# 29 stranded in PA



## wayman (Feb 6, 2010)

"I feel like I'm camping", said one passenger. Interesting description of the community forming on-board after over 15 hours stranded outside Connellsville, PA.

Good things: book swaps, conversations, new friends, KFC delivering dinner, the chef going to a grocery store to buy food to prepare for breakfast.

Bad things: unclean facilities, a few cranky passengers, and perhaps a lack of information being given to the passengers (though it's possible that there simply is no information to give).

Well-explained complications: can't go forward (downed trees), can't go backwards (CSX derailed), so it barely even matters that the crew is out-lawed since a new crew couldn't take them anywhere anyhow. And of course it's hard to get them a new crew (from Pittsburgh or Harrisburg, I would guess) since the roads are snowed out.

All in all, a pretty balanced article. It's nice to hear most folks seem to be making the best of an unfortunate situation.


----------



## Shanghai (Feb 6, 2010)

I hope they had heat and water!! It will be a memory for the future!!


----------



## acelafan (Feb 6, 2010)

Shanghai said:


> I hope they had heat and water!! It will be a memory for the future!!


Definitely! I could handle being in a roomette or bedroom but coach would be a little tougher to take, that's for sure.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Feb 6, 2010)

Provided power stays up, the Dining Car keeps slinging chow and I'm in Sleeper without a hurry to be somewhere count me in!


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 6, 2010)

So where is 30? Pittsburgh?


----------



## ThayerATM (Feb 6, 2010)

Does a train usually set out with the engines full of fuel, or do they sometimes run on the bottom half of their tanks?


----------



## rtabern (Feb 6, 2010)

As long as the toilets are working... count me in! Hahaha. I was on the Lincoln Service when all the toilets froze up and that wasn't too fun. Lets just say they were all filled to the top by the time we got to Bloomington-Normal and the conductor made the announcement "use at your own risk". Eeeks!!! But I was on a train that got stuck for 7 hours due to a broken rail in Texas and a train that got stuck for 5 hours due to a broken rail in Utah... and its cool how passengers come together and just have a good time. Unlike the airlines!!!


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 6, 2010)

I presume full. They must be able to fuel in Washington and Chicago.


----------



## ThayerATM (Feb 6, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> I presume full. They must be able to fuel in Washington and Chicago.


I'm just curious. The engine pulling train 29 wasn't spending much fuel, <_< as they were stuck. I'm just kind of wondering how long a tank-full of fuel would last on the engine supplying heat and electricity to the passengers. When I'm driving I usually stop and top-off when I reach a half-tank.


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 6, 2010)

I don't really know. I know that Washington and Chicago both would have fueling facilities for diesels since both places service multiple trains with diesels. But I don't have much technical info. Someone will answer soon, I'm sure.


----------



## wayman (Feb 6, 2010)

ThayerATM said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> > I presume full. They must be able to fuel in Washington and Chicago.
> ...


Providing heat and electricity, very important for the passengers to be sure ... but possibly even more important, the engines are idling so that when the train can finally move (trees removed and new crew arrived), the crew doesn't have to start a cold engine (which very well might be impossible)!

I don't think idling consumes all that much fuel, but I could be wrong. I'd guess they'll top off the fuel tank in Pittsburgh, when they eventually get there. (Sunday?)

As best I can tell, they're still stuck... at least, I assume that page is accurate and will update.


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 6, 2010)

wayman said:


> ThayerATM said:
> 
> 
> > Steve4031 said:
> ...


What is that link? How can I get it? Thanks I am curious about 30 that left Chicago Friday night.


----------



## wayman (Feb 6, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > ThayerATM said:
> ...


Best I can tell, 30 departed TOL but got no further?...

As a general rule for how to get these pages, go here, then after it auto-forwards you to the correct page, click the eastern US in the little map on the upper left to go to the eastern-US real-time status map. (There's no stable way to link directly to it, because the link changes periodically.) That page should show every train currently traveling. The color of the train number indicates status, hovering over the train number gives a bit of information about the status, and clicking on the train number gives you a page like the ones linked to above.

30 isn't even on the map; I got the link for 30 by manually editing the URL.


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 6, 2010)

Thanks. I have seen the status maps before, and forgot about it.


----------



## TVRM610 (Feb 6, 2010)

wayman said:


> ThayerATM said:
> 
> 
> > Steve4031 said:
> ...


Also... I don't think most trains like the Capitol really NEED two locomotives, but they run with two for back-ups (obviously some routes do need two). So between two locomotives, they should be good for a while. Also, if they really got desperate, they could possibly arrange to have a fuel truck meet them at the station/crossing, if the truck could actually get through the snow!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 6, 2010)

ThayerATM said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> > I presume full. They must be able to fuel in Washington and Chicago.
> ...


As a general rule, that's bad. You should wait until at least three quarters are used up. I usually only have a between 1 and 3 gallons of diesel in my 23.8 gallon tank when I refuel. There are several reasons, one of which is incremental fuel economy.

A gallon of diesel fuel is about 7 pounds, which means that if my tank is on average half full (always the case if I refill it just about the time it empties) I am, on average, cutting 80 lbs of weight from the car. Which improves my fuel economy a bit.

Secondarily (and more importantly) fuel produces sediment over time. If you keep your tank close to empty at each refill it reduces the amount of sediment you will suck into your engine if you ever try to get it to go the last mile to a gas station.

By the way, a P42 holds 2200 gallons of diesel fuel, which I doubt is enough to go all the way from Chicago to Washington. Even so, keep in mind, that weighs over 7 tons. 7


----------



## TVRM610 (Feb 6, 2010)

In response to the article itself I'm not quite sure what people are complaining about... like the whole "Amtrak is not telling us anything" what is there to tell except "we are stuck... trees ahead, derailment behind, roads are snowed over, enjoy your KFC" I mean obviously there is nothing more they can tell them at this point since I'm sure there are about 100 possible outcomes.

