# Amtrak LD trains always carry two engines



## dlagrua (Jun 22, 2011)

I always wondered why Amtrak always used two engines on most of their long distance routes. The consists on most of these trains are only 8 cars so why is so much pulling power required? The only logical conclusion that I can make is that they are there for redundancy. This way if one engine fails the other can take over, or is it that they use one and switch to the other when one engine runs low on fuel? They also could be there to help generate additional hotel power for the train but it remains a mystery to me.

On the recent Cardinal trip North that we were on, the NE Regional stalled in front of us at Charlottesville, VA. The Crecent backed up to a crossover switch came along side and detached one engine so the regional could get going again. When the Crescent finally resumed its journey, we noticed no decrease in the A.C. or electical system, nor the speed of the train, and everything including the toilets seemed to work fine. We were getting off at the next stop and didn't check if the diner car was still operational but this episode left more questions than answers. Does anyone know the exact reason that Amtrak uses two engines on most LD trains?


----------



## TVRM610 (Jun 22, 2011)

A few months ago when I rode the Crescent they had to take a locomotive off in Atlanta because it kept shutting off the Head end Power. Someone asked the Conductor what that would mean for the rest of the trip and she said that since the 1 locomotive would be working alot harder they would have to stop and take on fuel en route, which they did (some freight yard in the middle of the night, this was prob. a 20-30 minute delay since the train had to stop, be routed into the fueling track, get fueled, and then get back onto the main). She also said the locomotive would have slightly lowered speed and acceleration once we got into some of the grades in Virginia.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 22, 2011)

The Texas Eagles run with Only One Engine most of the Time which is Surprising since Most of the Route is through the Hills of Arkansas and Missouri in the Middle of the Night in the Middle of Nowwhere! Occasionaly there will be a second Engine when one is being Repositioned or Extra Cars are being Carried! (ie PVs or an Extra Sleeper or Coach or Hospital Cars!).

Several Times Ive been on this Train when there were Engine Problems and Waiting on an UP or BNSF Freight Engine to Rescue you isn't a Rapid Thing when the Train is in the Middle of Nowhere in the Middle of the Night! :help: IMO ALL LD Trains Shoud have Two Engines, maybe even Three in the Case of the Builder, Zephyr and Chief!


----------



## Amtrak George (Jun 22, 2011)

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS: Unfortunately on the Amtrak train nearest me, they usually use only one unit. This is a bad idea, as there is no back up in the event of engine failure. This is especially true because if Head End Power fails you are ruined.

I grew up around the ICRR and GM&O RR, and on long runs they regularly used at least 2 units on passenger trains so they could limp in if one failed. (also in days before AMTK the RRs often had protect engines in places on the system).

IIRC, most other long AMTK runs use at least 2 units.


----------



## Amtrak George (Jun 22, 2011)

I stand corrected about one thing, the Texas Eagle I believe also uses just one unit, and last I heard they share trainsets with the City of New Orleans.


----------



## amtkstn (Jun 22, 2011)

The SWC allways has two locomotive pulling it. To get over Raton Pass a third locomotive is added at La Junta Colorado and taken off at Albuquerque.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 22, 2011)

amtkstn said:


> The SWC allways has two locomotive pulling it. To get over Raton Pass a third locomotive is added at La Junta Colorado and taken off at Albuquerque.


That only happened in the days of roadrailers and Amfreight. Nowadays, it's two all the way through.

Eastern trains could get away with one, and for a while, the Silver Service just had one per train. You take an acceleration penalty with just one unit.

While it's true that in "the good old days" the railroads used two engines, they also, as far as I know, didn't have 4250 horsepower engines either.


----------



## rrdude (Jun 22, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> amtkstn said:
> 
> 
> > The SWC allways has two locomotive pulling it. To get over Raton Pass a third locomotive is added at La Junta Colorado and taken off at Albuquerque.
> ...


Trogs spot on.In the "good ole days" when many pax trains sported E-units on the head end, you'd see, two (elephant-style or end-to-end) or even three if they had the B-units available. But remember EACH of these units only put out (depends on year, model, etc.) between 1,800 and maybe 2,500 HP, or roughly half of Amtrak's engines today. (granted, no HP was needed either)

I think most host RR either strongly urge, or require Amtrak to run two locos when possible. It's in everyone's best interest to do so, especially given the state of scheduled maint that Amtrak has to suffer with.


