Sunset Limited Stranded in Texas

[ACVitale]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Train-from-S-A-halted-by-wildfire-1331106.php

According to San Antonio news sources passengers headed from SAS to LAX were stuck on the Sunset Limited from around 5:40am on Saturday until Sunday morning. According to the above article the train was stuck due to a wildfire burning a UP bridge that needed to be repaired following the fire before the train could proceed. The crew also went illegal and needed to be replaced.

The article stated that passengers were irritated and irate and that it was an ugly scene.

I am going to assume that the wildfires/brushfires in addition to the damage done to local housing and in some cases with news reports describing towns looking like bombed out scenes from Bagdad left local emergency services for miles scrambling.

The article claims passengers on the train could see the wildfires from the windows.

How safe a situation for the train passengers?

Would it have made sense to have delayed the train at a stop prior to the wildfire area?

Is there anyway to know in advance?

Earlier this year (March), I was on the Carolinian when we had to stop for about 90 mins. due to a brush fire in Northern NC between Rocky Mount and Selma that shut down the CSX mainline. There was a fair amount of concern about the fire onboard and the sooty smokey smell was a little overwhelming.

Any thoughts? Comments? Insight? into the situation?

 

[Bob Dylan]

West Texas has been having Wild Fires due to the Extreme Drought/Dry Conditions we are experiencing in Texas.(turning into California! :giggle: ) The previous WB Sunset Ltd. had been held 2 hours in Alpine due to a Bridge Fire West of Marfa ,Texas. If it doesnt start Raining Soon this Problem will Escelate

and Bustitutions May become a Regular Thing on this Route even though Busses are few and Far between in this Desolate Area of the SW!! :angry2: These are UP Tracks and as is Well Known UP isnt exactly a Big Fan of Amtrak and Vice Versa! :help:

 

[ACVitale]

Jim,

I feel for ya. Hope it gets better soon. S Fla not looking great either. For the 1st time in the 15 year I lived in my current home the canal behind it is DRY! Not a drop of water. Normally about 8-10 feet deep. Lawn is brown and only thing green are weeds!

Thatnotwithstanding. I thought that a delay the article cited at 19 hrs but, the article said was from 5:40am Sat until after 9am Sun was not too bad for a line that had a fire burn a bridge and then need to have it repaired. I am sure the expedited action had a lot to do with freight more then Amtrak.

My bigger concern was dispatching a train into a HOT fire area with pax onboard. Even if UP hates Amtrak that seems like a heck of a liability and risks any contractual liability limits with "Gross Negligence"

Heard that over 50 homes were lost now and my heart goes out to those who lost homes, pets or were otherwise affected. Lets pray the rains come soon and in the proper moderation as to not cause other problems (ie flash floods, etc)

 

[GlobalistPotato]

If they run bustitutions, then maybe they can finally have daily service at better hours!

But gosh. If I was the conductor in that situation, I'd ask the dispatcher if we could back up to the last town we passed. At least we could stop next to "civilization", as far as it goes in west Texas!

 

[jis]

This seems to be a discussion we have once every three months or so regarding some train or the other. The easiest way to avoid such situations is to cancel trains at the first whiff of any trouble anywhere on the route. But we would ***** about that too. In these situations it is always easy to do Monday morning quarterbacking with close to zero information about what the dispatcher actually faced in the situation, and inevitably always ascribing ulterior motives to the poor blokes. Do we have any evidence that the dispatcher knew that the train would get held up when s/he sent it on its way? Once it is in a territory, presumably there are freight trains behind it that are likely in the territory too, so it may not be that simple to just back things out.

Bottom line more details needed before we can form an informed opinion on the matter.

But just curious, how many of you have actually worked as a dispatcher, or even know one. I know there are a few of us that do know one or more, but I bet that it is not that many of us here.

 

[busboy]

Can anyone elaborate on this hatred between UP and Amtrak? Why do they hate each other??

 

[Devil's Advocate]

My bigger concern was dispatching a train into a HOT fire area with pax onboard. Even if UP hates Amtrak that seems like a heck of a liability and risks any contractual liability limits with "Gross Negligence."

Gross negligence is no match for an signed indemnity agreement. Whatever UP does or does not do is legally Amtrak's burden.

In these situations it is always easy to do Monday morning quarterbacking with close to zero information about what the dispatcher actually faced in the situation, and inevitably always ascribing ulterior motives to the poor blokes.

Some people see negligent employees; others see nothing but angels. *shrug*

 

[jis]

In these situations it is always easy to do Monday morning quarterbacking with close to zero information about what the dispatcher actually faced in the situation, and inevitably always ascribing ulterior motives to the poor blokes.