Also the man who has been "panning this trip for a long time" would have the same story if he planned a trip by car or by airplane.. obviously transportation all over the area has grinded to a halt.

I actually wanted to take the train up to NYC this weekend but did not go through with it because of the snow.. basically I feared that this might happen, only to the Crescent. Naturally with my luck the Crescent got in early.. and I bet the views were amazing.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 6, 2010)

Some vehicles (like my Suburban) have a fuel pump that's cooled by sitting in the fuel - when you allow the tank to run near empty, the pump sits up out of the fuel and heats up, which is detrimental to it's longevity. I very rarely let myself get under 3/4 of a tank for that reason (and usually around the half tank mark in the winter, in case of storms like this one).


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 6, 2010)

So how bad is the derailment? And where is it? That is going to be a huge mess to for CSX to clean up a derailment and get the snow cleared through those mountains. As well as clear trees and downed wires. One saving grace is that it is a double track railroad, which should give some operating flexibility.


----------



## boxcar479 (Feb 6, 2010)

If they are close enough to a KFC and a store for the cook to buy groceries for breakfast, I feel sure that Amtrak already has alternatives planned. To keep the water from freezing up isn't it imperative that the Engines stay running and to supply power and heat as well? I just hope all turns out well for all involved. Some people love to find any reason to give Amtrak a black eye, but as someone stated earlier ALL traffic is Snarled in this area Know matter what mode you are trying to use. Let's see stuck on the tarmac or stuck on a train I know where I would rather be


----------



## ThayerATM (Feb 6, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> ThayerATM said:
> 
> 
> > Steve4031 said:
> ...


I'd never attempt to compare my car with a Mercedes diesel for mpg.  I wouldn't even hope to come in a close second. :lol:

My original question was whether or not Antrak topped-off their fuel tanks before the train left the originating station. I'd figure that doing so would put Amtrak at best advantage for weathering out a storm in case they got "stuck" between cities for refueling. Obviously Amtrak doesn't (or can't) do that with food and drink. <_<

What formula does Amtrak follow for fueling up? MPG/weight? Sediment? Anticipated weather? In short: *Does Amtrak top off the tanks of the engines before they set out from Washington to Chicago*. :lol:


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 6, 2010)

ThayerATM said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > ThayerATM said:
> ...



Shoot. I am just hoping 30 runs on 2/11 regardless of how full the engine is when it leaves Chicago. LOL

Seriously, that is a good question. I just don't know.


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 6, 2010)

I am not sure of the protocol, but I found more info about the CSX derailment. It looks to be pretty bad. Here is the link. http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.p...53&p=768251

It is from another railfan forum. If I broke a rule, let me know. I will not do this again if that is the case.


----------



## wayman (Feb 6, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> I am not sure of the protocol, but I found more info about the CSX derailment. It looks to be pretty bad. Here is the link. http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.p...53&p=768251
> It is from another railfan forum. If I broke a rule, let me know. I will not do this again if that is the case.


Linking to other forums with useful information = good 

This answers the question of "which will happen first, clearing the fallen trees or clearing the derailment" pretty clearly! :blink:

At a guess, I'd say 29 and 30 will be running CHI-PGH only for at least a couple days. Unless there are problems north of PGH as well -- we still haven't figured out what happened to 30(5), have we?


----------



## railiner (Feb 6, 2010)

boxcar817 said:


> Let's see stuck on the tarmac or stuck on a train I know where I would rather be


That would depend on the circumstances. If you are stuck on the tarmac, on an airplane, it is unpleasant, but you are in a relatively safe place. You could be easily evacuated in an emergency and are 'close to civilization'. Plus with the new federal regulations, the airline must give you the option of returning to the gate after three hours, and in any event, must provide food, water, and working lavs.

Now if you are on a train that is stuck at a station, near food, water, and other services, that would be even better, as you could pretty well exit the train at will.

On the other hand, if you are stuck on a train in a blizzard out in the boondocks, that could be some serious trouble.

Recall what happenned to the City of San Francisco during a blizzard back in 1952 on Donner Pass.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 6, 2010)

i thought bush vetoed the airline rule when he was in office so airlines don't have to take care of you while sitting on the ground.


----------



## wayman (Feb 6, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> i thought bush vetoed the airline rule when he was in office so airlines don't have to take care of you while sitting on the ground.


The "three-hour rule" being discussed was enacted in December 2009.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Secondarily (and more importantly) fuel produces sediment over time. If you keep your tank close to empty at each refill it reduces the amount of sediment you will suck into your engine if you ever try to get it to go the last mile to a gas station.


You should know it doesn't matter. You don't have to worry about running on fumes if you have a Benz. You have free Mercedes Roadside Assistance for the life of the car.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 7, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Some vehicles (like my Suburban) have a fuel pump that's cooled by sitting in the fuel - when you allow the tank to run near empty, the pump sits up out of the fuel and heats up, which is detrimental to it's longevity. I very rarely let myself get under 3/4 of a tank for that reason (and usually around the half tank mark in the winter, in case of storms like this one).


Not necessarily;

"The whole assembly sits in a cup-shaped fuel reservoir that's usually fastened to the bottom of the tank. Unused fuel spills from the return line into the cup whenever the pump is running. The filled cup assures that sufficient fuel surrounds the pump pickup during braking, cornering and acceleration, even when the tank is near empty."

From Replacing a Fuel Pump.

Although I don't know the Suburban's arrangement.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 7, 2010)

Guest said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Secondarily (and more importantly) fuel produces sediment over time. If you keep your tank close to empty at each refill it reduces the amount of sediment you will suck into your engine if you ever try to get it to go the last mile to a gas station.
> ...


