New Amtrak Cars!

[George Harris]

I was more thinking of the typical issue in the United States where it's undesireable to clear buildings out of the way (which I understand isn't a political problem the Chinese engineers run into), and so the traditional railroad right of way with whatever curvature it has is used.

Taiwan IS NOT China. Regardless of political pretenses, it is a country in its own right with more people than Australia and New Zealand combined.

There was much done in Taiwan in the way of environmental remediation and concern for adjancent landowners and residents such as noise barriers, shallow tunnels instead of open cuts, bridges instead of fills to avoid splitting farms and villages, etc., etc.

The tracks at the New London, CT station are roughly north-south, I think, and the bridge across the Thames River, less than a mile away, is roughly east-west, for example. Given the desire to not step on the toes of existing land owners, it's hard for me to imagine how you'd ever get the land to be able to get from the Thames River bridge to the Niantic River bridge with curves gentle enough for even 100 MPH operation. (That area comes to mind in part because I used to live less than a mile from the Niantic River.)

There were plans that could improve the situation significantly. In the end, my understanding is that the problem was no money.
Most of what can be done to speed up things within the existing alignment or close - there were a few curve shifts in the past - has been done. In addition to New London, there is the whole New York to New Haven section owned by Conn DOT that need wider track centers at the least plus any curve straightening you can sneak in. Then there are the 30 mph sections Philadelphia and Baltimore. These sections would cost a lot of money to improve.

About all that can be done to speed up the northeast main line without getting way into the zone of diminishing returns has been done. Let's call the basic job done and move on to other parts of the country. The entire northeast, geographically defined as north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River has relatively closely spaced medium and large cities that cry out for multiple trains per day on a number of routes that would link them like beads on a string, or several intersecting strings. Then let's look south, along the gulf to Texas and on the west coast. Again, large and medium sized cities spaced for multiple trains per day.

Wellington's book on the Economic Theory of Railway Location written in the late 1800's pointed out that the New York Central, with its main line running multiple major cities would always be a higher cost operation than the Pennsylvania that had a shorter route to Chicago and much less populated territory. Yet, he also said that the NYC was the better route and would always have a greater income. Why? Because it went where the traffic was, and even if it ended up with a smaller share of New York to Chicago traffic, the traffic to from and between intermediate points would always more than make up for it.

An outstanding example of this in our pathetic one train a day long distance train system is the Empire Builder. Even though it serves a relatively lightly populated area, the people in this lightly populated area use the service because it connects the points they need to travel between. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the EB's ridership use it more or less regularly but have never traveled to either Chicago or Seattle/Portland.

 

[Mark]

How about the Hiawatha?

Its such a short stretch, (a little less than 90mi), if Amtrak or more likely the states, (IL and WI), were willing, couldn't an automatic stopping system be put in and allow 90 mph? I feel that if the Hia could shave its run down to an hour or so it would really get people out of their cars and off of I 94. After all, I believe Illinois blew a ton of cash on the PTC system and quadrant gates down state that have thus far not met expectations. They might even get an extra turn or two on the equipment by shaving that 30 or so minutes. Good idea or no?

 

[AlanB]

How about the Hiawatha?
Its such a short stretch, (a little less than 90mi), if Amtrak or more likely the states, (IL and WI), were willing, couldn't an automatic stopping system be put in and allow 90 mph? I feel that if the Hia could shave its run down to an hour or so it would really get people out of their cars and off of I 94. After all, I believe Illinois blew a ton of cash on the PTC system and quadrant gates down state that have thus far not met expectations. They might even get an extra turn or two on the equipment by shaving that 30 or so minutes. Good idea or no?

Mark,

You're correct that the Hiawatha run is short and under 90 miles, 86 to be exact. And it is also true that quite a bit of money was spent on a failed PTC system south of Chicago.

The problem with speeding up the Hiawatha service is the costs involved. It's not just a matter of improving the crossings, like with quad gates, and the signaling systems. Every train that runs on any portion of that line, even if it can't operate at speeds above 79 MPH, still has to be equiped with the PTC equipment. That means that any freight trains runing on the line have to have engines with PTC equipment installed, all METRA trains that run on that corridor will need the PTC equipment installed, the engines hauling Amtrak's Empire Builder will need to be PTC compliant, as well as the engines and cab cars that currently haul the Hiawatha trains.

