What were they doing to my train?

[Steve Manfred]

I was on my return journey on the Southwest Chief yesterday morning. It was just after midnight, and we had just crossed into Kansas, a little ways out of Garden City, when they stopped our train. Someone came on the PA and said that we might hear and feel them disconnecting and reconnecting engines as they were going to put a different engine on our train. He said we had a perfectly good engine, but that they wanted to take that engine elsewhere and give us a different one (I think). So, they shut down the power and we waited... and waited... and then we felt some connections and disconnections, and we started to move just a little bit, then they shut it all down again and we waited... and waited... and then the whole process repeated itself for what felt like a total of six or seven times, and the waits between got longer each time.

We didn't get going in earnest again until three hours later, which time we never did make up on the rest of the journey, and so I'm sure people going on to Chicago missed connections. Does anyone have any idea what they were doing and why?

 

[had8ley]

I was on my return journey on the Southwest Chief yesterday morning. It was just after midnight, and we had just crossed into Kansas, a little ways out of Garden City, when they stopped our train. Someone came on the PA and said that we might hear and feel them disconnecting and reconnecting engines as they were going to put a different engine on our train. He said we had a perfectly good engine, but that they wanted to take that engine elsewhere and give us a different one (I think). So, they shut down the power and we waited... and waited... and then we felt some connections and disconnections, and we started to move just a little bit, then they shut it all down again and we waited... and waited... and then the whole process repeated itself for what felt like a total of six or seven times, and the waits between got longer each time. We didn't get going in earnest again until three hours later, which time we never did make up on the rest of the journey, and so I'm sure people going on to Chicago missed connections. Does anyone have any idea what they were doing and why?

Just a guess...they were probably switching engines around which requires that head end power be shut off at all times. I don't think you would want a 440 (I think thats the number) volt jolt while moving engines around. Apparently, they had a hard time getting the HEP (head end power) train lined with the new or missing power. Believe me, they were playing it safe.

 

[the_traveler]

Many years ago, while I was on the LSL, we had an engine breakdown, and we crawled along until they finally gave up and switched locos. But by that time, the crew were out of hours, so they also had to get a new crew.

The delay was so long, that when I woke up (it was early morning), I had breakfast while we were sitting in a rail yard. I was in coach, and I normally don't have lunch, but I could have had lunch in that same yard before we left!

But that's the fun part of train travel. I'd much rather be sitting on a train stuck for 3-4 hours, than be stuck in a plane on the taxiway for 3-4 hours!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

They were having a hard time, I'd guess. I'd also guess that it had something to do with an engine on another train (probably the other direction-section) breaking down and needing replacement for going through mountains or some such, so they were swapping engines, but that is a SOTP guess.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Would better locomotive/coach maintenance reduce these delays?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Unquestionably. Write to the various governmental mandarins and ask them to appropriate, etc.

 

[Trogdor]

What surprises me about this story is not that there was a mechanical problem of some sort, but rather that they apparently made a PA announcement after midnight.

I thought the policy was not to do so on long-distance trains (except, obviously, in case of emergency or in case of arriving at the train's final terminal). It seems they could have just as easily made the announcement at 7:00, explaining why they lost three hours overnight.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Dude, the possibility that you might be woken up by the train being jarred is an emergency, and you really should be notified about it.

 

[AlanB]

Dude, the possibility that you might be woken up by the train being jarred is an emergency, and you really should be notified about it.

If jarring the train is an emergency, then the crew would be making announcement most of the day and night, as we hit rough crossings, bad switches, and sometimes just rough track.

Far more likely that crew figured that people would get upset with the prolonged stop and the loss of power, than the simple bumps caused by switching.

 

[Rafi]

Dude, the possibility that you might be woken up by the train being jarred is an emergency, and you really should be notified about it.

If jarring the train is an emergency, then the crew would be making announcement most of the day and night, as we hit rough crossings, bad switches, and sometimes just rough track.

Far more likely that crew figured that people would get upset with the prolonged stop and the loss of power, than the simple bumps caused by switching.

I concur. They most likely were making a preemptive announcement so people weren't continually woken up by other people wondering aloud what was going on.

Rafi

 

[Green Maned Lion]

For some odd reason, the sarcasm in the post was lost. I was being amusing.

 

[Guest_Yerry_*]

The original description is word-for-word identical to two experiences I had a few years ago on the SWC. In both instances, there was damage to the plow pilot and loco front, locos had to be exchanged/re-ordered, and it took several tries to come up with a HEP cable combination that would work and keep working.