If you don't drive much, it's better to keep the tank fuller. Oxygen degrades fuel over time. A fuller tank has less oxygen in it. Also with more air the fuel can get condensation and water contaminated, and the tank can rust - and rust makes sediment in fuel tanks. Of course some cars these days have plastic tanks.


----------



## rrwx (Feb 7, 2010)

> Thanks I am curious about 30 that left Chicago Friday night.
> 
> Best I can tell, 30 departed TOL but got no further?...



My brother-in-law was on 30 from Chicago. Train made it as far as Pittsburgh and was annulled and was about 7 hours down by then...no way it was getting further with both the downed trees and the derailment ahead of it. I'll have to talk to him more to get the details.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 7, 2010)

Guest said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Secondarily (and more importantly) fuel produces sediment over time. If you keep your tank close to empty at each refill it reduces the amount of sediment you will suck into your engine if you ever try to get it to go the last mile to a gas station.
> ...


Its not really free. I mean it could be, but when someone drives out to help me change a tire or give me fuel, or various other things, I feel obligated to give them a token of my appreciation, in the form of a $10 bill. And in any case, I don't particularly enjoy having to be stranded somewhere, complimentary ML320 Bluetech speeding to my aid or not.


----------



## railiner (Feb 7, 2010)

If you are trying to pinch pennies....when fuel prices are on the rise, it's best to top off your tank daily. If prices are dropping, then it's better to run as low as it's safe before refilling, and then only enough to last until the next day.

As for myself, I like to keep my tank at least half-full, so that I can leave on a trip at a moments notice, without worrying about fuel. When a heavy snowstorm is forecast, I like to keep my tank full as the extra weight helps traction, I don't have to worry about running out if I get stranded, or if there is a shortage or delay in stations getting

their fuel delivery.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 7, 2010)

PetalumaLoco said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Some vehicles (like my Suburban) have a fuel pump that's cooled by sitting in the fuel - when you allow the tank to run near empty, the pump sits up out of the fuel and heats up, which is detrimental to it's longevity. I very rarely let myself get under 3/4 of a tank for that reason (and usually around the half tank mark in the winter, in case of storms like this one).
> ...


If I ever have a reason to replace it, I'll let you know!


----------



## Ryan (Feb 7, 2010)

There's a picture in this article - looks like one hell of a mess!

http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2010...cal/news252.txt


----------



## Tony (Feb 7, 2010)

wayman said:


> Bad things: unclean facilities, a few cranky passengers, and perhaps a lack of information being given to the passengers (though it's possible that there simply is no information to give).


I know that when I got stuck for 24+ hours on a northbound Silver, the facilities in coach becoming unclean is an understatement. However, it isn't Amtrak who is messing up the bathrooms; its the passengers themselves. Which is why I learned that having a private toilet in the Viewliner roomettes is so very very important. You have your own facilities and therefore can keep them as clean as you wish.

I also know about the lack of information. All the info our conductor was able to get, was from him using his private cell phone to call his friends back at Amtrak's offices. Amtrak itself made no attempt at all, to provide the train's staff, nor the passengers, with any information.


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 7, 2010)

The bathrooms n a superliner coach and sleeper are designed for 2 night trips to the west coast and last even longer on the Texas Eagle from Chicago to LA with no problem. I don't think they are serviced mid route unless a problem. So for problems to develop so quickly, either they malfunctioned because of the weather, or the passengers and crew were not keeeping them clean.


----------



## Big Iron (Feb 7, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> The bathrooms n a superliner coach and sleeper are designed for 2 night trips to the west coast and last even longer on the Texas Eagle from Chicago to LA with no problem. I don't think they are serviced mid route unless a problem. So for problems to develop so quickly, either they malfunctioned because of the weather, or the passengers and crew were not keeeping them clean.


I would hope that the facilities are not clean because the holding tanks are full. I'd assume the car attendants have some additioanl time on thier hands to clean restrooms.

Regarding the fuel capacity, when I rode 29 a month ago the fuel guage on the lead P-42 read 1100 gallons. I'm not sure if there was a refueling enroute but the train didn't stop long enough to take on fuel.

Returning on the Cardinal upon arriving in Huntington I heard over the sacanner the Conductor asking the Engineer the fuel state of the locomotive. The Engineer responsed 1200 gallons and said that would be enough to "get us there."


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 7, 2010)

Why would the holding tanks be full? Aren't they designed for longer trips? Are they emptied in Washington and Chicago? If washington doesn't empty them, then I can see a problem developing in a situation like this.


----------



## acelafan (Feb 7, 2010)

Ryan said:


> There's a picture in this article - looks like one hell of a mess!
> http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2010...cal/news252.txt


Wow, to say the least!


----------



## wayman (Feb 7, 2010)

acelafan said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > There's a picture in this article - looks like one hell of a mess!
> ...


Here's a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, with original reporting. The NY Times article has been picked up by a few other papers, but the PPG article is all-new, mostly about the re-provisioning of the train and the local town support. A good article.


----------



## wayman (Feb 7, 2010)

THEY'RE MOVING!!!

At last report,

* SKY * * 2 402A * 826A Departed: *28 hours and 24 minutes late.*

At this rate, they'll get to Chicago around noon CT Sunday, having been due in around 8:00am CT Saturday


----------



## Rafi (Feb 7, 2010)

Actually, as I understand it, Will, the equipment blocked just outside COV is still there, but everyone on board was bussed late last night to Pittsburgh where the boarded the 30(5) equipment which got annulled there and turned, to resume the 29(5) trip. So they're on the road again, but had to make a bus-train switch.

Rafi


----------



## The Metropolitan (Feb 7, 2010)

wayman said:


> acelafan said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Being from the mid-Atlantic, I can't help but to chuckle that a man named Perdue operates a KFC!


