1 engine shortly thereafter and has stayed that way.

As far as a surplus of engines is concerned, some pundits claimed the presence of a BNSF engine pulling the EB out of Chicago recently was due to a shortage of engines caused by the fires.

I'm guessing that turning a train (when it's possible) vs. push-pull is a wash bean counter wise. That's why we see both cases on the same line.
 
Also, doesn't Amtrak have a surplus of motors? If they were really tight on motors they'd be pulling the ones mothballed in Bear back into service. My sense was that the reason they need to borrow freight engines as often as they do is that Amtrak isn't able to have their spares (and crews, mainly) sprinkled around the country well enough to fill in any time a motor conks out mid-route. Not that there's a shortage of Amtrak motive power.
Not at the moment. There is another topic wandering around here detailing the severe shortage of P42 loco's at present. This is due to 3 or 4 fires and several other failures, as well as the general need for inspections and preventative maintenance. IIRC, more than 25% of the fleet was out of service, and Amtrak can only afford to have maybe 10% to 15% out of service at any given time. More than that and they will have problems.

Which of course is why Amtrak has been borrowing freight engines of late and engines normally only found on the westcoast have been showing up in Chicago.
 
I take this train 6 or 8 times per year. In fact,I am in Ann Arbor visiting right now and will ride the 393 home on Monday night. I'll ask the conductor why they pull an engine. Maybe I can give you some answers on Tues.
I wouldn't hold my breath that the conductor will know. Yes, there is always a chance, but it also wouldn't surprise me if you either get no answer or a ridiculous answer.

I just did a trip with the OTOL gang from NY to Springfield Mass. Our northbound shuttle train was late out of the yard and late leaving New Haven. Late enough that we might well have missed our returning train at SPG. So we asked the crew, both the engineer & conductor, if the consist we were on would be the consist used for the return trip. The idea of course being that if our return trip used the same cars & engines that the return trip couldn't leave until we got there. If it was a different consist, then we were going to bail out early so as to not be stuck in SPG.

Neither the conductor nor the engineer knew if it would be the same consist. :rolleyes: The conductor seemed to think that it would be, but he wasn't positive. We finally decided to gamble, and thankfully we were lucky that it was the same consist. And in fact, it had to be the same consist, since Amtrak had no other trains sitting in the yard at SPG. You'd think that the crew would actually take note of whether or not Amtrak actually keeps spare equipment in the yard, since they have to go right by the very small yard to even get to the station. Apparently not!

So again, don't be surprised if you don't get an answer to your question.
 
When it pulled in they had it with an engine on the rear, which looked rather odd to me. A fellow who is volunteering to watch the station said that the other two chicago runs have only a front engine and after emptying at carbondale back up a half mile or so and turn the train on a "Y". The odd thing about the train with an engine on both ends is that its the train that stays overnight so time is surely no reason to do that? Ever since I saw it made me wonder about the cost of hauling a heavy engine, the waste of an engine and if there was some benefit I haven't figured out to not turning this train. Especially in light of the fact that it actually has over night to do so?
Henry,

My guess, and I stress that it is just a guess, is that the consist for that train to Carbondale interlines with another train that does require that setup. In that case it would cost Amtrak more to have a switch crew pull the engine off in Chicago and then put it back on when it gets back to Chicago, than to just run everything through as is. This would be especially true during the winter, when coupling/uncoupling cars is already more fun than normal thanks to ice on the equipment and possible freeze-ups in the coaches while the power is out during switching.
 
I just did a trip with the OTOL gang from NY to Springfield Mass. Our northbound shuttle train was late out of the yard and late leaving New Haven.
Those shuttles have had a doozy of a time this winter. As best I can tell, the shuttle trainsets just never have a chance to thaw for months -- and certainly the switches in New Haven don't have a chance to go anywhere warm once a week :lol:

I was on one shuttle where every coach door on the train, save one, was iced shut -- and the one that opened was partially iced over in such a way that the trap wouldn't stay open without a conductor physically holding it up and the assistant physically holding down the stairs! I believe this door issue also caused the train to wind up wrong-railed at some points where otherwise the only door would have opened onto the other track instead of a platform :eek:

Another trip, the shuttle coming in to New Haven to pick up passengers from a northbound regional was stuck for about half an hour waiting for a icy switch to be thrown, while we were left standing on the platform in the bitter cold (because nobody knew we'd actually have such a long wait as to have time to go warm up inside). :wacko:

So, to give them benefit of the doubt, perhaps one reason the shuttle crew didn't know for sure whether the trainset would be the same one is that they had additional weather-related or equipment-related problems on their minds?
 