That's a tall order, and a very hefty expense. And you can bet that neither METRA, CN, or Amtrak is going to pay that bill. It would be up to the states of Illinois and/or Wisconson to foot that bill. And right now at least, I don't see either one of them standing in line to pay that bill.

All that said, sure it's probably a wonderful idea and I suspect that not only would it allow for an extra turn on the equipment, it would probably double ridership. I just don't see anyone stepping up to the plate to pay the bill. Perhaps if the funding bill passed by the Senate that rewards states for helping to suppor and improve Amtrak service ever sees the light of day in the House, and gets past the current president or it approved after he's gone, then maybe we start to have some chance of seeing some form of PTC on the Hiawatha route.

 

[frj1983]

How about the Hiawatha?
Its such a short stretch, (a little less than 90mi), if Amtrak or more likely the states, (IL and WI), were willing, couldn't an automatic stopping system be put in and allow 90 mph? I feel that if the Hia could shave its run down to an hour or so it would really get people out of their cars and off of I 94. After all, I believe Illinois blew a ton of cash on the PTC system and quadrant gates down state that have thus far not met expectations. They might even get an extra turn or two on the equipment by shaving that 30 or so minutes. Good idea or no?

Mark,

You're correct that the Hiawatha run is short and under 90 miles, 86 to be exact. And it is also true that quite a bit of money was spent on a failed PTC system south of Chicago.

The problem with speeding up the Hiawatha service is the costs involved. It's not just a matter of improving the crossings, like with quad gates, and the signaling systems. Every train that runs on any portion of that line, even if it can't operate at speeds above 79 MPH, still has to be equiped with the PTC equipment. That means that any freight trains runing on the line have to have engines with PTC equipment installed, all METRA trains that run on that corridor will need the PTC equipment installed, the engines hauling Amtrak's Empire Builder will need to be PTC compliant, as well as the engines and cab cars that currently haul the Hiawatha trains.

That's a tall order, and a very hefty expense. And you can bet that neither METRA, CN, or Amtrak is going to pay that bill. It would be up to the states of Illinois and/or Wisconson to foot that bill. And right now at least, I don't see either one of them standing in line to pay that bill.

All that said, sure it's probably a wonderful idea and I suspect that not only would it allow for an extra turn on the equipment, it would probably double ridership. I just don't see anyone stepping up to the plate to pay the bill. Perhaps if the funding bill passed by the Senate that rewards states for helping to suppor and improve Amtrak service ever sees the light of day in the House, and gets past the current president or it approved after he's gone, then maybe we start to have some chance of seeing some form of PTC on the Hiawatha route.

Wow,

I keep saying to myself, "if that were possible," and the schedules improved, I'd move back to Wisconsin(my home state) and commute from Milwaukee to Chicago (where my job is) everyday! As it is now, the schedule doesn't quite fit right. :blink:

 

[Mark]

Alan, does this mean that the P42s, (and all the BNSF units), that run on BNSF have the Automatic Stopping equipment installed? It was mentioned in another thread that 90mph is allowed on some stretches of the SWC.

Back to the Hia: If the other trains, (metra, CP freights, etc.), are running less than 90mph do they really need the automatic stopping equipment? I would think that could be bypassed nowadays. Perhaps the system could be set to function for above 79mph running only or something like that. I don't really know I just think the Hia is not being used to its full potential paticularly if automatic stopping equipment is in use elsewhere in the country.

Thanks,

Mark

 

[AlanB]

Alan, does this mean that the P42s, (and all the BNSF units), that run on BNSF have the Automatic Stopping equipment installed? It was mentioned in another thread that 90mph is allowed on some stretches of the SWC.

Mark,

I'm far from an expert on this, so it is possible that the version of PTC that was installed years ago on the BNSF transcon doesn't require ATS or PTC installed on all the engines, but I do believe that the lead engine on any train must have that equipment if it's running on the transcon.

