# Consist Question



## Rob_C (Apr 27, 2009)

I noticed the Texas Eagle almost always runs with one locomotive, while the four car stub of the Empire Builder runs with 2 locomotives. What's the reasoning here? The TE is a much longer train, running a much longer route than the EB stub. (IE more chances to break down).

Just scratching my head a little...


----------



## AlanB (Apr 28, 2009)

Is the EB's loco's running back to back, or elephant style?

If back to back, then my money would be on the fact that they can't turn the train around at the other end of the run. So they unhook the two engines, run around the train and what was the trailing engine before now becomes the lead engine. Then the crew just turns the seats around in the cars.


----------



## Neil_M (Apr 28, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Is the EB's loco's running back to back, or elephant style?
> If back to back, then my money would be on the fact that they can't turn the train around at the other end of the run. So they unhook the two engines, run around the train and what was the trailing engine before now becomes the lead engine. Then the crew just turns the seats around in the cars.


When I was in Portland in March, the EB portion was a single loco and it was turned on the triangle over the other side of the Steel Bridge each day.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 28, 2009)

This is an undocumented rumor, but I heard that the TE used to have 2 locos, but the terrain only requires one. It was deemed to be more cost productive to run with one instead of two, hense the dropping of one. Unfortunately, that means if it breaks, it's doomed 'til a replacement gets hooked up.

I imagine, without looking at a timetable, the EB, SWC and CZ have a considerable amount of elevation to conquer. What I personally don't get is why trains like the Silvers that barely get any elevation change and carry a much lighter consist than the Superliners continue to operate with two. IMHO, it's a waste of fuel.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 28, 2009)

Alan explained that CSX requires 2 loco's south of Richmond so they don't have trains lying dead on there mainline. I just can't imagine that running 2 loco's costs that much more.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 28, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Alan explained that CSX requires 2 loco's south of Richmond so they don't have trains lying dead on there mainline. I just can't imagine that running 2 loco's costs that much more.


But it does cost more, ties up a very valuable asset, and quite frankly isn't needed. When was the last time the single loco on a TE just 'died' enroute? Not to mention, there is 3x as much AMTRAK traffic on the CSX that could bump a dead train into the next station if CSX didn't want to get their little locos dirty. Much more double tracking on the CSX to navigate around a dead train as well, leaving the likelyhood of being stranded on a single track stretch much less.

CSX should be a little more considerate. :angry:


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 28, 2009)

Oye! Issues to cover!

The EB carries two ponies (in general) SPK-SEA, this from what I understand is the road power all the way from CHI-SEA. There is another motor that is turned to do the work from PDX-SPK. I believe. I could be wrong on this. I believe they don't want to separate power mid-run unless they absolutely have to. I could be wrong on this.

The Eagle also did carry two motors at one point, IIRC. However, I think you have to go back to the late F-40 days, because a quick browse of P-42's in Texas only shows the Sunset carrying two motors...

Venture, while I will not argue that the EB, CZ, SWC, and Sunset all have much tougher terrain to tackle, there are some decent grades through the Carolinas. Also don't forget you have the monster bridge down at the (beautiful) New River in Ft. Lauderdale. These aren't mountain passes, but the train moves much better with two motors. Also, don't forget the LSL and Crescent carry two motors, and have identical consists (well not so much the LSL anymore, but they did).


----------



## amtkstn (Apr 28, 2009)

Back about before 2006 when Amtrak was hauling mail and express the Chief had three and four P42's.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 28, 2009)

I would expect with the P40's coming back into active service that we'll see two powers sources on all the LD trains here shortly.


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 28, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > Alan explained that CSX requires 2 loco's south of Richmond so they don't have trains lying dead on there mainline. I just can't imagine that running 2 loco's costs that much more.
> ...


Last summer on the SWC, both locos died. Fortunately, one was still able to keep HEP so a BNSF unit pulled it the rest of the way to LAX. It can and does happen. I would much rather be on a train with two, especially if I am trying to make a connection.


----------



## had8ley (Apr 28, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> This is an undocumented rumor, but I heard that the TE used to have 2 locos, but the terrain only requires one. It was deemed to be more cost productive to run with one instead of two, hense the dropping of one. Unfortunately, that means if it breaks, it's doomed 'til a replacement gets hooked up.
> I imagine, without looking at a timetable, the EB, SWC and CZ have a considerable amount of elevation to conquer. What I personally don't get is why trains like the Silvers that barely get any elevation change and carry a much lighter consist than the Superliners continue to operate with two. IMHO, it's a waste of fuel.


Diesel fuel savings combined with similar terrain were also a factor in one unit for the City. Only problem is when that one unit goes down you're at the mercy of the host RR; and who knows if and when they might have a spare loco to pull you with no HEP. Not exactly comforting in the dead of winter or middle of summer not to mention no hot foods.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 28, 2009)

Guys, perhaps I'm wrong in my reading of things, but Rob did say "Stub train". I interpreted that to mean that he was referring to the short, stub train that Amtrak ran out of Chicago during the suspension of through service to the west coast due to flooding. Hence my thoughts on why two engines were required and my question about BtB vs. elephant.


----------



## DAWall (Apr 28, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> I would expect with the P40's coming back into active service that we'll see two powers sources on all the LD trains here shortly.


There is the Horsepower per ton issue, two locomotives double the HP per ton, which helps with acceleration. getting the train up to speed much faster, which in turn, helps with on time performance. Once the train is up to speed on flat terrain, the second unit really is just along for the ride.

I think this is a big factor in bringing the P40's back in service


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 28, 2009)

I'm still praying Auto Train gets their captive fleet back.