----------



## me_little_me (Jun 22, 2011)

amtkstn said:


> The SWC allways has two locomotive pulling it. To get over Raton Pass a third locomotive is added at La Junta Colorado and taken off at Albuquerque.


Not true. We took the Chief from ABQ to Kansas City last summer. It was 4 hours late coming into ABQ because its single engine broke down and it had to be pulled into ABQ by a BNSF engine. When it got there, the BNSF and Amtrak engines were removed and one new Amtrak engine was added. We left with one engine (and had to fill up just before Kansas City).


----------



## nolatron (Jun 22, 2011)

I took the City of New Orleans from Chicago Union Station with only one engine May 2010.

I've also seen the Sunset Limited depart New Orleans with only a single engine in recent months.


----------



## ColdRain&Snow (Jun 22, 2011)

rrdude said:


> I think most host RR either strongly urge, or require Amtrak to run two locos when possible. It's in everyone's best interest to do so, especially given the state of scheduled maint that Amtrak has to suffer with.


I notice that the _Empire Builder_ usually runs with three locomotives during the winter season. Is this something that BNSF has asked of Amtrak?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 22, 2011)

ColdRain&Snow said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> > I think most host RR either strongly urge, or require Amtrak to run two locos when possible. It's in everyone's best interest to do so, especially given the state of scheduled maint that Amtrak has to suffer with.
> ...


We took the EB in early March this year -- only two locos...


----------



## cirdan (Jun 22, 2011)

I guess redundancy comes into it, but also the ease or difficulty with which a rescue engine can be sent if needed.

I've seen the Silvers, the Crescent and the Texas Eagle all with one engine. I don't know how typical that is though.


----------



## ColdRain&Snow (Jun 22, 2011)

Bierboy said:


> ColdRain&Snow said:
> 
> 
> > rrdude said:
> ...


This is what I saw the month before in February and have seen on other occassions. Does anyone know if it's a BNSF mandate or just prudence on Amtrak's part given the tempestuous weather on the Hi Line?


----------



## RCrierie (Jun 22, 2011)

ColdRain&Snow said:


> This is what I saw the month before in February and have seen on other occassions. Does anyone know if it's a BNSF mandate or just prudence on Amtrak's part given the tempestuous weather on the Hi Line?


CR&S: Awesome photos, especially of the train waiting in the snow! How long did you have to wait? Must have been an awesome delay.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 22, 2011)

ColdRain&Snow said:


> This is what I saw the month before in February and have seen on other occassions. Does anyone know if it's a BNSF mandate or just prudence on Amtrak's part given the tempestuous weather on the Hi Line?


I haven't heard of too many Amtrak engines felled by weather alone. It seems the vast majority of failures occur due to poor maintenance or improper rebuilds. I mean, when several engines suddenly burst into flames in the span of a few months what else do you call that? Hail damage? <_<


----------



## printman2000 (Jun 22, 2011)

me_little_me said:


> amtkstn said:
> 
> 
> > The SWC allways has two locomotive pulling it. To get over Raton Pass a third locomotive is added at La Junta Colorado and taken off at Albuquerque.
> ...


Yup, they do not add a third unit to the SWC just for Raton. It is not needed. In fact, one trip over the pass I was one, ONE BNSF unit dragged the whole train and two dead Amtrak locos over the pass. Fortunately, HEP was still running on one of them.


----------



## Pat Harper (Jun 22, 2011)

Amtrak George said:


> I stand corrected about one thing, the Texas Eagle I believe also uses just one unit, and last I heard they share trainsets with the City of New Orleans.



George, the Texas Eagle shares trainsets with the Sunset Limited, not the City of New Orleans. The Sunset Limited meets up with the Texas Eagle in SAS.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 22, 2011)

Pat Harper said:


> George, the Texas Eagle shares trainsets with the Sunset Limited, not the City of New Orleans. The Sunset Limited meets up with the Texas Eagle in SAS.