----------



## wayman (Feb 7, 2010)

Rafi said:


> Actually, as I understand it, Will, the equipment blocked just outside COV is still there, but everyone on board was bussed late last night to Pittsburgh where the boarded the 30(5) equipment which got annulled there and turned, to resume the 29(5) trip. So they're on the road again, but had to make a bus-train switch.
> Rafi


Ah! That would explain why the status report includes no information for COV or PGH arrival, but does for subsequent stops -- no train arrived in COV or PGH, but a train (albeit a different one) did stop at each subsequent stop.


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 7, 2010)

So what happens to the equipment for the stranded 29?


----------



## Big Iron (Feb 7, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> Why would the holding tanks be full? Aren't they designed for longer trips? Are they emptied in Washington and Chicago? If washington doesn't empty them, then I can see a problem developing in a situation like this.


I guess I was trying to say that if the tanks aren't full then the bathrooms could, and should, be cleaned more frequently due to the extended number of uses over what they would get on a normal run.

When I rode the Cap last month out of DC I did notice an illuminated sign on the control panel of the sleeper that said "holding tank empty."


----------



## wayman (Feb 7, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> So what happens to the equipment for the stranded 29?


I imagine once they get the trees cleared out, it deadheads to Chicago, receives maintenance, and then with two trainsets Amtrak can operate CHI-PGH until the line re-opens.

It would be really nifty if Amtrak operated CHI-PGH-PHL with the Capitol Limited trainsets, so passengers heading to WAS would only have to change once (in PHL to a Regional) rather than twice (to the Pennsylvanian, then to a Regional). In theory, PHL could handle Superliners. At least, I think so.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 7, 2010)

You can't always overcome an act of God as they say. At least the passengers had heat, hot water and food. The people in the sleepers were the lucky ones as at 2:45 Am they were sleeping and had privacy. It may have been a rough journey but still better than sleeping on the floor in an airport waiting for the snow to let up and for the airport to reopen. Amtrak runs in all weather but at times things like fallen trees can happen. Still far better than air travel as in heavy rain Amtrak keeps moving. Even when it rains at the very least there is usually a 3 hour delay at the major airports.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 7, 2010)

Rafi said:


> Actually, as I understand it, Will, the equipment blocked just outside COV is still there, but everyone on board was bussed late last night to Pittsburgh where the boarded the 30(5) equipment which got *annulled* there and turned, to resume the 29(5) trip. So they're on the road again, but had to make a bus-train switch.
> Rafi


Your post brings up a subject that has puzzled me for years, and is only remotely on topic (that, of course, has rarely stopped such postings by some AU members  ). How is it that flights are "cancelled" and trains are "annulled"? It seems like the same thing is taking place in both cases. Something that was supposed to happen is stopped from happening. But if that action takes place with a plane, it is a "cancellation." If it is a train, it is an "annulment." I always relate an annulment to something a Kennedy would do to end a marriage through a religious loophole so as to not run afoul of the Archbishop of Boston. It seems out of place in this use.

I'm not blaming Amtrak for this. The use of the term "annulled" is a railroad tradition that long predates Amtrak's use. Maybe it is used because it sounds less final; less onerous. Maybe people on a train that is annulled feel better about it than if the train was cancelled? But, to me (and Merriam-Webster), if you say that something that was supposed to happen is not going to happen, and will not happen at any point in the future, that sounds like what I think is the definition of "cancel". But, I do not work for a railroad, so what do I know?

I have a flight to the west coast on Tuesday afternoon. The weather for getting out of PHL looks iffy. I hope it is not cancelled. Maybe it will just be annulled. :lol:


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 7, 2010)

I don't think they will run superliners to phl. First of all, I'm not sure if they will clear the catenary and tunnels at zoo junction. Maybe to harrisburg, but you still have tunnels near the horseshoe curve


----------



## jis (Feb 7, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, as I understand it, Will, the equipment blocked just outside COV is still there, but everyone on board was bussed late last night to Pittsburgh where the boarded the 30(5) equipment which got *annulled* there and turned, to resume the 29(5) trip. So they're on the road again, but had to make a bus-train switch.
> ...


It is 'cause the US railroads are so "French". The French term is annulee. I have seen that posted on the departure board at Gare Montparnasse in Paris to designate that a train is canceled.

This is also a peculiarity of US railroads among the English speaking countries as far as I can tell. I guess we Americans love the French so much we just can't let go :lol: . In the country with the largest English speaking population in the world, the term used is "canceled" BTW.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Feb 7, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> I don't think they will run superliners to phl. First of all, I'm not sure if they will clear the catenary and tunnels at zoo junction. Maybe to harrisburg, but you still have tunnels near the horseshoe curve


Superliners could get to HAR. Tunnels on the NS Pittsburgh line are tall enough for double stacks, so Superliners could fit through them. Rather than running into HAR proper, they might run it through the Enola yard, then down through York into Baltimore. Obviously they couldn't run on the NEC, but I don't believe there are any physical barriers stopping them from running Baltimore to WAS on CSX (MARC's Camden line).


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 7, 2010)

I thought those tunnels might have been improved. I don't think they could run the train to dc via Harrisburg. I suspect there is not enough sl equipment to do this. They could run it to Harrisburg and then have a dedicated set of amfleets to continue to Washington. However I still think a sl shortage would torpedo this.


----------



## wayman (Feb 7, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> I thought those tunnels might have been improved. I don't think they could run the train to dc via Harrisburg. I suspect there is not enough sl equipment to do this. They could run it to Harrisburg and then have a dedicated set of amfleets to continue to Washington. However I still think a sl shortage would torpedo this.


I highly doubt they'd bother to bring the Superliners to HAR and deal with any connections there. If they can't bring them all the way to PHL (either because of height-under-catenary or equipment shortages), they'll run CHI-PGH, connect with the Pennsylvanian as always, and that will be that. Assuming they run CHI-PGH at all, but I can't see why they wouldn't do CHI-PGH once they've got two operable CL trainsets on that half of the route....