----------



## Rob_C (Apr 28, 2009)

Thanks, I had the Portland section of the EB in mind when comparing to the Eagle (or City). The Portland section ran with two engines in February. Not sure if that's the norm or not. But perhaps this had more to do with winter safety (to protect against total HEP failure in the cold?) than actual pulling power.

I'm guessing when all four engines (two from Seattle and two from Portland) reach Spokane, three continue onto Chicago and one returns to Portland with the engines coming off the westbound train the next morning. That would further support the theory that it's just HEP/colossal failure protection. But that begs the question: Chicago's winters get just as gnarly as the Pacific Northwest, the Eagle and the City are just as likely to conk out somewhere in Illinois as the EB is in Washington/Oregon.

So maybe they deem it a bigger problem if #28 delays #8 due to breakdown than the possibility of cold passengers?

Just some musings...

Rob


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 28, 2009)

I'm guessing the day you saw that section of the Builder it was actually just a power move. Generally the PDX side only carries one motor. If there's been an engine failure they obviously have to run it in tandem with a live motor. Also, if one of the engines has just received a repair after a failure its typically paired up with a strong motor just in case. Generally we don't notice that sort of thing since so many of our trains run with two engines. This is typically most noticeable on the NEC with the electrics or on commuter roads.


----------



## the_traveler (Apr 28, 2009)

When I was on the EB in October, I went CHI-PDX and then SEA-CHI. On both trains, there were 3 motors from CHI-SPK. Then 1 ran SPK-PDX and 2 ran SPK-SEA. This happened both ways, and this was before the snow.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Apr 28, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> I'm still praying Auto Train gets their captive fleet back.


The P40s did a great job with the AT. It was the first train to get them and the last train to lose them for a reason. I'll be disappointed if they don't get their pool back.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 28, 2009)

Rob_C said:


> Thanks, I had the Portland section of the EB in mind when comparing to the Eagle (or City). The Portland section ran with two engines in February. Not sure if that's the norm or not. But perhaps this had more to do with winter safety (to protect against total HEP failure in the cold?) than actual pulling power.
> I'm guessing when all four engines (two from Seattle and two from Portland) reach Spokane, three continue onto Chicago and one returns to Portland with the engines coming off the westbound train the next morning. That would further support the theory that it's just HEP/colossal failure protection. But that begs the question: Chicago's winters get just as gnarly as the Pacific Northwest, the Eagle and the City are just as likely to conk out somewhere in Illinois as the EB is in Washington/Oregon.
> 
> So maybe they deem it a bigger problem if #28 delays #8 due to breakdown than the possibility of cold passengers?
> ...


During the Eagles trip in the cold sections, its running on the Lincoln corridor. Plenty of Amtrak power, never more than a few hours away. During the City's trip in the cold sections its still be served by the Illini and Saluki. By the time its more than two and a half hours from an a plausible rescue locomotive, the City is in Tennessee, while the Eagle is practically in Arkansas. For the Eagle, there is only a 400 mile place where its more than 2.5 hours from Amtrak rescue period, and its fairly temperate in climate.

On the other hand, the Empire Builder, CZ, or SWC can be as much as 900, 1100, or 1100 miles from the nearest Amtrak power. And in their cases, this is in northern tundra (EB), the Rocky Mountains (CZ), or the New Mexican desert (SWC). Failure on the CONO or TE is much less of a big deal.


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 28, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> During the Eagles trip in the cold sections, its running on the Lincoln corridor. Plenty of Amtrak power, never more than a few hours away. During the City's trip in the cold sections its still be served by the Illini and Saluki. By the time its more than two and a half hours from an a plausible rescue locomotive, the City is in Tennessee, while the Eagle is practically in Arkansas. For the Eagle, there is only a 400 mile place where its more than 2.5 hours from Amtrak rescue period, and its fairly temperate in climate.
> On the other hand, the Empire Builder, CZ, or SWC can be as much as 900, 1100, or 1100 miles from the nearest Amtrak power. And in their cases, this is in northern tundra (EB), the Rocky Mountains (CZ), or the New Mexican desert (SWC). Failure on the CONO or TE is much less of a big deal.


And that is probably the thinking behind it (lets hope). While I agree it is less than of a big deal, it is still a big deal if you break down. Lets hope those two will again see a second unit.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 28, 2009)

DAWall said:


> There is the Horsepower per ton issue, two locomotives double the HP per ton, which helps with acceleration. getting the train up to speed much faster, which in turn, helps with on time performance. Once the train is up to speed on flat terrain, the second unit really is just along for the ride.


Actually, since the second locomotive doesn't correspond to any increase in HEP loads, the second locomotive more than doubles the horsepower available to the traction motors.


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 28, 2009)

In all reality one of the motors is very rarely "along for the ride." They'd have to take the leader offline, and for the most part it's not very practical to do so. Rather than running in a cruising notch of 5 or 6 you're more likely to be in 3.


----------



## abqdave (Apr 28, 2009)

It is interesting to read this post and then compare how many locomotives Amtrak uses to haul x number of coaches vs. Indian Railways, for example. I have watched many videos of them on Youtube, and am amazed how many cars they haul with their locomotives. They often use one WAP4 electric locomotive to haul 24 coaches. The WAP4 is 5000 horsepower and is rated to haul up to 26 coaches at 160 kph (100 mph). Amtrak's AEM 7 is 7000 hp; I don't know how many coaches they are rated to haul, but I don't think they haul anywhere near that number anywhere on the NEC.