Back to the Hia: If the other trains, (metra, CP freights, etc.), are running less than 90mph do they really need the automatic stopping equipment? I would think that could be bypassed nowadays. Perhaps the system could be set to function for above 79mph running only or something like that. I don't really know I just think the Hia is not being used to its full potential paticularly if automatic stopping equipment is in use elsewhere in the country.

PTC isn't just about making sure that the slower running trains can stop automatically. It's about knowing where every train is at every given minute. Therefore without the PTC equipment installed in the METRA cabs and the CN cabs, you loose the ability to properly control things and therefore cannot utilize the system to it's fullest capacity. That means no moving blocks and no high speed running, both of which increase capacity on the line.

I know that every NS and CSX train that operates on the NEC has the Amtrak version of PTC, as do all the P42's that operate on the NEC, and of course all the electric motors have it since they are running at the highest speeds. In fact IIRC, part of the fatal collision between the Colonial and some CSX locos running light in Chase Maryland, was blamed on the lack of no PTC in the CSX locos. After that collision, the rules were changed to require all locos operating on the NEC to have PTC. There were other factors that contributed to that crash, like the CSX engineer being stoned and the cab signals being disabled, but none of that would have mattered had that cab be equipped with some form of ATS (Automatic Train Stop).

 

[VT Hokie]

It was Conrail, actually, not CSX involved in the 1987 Chase disaster.

 

[AlanB]

It was Conrail, actually, not CSX involved in the 1987 Chase disaster.

You're quite right, it was Conrail. I guess I was just on a CSX roll.

 

[George Harris]

It was Conrail, actually, not CSX involved in the 1987 Chase disaster.

You're quite right, it was Conrail. I guess I was just on a CSX roll.

If you read the accident report, the two guys in the freight engines were a disaster waiting to happen. They had disabled or ignored all signals and safety devices.

1. Both were high on marijuana.

2. They ignored at least two signals

3. They ignored the cab signals in the engine

4. They had stuffed tape in the warning horn for the cab signal system

5. They were running faster than the speed limit on the track

6. They ran over a switch set against them

7. When they finally realized that they were out on the main line, they STOPPED. The track they were on was normally operated in the direction they had been moving.

Something like 8 seconds after they got stopped they were hit by the passenger train moving at something like 106 mph.

If I recall correctly, the number of deaths was only 13 despite there being something like 300 people on the train.

Take all my numbers as approximations. It has been years since I read the accident report.

 

[wayman]

1. Both were high on marijuana.2. They ignored at least two signals

3. They ignored the cab signals in the engine

4. They had stuffed tape in the warning horn for the cab signal system

5. They were running faster than the speed limit on the track

6. They ran over a switch set against them

7. When they finally realized that they were out on the main line, they STOPPED. The track they were on was normally operated in the direction they had been moving.

I haven't read the official report on this one, but the Wikipedia account I read some while back does mention each of these, except for (I think) the second sentence of line (7). My mental image--incorrect, formed in the absence of information either way--was of the the light engines having traveled in the direction opposite the Colonial in order to enter the main line.

So my question is, if the engineers had suddenly sobered up and had a moment of realization "holy ****, we're on the main!", should their default behavior have been to accelerate rather than stop, until they had a chance to get their bearings and know whether it was safe to stop and reverse direction to get off the main? I don't know if there is a "default behavior" in this situation--it's such a ridiculous situation to get into in the first place--but I should think a 106-mph train hitting anything with its brakes not set, or better still moving in the same direction at some speed (say, 30 or 40 mph), reduces the force of impact. It becomes an elastic collision, maybe even one at an effective speed of 70 or 60 mph instead of 100+, right?

Even if there aren't rules covering this, I'd think "move in the direction of traffic flow" is the common sense course of action.... (Not that those engineers had any common sense available to them at the time. This is just a hypothetical.)

 

[AlanB]

It was Conrail, actually, not CSX involved in the 1987 Chase disaster.

You're quite right, it was Conrail. I guess I was just on a CSX roll.

If you read the accident report, the two guys in the freight engines were a disaster waiting to happen. They had disabled or ignored all signals and safety devices.