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 7, 2010)

I don't think much will happen until they get that stranded set to Chicago.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 7, 2010)

I'm not sure if Amtrak sends the Capitol out with fuel tanks filled to capacity or not, but I'm pretty sure that the train gets refueled in Pittsburgh normally. The point being that it does not make the entire run with only the fuel that it started with. Much like the Auto Train stops in South Caroline overnight to refuel. Hopefully, even if the Capitol doesn't normally go out with full tanks from DC, someone thought to provide extra this time because of the storm.

And the engine must be kept idling at all times if there is any hope to move that train. Once the fuels gone, the engine will cool to the point that all the water in the radiator will automatically be dumped to prevent freezing and causing major damage to the engine. So they cannot turn the engine off and a total loss of fuel would mean that they'd have to not only refuel the engine, but rewater it and somehow warm it up prior to rewatering.

Now since either engine can provide HEP, that does help to prolong just how long the train would have power. They could run one engine to provide HEP until its getting close on fuel, while leaving the other at a low idle, then reverse things to keep the power on for longer. But eventually, unless they could get a fuel truck there to refuel, they're going to have a big problem.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 7, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, as I understand it, Will, the equipment blocked just outside COV is still there, but everyone on board was bussed late last night to Pittsburgh where the boarded the 30(5) equipment which got *annulled* there and turned, to resume the 29(5) trip. So they're on the road again, but had to make a bus-train switch.
> ...


Bill,

Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here, I'm not sure. However, a train that is annulled is typically already on its run. So just like a marriage that has been started, you annul the run. If one were to annul an airplane, you'd have a big mess on the ground.

Now I've heard mixed usage of annulled or cancelled for trains that never get out of their originating stations. I don't know if that's because people are just misusing the word, or if it just blows my theory out of the water.


----------



## wayman (Feb 7, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here, I'm not sure. However, a train that is annulled is typically already on its run. So just like a marriage that has been started, you annul the run. If one were to annul an airplane, you'd have a big mess on the ground.
> Now I've heard mixed usage of annulled or cancelled for trains that never get out of their originating stations. I don't know if that's because people are just misusing the word, or if it just blows my theory out of the water.


Amtrak has consistently used "canceled" or "cancellation" to describe trains that are not running at all during this storm, on the website and on the phone messages to folks with tickets for a canceled train (like ... me, booked on the canceled 152 this morning). So that agrees with your theory, Alan, that the only trains which are "annulled" are ones that run part of their route before being stopped short of their scheduled terminus.

Also, for what it's worth, 152 is scheduled to depart Philadelphia at 10:18am; I got an automated call about an hour ahead of that (9:11am to be precise) which ... eventually ... told ... me ... thatmytrainwascanceled. As in, the automated message went something like:

"We believe you are scheduled to travel on ... Train ... one ... fifty ... two ... Northeast Regional Service ... departing ... Philadelphia 30th St Station ... Philadelphia ... on ... Sunday ... February ... 7th ... at ... ten ... eighteen ... AM ... and arriving at ... New York Penn Station ... New York ... on ... Sunday ... February ... 7th ... at ... eleven ... forty ... three ... AM ... weregrettoinformyouthatthisservicehasbeencanceledduetoweatherconditions alternatetransportationmaybeavailable pleasecall1800usarailforfurtherinformation torepeatthismessagepressone"

It took at least two minutes to get to the important information, and when it did, it was so rapid-fire (especially after the preceding plod) that if I hadn't already known the train was canceled (from checking the website at 8am this morning) I might not have understood the message!!!


----------



## Shanghai (Feb 7, 2010)

Are trains being cancelled between Philadelphia and New York??

Is it due to the weather?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 7, 2010)

Yes and yes.


----------



## wayman (Feb 7, 2010)

Shanghai said:


> Are trains being cancelled between Philadelphia and New York??Is it due to the weather?


Most (but not all) NEC Regionals between WAS-NYP were canceled Sunday; all Acelas between WAS-NYP were canceled Sunday. Most Keystones were still in operation.

We've got a lot of snow. No, really, _a lot_ of snow. This is a birdbath in my suburban Philadelphia neighborhood (sorry, don't have a train photo of this storm yet, I haven't managed to walk down to the commuter rail station yet):







A couple suburbs over the official measurement was 30 inches.

Oh, and by the way, we're supposed to get 16-24 inches on Tuesday and Wednesday.


----------



## Shanghai (Feb 7, 2010)

AlanB said:


> I'm not sure if Amtrak sends the Capitol out with fuel tanks filled to capacity or not, but I'm pretty sure that the train gets refueled in Pittsburgh normally. The point being that it does not make the entire run with only the fuel that it started with. Much like the Auto Train stops in South Caroline overnight to refuel. Hopefully, even if the Capitol doesn't normally go out with full tanks from DC, someone thought to provide extra this time because of the storm.
> And the engine must be kept idling at all times if there is any hope to move that train. Once the fuels gone, the engine will cool to the point that all the water in the radiator will automatically be dumped to prevent freezing and causing major damage to the engine. So they cannot turn the engine off and a total loss of fuel would mean that they'd have to not only refuel the engine, but rewater it and somehow warm it up prior to rewatering.
> 
> Now since either engine can provide HEP, that does help to prolong just how long the train would have power. They could run one engine to provide HEP until its getting close on fuel, while leaving the other at a low idle, then reverse things to keep the power on for longer. But eventually, unless they could get a fuel truck there to refuel, they're going to have a big problem.


I think if a truck delivering KFC foods could get to the train, a fuel tanker truck could probably get there too.


----------



## JayPea (Feb 7, 2010)

Gotta wonder now if those who bemoaned the fact that Amtrak made several cancellations in advance of the storm are rethinking their objections to it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2010)

JayPea said:


> Gotta wonder now if those who bemoaned the fact that Amtrak made several cancellations in advance of the storm are rethinking their objections to it.