Maybe one reason is (I think) the WAP4 uses an extra power car where the AEM 7 generates HEP itself?


----------



## AlanB (Apr 28, 2009)

abqdave said:


> It is interesting to read this post and then compare how many locomotives Amtrak uses to haul x number of coaches vs. Indian Railways, for example. I have watched many videos of them on Youtube, and am amazed how many cars they haul with their locomotives. They often use one WAP4 electric locomotive to haul 24 coaches. The WAP4 is 5000 horsepower and is rated to haul up to 26 coaches at 160 kph (100 mph). Amtrak's AEM 7 is 7000 hp; I don't know how many coaches they are rated to haul, but I don't think they haul anywhere near that number anywhere on the NEC.
> Maybe one reason is (I think) the WAP4 uses an extra power car where the AEM 7 generates HEP itself?


India doesn't have FRA rules in effect, therefore their cars weigh less than Amtrak cars do, that allows their engines to pull more cars.

I believe that an AEM-7 can haul around 15 to 16 cars without too much trouble. And the AEM-7 doesn't generate HEP power, it just converts the catenary power to HEP. Unlike with a diesel engine, you're not stealing power from the traction motors to provide HEP. A P42 is rated for 4,200 HP. However if it's providing HEP, you're probably only getting around 3,700 to 3,800 HP in tractive effort, the remainder is going into HEP.

With an AEM-7 you're getting 7,000 HP regardless of whether or not the motor is also providing HEP. You've got a very large power comany at the other end of that long wire, so you can draw as much power as you need provided that you don't overload the electronic equipment in the locomotive.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 29, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ...You've got a very large power comany at the other end of that long wire, so you can draw as much power as you need provided that you don't overload the electronic equipment in the locomotive.


Within reason, of course.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 29, 2009)

abqdave said:


> It is interesting to read this post and then compare how many locomotives Amtrak uses to haul x number of coaches vs. Indian Railways, for example. I have watched many videos of them on Youtube, and am amazed how many cars they haul with their locomotives. They often use one WAP4 electric locomotive to haul 24 coaches. The WAP4 is 5000 horsepower and is rated to haul up to 26 coaches at 160 kph (100 mph). Amtrak's AEM 7 is 7000 hp; I don't know how many coaches they are rated to haul, but I don't think they haul anywhere near that number anywhere on the NEC.


Some other factors to consider, in addition to the weight of the coaches as Alan mentions, are how well the train accelerates, and what grades are involved. I'd be surprised if a single AEM7 can't haul 24 Amfleet coaches at 100 MPH on track with a 0% grade, given enough time to accelerate up to that 100 MPH.


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 29, 2009)

I believe given the capabilities of the converters the AEM-7 can provide HEP power for about 15 cars. Over that the converters can't get enough HEP to the train. Thus why longer trains like the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce get two motors. Part of it is ability to accelerate, part of it is HEP conversion capability.


----------



## jis (Apr 29, 2009)

AlanB said:


> abqdave said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting to read this post and then compare how many locomotives Amtrak uses to haul x number of coaches vs. Indian Railways, for example. I have watched many videos of them on Youtube, and am amazed how many cars they haul with their locomotives. They often use one WAP4 electric locomotive to haul 24 coaches. The WAP4 is 5000 horsepower and is rated to haul up to 26 coaches at 160 kph (100 mph). Amtrak's AEM 7 is 7000 hp; I don't know how many coaches they are rated to haul, but I don't think they haul anywhere near that number anywhere on the NEC.
> > Maybe one reason is (I think) the WAP4 uses an extra power car where the AEM 7 generates HEP itself?


That figure of 160kph for 26 coaches is of only theoretical interest since there is no 26 coach train in India that is allowed a MAS of 160kph. 120kph is about it for 26 coaches at present, and even those will typically get a WAP-7 these days which is somewhere between 5 and 6k HP, depending on when it was built. A WAP4 pulling 26 coaches will not accelerate anywhere near as fast as a typical Amtrak train. As a matter of fact a more capable WAP5 was not good enough for IR because it had tractive effort problems due to its light weight and only 4 axles. That is why IR developed the WAP7 which is a re-geared and re-programmed WAG5 (originally a freight engine) which is much heavier and has 6 axles, and they appear to be happy with that.



> India doesn't have FRA rules in effect, therefore their cars weigh less than Amtrak cars do, that allows their engines to pull more cars.


 Actually Indian coaches are quite surprisingly not as light as one would imagine. The ICF Corten coaches are in the vicinity of 50 - 55 tons, and the new LHB/Alstom Stainless Steel coaches are around 44 tons (40tonnes).

Again, mainly it is because much slower acceleration is tolerated and also MAS is seldom above 110kph except for few select trains which are rated for 120 or 130, and I think one or two as high as 140kph, that one can get away with less HP per unit weight. The higher speed trains are usually way shorter than 26 coaches and always get premium power like WAP7s or WAP5s.



> I believe that an AEM-7 can haul around 15 to 16 cars without too much trouble. And the AEM-7 doesn't generate HEP power, it just converts the catenary power to HEP. Unlike with a diesel engine, you're not stealing power from the traction motors to provide HEP. A P42 is rated for 4,200 HP. However if it's providing HEP, you're probably only getting around 3,700 to 3,800 HP in tractive effort, the remainder is going into HEP.


IR keeps its hotel department and its power department fully separated  . Even on trains that use centrally provided hotel power, the hotel power is provided from Generator Cars and not from the locomotive. Locomotives do not have any HEP facility. And then again a preponderance of trains use self-generating coaches which have axle driven alternators that charge up huge banks of batteries slung under the cars to provide power. There are even many varieties of fully air-conditioned coaches which are powered in this way. For such trains of course to quite an extent it is the locomotive that provides the power, but not via a HEP generator but through a slightly higher tractive effort needed to keep things moving. Of course when going downhill you get the power for free.