Weather hasn't been too great lately, and a plow hitting a snowdrift at even 60 MPH is one heck of an impact. Now try it with a large chunk of ice, solidly attached to the roadbed, poking up from under.

 

[Steve Manfred]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

The actual announcement about the coming change of engines happened at about 11:00 PM Central time... we had only just crossed over into Kansas and the Central time zone, so our body clocks all probably were still saying it was 10:00 (or even 9:00 for those of us who got on in CA).

The announcement included the phrases, "there's nothing wrong with our engine, it's working perfectly fine," but then went on to say they'd be changing our engines anyway without saying why. I had a sense from the way he said it that the engineer on the PA was perhaps a bit mystified himself why they were having to do this.

I don't think us having hit a snowdrift or some ice or something was the reason. The weather was clear and fine (though cold) all along the trip and had been so for at least a couple days before this as far as I could tell from the newspaper weather maps. And certainly we never felt or heard anything or felt any loss of performance in our engine. We'd already been through the Lamar pass with no problems whatsoever, and our last stop in Lamy had been only about 8 minutes late, and I think all of that time loss was put down to us having pulled to a siding to let No. 3 pass us earlier on.

Anyway, we were still held up for 3 hours that we never made back for reasons that were never explained to us, and I was one among many who were frustrated, and I wasn't having to try and make a connection. I was frustrated that I couldn't get a wink of sleep while all the engine changing was going on, partly because of the noises and the power coming on and off, but mostly because I was remembering the stories from this forum of how another SW Chief just a few weeks earlier had had an engine die and it took 8 hours for those people to get home. These incidents have just about convinced me to not go on such a long distance journey ever again.

 

[had8ley]

Thanks for the replies everyone.
The actual announcement about the coming change of engines happened at about 11:00 PM Central time... we had only just crossed over into Kansas and the Central time zone, so our body clocks all probably were still saying it was 10:00 (or even 9:00 for those of us who got on in CA).

The announcement included the phrases, "there's nothing wrong with our engine, it's working perfectly fine," but then went on to say they'd be changing our engines anyway without saying why. I had a sense from the way he said it that the engineer on the PA was perhaps a bit mystified himself why they were having to do this.

I don't think us having hit a snowdrift or some ice or something was the reason. The weather was clear and fine (though cold) all along the trip and had been so for at least a couple days before this as far as I could tell from the newspaper weather maps. And certainly we never felt or heard anything or felt any loss of performance in our engine. We'd already been through the Lamar pass with no problems whatsoever, and our last stop in Lamy had been only about 8 minutes late, and I think all of that time loss was put down to us having pulled to a siding to let No. 3 pass us earlier on.

Anyway, we were still held up for 3 hours that we never made back for reasons that were never explained to us, and I was one among many who were frustrated, and I wasn't having to try and make a connection. I was frustrated that I couldn't get a wink of sleep while all the engine changing was going on, partly because of the noises and the power coming on and off, but mostly because I was remembering the stories from this forum of how another SW Chief just a few weeks earlier had had an engine die and it took 8 hours for those people to get home. These incidents have just about convinced me to not go on such a long distance journey ever again.

Just received an e-mail that the Texas Eagle (The Eagle and City of NO run with one engine as opposed to the trains that have to cross hilly terrain out west) has had repeated engine failures this past week. Allegedly, a top Amtrak official tore up Chicago Mechanical for having a bad attitude about sending out equipment that needs servicing~ not pencil approval. Running a train with one engine for economy is fine; just service that critter properly when it makes it to the diesel shop!

And tying up a single main track on UP territory is like asking to take every siding to let trains by that are going in the same direction. The Eagle doesn't need anymore delays than it already has. There was a reason you were held up for three hours; I'm sure the crew knew why but probably chose not to inform the pax.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Let me float a theory on what happened. Your train was fine, and was always fine. #4 was just fine, and had just come off the mountains and onto the plains, pulled with two engines, which on the plains is more than needed.

#3 had an engine failure. For you, one dead engine wouldn't be an issue- as I said, you're on the plains. But for #3, a dead engine would mean it didn't have the power to get through the rockies. So when you guys met #3, they did an exchange. Both trains decoupled. The good engine from #3 pulled the bad one in front of your train, while your train's engine pulled in front of #3. It coupled one of the good engines to #3 while the #3 engine coupled the bad engine to your train. Then the other engines recoupled to their original trains. However, in absence of a loop or wye, this was probably more complicated than I am describing. I could see this operation, in absence of a wye, taking 3 hours.