Our school district cancelled classes, and sent everyone home at noon, and cancelled all evening activities, even though the very first snowflake didn't fall until after 11pm that night. 

While I support closing school, and Amtrak cancelling trains, but only once there is a real weather hazard. Not when just some weatherman thinks there might be one, and doesn't even know when yet.


----------



## wayman (Feb 7, 2010)

Guest said:


> While I support closing school, and Amtrak cancelling trains, but only once there is a real weather hazard. Not when just some weatherman thinks there might be one, and doesn't even know when yet.


Once there is a real weather hazard, it's too late to cancel a moving train. It's also too late to run the school buses to get kids home safely.


----------



## TVRM610 (Feb 7, 2010)

wayman said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > While I support closing school, and Amtrak cancelling trains, but only once there is a real weather hazard. Not when just some weatherman thinks there might be one, and doesn't even know when yet.
> ...


Hello wayman, I am sorry to inform you that your post has too much logic in it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 7, 2010)

JayPea said:


> Gotta wonder now if those who bemoaned the fact that Amtrak made several cancellations in advance of the storm are rethinking their objections to it.


Not at all. I'd rather they run all of them and get a few stuck, and then have their various logistics people show how capable they are at making the best out of a bad situation. When a plane crashes, it crashes. When a train gets stuck, it sits there with its engines idling.

Canceling trains for snow is a cop-out. Amtrak needs to push forward despite all operational problems, planning for the issues that could result. Such as giving the Cap a third engine (and thus 2200 extra gallons of fuel), and stocking the CL with a CZ-grade level of food- enough to last 2 full days. It is an advertising point- they stop for nobody and nothing. When all other systems are shut down, Amtrak keeps right on plugging. It helps show value to the entire long distance system, and copping out with them is going to hurt them. With their first-order customers, and more so, with Congress.


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 7, 2010)

They didn't cop put on you a few weeks ago. Get off their back! Some of this may have been csx.


----------



## railiner (Feb 7, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> > Rafi
> ...


I can imagine the late George Carlin speaking your post in his monologue..... :lol:


----------



## haolerider (Feb 8, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta wonder now if those who bemoaned the fact that Amtrak made several cancellations in advance of the storm are rethinking their objections to it.
> ...


Nonsense comments. Amtrak does not make cancellation decisions in a vacumn. The host railroad calls most of the shots. If they think they cannot get the train through, they make the cancellation recommendations - which makes sense. How foolish would it be to have Amtrak run all trains, as you suggest, and then find frozen swithches, trees down, debris on the tracks, etc. As for an advertising slogan - they stop for nobody and nothing - is wasted if they cannot get through because of external circumstances. I suggest you re-think your comments and get back on track!


----------



## Ryan (Feb 8, 2010)

wayman said:


> (sorry, don't have a train photo of this storm yet, I haven't managed to walk down to the commuter rail station yet):


I did!
I was able to get onto 164, which ran on Sunday morning. After a nightmarish drive to the station on completely unplowed roads (thank god for Suburbans with 4 wheel drive), we printed out tickets and I wandered outside to take some pictures.

As I stepped out on the platform I heard a horn to my right, and saw this:





Amazingly, the camera was turned on and configured somewhat properly, I had just enough time to put the camera up and hold the shutter and pray.

A few minutes later, our train arrived about 15 minutes late:


----------



## acelafan (Feb 8, 2010)

Ryan, those are some great pictures! Wow, wish I was up there to see it all first hand. Agreed about the RailPictures.net screeners - they are _*tough*_! Hope you get accepted for your efforts.


----------



## MrFSS (Feb 8, 2010)

acelafan said:


> Ryan, those are some great pictures! Wow, wish I was up there to see it all first hand. Agreed about the RailPictures.net screeners - they are _*tough*_! Hope you get accepted for your efforts.


If you have problems with, don't care for the hassles with RailPictures.net, sign up for a free account at this *site*. They allow all rail pictures, no matter the quality.

Another one I use is *here*.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 8, 2010)

i just use photobucket.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 9, 2010)

haolerider said:


> Nonsense comments. Amtrak does not make cancellation decisions in a vacumn. The host railroad calls most of the shots. If they think they cannot get the train through, they make the cancellation recommendations - which makes sense. How foolish would it be to have Amtrak run all trains, as you suggest, and then find frozen swithches, trees down, debris on the tracks, etc. As for an advertising slogan - they stop for nobody and nothing - is wasted if they cannot get through because of external circumstances. I suggest you re-think your comments and get back on track!


Its not nonsense. And in anycase, please justify the cancellation of many NY-WAS trains. Host railroad indeed.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 9, 2010)

well gee why don't amtrak equpe there trains with giant wood chippers mounted to the front of the engine so that any trees on the tracks can be sucked on the chipper and reduced to mulch that should keep the train running. now what do we do about downed power lines that may be live with 50,000 volts. GML do you want to volunteer to go out and move them by hand while there sparking. im sure 50,000 volts isn't much. its like getting shocked when you touch a door knob while walking in socks.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 9, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Its not nonsense. And in anycase, please justify the cancellation of many NY-WAS trains. Host railroad indeed.


It's already been done about a dozen times in each of these threads. Unless you're down here in it, it's apparently impossible to recognize that this wasn't "just another snowstorm". Another cancellation example: My fiancee works as a tour guide at the Capitol Visitor Center - they have a charter from Congress to remain open and available for tours whenever possible that the upper management takes extremely seriously. In the December storm, the CVC remained open until midday on Saturday, and only closed then when the Capitol police basically ordered them to close. This time around, they closed early on Friday, and have been closed Saturday, Monday and today. It sounds like hyperbole, but it is nearly impossible to overstate the effects that this storm has had on the area.