> With an AEM-7 you're getting 7,000 HP regardless of whether or not the motor is also providing HEP. You've got a very large power company at the other end of that long wire, so you can draw as much power as you need provided that you don't overload the electronic equipment in the locomotive.


Actually the limiting factor often is the cooling equipment. The electronics will just keep getting hotter and hotter until there is a spectacular bonfire if the thermostat driven safety cutoff fails to operate.

Another thing about AEM-7s is that while they can do 15-16 cars for Amtrak, if they even thought of trying to pull a 15 car train for NJT people would have a stroke. The acceleration that an ALP-44 which is as capable or better than AEM-7s would be completely unacceptable under NJT-like operating circumstances, but the same is quite OK for Amtrak because their required operating characteristics are quite different from NJT's


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 30, 2009)

Just saw a report on another board where the Texas Eagle (22) was being pulled by a UP locomotive in De Soto, MO. Perfect example of the TE needing two locos.

I only wonder if it's P42 is still able to produce HEP or if they are in the dark.


----------



## DAWall (Apr 30, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Just saw a report on another board where the Texas Eagle (22) was being pulled by a UP locomotive in De Soto, MO. Perfect example of the TE needing two locos.
> I only wonder if it's P42 is still able to produce HEP or if they are in the dark.


I have a friend that is an Engineer for Amtrak, He works the Cardinal from CHI to IND, and sometimes the Texas Eagle Chi to Stl. He said the Texas Eagle...in his words "Was a Pig" saying he hates how slowly the train accelerates with only one locomotive. And dreaded taking a siding, knowing he was going to lose more time getting it back up to track speed. And bad weather only compounds the problem. He said while the road failures aren't near as bad as they had been, they still happen. He would like to see another unit added to the TE...and thinks it might finally happen, with the extra funding.


----------



## warbonnet (May 1, 2009)

Last week on 14 from LAX\SEA we had two 42's and one unit from the Cascade fleet all the way to Sea. I was surprised to see the Cascade colors in LA!

Wb


----------



## jis (May 1, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Some other factors to consider, in addition to the weight of the coaches as Alan mentions, are how well the train accelerates, and what grades are involved. I'd be surprised if a single AEM7 can't haul 24 Amfleet coaches at 100 MPH on track with a 0% grade, given enough time to accelerate up to that 100 MPH.


An AEM-7 would have difficulty supplying HEP to 24 coaches though,one would think.

Yes indeed acceleration and gradient are two big factors. All the horsepower in the world is of no use if it cannot be converted reliably into tractive effort.

IR took the trouble to design their own WAP7 after playing around with Bombardier's WAP5 and WAG5, precisely because the Bo-Bo WAG5 simply could not hack it on gradient. I believe they required certain acceleration capabilities on 2% gradient. Apparently the brawnier Co-Co WAP7 manages to pull it off with the usual 18 to 24 car trains on 2% gradients.

I have seen a single WAP7 accelerate an 18 car Rajdhani Express from dead stop at a signal up the gradient between Gaya Jct. and Koderma, quite effortlessly and been quite impressed with its pulling power.


----------



## gaspeamtrak (May 1, 2009)

jis said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Some other factors to consider, in addition to the weight of the coaches as Alan mentions, are how well the train accelerates, and what grades are involved. I'd be surprised if a single AEM7 can't haul 24 Amfleet coaches at 100 MPH on track with a 0% grade, given enough time to accelerate up to that 100 MPH.
> ...


Jis can you recommend any "YouTube" videos of the WAP7 hauling trains?


----------



## AlanB (May 1, 2009)

jis said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Some other factors to consider, in addition to the weight of the coaches as Alan mentions, are how well the train accelerates, and what grades are involved. I'd be surprised if a single AEM7 can't haul 24 Amfleet coaches at 100 MPH on track with a 0% grade, given enough time to accelerate up to that 100 MPH.
> ...


I'm not sure what the maximum amount of HEP that an AEM-7 can put out actually is. However, there is also a finite limit on just how much HEP can be pushed through the 480 cables on the cars. This limit in fact prevents Amtrak from adding still more passenger carrying cars to the Auto Train than it currently runs with at peak times.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2009)

gaspeamtrak said:


> Jis can you recommend any "YouTube" videos of the WAP7 hauling trains?


Here you go, not one but two side by side:

 as it climbs the Gaya to Koderma ramp pulled by a WAP7.
Here is a picture of the Sealdah (Kolkata) Rajdhani pulled by a WAP4, mentioned in an earlier message in this thread.

And a picture of the Howrah (Kolkata) Rajdhani pulled by a WAP7. The markings on the engine says that it is from the Gomoh shed of East Central Railway, which it will pass on the way to Kolkata. The text on the side of the engine says in Hindi script "Bharatiya Rail" which means "Indian Railways".

These two trains depart New Delhi half hour apart every day, Sealdah one at 4:30pm and Howrah one at 5pm and travel pretty much 20 mins to half an hour apart over the entire distance of 900 miles to Kolkata in about 17 hour with about 6 or 7 stops on the way. On regular weekdays there are two other Rajdhanis that depart between these two and run on the same route for most of the way but then branch off to other destinations. So there are like 4 or 5 of these trains running 10 minutes apart for some 600 miles down that route each day.