No, George is correct. Only two cars are shared between the TE and SL. The bulk of the consist is shared with the CONO, just not through SAS.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 22, 2011)

The LSL, Auto Train, and EB all require 2 engines simply due to the fact of how many cars they are hauling. Without a second engine, acceleration from a stop would be very poor and would gradually snow ball into a late train. Any other Amtrak train crossing mountains also needs a second engine in order to make the climb at a reasonable rate of speed; that would include the Capitol, Zephyr, Starlight, & SW Chief. The Sunset is probably borderline, so it generally gets a second engine.

But that leaves the Crescent, Silvers, City, and the Eagle all of which could run with one engine. As other's have noted, the wisdom of doing so is very debatable, especially considering the failure rate of the P42's. And in fact, because of that failure rate, CSX now requires Amtrak to always have 2 locos on all LD's that run on CSX tracks. That "agreement" has been in effect now for about 3 or 4 years IIRC.

Finally, I've heard it said that providing HEP steals about 300 to 350 HP off the 4,250 that the P42 can provide. So an engine providing HEP has less traction power with which to move the train, and therefore accelerates more slowly from stops and can't climb mountains as well especially as you add more cars. It is not possible to provide HEP from more than one engine at the same time. Generally, barring any problems or mechanical issues, the engineer will generally set the second engine to provide HEP so as to make the first engine where they're sitting quieter when not moving.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 22, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> Pat Harper said:
> 
> 
> > George, the Texas Eagle shares trainsets with the Sunset Limited, not the City of New Orleans. The Sunset Limited meets up with the Texas Eagle in SAS.
> ...


Pat,

What George is saying is that the cars from the City of NOL that arrived into Chicago this morning, will go out this afternoon as the Texas Eagle. And the cars from the Eagle arriving into Chicago today, will be cleaned and go out as the City tonight.


----------



## ColdRain&Snow (Jun 22, 2011)

AlanB said:


> And in fact, because of that failure rate, CSX now requires Amtrak to always have 2 locos on all LD's that run on CSX tracks. That "agreement" has been in effect now for about 3 or 4 years IIRC.


What about the frequency of 3 locos on the Empire Builder during winter? Does BNSF formally request that Amtrak adds that third unit?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jun 22, 2011)

ColdRain&Snow said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > And in fact, because of that failure rate, CSX now requires Amtrak to always have 2 locos on all LD's that run on CSX tracks. That "agreement" has been in effect now for about 3 or 4 years IIRC.
> ...


Which 3 locos (members) are you talking about? :giggle:


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 22, 2011)

me_little_me said:


> amtkstn said:
> 
> 
> > The SWC allways has two locomotive pulling it. To get over Raton Pass a third locomotive is added at La Junta Colorado and taken off at Albuquerque.
> ...


3 and 4 always take fuel at Argentine Yard, just west of KC.


----------



## jdcnosse (Jun 22, 2011)

amtkstn said:


> The SWC allways has two locomotive pulling it. To get over Raton Pass a third locomotive is added at La Junta Colorado and taken off at Albuquerque.


Both times I took it this past spring it had the two locomotives, plus all the other cars. Didn't add any though.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 22, 2011)

ColdRain&Snow said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > And in fact, because of that failure rate, CSX now requires Amtrak to always have 2 locos on all LD's that run on CSX tracks. That "agreement" has been in effect now for about 3 or 4 years IIRC.
> ...


I'm not aware of any request by BNSF to add another loco, much less that it is actually happening with regular consistancy during the winter months. Not saying that it isn't happening, just that I've not heard anything about it.


----------



## ColdRain&Snow (Jun 22, 2011)

AlanB said:


> ColdRain&Snow said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


To facilitate ongoing learning, I usually watch each day's Amtrak videos posted to youtube. I try to do this nightly but can't always do so. But it was especially in the EB videos during winter that I noticed the pattern of three engines in many consists. And I saw it on consists I rode too including twice this winter. It made me wonder if it was a mandate, but perhaps it's just Amtrak doing it for operational reasons at various times.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 22, 2011)

ColdRain&Snow said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > ColdRain&Snow said:
> ...