----------



## jis (Feb 9, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Its not nonsense. And in anycase, please justify the cancellation of many NY-WAS trains. Host railroad indeed.


Armchair quarterbacking is so easy and entertaining, ain't it?


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 9, 2010)

How bad is it gonna be this Weekend? I am hoping to ride the 9 a.m. Acela from Washington to Boston. I see a lot of Acela cancellations. ARe any Acela's running?

If they cancel an Acela, How do they handle the rebooking.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 9, 2010)

There are some running, we passed a few yesterday. I think that by this weekend the NEC will be close to normal.


----------



## jis (Feb 9, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> How bad is it gonna be this Weekend? I am hoping to ride the 9 a.m. Acela from Washington to Boston. I see a lot of Acela cancellations. ARe any Acela's running?
> If they cancel an Acela, How do they handle the rebooking.


Acelas are being canceled because in heavy snow situations they tend to try to keep the platform tracks (outside tracks) open while sacrificing the high speed middle tracks. When you know you are not going to have the capacity nor the capability to run a high speed service it does not make sense to put people on trains and then let them sit around while you try to find a way for their train to make it through.

It should clear up by the weekend, unless of course there is another doozy of a storm that shows up on Saturday. But reportedly at least so far that is not in the forecast.


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 9, 2010)

Finally, some good news. I'm watching the csx situation closely. The derailment is supposed to be cleared by tomorrow. Maybe I'll be on the first Capitol limited through.


----------



## jis (Feb 9, 2010)

Another thing about Acelas that I learned from postings in railroad.net from a few Acela Engineers..... apparently in heavy blowing snow situation, the rear power car suffers from significant snow ingestion through the cooling system problems. In order to avoid damage to the electrical system, in those cases they have been known to completely power down the rear power head and operate the train only with the front power head, which needless to say leaves the train a bit, shall we say, anemically powered.


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 9, 2010)

Jis

thanks for the insights on nec operations.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 9, 2010)

jis said:


> Another thing about Acelas that I learned from postings in railroad.net from a few Acela Engineers..... apparently in heavy blowing snow situation, the rear power car suffers from significant snow ingestion through the cooling system problems. In order to avoid damage to the electrical system, in those cases they have been known to completely power down the rear power head and operate the train only with the front power head, which needless to say leaves the train a bit, shall we say, anemically powered.


This situation is what caused the train failures in the English Channel tunnel.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 9, 2010)

jis said:


> Another thing about Acelas that I learned from postings in railroad.net from a few Acela Engineers..... apparently in heavy blowing snow situation, the rear power car suffers from significant snow ingestion through the cooling system problems. In order to avoid damage to the electrical system, in those cases they have been known to completely power down the rear power head and operate the train only with the front power head, which needless to say leaves the train a bit, shall we say, anemically powered.


didn't the GG-1s have the same problem which was solved by moving the intake.


----------



## jis (Feb 9, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing about Acelas that I learned from postings in railroad.net from a few Acela Engineers..... apparently in heavy blowing snow situation, the rear power car suffers from significant snow ingestion through the cooling system problems. In order to avoid damage to the electrical system, in those cases they have been known to completely power down the rear power head and operate the train only with the front power head, which needless to say leaves the train a bit, shall we say, anemically powered.
> ...


I don't think the GG-1s were ever used in the push mode at the rear of the train in snowstorms. The problem is with the enormous amount of blowing snow in the slip stream of the train, together with the rather open forced air cooling arrangement in the Acelas power heads. The fix in this case is quite non-trivial I am told, and it is not clear that it is worth it unless we start experiencing a new ice age.

BTW, the intakes in this case are already quite high up. It is not snow ingestion into the motors that is the problem - it is snow ingestion into the equipment compartments.


----------



## rrdude (Feb 9, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> well gee why don't amtrak equpe there trains with giant wood chippers mounted to the front of the engine so that any trees on the tracks can be sucked on the chipper and reduced to mulch that should keep the train running. now what do we do about downed power lines that may be live with 50,000 volts. GML do you want to volunteer to go out and move them by hand while there sparking. im sure 50,000 volts isn't much. its like getting shocked when you touch a door knob while walking in socks.


Your posts truly amaze me.................


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 9, 2010)

rrdude said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > well gee why don't amtrak equpe there trains with giant wood chippers mounted to the front of the engine so that any trees on the tracks can be sucked on the chipper and reduced to mulch that should keep the train running. now what do we do about downed power lines that may be live with 50,000 volts. GML do you want to volunteer to go out and move them by hand while there sparking. im sure 50,000 volts isn't much. its like getting shocked when you touch a door knob while walking in socks.
> ...


good for you want a cookie


----------



## AAARGH! (Feb 9, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> good for you want a cookie


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## rrdude (Feb 9, 2010)

jis said:


> Another thing about Acelas that I learned from postings in railroad.net from a few Acela Engineers..... apparently in heavy blowing snow situation, the rear power car suffers from significant snow ingestion through the cooling system problems. In order to avoid damage to the electrical system, in those cases they have been known to completely power down the rear power head and operate the train only with the front power head, which needless to say leaves the train a bit, shall we say, anemically powered.


JIS, I'm way out of any shred of expertise here, (well "most any of my postings" OP would probably say...) anyways, I thought one of the comments made at the last Gathering during the Acela facility tour was how OVERpowered the Acela was, for the trainset. I'd assume they'd lose some acceleration, but once up to speed, would having only engine make a big difference? I truly don't know. Thanks.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 9, 2010)

rrdude said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing about Acelas that I learned from postings in railroad.net from a few Acela Engineers..... apparently in heavy blowing snow situation, the rear power car suffers from significant snow ingestion through the cooling system problems. In order to avoid damage to the electrical system, in those cases they have been known to completely power down the rear power head and operate the train only with the front power head, which needless to say leaves the train a bit, shall we say, anemically powered.
> ...