----------



## Rob_C (May 1, 2009)

AlanB said:


> I'm not sure what the maximum amount of HEP that an AEM-7 can put out actually is. However, there is also a finite limit on just how much HEP can be pushed through the 480 cables on the cars. This limit in fact prevents Amtrak from adding still more passenger carrying cars to the Auto Train than it currently runs with at peak times.


Wouldn't an extra P40 *between* the superliners and the autoracks solve that problem? The superliners would then get power from the front as well as the end of the consist?


----------



## jis (May 1, 2009)

Rob_C said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure what the maximum amount of HEP that an AEM-7 can put out actually is. However, there is also a finite limit on just how much HEP can be pushed through the 480 cables on the cars. This limit in fact prevents Amtrak from adding still more passenger carrying cars to the Auto Train than it currently runs with at peak times.
> ...


I am no expert on this subject. But I have heard/read postings by at least two conductors (one on MNRR and one on NJT), who regularly work on New York area commuter trains, which as you know are typically longer than most Amtrak trains, who stated that FRA does not allow sourcing HEP from multiple units for a single train, unless all HEP can be controlled from the engineer's position, whether it be in a locomotive or a cab control car. I don't know if that would be a barrier to making use of a second P40 as you suggest, but seems that it might. At present I don't think the control lines allow control of multiple HEP units, nor are the train-lines capable of being fed from multiple such simultaneously. But as I said I am no expert, and I am happy to be corrected if I am under the wrong impression.


----------



## had8ley (May 1, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> In all reality one of the motors is very rarely "along for the ride." They'd have to take the leader offline, and for the most part it's not very practical to do so. Rather than running in a cruising notch of 5 or 6 you're more likely to be in 3.


Maybe Dutch can clarify this but somewhere in the cob webs I seem to remember an FRA reg that stated that the lead unit HAS to be on line if it is running and operable.


----------



## AlanB (May 1, 2009)

had8ley said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > In all reality one of the motors is very rarely "along for the ride." They'd have to take the leader offline, and for the most part it's not very practical to do so. Rather than running in a cruising notch of 5 or 6 you're more likely to be in 3.
> ...


Not unless that's a new rule.

Going back several years ago I was on a Silver Palm coming north with two units. All the sudden there was considerable heavy smoke coming from the second engine and we lost HEP. I'm guessing that the unit blew the rectifier stack, but I never heard the real reason. We ran for almost two hours till we reached a point where we could stop and allow the engineer to walk back to the second engine and flip some switches that would allow him to give us HEP from the lead engine.

I was so thankful that I wasn't on the sunny side of my Viewliner car, as it was much warmer across the hall by the time we got to the station and the HEP was restored.

And then, just two summer ago when the OTOL gang went west on the CZ, it was during one of the periods where we didn't go via Moffett. This got us into Salt Lake very early. Many of us had walked up to see the engines and take a few pictures. There were also a few kids up there too. The engineer saw all of us wandering around up there and came back from her car to chat with the kids and us. She could have been on her way home, but instead came back to talk with everyone and answer questions.

She pointed out, for those who hadn't already figured it out, that the lead engine was so quiet because it was shut down and the second engine was supplying HEP and was therefore much nosier.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2009)

AlanB said:


> And then, just two summer ago when the OTOL gang went west on the CZ, it was during one of the periods where we didn't go via Moffett. This got us into Salt Lake very early. Many of us had walked up to see the engines and take a few pictures. There were also a few kids up there too. The engineer saw all of us wandering around up there and came back from her car to chat with the kids and us. She could have been on her way home, but instead came back to talk with everyone and answer questions.
> She pointed out, for those who hadn't already figured it out, that the lead engine was so quiet because it was shut down and the second engine was supplying HEP and was therefore much nosier.


Yes, it was after having a long chat with her I came to the full realization about how wonderful the P42s are , even given all its warts here and there. She seemed to really enjoy operating those engines.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 1, 2009)

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > And then, just two summer ago when the OTOL gang went west on the CZ, it was during one of the periods where we didn't go via Moffett. This got us into Salt Lake very early. Many of us had walked up to see the engines and take a few pictures. There were also a few kids up there too. The engineer saw all of us wandering around up there and came back from her car to chat with the kids and us. She could have been on her way home, but instead came back to talk with everyone and answer questions.
> ...


And that night in my roomette I prayed and I said "Thank you God for the blessings of this P42 you have bestowed upon us during this fine trip. Thank you, so much."

:lol:


----------



## saxman (May 1, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> The Eagle also did carry two motors at one point, IIRC. However, I think you have to go back to the late F-40 days, because a quick browse of P-42's in Texas only shows the Sunset carrying two motors...


Just clarification, the Texas Eagle was using two P-42's up at least until 2003. I remember seeing the news they were getting rid of one on the route just a few months after my trip on the TE which was in May. I have a picture of it somewhere in my stockpile with two locos.


----------



## GG-1 (May 2, 2009)

Rob_C said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure what the maximum amount of HEP that an AEM-7 can put out actually is. However, there is also a finite limit on just how much HEP can be pushed through the 480 cables on the cars. This limit in fact prevents Amtrak from adding still more passenger carrying cars to the Auto Train than it currently runs with at peak times.
> ...


Aloha

This wold allow the "current" to be distributed but adds the issue of generator phase, which probably make the gains not worth the headache.


----------



## Chris J. (May 5, 2009)

GG-1 said:


> Rob_C said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Is there any reason that all the HEP systems needs to be connected together? Could one stick some form of 'generator wagon' in there to produce HEP for some of the coaches, with the others being fed from the loco, but not connect the two HEP sets together.