Btw, to directly answer your question, they were humping your train. :lol:

 

[battalion51]

I would tend to agree that they likely had to give up one engine so that your counterpart could make it over the mountains. It's also plausible that there was a failure of a system on both of their engines (like HEP) and that extra motor was needed to provide that system.

As far as the Eagle and CONO being set out with bad motors, as bad as it sounds, someone could be trying to make a point. Many people (myself included) think that if a train is going to travel over 500 miles between engine changes, there needs to be two motors on that train. It's critical for reliability, and the extra acceleration certainly isn't a bad thing either. So the people who make the call on what engines go out probably have this belief, but thier bosses may not share it. So to make a point sometimes you have to create failures to create change. Look at the current American Presidency if you need proof. :lol:

 

[rile42]

One poster says that you have to create failures on equipment to make a point. Another says that the Chicago Mechanical reamed people for a poor attitude. What is going on? Both posters are usually quite reputable in this forum. Am I to understand that those responsible for sending out reliable equipment are deliberately creating problems that impact the traveling public? If so, and I knew the culprits, I'd have them up on charges. That behavior is despicable and I don't want anyone to start the argument about incompetent managers as an excuse.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Many people (myself included) think that if a train is going to travel over 500 miles between engine changes, there needs to be two motors on that train.

What are the intervals for things like oil changes on the big diesel locomotives? My recollection is that automobiles often like to have their oil changed every 3000 miles or so; if a P42 is similar in that regard, that might mean the oil would get changed every one way trip on the Chicago to left coast routes.

Is the difficulty of getting replacement HEP-capable locomotives to the long distance Amtrak trains also a factor in that 500 mile cutoff?

(I assume freights running that sort of distance probably tend to have multiple locomotives just because the trains are so long that there's no way they'd be happy running at all otherwise. And also, since there tend to be more freight trains along Amtrak's long distance routes and the frieght tends to get less upset when it's delayed, a freight train needing to borrow a locomotive is probably less of an annoyance than a passenger train losing its only locomotive.)

I've also sometimes wondered if it would make any sense for Amtrak to have baggage cars (or something) that include HEP generators, for use on trains that don't have a second P42, to be used if a freight locomotive has to take over. But there may be a perfectly good argument that that would offer no real advantages over just bringing a second P42 along.

 

[battalion51]

The oil change interval is nowhere near 3,000 miles. Because, like you said they'd have to change it every few days. IIRC the oil change interval is at the 92 day inspection, but I could be wrong.

The 500 mile cut off isn't in the rule books, it's more of a general rule of thumb. The odds of a failure occurring go way up as the mileage goes up. Trains traveling less than 500 miles get their engines seen more often by mechanical, and also typically have multiple frequencies on the line, making it easier to get assistance to them. Part of the problem is not being able to get an engine with HEP to the train, but typically when there's a failure the HEP is not effected. Failures usually involve the ability to create traction. So in those scenarios you can just bring in a freight unit to assist. You'll be limited to 60 or 70 MPH (depending on the motor), but you'll be moving.

As far as how many engines freights carry, most will have to carry two just because of the tonnage behind them. Many of these trains won't be able to make grades with just one engine working, so it's necessary to have two. Some railroads take different philosophies than others. BNSF for example will generally run more units on trains (based on availability) for better reliability, but also for more traction. But just because you have a lot of power, does not necessarily mean it's a good thing. I'll admit, I know absolutely nothing about freight train handling (OBS feel free to chime in if I butcher this) but I did overhear a conversation amongst some CSX folks in Folkston one day. A hot intermodal blew through town with three "hammers" (GE CW6000ACs) all running. They seemed to be shocked by this because apparently with that much horsepower on the train that went by its easy to pull apart the train if its not handled properly. Again, I know nothing, I'm just reporting what I recall hearing.

In all honesty as far as HEP cars are concerned, the more practical thing to do is design the next fleet of road diesels properly with a separate smaller engine designed exclusively for HEP generation. This will allow the prime move to run at lower speeds (they have to maintain 900 RPM now out of a possible 1050) and achieve more efficent tracation. Because of the way the P-42 is "because the engine speed is limited to 900 RPM when operating in HEP Normal mode the maximum engine gross horsepower is limited to 3650 for combined use of HEP, engine auxiliary loads, and traction (vs 4250 gross horsepower if not in normal mode). After HEP and engine aux loads are satisfied, the remaining horsepower is available for traction." So for all practical purposes the engines are only really producing about 3000 horsepower when the HEP is run, whereas if there were separate HEP generation they'd run much better with all 4250 available, and more fuel efficiently. There's a reason commuter agencies (like Tri-Rail) have the engines retrofitted with separate HEP generation. It's more efficent, and they need every available horse for traction.