The trainsets are indeed overpowered as designed. And normally a 6,000 HP motor would be more than enough power to move 6 cars. But these are not normal conditions and you're now dragging around the dead weight of the rear power car. That changes things dramatically.


----------



## jis (Feb 9, 2010)

rrdude said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing about Acelas that I learned from postings in railroad.net from a few Acela Engineers..... apparently in heavy blowing snow situation, the rear power car suffers from significant snow ingestion through the cooling system problems. In order to avoid damage to the electrical system, in those cases they have been known to completely power down the rear power head and operate the train only with the front power head, which needless to say leaves the train a bit, shall we say, anemically powered.
> ...


In addition to what Alan said in his reposne. we need to remember that one of the features of NEC is that there are no long stretches where continuous high speed is possible, which makes the capability for rapid accelaration and decelration critical for maintaing an overall high average speed schedule. This capability is dramatically lost when you run an Aclea with a dead power head.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2010)

George Harris said:


> This situation is what caused the train failures in the English Channel tunnel.


There is a heavy blowing snow situation in the Chunnel ?


----------



## AlanB (Feb 9, 2010)

Guest said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > This situation is what caused the train failures in the English Channel tunnel.
> ...


No, he was being a bit over simplistic assuming that everyone would know what had happened.

But just in case, it was snow blowing into the power cars while outside the Chunnel, that then remained inside the power cars and melted in the warmer temps inside the Chunnel. Mixing water with electricity is never a good idea.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 10, 2010)

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Its not nonsense. And in anycase, please justify the cancellation of many NY-WAS trains. Host railroad indeed.
> ...


Jishnu, your organization is always giving up too easily and settling for too little. Your perspective on this is, apparently, consistent with it.



jis said:


> Another thing about Acelas that I learned from postings in railroad.net from a few Acela Engineers..... apparently in heavy blowing snow situation, the rear power car suffers from significant snow ingestion through the cooling system problems. In order to avoid damage to the electrical system, in those cases they have been known to completely power down the rear power head and operate the train only with the front power head, which needless to say leaves the train a bit, shall we say, anemically powered.


Shutting down the rear power car gives them a 1100 less horsepower than a 10-car long ALP-46 bi-level train. A Acela set weighs 1,248,000lbs. Assuming the Bombardier multilevels average 120,000 lbs each, a 10-car NJT set hauled by an ALP-46 weighs 1,398,000lbs. An Acela running with a single unit powered has 208 lbs per bhp. The NJT multilevel set has 197 lbs per bhp. That's 11 lbs per horsepower or about 6% lower power-to-weight ratio. Not particularly large. I didn't see NJT cancelling huge numbers of trains.



jis said:


> In addition to what Alan said in his reposne. we need to remember that one of the features of NEC is that there are no long stretches where continuous high speed is possible, which makes the capability for rapid accelaration and decelration critical for maintaing an overall high average speed schedule. This capability is dramatically lost when you run an Aclea with a dead power head.


Oh, you're saying... there would be delays? Gee, instead of having delays, lets not run some sets. :blink:


----------



## AlanB (Feb 10, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > In addition to what Alan said in his reposne. we need to remember that one of the features of NEC is that there are no long stretches where continuous high speed is possible, which makes the capability for rapid accelaration and decelration critical for maintaing an overall high average speed schedule. This capability is dramatically lost when you run an Aclea with a dead power head.
> ...


It's not a matter of worrying about delays.

There is no point in running an empty trainset. People aren't traveling to/from the DC-Baltimore area because they can't get to/from the stations. Why risk a billion dollar trainset and spend all the money necessary to pick up a handful of customers. Makes far more sense to just kill the bulk of the schedule and ask people to please wait a bit longer until the next train does come along.


----------



## wayman (Feb 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


As of some point this afternoon, they won't be able to get to/from 30th St either. SEPTA and the City have widely announced the strong likelihood of a system shutdown at some point today; SEPTA will keep operating as long as it can, and will give an hour's notice in the event the shutdown decision is made. The City has done everything it can to tell businesses to close, people not to come into the city unless they've got jobs in hospitals or the like, etc. So travel to/from Philadelphia by Amtrak is also just not in demand today.

For those saying "where is the snow? what's the big deal? wimps!", I'll point out that (a) we've still got most of the snow we had from the weekend, piled up on the sides of the road, blocking all non-essential traffic lanes, etc (ie, "the space where snow goes when it's plowed is already full of more snow than it's ever had"); (b) the heavy storm is supposed to start early afternoon and continue heavily through midnight; © the duration of this storm, which started with steady but light snow and freezing rain yesterday which has continued all night and through the morning, is about twelve hours _longer_ than the record storm this past weekend, and most of the snow and accumulation is _yet to come_ as of noon today. Serious plowing efforts in Philadelphia and surrounding counties won't be able to start until the wee hours of Thursday morning.


----------



## jis (Feb 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, you're saying... there would be delays? Gee, instead of having delays, lets not run some sets. :blink:
> ...


Alan is right. It is not just Amtrak. Even NJTransit is consolidating and reducing service this afternoon, mainly because there are not enough riders to justify running a full schedule. Or so said Penny Basset-Hackett and Dan Stessel, spokespersons of NJTransit on News12.

All this really has very little to do with how many horsepowers are available per pound of train weight.

Here is what it says on NJT Snow Advisory page:



> * Rail Service: Rail service will be reduced after 2:30 p.m. Some trains will be combined and others will be cancelled. Customers should expect delays and check njtransit.com before traveling. Customers who transfer at Secaucus Junction or Newark Penn Station should also check for changes to connecting service.


BTW..... the storm has now developed a distinct hurricane-like eye off the shore south of Atlantic City. This is quite unusual for a winter storm.


----------