----------



## Ryan (May 5, 2009)

You would either need to man the car or devise some means of controlling the generator from the locomotive - neither of these is a particularly good solution.


----------



## AlanB (May 5, 2009)

Chris J. said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rob_C said:
> ...


In the case of the Auto Train example given, it is technically possible to short loop the 480 power cables halfway through the consist. That would avoid the phase problem mentioned by GG-1, since the lead engines would provide power to the front half of the train, while the engine in front of the auto racks would provide power to the rear half of the train. This would avoid the problem whereby the 480 cables can't carry anymore power than they do.

The problem with this rather simple solution is that as noted by Hokie, FRA regs require that the engineer must be able to control HEP for the entire train. In this case, or if one placed some type of power generation car in the middle, is that the engineer would not be in control of HEP for the entire train. The engineer would only have control over the HEP supplied by the front locos. This could lead to someone requesting that HEP be turned off to uncouple cars, having the engineer respond positively, and forgetting that the engineer doesn't control the entire train and getting electrocuted.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 5, 2009)

AlanB said:


> In the case of the Auto Train example given, it is technically possible to short loop the 480 power cables halfway through the consist. That would avoid the phase problem mentioned by GG-1, since the lead engines would provide power to the front half of the train, while the engine in front of the auto racks would provide power to the rear half of the train. This would avoid the problem whereby the 480 cables can't carry anymore power than they do.
> The problem with this rather simple solution is that as noted by Hokie, FRA regs require that the engineer must be able to control HEP for the entire train. In this case, or if one placed some type of power generation car in the middle, is that the engineer would not be in control of HEP for the entire train. The engineer would only have control over the HEP supplied by the front locos. This could lead to someone requesting that HEP be turned off to uncouple cars, having the engineer respond positively, and forgetting that the engineer doesn't control the entire train and getting electrocuted.


We have managed to develop MU cables that provide for controlling an entire second engine at the back of a train. I'm sure there is a simple way to run a control mechanism that would allow the engineer to control the HEP for a rear-located locomotive. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if push-pull trains already have such a function.


----------



## printman2000 (May 5, 2009)

AlanB said:


> The problem with this rather simple solution is that as noted by Hokie, FRA regs require that the engineer must be able to control HEP for the entire train. I


Didn't they at one point use HEP power cars to run HEP on some trains? If so, how could the engineer control that? Or was that before the regs?


----------



## VentureForth (May 5, 2009)

AlanB said:


> In the case of the Auto Train example given, it is technically possible to short loop the 480 power cables halfway through the consist. That would avoid the phase problem mentioned by GG-1, since the lead engines would provide power to the front half of the train, while the engine in front of the auto racks would provide power to the rear half of the train. This would avoid the problem whereby the 480 cables can't carry anymore power than they do.
> The problem with this rather simple solution is that as noted by Hokie, FRA regs require that the engineer must be able to control HEP for the entire train. In this case, or if one placed some type of power generation car in the middle, is that the engineer would not be in control of HEP for the entire train. The engineer would only have control over the HEP supplied by the front locos. This could lead to someone requesting that HEP be turned off to uncouple cars, having the engineer respond positively, and forgetting that the engineer doesn't control the entire train and getting electrocuted.


I think I'm confused. I've never seen a loco between the coaches and the auto racks on the Auto Train...


----------



## MattW (May 5, 2009)

Great Smokey Mountains Railroad I know uses a generator car, but it's a scenic Heritage Railroad so I'm sure they got an exception.


----------



## AlanB (May 5, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of the Auto Train example given, it is technically possible to short loop the 480 power cables halfway through the consist. That would avoid the phase problem mentioned by GG-1, since the lead engines would provide power to the front half of the train, while the engine in front of the auto racks would provide power to the rear half of the train. This would avoid the problem whereby the 480 cables can't carry anymore power than they do.
> ...


Hi confused, I'm Alan. :lol: 

Seriously though, I don't believe that anyone has ever seen a loco between the coaches and the racks. It was simply a suggestion on someone's part as a way to solve the power problem, that perhaps Amtrak could slip an extra loco into the consist. And I was explaining why that wouldn't work.


----------



## AlanB (May 5, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of the Auto Train example given, it is technically possible to short loop the 480 power cables halfway through the consist. That would avoid the phase problem mentioned by GG-1, since the lead engines would provide power to the front half of the train, while the engine in front of the auto racks would provide power to the rear half of the train. This would avoid the problem whereby the 480 cables can't carry anymore power than they do.
> ...


I'm far from being an expert on all the why's and wherefore's on this topic, much less fully understanding what the FRA regs state precisely and why they don't like the idea of a short lopped train.

However, in the case of the AT, the Superliner cars don't have MU cables. In fact none of the Superliner cars had MU cables when delivered and the ones used on the Heartland Flyer had to be retrofitted for use on the Flyer.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 5, 2009)

AlanB said:


> I'm far from being an expert on all the why's and wherefore's on this topic, much less fully understanding what the FRA regs state precisely and why they don't like the idea of a short lopped train.
> However, in the case of the AT, the Superliner cars don't have MU cables. In fact none of the Superliner cars had MU cables when delivered and the ones used on the Heartland Flyer had to be retrofitted for use on the Flyer.


If they've been added before, they can be added again.


----------



## jis (May 5, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> We have managed to develop MU cables that provide for controlling an entire second engine at the back of a train. I'm sure there is a simple way to run a control mechanism that would allow the engineer to control the HEP for a rear-located locomotive. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if push-pull trains already have such a function.