This past winter, BNSF did require three engines on the Builder. That's why many trains operated with a freight unit right out of the gate, because Amtrak didn't have enough good units to equip every train with three.


----------



## ColdRain&Snow (Jun 22, 2011)

RCrierie said:


> ColdRain&Snow said:
> 
> 
> > This is what I saw the month before in February and have seen on other occassions. Does anyone know if it's a BNSF mandate or just prudence on Amtrak's part given the tempestuous weather on the Hi Line?
> ...


 That was quite an interesting day on the railroad. We were held at Reno while Omaha made the decision about whether we could ascend Donner. By the time we passed Truckee, houses were snowed in up to their roofs and cars were covered up. As we ascended the pass, the "snow hat" formed on top of the lead Genesis which was pretty funny. We were held east of Emigrant Gap for about 6+ hours while the UP summoned its flanger and cleared a disabled freight. It was rather funny to see #6 the next morning still wearing its frosty hat.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 23, 2011)

AlanB said:


> ColdRain&Snow said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


yes, sometimes when you see three locos it's just about transferring a loco to another location, maybe as part of the maintenance roster, and attaching that loco to a train that's running anyway is cheaper and simpler than sending the loco off by itself as you don't need to book an additional engineer or organise track paths.


----------



## PanAm98 (Jun 23, 2011)

I took the SWC from CUS to LAUS this past February and we added a third power unit at ABQ. They announced they were going to do it just before we got there, but they didn't say why. It was my first ride on the SWC, so I thought it was routine. When we got to ABQ, they uncoupled both existing units and moved them to the service area, then a while later came back with three units and hooked them all up. We were about an hour late pulling out of ABQ because of it. In retrospect, I'm not sure if they just needed to send a unit down the line, or if it had something to do with the announced reports heavy snow (about 18") falling in the mountains around Flagstaff, or what.


----------



## Rafi (Jun 23, 2011)

AlanB said:


> The LSL, Auto Train, and EB all require 2 engines simply due to the fact of how many cars they are hauling. Without a second engine, acceleration from a stop would be very poor and would gradually snow ball into a late train. Any other Amtrak train crossing mountains also needs a second engine in order to make the climb at a reasonable rate of speed; that would include the Capitol, Zephyr, Starlight, & SW Chief. The Sunset is probably borderline, so it generally gets a second engine.
> 
> But that leaves the Crescent, Silvers, City, and the Eagle all of which could run with one engine. As other's have noted, the wisdom of doing so is very debatable, especially considering the failure rate of the P42's. And in fact, because of that failure rate, CSX now requires Amtrak to always have 2 locos on all LD's that run on CSX tracks. That "agreement" has been in effect now for about 3 or 4 years IIRC.


Alan,

Thanks for chiming in and setting the record straight. It seems like we have this discussion about once every two years or so on the board!

Just for the record, the one LD you didn't mention, which is something of an exception to the above criteria, is the Cardinal. It goes through the mountains, and it travels over CSX trackage, yet it typically only runs with one loco. My understanding (which is second hand) is that the reason is because of the relatively short consist of the train, although they do typically add a second engine if the train is carrying 2 or more private cars in my experience.

Rafi


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 23, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> ...This past winter, BNSF did require three engines on the Builder. That's why many trains operated with a freight unit right out of the gate, because Amtrak didn't have enough good units to equip every train with three.


Well I guess it depends on your definition of winter, then, because, as I stated, we had TWO locos on the EB when we rode during the first half of March. And, in that part of the country, I believe early March would still be considered winter...


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 23, 2011)

Bierboy said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > ...This past winter, BNSF did require three engines on the Builder. That's why many trains operated with a freight unit right out of the gate, because Amtrak didn't have enough good units to equip every train with three.
> ...


Per the calendar, technically yes, but this has more to do with weather conditions than the timing of the vernal equinox.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jun 23, 2011)

The Pennsylvanian only runs one... doesn't that count as a long distance?

When they do run two engines on an LD train, why do they seem to orient them both cab forward rather than have them back to back? I would think having them back to back would allow for easier switching when it needed to be on the other end of the train.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 23, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> When they do run two engines on an LD train, why do they seem to orient them both cab forward rather than have them back to back? I would think having them back to back would allow for easier switching when it needed to be on the other end of the train.


