Oh yes, for almost 20 years every workday, I got to experience the ride between the mouth of the B&P tunnel and Penn Station. Even though the train was slowing down, of course, we always bumped and rocked along. Fortunately, the rough ride is of short duration, and I'm usually standing up by the vestibule waiting to get off.
Worst Trackage on Amtrak
- Thread starter Oreius
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Dakota 400
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Messages
- 3,741
Not an Amtrak train, but the route is still the same one as The Cardinal travels East of Cincinnati in Kentucky. A C&0 train to Washington: not long after leaving Cincinnati, my traveling companion and I went to the Dining Car for dinner. Ordering an appetizer of soup, when the Steward placed the cup of soup, with a saucer underneath, on our table, a large portion of the soup slopped out of the cup and onto the saucer. Why? A very rough roadbed!
I wrote Santa Fe following our 1964 trip on the Super Chief and one key point was how smooth the ride was, for example as we crossed Kansas at very high speed. It was smooth as silk.
When I rode the Meteor in February, I could feel jointed rail somewhere in North Carolina—between the VA border and Wilson. The rampant track work in SC was also rough-we putsyed through most of SC at 30 mph.l I could not sleep in my Bedroom bunk because the shimmying and vibrations aggravated my bad back. I had my 3rd spinal surgery just 1.5 months prior. I had to take pain medication pretty much every four hours but it didn’t really help.
I-95 is no better—in fact it’s worse. Bumpy, very busy, and frequent accidents which cause 5+ mile backups! My parents almost ran out of gas in June due to being stuck in stopped traffic!
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Add me to the list of people who found the tracks in Kansas the worst of their travels. That was the only example where I was tossed out of the top bunk and hanging on like my life depended on it. Whether the train is at risk of falling off the tracks or not the safety of that segment is relatively poor and I think they should fix it or slow down.
I may not have experienced the worse of it on my trip. We had slow orders due to signal problems as we approached CO, but I can’t remember if it started before I woke up or not.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,888
In the 70s on Amtrak through Kansas in the middle of the night on the Chief, I couldn't sleep so met the conductor while wandering. I asked him how fast we were going and he said 90.
Not through Kansas though! However a good amount of Kansas (basically all the straighter sections I think) is 79.
Yes, Kansas. Much of Kansas had ATS and 90, even if was a bone-shaking 90. Santa Fe (it was before the merger, in the early 90s, IIRC) and Amtrak agreed to drop the speed to 79.
I think a lot if it still has ATS, even with the lower speed. I understand the FRA is quite resistant to allowing removal of safety equipment. But it allowed Santa Fe to no longer maintain the track to the other Class 5 standards.
I remember riding through western Kansas at 90 in the 1980s over jointed rail. Roughest Amtrak ride I ever had.
Would it be worth it to ugprade the tracks back to 90 at a smoother ride?
Well, a lot of it has improved. Part of the investments by Amtrak and the states have allowed it to be relaid with CWR. It is a lot smoother now than it was even a few years ago.
I don't think either BNSF or Amtrak have much of an interest in going back to 90 there. 79 is fine for both. There is still a lot of 90 on the SWC route, but it mostly on the Transcon, the California desert, Arizona, New Mexico and a good long stretch in Missouri.
The old Santa Fe Northern Transcon isn't of much interest to BNSF. Except for the stretch between La Junta and Las Animas Jct, for BNSF it is pretty much just a long industrial lead now. For BNSF purposes, it doesn't need to be more than Class 2, if that. West of La Junta, they don't need it at all.
The basic deal that was struck was BNSF would maintain it to Class 4 if Amtrak and the states would provide the capital investment to modernize the track structure so as to make maintenance less costly. Getting a smoother roadbed in Kansas was part of the same deal that is causing the semaphores on the Raton and Glorietta Subs to disappear. Make capital investments to reduce maintenance expenses and BNSF will continue to maintain the line to a standard far above what BNSF needs for itself.
Aren't all those on the transcon?
And honestly, I/we should be thankful that it's even up to Class 4 standards. Heaven knows what it would be like if UP didn't need a line but Amtrak did.
Well, yes, they all are on the Transcon, that was sort of my point. BNSF has every reason to maintain those 90 mph stretches to a high standard, and keeping them at Class 5 standards in terms of things like track structure rigidity is not a burden. Their own engineering standards probably do it.