Of course anything can be developed. The current setup in engines and control cabs is enough HEP controls to control a single active unit at a time. The way HEP is wired through the train, apparently can also get fed from a single source. That is the way things are today. With appropriate amount of moolah anything else can be done naturally. The desire to spend for that specific purpose at the present time may be lacking. I wish Dutch was around since he can fill in with first hand knowledge about the nuances of HEP wiring and looping requirements for both US and Canadian HEP, which BTW are different.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 5, 2009)

If all you're concerned about is dropping HEP for the rear half of the train if HEP fails on the front half of the train, I think there's a straightforward way to do it with a single relay and a couple extra connectors at the border between the two HEP systems.

On the car on the front half of the system, you need a unit that plugs into one of the big HEP connectors, and provides a receptable for the HEP plug from that same car. That unit may need a transformer and an internal fuse, and it needs to have the 480V power from the front half of the train ultimately controlling a relay.

Then you need a pair of small guage wires running to an externally similar looking adaptor on the trailing car which will intercept the small gauge control wires on the rear half of the system, with the relay controlled by the front half's 480V set up to open the connection between the control wires whenever there's no HEP on the front half of the train.

I'm not 100% sure I understand how the control wires on the HEP connectors work, but I think if you open up the control wire loop at any point, power will be dropped, on the theory that the reason for the open circuit could be that one of the plugs has exposed contacts, and you don't want to risk a person coming in contact with energized, exposed 480V power connectors.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (May 7, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Long Train Runnin said:
> ...


A few months ago the NB Crescent lost a motor at Meridian, the second one 20mi later, stole one from the SB and lost it before the crossed AL, they got one to do HEP and NS to tow with a dilapidated yard engine for the rest of the trip.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 7, 2009)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


3 locos dead on one train. amtrak never heard of preventive maintenance.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (May 7, 2009)

AlanB said:


> abqdave said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting to read this post and then compare how many locomotives Amtrak uses to haul x number of coaches vs. Indian Railways, for example. I have watched many videos of them on Youtube, and am amazed how many cars they haul with their locomotives. They often use one WAP4 electric locomotive to haul 24 coaches. The WAP4 is 5000 horsepower and is rated to haul up to 26 coaches at 160 kph (100 mph). Amtrak's AEM 7 is 7000 hp; I don't know how many coaches they are rated to haul, but I don't think they haul anywhere near that number anywhere on the NEC.
> ...


When the Metroliners were still the cream of the crop, Amtrak ran 1 AEM-7 per 6 Am fleets for optimal performance. So apparently performance begins to drop after 6.


----------



## MattW (May 7, 2009)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


That's one thing they never heard of, the other is "not run the p-42s into the ground by not mothballing the p-40s so many years ago." Perhaps if they had kept their other locomotives up and running, the p42s wouldn't be breaking down every few miles


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (May 8, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Chris J. said:
> 
> 
> > GG-1 said:
> ...


Why don't they split the Auto-Train into a passenger section and an Auto-rack section? Then operate the passenger section with 2 p-42's one on the front and one on the rear with with short looped HEP via MU cables or Radio dpu like the freights do. Then they could let the freight section leave early ahead of the passenger section while passengers are being settled into rooms, dinner reservations are being made, etc. then depart. Due to the fact that the passenger section would be allowed 79vs 70 it would gain up to the freight section, once they got to an AT terminal the passenger section could proceed straight to the platform and the freight section to the loading ramps. It would make the assembly and the breakdown of the train much simpler.


----------



## AlanB (May 8, 2009)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of the Auto Train example given, it is technically possible to short loop the 480 power cables halfway through the consist. That would avoid the phase problem mentioned by GG-1, since the lead engines would provide power to the front half of the train, while the engine in front of the auto racks would provide power to the rear half of the train. This would avoid the problem whereby the 480 cables can't carry anymore power than they do.
> ...


Notwithstanding the other issues of why you can't short loop the train, there is no reason that they have to seperate the auto racks from the rest of the train just to put a third engine at the end of the passenger section.

However, seperating the train would dramatically up the expenses of operating the train, as you now need to double the number of operating crews, you're using 4 engines instead of two (or maybe three), incurring extra charges from CSX to run 4 trains instead of 2, and there really is nothing to be gained by doing so.

Passenger make their dinner reservations inside the terminal when they check in, have their tickets taken, and are given their seat assignments if in coach. Additionally the passengers are usually boarded around 3:00 to 3:15 and are already settled in, perhaps even at the wine tastings, long before the train leaves the station.


----------



## sentinal (May 8, 2009)

and can you imagine if the section with all the personal cars broke down somewhere along the way or any number of other things went wrong. the passengers arrive , and thier vehicals ... somewhere . i'd be willing to bet i could hear the complants here in chicago


----------



## jis (May 8, 2009)

Seems to me that this proposal to run the Auto Train in two sections is trying to solve a non-existent problem, sometimes what we call "_a solution looking for a problem_"


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (May 8, 2009)

jis said:


> Seems to me that this proposal to run the Auto Train in two sections is trying to solve a non-existent problem, sometimes what we call "_a solution looking for a problem_"


:lol: :lol: Good point. I think having your car right behind give you all kind of peace of mind. Even if they sent the Auto Racks first and something happens, and you pass by your car while on your way to the terminal I think that would cause quite a stir.