1. Both were high on marijuana.

2. They ignored at least two signals

3. They ignored the cab signals in the engine

4. They had stuffed tape in the warning horn for the cab signal system

5. They were running faster than the speed limit on the track

6. They ran over a switch set against them

7. When they finally realized that they were out on the main line, they STOPPED. The track they were on was normally operated in the direction they had been moving.

Something like 8 seconds after they got stopped they were hit by the passenger train moving at something like 106 mph.

If I recall correctly, the number of deaths was only 13 despite there being something like 300 people on the train.

Take all my numbers as approximations. It has been years since I read the accident report.

Which is why I stated that "part of the blame was laid upon the lack of PTC."

I don't think that it was ever proved who had stuffed the tape in the horn, and apparently the light bulbs had been removed from the cab signals (again no decision on who did that, be it someone else or these two guys).

Otherwise the only other correction that I would add is that there were 14 passengers killed, along with the engineer of the Amtrak train and the cafe attendant. Investigators however did note that thankfully the first few cars of the Amtrak train were not carrying the same passenger loads as the rear cars (a common phenomenon out of DC). Had those first three cars been full, odds are the death toll would have been much higher, perhaps even topping 100.

 

[AlanB]

I haven't read the official report on this one, but the Wikipedia account I read some while back does mention each of these, except for (I think) the second sentence of line (7). My mental image--incorrect, formed in the absence of information either way--was of the the light engines having traveled in the direction opposite the Colonial in order to enter the main line.
So my question is, if the engineers had suddenly sobered up and had a moment of realization "holy ****, we're on the main!", should their default behavior have been to accelerate rather than stop, until they had a chance to get their bearings and know whether it was safe to stop and reverse direction to get off the main? I don't know if there is a "default behavior" in this situation--it's such a ridiculous situation to get into in the first place--but I should think a 106-mph train hitting anything with its brakes not set, or better still moving in the same direction at some speed (say, 30 or 40 mph), reduces the force of impact. It becomes an elastic collision, maybe even one at an effective speed of 70 or 60 mph instead of 100+, right?

The Conrail train was indeed moving in the same direction as the Colonial, but was supposed to have stopped at a switch prior to entering the mainline.

As for your question, although I'll certainly defer to an engineer who drives trains for a living, there was no option for them to accelerate. According to the investigation and the Conrail engineer's own statements, he finally realized that he had a red signal and that the switch was set against him, prior to actually entering the mainline. At that moment of clarity if you will, he hit the emergency brake. However, because he was speeding (going 60+), there wasn't enough time for him to stop short of the switch and the train continued onto the main.

My understanding is that once you've dumped the air, it is not possible to recharge the brakes until after the train has come to a complete stop. Even if it is possible to recharge while still moving, it would still take a minute or two to do that, by which time it would have been too late anyhow. Had his first reaction been to slam the throttles forward, rather than hitting the emergency brakes something that would I think be contrary to both training and normal human reactions, you'd still have a problems.

First, he might have derailed his train on the switch that was set against him. That still would have caused a disaster with the Colonial. Second, if he did make it over the switch, his top speed was probably no more than 70 or 80 MPH. The Colonial was bearing down on him at 130 MPH, so it would still have hit him, and quite possibly done so over the river, which might have increased casualties. On the other hand the force of the collision would have been less. Finally, the Conrail crew even if sober, would most likely not have known why they weren't being allowed onto the main. In other words, they might have been ordered to wait for a southbound train on what is normally the northbound track. It's not uncommon for this to happen, such that a faster train can pass a slower one. In that case, had the Conrail engineer fire walled his engines, he would have been driving full speed into a head on collision with a southbound train.

So, no, I do think that about the only thing he got right that day was to slam on the brakes.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

What I want to know is how such a peerless doofus got to be behind the throttle of a locomotive in the first place.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I'm far from an expert on this, so it is possible that the version of PTC that was installed years ago on the BNSF transcon doesn't require ATS or PTC installed on all the engines, but I do believe that the lead engine on any train must have that equipment if it's running on the transcon.
PTC isn't just about making sure that the slower running trains can stop automatically. It's about knowing where every train is at every given minute. Therefore without the PTC equipment installed in the METRA cabs and the CN cabs, you loose the ability to properly control things and therefore cannot utilize the system to it's fullest capacity. That means no moving blocks and no high speed running, both of which increase capacity on the line.