Yes it is an Amtrak engine. And its a regular engine as they use it to power the train on the reverse trip. What I especially couldn't figure out is that the train they "Y" has only a couple hour lay over before returning and this train which the fellow said they do this way everyday is there at least 10 hours. It still appears to be a waste, but they must have some idea. What he did say was that they use this same train set to to to St. Louis after it goes to chicago. I don't know if that is correct or not, or what difference it might make. I think it perhaps was you who commented on the cleaning, this train was filthy and somehow I doubt its getting much cleaning time where ever its supposed to take place. Again a fault of a company not much interested in anything but collecting fare. It would seem with billions of dollars proposed to spend on amtrak that the first place they should start is fixing the existing problems.. But I doubt that will happen. They seem to be wizards at ignoring a problem.
Believe it or not it was someone else who rode the same train set the AU group rode on Saturday~ the OP rode to Chicago on the same train set Sunday and the train was reported to be filthy.I did witness a rather stagering female lose her weinersnitzel on the LSA in the cafe/biz car.

Does anyone know if St. Louis has coach cleaners? That might be the problem~ the train has to make a complete round trip from Chicago to kansas City and return in order to be serviced. Bean counting at its best. :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My guess, and I stress that it is just a guess, is that the consist for that train to Carbondale interlines with another train that does require that setup.
This can't be the explanation for the QCY line. The IZ with one engine could interline since it arrives in CHI around 10:30AM. But the CS with two engines couldn't because it arrives in CHI around 10:00PM.
 
The fellow who was watching the station said the consist goes to St. Louis after its trip here. That seems a bit odd though because the length of both trips and an overnight in carbondale would seem to prevent that since it returns from Chicago at 4:30 or so. Unless maybe its a matching two set consist, which might be possible?
 
The fellow who was watching the station said the consist goes to St. Louis after its trip here. That seems a bit odd though because the length of both trips and an overnight in carbondale would seem to prevent that since it returns from Chicago at 4:30 or so. Unless maybe its a matching two set consist, which might be possible?
The Wolverines run with locomotives fore and aft, so it may interline with one of those runs. As far as I know, the St. Louis trains run with just one locomotive.
 
Other than availability, is there any particular reason why Amtrak would dispatch a train with 2 locomotives as opposed to one locomotive and a cabbage?
 
Other than availability, is there any particular reason why Amtrak would dispatch a train with 2 locomotives as opposed to one locomotive and a cabbage?
Sure. One reason would be if one of the loco's has just come out of the shop. Amtrak will often double up for the first trip just in case the shop didn't get something right and the loco fails.

They could also do it if there are weather concerns that might cause them to have to stop short of the ultimate destination and reverse back to the origin point.

And I'm sure that there are a few others that I'm not thinking of at the moment.
 
I rode the Wolverine yesterday morning -- only one engine

I rode the Illini, 393, Chicago to Carbondale last night -- engine on both ends as usual.

I asked the conductor why they did that. He said they call it a push-pull set up. When they get to Carbondale they do not have to do a Y maneuver at 19:30 hrs so the train is ready to head back to Chicago at 07:30 the next morning.

Now thats a good answer as far as it goes BUT when we departed Chicago we "backed" up to the Halsted station to effectively perform a Y maneuver to use the engine that had been nosed into the Union Station dock. I decided not to ask why the procedure is different at Carbondale than at Chicago. I decided to go with AlanB's advice and not be surprised at the answer I got.

BTW, the train was very clean on the inside but very dirty on the outside. It is apparent when comparing the corridor equipment to the Superliner equipment sitting side by side in Chicago that the LD trains get a lot more attention to exterior and windows.
 
I rode the Wolverine yesterday morning -- only one engine

I rode the Illini, 393, Chicago to Carbondale last night -- engine on both ends as usual.

I asked the conductor why they did that. He said they call it a push-pull set up. When they get to Carbondale they do not have to do a Y maneuver at 19:30 hrs so the train is ready to head back to Chicago at 07:30 the next morning.

Now thats a good answer as far as it goes BUT when we departed Chicago we "backed" up to the Halsted station to effectively perform a Y maneuver to use the engine that had been nosed into the Union Station dock. I decided not to ask why the procedure is different at Carbondale than at Chicago. I decided to go with AlanB's advice and not be surprised at the answer I got.

BTW, the train was very clean on the inside but very dirty on the outside. It is apparent when comparing the corridor equipment to the Superliner equipment sitting side by side in Chicago that the LD trains get a lot more attention to exterior and windows.
The back up move is necessary in Chicago since that's the only way a train can get out of Union Station and up on the St. Charles Air LIne and be pointed in the right direction to get to the former IC main line along the lake front.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top