----------



## battalion51 (May 10, 2009)

Ok, unless I missed something I didn't see anything from Dutch. So I'll throw this in. The idea that the engineer has to have full control of the HEP is incorrect. What about every train in the US that runs with a cab car? The HEP is always run from the engine, and that's unmanned. AFAIK the rule states the engineer has to have the ability to do an MU shut down on each engine, unless it is being carried dead in tow. There is a difference between dead in tow and being shut down. When you are being hauled dead in tow there is a series of systems that have to be shut down for this to occur. Typically if an engine dies it has to be MU controlled because it is just shut down, not dead in tow. With the advances in modern technology it is very common for HEP to be run off of a rear motor, rather than the lead engine. Part of this is to create a better ride for the engine crew, but also to create redundancy. If the HEP dies for whatever reason en route, you can fire up the HEP on the leader and address the HEP on the trailer at a later point in time. Like I said, AFAIK you just need MU control of each engine in consist, not HEP control.


----------



## jackal (May 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > battalion51 said:
> ...


The Alaska Railroad has a rule that if a train has four SD70MACs in a row, only three can be online. Therefore, the train crew will usually isolate the lead unit to provide a quieter ride and let the three behind it do the work. (This is usually on empty northbound oil trains where the third and fourth units will be put in DP to help with the loaded southbound.)


----------



## AlanB (May 11, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> Ok, unless I missed something I didn't see anything from Dutch. So I'll throw this in. The idea that the engineer has to have full control of the HEP is incorrect. What about every train in the US that runs with a cab car? The HEP is always run from the engine, and that's unmanned. AFAIK the rule states the engineer has to have the ability to do an MU shut down on each engine, unless it is being carried dead in tow. There is a difference between dead in tow and being shut down. When you are being hauled dead in tow there is a series of systems that have to be shut down for this to occur. Typically if an engine dies it has to be MU controlled because it is just shut down, not dead in tow. With the advances in modern technology it is very common for HEP to be run off of a rear motor, rather than the lead engine. Part of this is to create a better ride for the engine crew, but also to create redundancy. If the HEP dies for whatever reason en route, you can fire up the HEP on the leader and address the HEP on the trailer at a later point in time. Like I said, AFAIK you just need MU control of each engine in consist, not HEP control.


This same question came up on another forum, and Dutch specifically shot it down saying that FRA regs prohibited the idea of short looping the 480 and supplying half from a head engine and half from a engine trailing the consist.

You are correct though that many crews do run HEP out of the second engine in the consist, rather than the lead engine, but in that case the engines are MU'd and therefore the engineer remains in control of the 480. If a ground crew person asks the engineer to drop the HEP, the engineer can accomplish that task from the lead engine and without walking to the second engine and power goes out to the entire train. In the case of sticking an engine between the auto racks and the passenger cars, that engine would not be MU'd, which in and of itself is a problem, and dropping the HEP on the lead engines would not drop it on the imbedded engine.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 11, 2009)

Why would they do this? The train only sells out around major holidays. Not worth the investment. They'd get more money for the train by increasing coach fare and swapping out coaches for sleepers.


----------



## AlanB (May 11, 2009)

The Auto Train frequently sells out, and not just around the holidays.

It can often be difficult, if not impossible to get on the AT during the summer, during the snow bird commutes, and around the holidays.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 11, 2009)

Honestly, Alan, I have never had a problem booking the Auto Train when I need it, Holidays excluded.


----------



## AlanB (May 11, 2009)

Well I'm not suggesting that it's always sold out. But it does sell out more than on just the holidays. In fact, I've been on four AT runs that were either sold out, or almost entirely sold out and only one of those was a holiday weekened Memorial day.

On the near sellouts two of them, the sleepers were totally gone, and there were only a few seats left in coach. Had they eliminated a coach in favor of a sleeper, then they would have sold out coach.


----------



## battalion51 (May 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, unless I missed something I didn't see anything from Dutch. So I'll throw this in. The idea that the engineer has to have full control of the HEP is incorrect. What about every train in the US that runs with a cab car? The HEP is always run from the engine, and that's unmanned. AFAIK the rule states the engineer has to have the ability to do an MU shut down on each engine, unless it is being carried dead in tow. There is a difference between dead in tow and being shut down. When you are being hauled dead in tow there is a series of systems that have to be shut down for this to occur. Typically if an engine dies it has to be MU controlled because it is just shut down, not dead in tow. With the advances in modern technology it is very common for HEP to be run off of a rear motor, rather than the lead engine. Part of this is to create a better ride for the engine crew, but also to create redundancy. If the HEP dies for whatever reason en route, you can fire up the HEP on the leader and address the HEP on the trailer at a later point in time. Like I said, AFAIK you just need MU control of each engine in consist, not HEP control.
> ...


Alan, I think you took my terminology out of context. When I said rear motor I was referring to one of two scenarios, either you have 2+ motors up front and the HEP is being run from the last engine (the rear motor), or you have a train like the Vermonter with an engine on either end and you run the HEP off the engine on the bottom (the rear motor). I apologize for the confusion. When you talk to most engineers they recognize referring to the last motor in your consist as the rear motor. I'm not suggesting that the train should be short looped to provide HEP from either end. But it does bring up an interesting point. If you have to add a freight motor to the head end of a passenger train, regardless of whether it's Amtrak, commuter, or a Business car train, that motor is not going to have the ability to shut down the HEP AFAIK. You can most definitely kill all the traction via MU, but I don't know about HEP...


----------



## jis (May 15, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> If you have to add a freight motor to the head end of a passenger train, regardless of whether it's Amtrak, commuter, or a Business car train, that motor is not going to have the ability to shut down the HEP AFAIK. You can most definitely kill all the traction via MU, but I don't know about HEP...


I believe in those cases they have to place a live human being in one of the cabs from which HEP can be controlled, for the ride.


----------