Some people see negligent employees; others see nothing but angels. *shrug*

And of course the truth probably lies somewhere between the two extremes. But the bottom line is at present we do not have enough information to determine where the truth lies on this one.

 

[George Harris]

And California is somewhere around 160% of normal rainfall. Reservoirs are overflowing.

 

[Anderson]

Can anyone elaborate on this hatred between UP and Amtrak? Why do they hate each other??

Two reasons:

1) UP does not like having passenger trains on its tracks; and

2) UP (and SP before it) have been trying to kill the Sunset Limited since the 1960s, with no luck.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Can anyone elaborate on this hatred between UP and Amtrak? Why do they hate each other??

Two reasons:

1) UP does not like having passenger trains on its tracks; and

2) UP (and SP before it) have been trying to kill the Sunset Limited since the 1960s, with no luck.

The more I read about the UP/SP vs. Amtrak battle the less rational it sounds. UP gets free maintenance, up to and including double-tracking, while Amtrak gets the shaft. Then UP complains bitterly about the outcome. This isn't just the executives and dispatchers either; the rank and file UP employees are pretty negative about Amtrak as a whole. To me their complaints sound more like sour grapes than legitimate concerns over the future health of their employer. If and when UP ever goes bankrupt it certainly won't be Amtrak that ever did them in.

 

[AlanB]

UP's problem with Amtrak is that Amtrak doesn't pay enough in fees to cover the expenses of running the trains. They feel like Amtrak is getting a free ride.

However when they're receiving what they consider to be fair compensation, as in Amtrak California, UP works quite well with passenger service.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

UP's problem with Amtrak is that Amtrak doesn't pay enough in fees to cover the expenses of running the trains. They feel like Amtrak is getting a free ride. However when they're receiving what they consider to be fair compensation, as in Amtrak California, UP works quite well with passenger service.

We've already heard about the double-tracking funds UP received in exchange for zero traffic rights for Amtrak. I'm not sure I can call that a "fair" deal. We're still waiting to see them explain their $750 million charge for a one-time schedule change. How exactly is a single extra train a day going to cost UP $750 million? If UP is expecting the American taxpayer to fund 25% of their double-tracking expansion costs in exchange for 1% of the non-negotiable traffic rights, well, that sounds like a bad deal to me. In my view UP is acting like a corporate welfare case that needs to be forcibly weaned from the fraud teat. We've tried the carrot and it doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it's time for using more of the stick instead.

 

[jis]

We've already heard about the double-tracking funds UP received in exchange for zero traffic rights for Amtrak.

No I haven't heard. Please enlighten us what double tracking funding was received by UP without requiring that they provide additional train frequencies in exchange.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

UP's problem with Amtrak is that Amtrak doesn't pay enough in fees to cover the expenses of running the trains. They feel like Amtrak is getting a free ride.

However when they're receiving what they consider to be fair compensation, as in Amtrak California, UP works quite well with passenger service.

And this is why they did their absolute best to marginalize #5 & #6 out of existence?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

We've already heard about the double-tracking funds UP received in exchange for zero traffic rights for Amtrak.

No I haven't heard. Please enlighten us what double tracking funding was received by UP without requiring that they provide additional train frequencies in exchange.

As I recall UP received substantial subsidies for improving the CA-NV corridor courtesy of funds intended to facilitate improved passenger service. In exchange for these funds UP was to provide traffic rights to locations such as Las Vegas, but instead they simply spent the funds and then claimed that freight traffic had already outstripped all possible scheduling and offered Amtrak zero benefit in return for their gracious funding on the backs of the American taxpayer. It was my understanding that this included taxpayer funding for areas that received double-tracking. Is some part of that incorrect?

 

[the_traveler]

According to San Antonio news sources passengers headed from SAS to LAX were stuck on the Sunset Limited from around 5:40am on Saturday until Sunday morning. According to the above article the train was stuck due to a wildfire burning a UP bridge that needed to be repaired following the fire before the train could proceed. The crew also went illegal and needed to be replaced.

The article stated that passengers were irritated and irate and that it was an ugly scene.

...

How safe a situation for the train passengers?

Any thoughts? Comments? Insight? into the situation?

I myself would have rather be "stranded" for a few hours than to have gone over a burned bridge that had yet to be repaired - and not get to my destination! (But that's just my opinion - for what's it's worth.)

 

[jis]

We've already heard about the double-tracking funds UP received in exchange for zero traffic rights for Amtrak.

No I haven't heard. Please enlighten us what double tracking funding was received by UP without requiring that they provide additional train frequencies in exchange.