Seems to be an Amtrak thing. I think they even have a special name for it. "Elephant style" or something like that. I'm with you though, it seems a lot more practical to place them in alternate orientations so they don't need to worry as much about having to reorient them later on.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 23, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> The Pennsylvanian only runs one... doesn't that count as a long distance?
> 
> When they do run two engines on an LD train, why do they seem to orient them both cab forward rather than have them back to back? I would think having them back to back would allow for easier switching when it needed to be on the other end of the train.


Back-to-back allows the other cab to be in the correct direction if one engine has to be set out or switched out of the lead. That occurs far more often than having to run the engines around the train and have them pull in the other direction.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 23, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> Back-to-back allows the other cab to be in the correct direction if one engine has to be set out or switched out of the lead. That occurs far more often than having to run the engines around the train and have them pull in the other direction.


I don't doubt you, but doesn't that mean Amtrak either bought the wrong hardware or they aren't properly maintaining it?! It just seems so pathetic that they need to orient their locomotives in such a way that they can routinely dump them by the wayside as they fail to the point they can't even deadhead to the next service stop.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 23, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> The Pennsylvanian only runs one... doesn't that count as a long distance?


Nope, the Pennsy falls into the short/medium haul category.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jun 23, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Back-to-back allows the other cab to be in the correct direction if one engine has to be set out or switched out of the lead. That occurs far more often than having to run the engines around the train and have them pull in the other direction.
> ...


hasn't it been clear for a little while now that Amtrak bought the wrong hardware?


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 23, 2011)

I almost always see them run Elephant Style...

Most of the pairs that run LD trains requiring pair retain orientation to the rest of the consist, I presume...


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 23, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Back-to-back allows the other cab to be in the correct direction if one engine has to be set out or switched out of the lead. That occurs far more often than having to run the engines around the train and have them pull in the other direction.
> ...


I can tell you that i spent many years on the road for Amtrak ( as a disclaimer pre P40 & P42 days) that I have only had to set out two engines and both were due to grade crossing accidents. Two more time the lead engine and trail engine were swapped around again due to grade crossing accidents.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 23, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Back-to-back allows the other cab to be in the correct direction if one engine has to be set out or switched out of the lead. That occurs far more often than having to run the engines around the train and have them pull in the other direction.
> ...


I never said it happens all the time. But it happens more often than the need to run the engines around to the other end of the train.

Any number of issues can lead to engines needing to be "flat switched." Grade crossing collision resulting in the lead unit no longer able to lead, horn failure, failure of some cab signal equipment on board, computer problems with the lead locomotive, other cab-related defects, etc.

In fact, last year I was on a train with two engines, back-to-back, when the lead engine had a horn failure. There was no wye available to spin the engines around to put the trailing engine in the lead. Had those been elephant-style, we could have made it with a 30-40 minute delay. As it ended up, we lost three hours (have to flag every crossing when the horn doesn't work) and wound up getting coupled to the following train and pulled the rest of the way.

The need to run the engines around usually only occurs when there is some kind of line blockage and no wye available to turn the whole consist.


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 23, 2011)

After reading about the Sunset Limited, it sounds like having two engines just means there are double the chances for something to go wrong.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 24, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> In fact, last year I was on a train with two engines, back-to-back, when the lead engine had a horn failure. There was no wye available to spin the engines around to put the trailing engine in the lead. Had those been elephant-style, we could have made it with a 30-40 minute delay. As it ended up, we lost three hours (have to flag every crossing when the horn doesn't work) and wound up getting coupled to the following train and pulled the rest of the way.
> 
> The need to run the engines around usually only occurs when there is some kind of line blockage and no wye available to turn the whole consist.


This makes me wonder, how difficult is it to swap relatively portable parts like horns between locomotives?


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 24, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> After reading about the Sunset Limited, it sounds like having two engines just means there are double the chances for something to go wrong.