One fun fact is even though the Transcon is now CTC Two Main Track instead of directional Double Track, the ATS is only installed for directional running. So BNSF dispatchers have to keep the SWC on the old directional mains to stay at 90. If they route the SWC onto the other main, it can only do a max of 79.
Finally, Amtrak was nearly in the same position with on the Empire Builder through Grand Forks. BNSF was thinking about downgrading, partly abandoning the line. It was also getting in rough shape, and Devils Lake was rising. However, the Bakken Oil Boom convinced BNSF that they need to retain the track capacity and BNSF rehabbed the Hillsboro and Devils Lake Subs on their own dime.
UP is kind of in the same position on the Coast Line, which they really aren't running through freight traffic on. CalTrans is kicking in capital investment on the line, particularly signal improvements but also track structure. I don't know if UP would maintain it at Class 4 if CalTrans hadn't been kicking in for years.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Caltrans might as well take the Coast Line off UP’s hand and put UP out of its misery. Afterall Caltrans is by far the larger user of it.
choochoodood
Service Attendant
I recall the CONO trackage in Mississippi being rather bad. Not so much bumpy, but instead getting thrown from left to right.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2019
- Messages
- 1,727
Not fixed as far as I know. I recall riding eastbound on this section once and a couple ladies in the car remarked to me how rough the track was. I told them that we would be through it in a few minutes and the track would smooth out and of course it did. They thought I was a genius. I didn't try to convince them otherwise..
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2019
- Messages
- 1,727
The CONO route is pretty rough. I thought sure I was going to be bounced out of the upper berth in our bedroom but wasn't.
SanDiegan
Service Attendant
It used to be terrible, but it was much better the last few times I've ridden in (2019-20)
bratkinson
Conductor
Living in suburban Springfield, MA I can attest to the fact that the Post Road cutoff was super rough as I'd be on 448/449 several times per year. Walking down the aisle or even keeping from sloshing a beverage all over oneself was impossible. Running at perhaps 50-60 mph only made it worse. It was super-choppy, far worse than the former CB&Q trackage in Iowa and Colorado 2 years ago. Somehow, Amtrak managed to 'fix' it perhaps 4-5 years ago. They still run at 50-60 mph, but the bumps aren't nearly as bad. Perhaps they used the same equipment that was used to replace the long gone 2nd track between Albany & Schenectady and install the 'missing track' at ALB after those projects were done. Give it another 5 years or so, it will be right back to 'full washboard' status again.
I agree that the CONO route is incredibly bumpy, especially in Illinois. Riding CHI to NOL 3 years ago, between there being no baggage car or transdorm, the sleeper was directly behind the locomotive. The incessant horn kept me up most of the night, even after removing my hearing aids! And the rough ride made it seem like I was about to be thrown out of the lower bed in my roomette. But I DID end up with a number of bruises on my arms from banging side to side while sort-of asleep. Until that trip, I never had a 'DO NOT RIDE' route. The CONO made that list of one, hands down!
However...
I am presently in the New Haven station awaiting regional train #148 to take me back to Springfield after having ridden the Acela both ways NHV-WAS today. Opposite to what I experienced on former New Haven track NHV-NWO in a sleeper in April, all the trackwork they were doing back then has paid off! Other than running (I'd estimate) 50-60 mph, I thought the that track was surprisingly smooth! There's still a couple of slow orders here and there, though. PHL-WAS, the track was rough both ways. One of the attendants in First Class 'bounced' off the side of a seat south of BAL while bringing out meal trays northbound. New Carrollton to Baltimore was the worst!
As an aside...in the WAS Club Acela, trains were not announced on the PA. Regional trains were ignored. You were on your own to go through the main waiting area to your gate. For the Silver Star, an attendant talked loudly to get everyones' attention. About 20 minutes prior to departure of #2170, I asked at the front desk if they're going to announce 2170. After finishing with #91 passengers, the attendant called for #2170 passengers and directed us out the side door to the proper track, about a minute or two before the crowd from the main waiting area came out to the train.
neroden
Engineer
Yes, the Post Road branch was repaired along with the Albany-Schenectady double-tracking and the redoing of all the signals from Poughkeepsie to Schenectady; they redid the signals for the Post Road while they were changing all the other signals, and they also cleaned up the state of the track a bit too.