As I recall UP received substantial subsidies for improving the CA-NV corridor courtesy of funds intended to facilitate improved passenger service. In exchange for these funds UP was to provide traffic rights to locations such as Las Vegas, but instead they simply spent the funds and then claimed that freight traffic had already outstripped all possible scheduling and offered Amtrak zero benefit in return for their gracious funding on the backs of the American taxpayer. It was my understanding that this included taxpayer funding for areas that received double-tracking. Is some part of that incorrect?

Do you have a cite for this? What year? Which agency provided the funding? What was the agreement? Under the jurisdiction of which governing body? Was the agreement with the State of California? Nevada? Or perhaps with Amtrak? I am just trying to place this and I can't find anything on it. Was this for the Los Angeles - Barstow - Las Vegas route, one that has not seen Amtrak service since the discontinuance of the Desert Wind, and of course one that is not double tracked either between Barstow and Las Vegas, and between Barstow and San Bernardino is shared trackage with BNSF? Or perhaps you are talking of the Antelope Valley Line but that would be MetroLink, not Amtrak.

Are you sure you are not confusing the California state funding for double tracking the Yolo Causway in exchange for which California got the rights to operate scads of Capitol Corridor trains on that route, for something else?

 

[George Harris]

We've already heard about the double-tracking funds UP received in exchange for zero traffic rights for Amtrak.

No I haven't heard. Please enlighten us what double tracking funding was received by UP without requiring that they provide additional train frequencies in exchange.

As I recall UP received substantial subsidies for improving the CA-NV corridor courtesy of funds intended to facilitate improved passenger service. In exchange for these funds UP was to provide traffic rights to locations such as Las Vegas, but instead they simply spent the funds and then claimed that freight traffic had already outstripped all possible scheduling and offered Amtrak zero benefit in return for their gracious funding on the backs of the American taxpayer. It was my understanding that this included taxpayer funding for areas that received double-tracking. Is some part of that incorrect?

Do you have a cite for this? What year? Which agency provided the funding? What was the agreement? Under the jurisdiction of which governing body? Was the agreement with the State of California? Nevada? Or perhaps with Amtrak? I am just trying to place this and I can't find anything on it. Was this for the Los Angeles - Barstow - Las Vegas route, one that has not seen Amtrak service since the discontinuance of the Desert Wind? Thanks.

My memory is a little fuzzy on this, but I think this is referring to the appropriation to add a siding or two in order to run some LA to Las Vegas service. Did not happen. There was some sort of critter found to be living in the location of one of the siding locations, so environmental isssues killed it. As to 5 adn 6, I have no idea about that one, unless it is the work done on the "Capital Corridor" between Oakland and Sacramento. For this case, the funding mostly in the days of Southern Pacific for these short haul trains. Any benefit to 5 adn 6 was incidental. The other possibility for funding may have been the restoratio of the landslide area in northern California? a few years back and the replacement of the burned out Sacramento River bridge. In both these cases, there was no public money. All UPRR funded. An any case, these items had not benefit to 1 and 2. The double tracking across Arizona and New Mexico that has been of some benefit to 1 adn 2 is all UPRR funded.

 

[jis]

My memory is a little fuzzy on this, but I think this is referring to the appropriation to add a siding or two in order to run some LA to Las Vegas service. Did not happen. There was some sort of critter found to be living in the location of one of the siding locations, so environmental isssues killed it. As to 5 adn 6, I have no idea about that one, unless it is the work done on the "Capital Corridor" between Oakland and Sacramento. For this case, the funding mostly in the days of Southern Pacific for these short haul trains. Any benefit to 5 adn 6 was incidental. The other possibility for funding may have been the restoratio of the landslide area in northern California? a few years back and the replacement of the burned out Sacramento River bridge. In both these cases, there was no public money. All UPRR funded. An any case, these items had not benefit to 1 and 2. The double tracking across Arizona and New Mexico that has been of some benefit to 1 adn 2 is all UPRR funded.

I remember the Las Vegas sidings misadventure which never got off the ground. So nothing was built and no capacity was added.

There was the doubling of the Yolo Causway near Sacramento and other related state funded improvements for the Capitol Corridor in exchange for which California got trackage rights that is still not fully utilized by Amtrak California, i.e. there still is room for growth. That would have incidental benefit for 5/6 as well as 11/14. And yes, none of these have anything to do with 1/2. The Las Vegas thing could potentially have helped a restored 25/26 (?) if that ever happened. Then there was also the partly state funded upgrade of the Riverside route from San Bardoo to Fullerton when the Pasadena sub was taken over by Metro to convert to LRT. But in that case trackage rights were obtained for MetroLink service on that route, and it also benefited 3/4. Besides that was BNSF, not UP :-/. The other UP track that was state funded for improvement for Metrolink and incidentally 1/2 part of the way is the Los Angeles to Riverside UP ex-SP line. But again trackage rights were obtained in exchange for MetroLink. So I am still scratching my head.