Redundancy usually increases reliability and dual engines allow one train to help get a stranded single engine train get going again. On the recent Crescent trip they took one engine on our train and donated it to a stalled NEC at Charlottlesville, VA. Our train seemed to work just as well with the one engine and the 4,500HP pulled the 7 car consist very well. ( we were running without the cafe car that broke and was left in NOL) The average Amtrak engine is 26-30 years old. That should be all the reason thats needed to run two engines.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 24, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> The average Amtrak engine is 26-30 years old. That should be all the reason thats needed to run two engines.


That's not the case.

I haven't done the math yet, but the oldest diesels are from the early 1990s, (making them, at most, 20 years old), and most of them (the P42s) are from the late 1990s and early 2000s, putting them between 10-15 years old.

If you throw in the electrics, the AEM-7s are in their 30s, but that average would be brought down somewhat by the HHP-8s which are around 10 years old (and since very few electrics, not counting the Acelas, run in pairs, obviously age is not the factor there).


----------



## GPSTraveler (Jun 24, 2011)

I recently rode on the City of New Orleans, just a couple of weeks ago (June 12). I met an Irish Couple in the Metro Lounge in Chicago before boarding. They just came off the Texas Eagle, and complained about the AC not working on part of the trip. This made me a bit nervous because I knew that this would be the SAME train I was just about to board. The train seemed fine, just a little on the hot side..... After awakening in Memphis, it was extremely hot in the sleeping car. Our sleeping car attendant gave us the bad news that the ENTIRE TRAIN has lost AC and everyone would have to be bussed the rest of the way to New Orleans.

My questions is, if this was a head end power problem (with the single engine), why were the lights still on the entire morning? Is there emergency power during a HEP failure?

Secondly, could both incidents have been avoided, Texas Eagle and CONO loosing AC, if the CONO had 2 engines pulling it? Don't worry, I am not complaining, the CONO coming back was a perfect ride, had the same Cross Country Cafe and same dining car staff as before, but our Sleeper definately changed (shower became the old button type that you must press more frequently).

So back on topic, could a second engine stop these HEP problems on both the Texas Eage and CONO?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 24, 2011)

GPSTraveler said:


> I recently rode on the City of New Orleans, just a couple of weeks ago (June 12). I met an Irish Couple in the Metro Lounge in Chicago before boarding. They just came off the Texas Eagle, and complained about the AC not working on part of the trip. This made me a bit nervous because I knew that this would be the SAME train I was just about to board. The train seemed fine, just a little on the hot side..... After awakening in Memphis, it was extremely hot in the sleeping car. Our sleeping car attendant gave us the bad news that the ENTIRE TRAIN has lost AC and everyone would have to be bussed the rest of the way to New Orleans.
> 
> My questions is, if this was a head end power problem (with the single engine), why were the lights still on the entire morning? Is there emergency power during a HEP failure?
> 
> Secondly, could both incidents have been avoided, Texas Eagle and CONO loosing AC, if the CONO had 2 engines pulling it?


There is About 6 Hours Difference between the Time the Eagle Arrives and the CONO Leaves from CHI. The Equipment is taken to the Yards to be Cleaned (Hopefully??? :help: ) and Serviced. IF there is a Major Problem, such as the AC Not Working, or an Engine Down, it will be Bad Ordered and other Equipment Subsituted (when Available, which in CHI is Usually No Problem!!)

The AC is a Seperate System from the Lights, there are alot of Problems on the Older Superliner Cars (UnRehabbed I's), basically the SCAs can only Reset Breakers or have a General Range of Warmer/Cooler to Try to Set the Temps in the Cars)), but in this Case I would Venture that there was Just an AC Problem, that it was a Different Car since they wouldnt have sent out a Sleeper with No AC from CHI!! Two Engines, which SHOULD BE on ALL LD Trains, Wouldn't have helped in this Case! :wacko:


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 24, 2011)

GPSTraveler said:


> My questions is, if this was a head end power problem (with the single engine), why were the lights still on the entire morning? Is there emergency power during a HEP failure? Secondly, could both incidents have been avoided, Texas Eagle and CONO loosing AC, if the CONO had 2 engines pulling it?


There is a secondary power source for _some_ of the lights but only one source for the AC. Other folks can probably explain it much better and more accurately than I can. It's quite possible that having a second engine would have helped. However, it's also possible that the baggage car had a problem or there was a blown HEP cable or something. I think they carry a spare HEP cable or two, but if there's a serious problem it could blow the spare just as easily as it blew the original.