I know that every NS and CSX train that operates on the NEC has the Amtrak version of PTC, as do all the P42's that operate on the NEC, and of course all the electric motors have it since they are running at the highest speeds. In fact IIRC, part of the fatal collision between the Colonial and some CSX locos running light in Chase Maryland, was blamed on the lack of no PTC in the CSX locos. After that collision, the rules were changed to require all locos operating on the NEC to have PTC. There were other factors that contributed to that crash, like the CSX engineer being stoned and the cab signals being disabled, but none of that would have mattered had that cab be equipped with some form of ATS (Automatic Train Stop).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab_signalling has a paragraph about the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System used on the Northeast Corridor, which seems to imply that it provides one way communication to the train about how fast the train can go, and seem to suggest that the Northeast Corridor does not use any sort of GPS based system. I think that means that on the Northeast Corridor, block boundaries are limited by how the wayside equipment is wired. On the other hand, I think that also means that each train recieves proper signal indications even if the equipment on other trains is malfunctioning (but, of course, to absolutely reliably prevent a collision between two trains reliably, both need to have the automatic stop functioning correctly).

How does PTC with a GPS cope with tunnels? And for that matter, how does it deal with multiple tracks along a single right of way (where GPS resolution does not tell you reliably which track you're on)?

 

[AlanB]

How does PTC with a GPS cope with tunnels? And for that matter, how does it deal with multiple tracks along a single right of way (where GPS resolution does not tell you reliably which track you're on)?

Again I'm not an expert in this type of stuff, but my understanding is that the systems that do use GPS don't rely totally on the GPS. Some systems don't even use GPS, but those that do only use GPS so that the locomotive knows where it's at. The locomotive then transmits that information via radio/cell signal to a central location. It's not the GPS system itself that figures out which train is which to control things. That's how they get around the problem of GPS not being able to tell two trains 20 feet apart from one another, or which track its on.

 

[Barney]

Bring back the DOME cars!

A few years ago Marlboro had a promotion for smokers to win a trip on their proposed western train. Colorado Railcars designed, but never finished, an entire luxury train of double decker cars of various types. Among them was one with a hot tub.

The C&O back in the 50's planned to have an aquarium on one of their cars, with fish swmiing in a floor to ceiling glass bubble. It was a good idea, but all the fish died.

Oh well, you could test a few concepts first.

 

[Barney]

Didn't mean to imply anything was wrong with Colorado Railcar, it was Marlboro that bailed. The smokers will have to sail with Captain Lee on the Exxon Valdez.

Colorado Rail Car has had problems quality-wise in the past, especially with their DMUs.

 

[Barney]

Travelers seem to love the 24" space assigned to them on a Airbus. And our government subsidizes them to the extent of about $80 billion per year. That's not even including the extra $6 billion per airport upgrade to strengthen the tarmac and raise the boarding levels to accomodatel the new foreign-built monster.

Not to speak of the 5 foot ceilings. How about we contract with the Cornsorsium in France, and get them to build some aluminum tubes on railroad wheels. We could cram 800 passengers in each tube section, and hook about ten of them together.

Environmentally, the government and the passengers will still think they are on an airplane, and we will be much greener since the things will run at 500 mph on rails instead of polluting the air.

Oh yes, my dream coach will have only two portolets, one in the front that has a mesh curtain and a staff employee who tells coach passengers they can't use it. The other portolet will be way in the back, but you won't be able to get to it due to the drink cart blocking the aisle.

Perhaps the long term goal for the Northeast Corridor should be to have trains that run significantly faster than 150 MPH.

Actually at this point I'd be happy if the long term goal was to just get the trains to 150 MPH for most of their run. More than that will be impossible without serious funding, probably on the order of a Trillion dollars, and a whole new right of way.

 

[Walt]

Put coffee makers back on the Viewliner cars.

BTW, I just took a trip on the Silvers, and to my surprise, Amtrak has started to return back the coffee makers.