 

[George Harris]

It used to be and probably still is the case that a sample of oil is removed and analyzed. Only when it has reached a level of degredation that it no longer does its job it is changed. Normally it is then filtered, reconstitued with appropriate additives and reused. The interval is way more than 3000 miles.

When you see multiple engines on freights it usually means that this is the horsepower needed to pull the train. Most railroads have fairly exacting rules for how much power to apply to a train.

 

[Steve4031]

One poster says that you have to create failures on equipment to make a point. Another says that the Chicago Mechanical reamed people for a poor attitude. What is going on? Both posters are usually quite reputable in this forum. Am I to understand that those responsible for sending out reliable equipment are deliberately creating problems that impact the traveling public? If so, and I knew the culprits, I'd have them up on charges. That behavior is despicable and I don't want anyone to start the argument about incompetent managers as an excuse.

I sure hope thiat this was not the case last wednsday. I met a friend who was coming from St. Louis on 22. Her train was stopped and Springfield, and the passengers put on busses for Chicago. I am sympathetic about breakdowns that occur for whatever reason, but deliberately causing something to happen to make a point is not excusable. This cost Amtrak thousands of dollars to rent the busses, pay the driver, and probably compensate the passengers. If that was the case, they should fire all involved.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

My pick-up gets an oil change at 5000 miles.

My Class 8 Tractor gets an oil change at 30,000 miles.

Some Over the Road Tractors get oil filter changes ever 30,000 miles, and never get there oil change, sure they test it when the swap out the filters, but never change it, with out cause. The advertisements show guys and there trucks with over One million miles and no oil changes.

Never had an oil related problem. (now where is that wood?) :huh:

Over the last 12 years of driving very few breakdown gave me much notice if any. Sometimes you can trace an problem in the fleet and get an idea when it going to break, but most of the time, bam there goes the turbo, time for an tow and hotel room for at least one day.

Chicago might be have an problem with there services, but most over-the-road breakdown are just tired equipment giving out some place other than the yard.

Trust me, my equipment never breaks down in the yard. Heck it if I am have an problem with something the easy way to get it to work again, is to pull in the company yard.

 

[GG-1]

Remember the first rule of repair, it always works when the repairman checks anything out

Aloha

 

[AlanB]

One poster says that you have to create failures on equipment to make a point. Another says that the Chicago Mechanical reamed people for a poor attitude. What is going on? Both posters are usually quite reputable in this forum. Am I to understand that those responsible for sending out reliable equipment are deliberately creating problems that impact the traveling public? If so, and I knew the culprits, I'd have them up on charges. That behavior is despicable and I don't want anyone to start the argument about incompetent managers as an excuse.

I'm hearing from other sources that Chicago Mechanical was indeed read the riot act for signing off on work that wasn't done and generally not peforming proper maintenance on the engines coming into the shops there.

And they would have no reason to try and make a point about needing 2 engines over 500 miles, CSX already made that point to Amtrak well over a year ago, when they basically told Amtrak that if they wanted priority, they had best start running two engines on all the trains using CSX tracks.

 

[gswager]

My pick-up gets an oil change at 5000 miles.My Class 8 Tractor gets an oil change at 30,000 miles.

Some Over the Road Tractors get oil filter changes ever 30,000 miles, and never get there oil change, sure they test it when the swap out the filters, but never change it, with out cause. The advertisements show guys and there trucks with over One million miles and no oil changes.

Never had an oil related problem. (now where is that wood?) :huh:

Over the last 12 years of driving very few breakdown gave me much notice if any. Sometimes you can trace an problem in the fleet and get an idea when it going to break, but most of the time, bam there goes the turbo, time for an tow and hotel room for at least one day.

Chicago might be have an problem with there services, but most over-the-road breakdown are just tired equipment giving out some place other than the yard.

Trust me, my equipment never breaks down in the yard. Heck it if I am have an problem with something the easy way to get it to work again, is to pull in the company yard.

I'm a dealer, well more like a hobby dealer, selling synthetic oil that cannot be found in stores. The schedule oil change is 25,000 miles or one year, so is the filter with specialized material. It's been tested in lab. For one year, it's cheaper than 3,000 miles oil change.