----------



## GPSTraveler (Jun 24, 2011)

Yes,

This makes sense to me. On the Texas Eagle, maybe a bad sleeping car, then on the CONO maybe a bad HEP cable for the entire train. But wow, what a coincidence....

I am only thankful that the bustitution did not scare my family away from Amtrak. This was their first long distance trip. The Bus got us to New Orleans, right on time. They loved the trip back enough to do another trip in the future (mission accomplished).


----------



## GPSTraveler (Jun 24, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> The AC is a Seperate System from the Lights, there are alot of Problems on the Older Superliner Cars (UnRehabbed I's), basically the SCAs can only Reset Breakers or have a General Range of Warmer/Cooler to Try to Set the Temps in the Cars)), but in this Case I would Venture that there was Just an AC Problem, that it was a Different Car since they wouldnt have sent out a Sleeper with No AC from CHI!! Two Engines, which SHOULD BE on ALL LD Trains, Wouldn't have helped in this Case! :wacko:


Jim,

Maybe you can help me ID the Superliner sleepers we had. First (bad AC) superliner had the BLUE color nightlight in the family bedroom. Also the Shower had a multicolor RED ORANGE BLUE Dial. The Shower button only needed to pressed once for about 5 minutes of continuous water.

On Superliner family bedroom number 2 (coming back to chicago), the night light was regular yellow , the shower had no color code on the dial, just a bigger metal button, that needed to be held continously for water, button only lasted a few seconds for water.

So which one was the superliner I and which was the superliner II? or rehabbed? All interior colors on both cars were BLUE, not brown.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 24, 2011)

GPSTraveler said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > The AC is a Seperate System from the Lights, there are alot of Problems on the Older Superliner Cars (UnRehabbed I's), basically the SCAs can only Reset Breakers or have a General Range of Warmer/Cooler to Try to Set the Temps in the Cars)), but in this Case I would Venture that there was Just an AC Problem, that it was a Different Car since they wouldnt have sent out a Sleeper with No AC from CHI!! Two Engines, which SHOULD BE on ALL LD Trains, Wouldn't have helped in this Case! :wacko:
> ...


Best way to Tell a Superliner I from a II is in the Roomettes the Small Coat Closet in the I has a Door on it, the IIs have an Open Recessed Space to hang a Couple of Garmets! A I that has been Rehabbed would probably have Nice Semi-Real looking Wood Paneling, the Good Remodeled Bathrooms with the Easy to use Faucets and Shower and More Room,and a Plaque Downstairs by the Entrance that says "Proudly Remodeled by Beech Grove Shops!" The IIs have NOT been Remodeled AFAIR. Sounds like to me you had a Remodeled I on the Way Down and a II on the way Back!


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 24, 2011)

If you remember the car/line number display by the door when you boarded, if it was electronic, it was a Superliner II, if it wasn't, then it was a Superliner I.

Both Superliner Is and IIs have gone through various states of rehabs and refurbishments that it's hard to tell the type of car based on something like the color of the night lights (which can be swapped out in five minutes), or even something like showers, where I've probably seen four or five different types of shower controls in the various sleepers I've been in.


----------



## DET63 (Jun 25, 2011)

For a discussion (probably somewhat out-of-date, though) comparing Superliner I's and II's, click here.

As for the pros and cons of using two locos, running them elephant-style vs. back-to-back, I would think that since entire trains are wyed at the end of the line, rather simply being reversed, there is no useful purpose in running any locomotives backwards. Here's a discussion of the issue from Trainorders.com in April '03. One argument for doing so (to mitigate issues stemming from uneven wheel wear) seems weak, for reasons that appear in the responses.

I do recall years ago talking to my grandmother about locomotives running backwards. She said she didn't like it; it reminded her of a time when she was little and saw a mother dragging her son backwards by the ear!


----------



## mflsjhs (Jun 25, 2011)

The other day On the sunset limited we had two engines and still ended up stuck in the desert for a couple hrs and needed a UP engine so 2 engines didnt help us at all


----------