 

[battalion51]

Back to the OP, many times the train is already headed into the "danger zone" before an issue is uncovered. Many times the estimate of how long it will take is grossly inaccurate, but they're also assuming no issues. If you get the order (at least under CSX Operating Rules) to reduce to Conditional Speed an order has just popped up and the situation is being monitored. If they decide they need to inspect a certain segment then you're going to hold out short of that location. If all comes up clear you'll proceed through there at Conditional Speed, no harm, no foul. However, if there's an issue it's going to take a minute. In this case they had to do some significant repairs. The idea of running back to the last station while good in theory could be a huge pain in the lightbulb. Assuming you can't make a reverse move to the last siding and run the engines around the train (if the engines are even back to back), and reverse move will be at a maximum of 30 MPH. If you've gone a sizable distance since the last stop, it's going to be a LONG reverse move. You want to make reverse moves as little as possible, and maybe a mile or two TOPS, not out running the main for 10-15-20 miles or more. Hindsight is 20/20, and as far as I can see, they did everything right.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

Oh yeah! Not knowing about the issue until the train is already in the "danger zone"... Yeah. That's happened before....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADnriWzJes

Yeah...

 

[The Chief]

Was this the West Texas bridge fire?

Photo also could illustrate the UP vs. Amtrak conflict,,,

 

[the_traveler]

No it couldn't be. That photo is too recent!

 

[AlanB]

We've already heard about the double-tracking funds UP received in exchange for zero traffic rights for Amtrak.

No I haven't heard. Please enlighten us what double tracking funding was received by UP without requiring that they provide additional train frequencies in exchange.

As I recall UP received substantial subsidies for improving the CA-NV corridor courtesy of funds intended to facilitate improved passenger service. In exchange for these funds UP was to provide traffic rights to locations such as Las Vegas, but instead they simply spent the funds and then claimed that freight traffic had already outstripped all possible scheduling and offered Amtrak zero benefit in return for their gracious funding on the backs of the American taxpayer. It was my understanding that this included taxpayer funding for areas that received double-tracking. Is some part of that incorrect?

Do you have a cite for this? What year? Which agency provided the funding? What was the agreement? Under the jurisdiction of which governing body? Was the agreement with the State of California? Nevada? Or perhaps with Amtrak? I am just trying to place this and I can't find anything on it. Was this for the Los Angeles - Barstow - Las Vegas route, one that has not seen Amtrak service since the discontinuance of the Desert Wind? Thanks.

My memory is a little fuzzy on this, but I think this is referring to the appropriation to add a siding or two in order to run some LA to Las Vegas service. Did not happen. There was some sort of critter found to be living in the location of one of the siding locations, so environmental isssues killed it. As to 5 adn 6, I have no idea about that one, unless it is the work done on the "Capital Corridor" between Oakland and Sacramento. For this case, the funding mostly in the days of Southern Pacific for these short haul trains. Any benefit to 5 adn 6 was incidental. The other possibility for funding may have been the restoratio of the landslide area in northern California? a few years back and the replacement of the burned out Sacramento River bridge. In both these cases, there was no public money. All UPRR funded. An any case, these items had not benefit to 1 and 2. The double tracking across Arizona and New Mexico that has been of some benefit to 1 adn 2 is all UPRR funded.

I'll have to go looking for things tommorrow, assuming that there is still anything left in news archives. But UP did receive some funding for the Vegas service to make improvements to handle things. They didn't get funding for double-tracking the entire line.

While UP was busy working on some of those improvements, the NIMBY's got hold of the rare turtle that might have been threatened by increased train service putting a halt to Amtrak's starting up any service. It took several years for the battle to play out in court, but finally the NIMBY's were struck down. By that point in time, the one Talgo set that was to be used for the service had already been sent to Washington/Orgeon. And UP had gobbled up the increased capacity that the work that had been done had provided.

UP in turn then demanded still more money for I believe total double-tracking, since they cited that it would now harm their business to try and squeeze in the Amtrak runs. At that point, I think it was the Warrington years by then, Amtrak didn't really care and didn't have the funds to run the service anyhow (much less meet UP's demands or fight it), so the project got deep sixed.