# Pre Amtrak four engines used?



## Larry H. (Nov 22, 2009)

Just going though some old paper clippings I have saved and ran across the Wreck of the City of New Orleans from June 11, 1971. It shows the the train strewn about the tracks with riveting comments about the fate of the train and 11 killed. What I had nearly forgotten was that pre amtrak it was custom for many railroads to run as many as four engines per passenger train. Now that is a sad commentary on the one that now operates that run. So many blame the pre amtrak days for the demise of many features that once made our trains so great. But this is a blunt reminder that its since amtrak that so much in the quality of a passenger train that has been lost. I believe this wreck happened within months of amtrak taking over and it was due to a faulty wheel bearing leaving chicago causing the wreck.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 22, 2009)

> On June 10, 1971, the City of New Orleans was involved in Amtrak's first fatal train wreck; a locked axle on one of the locomotives caused the train to derail while going 90 miles per hour about 40 miles south of Effingham, Illinois. 11 people were killed, and in terms of number of fatalities, it stood as Amtrak's worst wreck until the Colonial collision in 1987.


that same train derailed in 1999 after hitting a flatbed truck that bottomed out on the tracks also killing 11 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbonnais_train_accident


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Nov 22, 2009)

I am not a locomotive expert but I do recall there often were several units in the past.

Seems the long haul Chicago to California and West Coast trains often had several units.

I grew up exposed to Chicago to Florida trains. Some would be about ten cars long in the summer and have two units. In the winter they would have extra sleepers, be about 15 or more cars long and have three units. On the other hand there was a little Chattanooga to Memphis local about five or six cars long and it just had one unit.

Were the old locos less powerful?


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 22, 2009)

In this case the photo plainly shows and the newspaper mentions the four engines lying on their sides.

As a side line I was still going though these clippings and found the ad from the Illinois Central saying how sad they were to quit running the Panama limited but due to dwindling ridership were having to eliminate it to save trains such as the carbondale runs. Its almost amusing that at the end they mention that they "hope" the day will come when people once again flock to the rails for travel and will be interested in restoring passenger service when that day comes.

You think so?


----------



## AlanB (Nov 23, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> Were the old locos less powerful?


Yes, Bill, that is indeed part of the equation here. Even the last fleet of diesel locos that Amtrak brought in the 70's and got rid of just a few years ago, the F40's only had 3,000 HP. Today's P42's have 4,200 HP, so one can almost say that 2 - P42's can replace 3 - F40's.

Shorter consists also account for the need for fewer locos.


----------



## DET63 (Nov 23, 2009)

using Heritage equipment with a mixture of Amtrak and pre-Amtrak colors. Note that there appear to be 4 engines, 2 of them B-units.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 23, 2009)

Yes same amount of engines on this train, which I feel was common on long distance name trains. What a mixture of cars? One has to wonder what happened to the all green consist they inherited? Just watching the endless stream of domes, and various cars going by shows just how down sized we now are. Although the empire builder is one train that is very long by most standards.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 23, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Now that is a sad commentary on the one that now operates that run.


So you're saying that the fact that we have more powerful locomotives (thereby not requiring as many) is a "sad commentary"?

Lame.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Nov 23, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> > Were the old locos less powerful?
> ...



Thanks Alan. I thought for sure this had already been covered, probably several times.

I also have more recent memories of being on the combined California Zephyr, Desert Wind and Pioneer through the Rockies with 18 giant Superliner cars and maybe just two locos, or no more than three.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 23, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Now that is a sad commentary on the one that now operates that run.
> ...



Some how, correct me if I am wrong, amtrak ran two engines on the very trains they now operate with one. I thought it was a cost cutting decision rather than a practical one? That is to say perhaps in case of a break down of one engine they are left sitting till an engine can be located and brought to the scene. I would consider that a decision the old roads would not have made considering their desire to run as scheduled, at least in the days that mattered.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 23, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > Larry H. said:
> ...


Larry,

Most of the trains today running with just one loco were just as short in terms of passenger cars when they had two locos. The difference was the Express Trak freight cars on the rear, which required two locos to move the train.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 23, 2009)

Alan,

While that may have been the case with some, the City ran though here for many years with four engines, pre and early amtrak, then two newer engines and now one engine.. They have not carried a freight car at any point to my knowledge.

I still think I recall the discussion that this was a cost cutting move more than any practical move?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 23, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Alan,
> While that may have been the case with some, the City ran though here for many years with four engines, pre and early amtrak, then two newer engines and now one engine.. They have not carried a freight car at any point to my knowledge.
> 
> I still think I recall the discussion that this was a cost cutting move more than any practical move?


I fail to see how less units equals less prestige... Most models of the EMD F-series (including the F7) had only 1,500HP, a tad more than 1/3 the HP of one P42. They were also to a degree less reliable and required redundancies. A pair of P42s could do the work of five or six F units.

Another thing to consider... Does the current CONO consist weigh less than the old consists? Is this really due to the shortening of the consist or perhaps modern cars and lighter weight materials?

Bottom line-- more powerful engines, lighter tonnage, less prime movers required. That speaks more about the advent of rail technology and less about how horrible Amtrak has been in ruining stuff.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 23, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Alan,
> While that may have been the case with some, the City ran though here for many years with four engines, pre and early amtrak, then two newer engines and now one engine.. They have not carried a freight car at any point to my knowledge.
> 
> I still think I recall the discussion that this was a cost cutting move more than any practical move?


Yes, without a doubt part of this is indeed a cost cutting move. No question. This is partly why they were able to mothball the P40's, 15 of which are now being reactivated and refurbished thanks to the Stimulus package.

But that still doesn't change the fact that they simply do need less locos today because they are more powerful than the locos of old. And while part of it is indeed shorter consists, freight did play a roll too. When I rode the City back in 2002, we didn't have any Express Trak on the rear, but the consist did include a material handling car (MHC) in addition to a baggage car, which added some weight.

Additionally back then, the CONL was being interlined with the Eagle. That meant that the through cars for the Sunset were kept tacked on the rear of the CONL, rather than switching them off in Chicago and back on. I can't recall now if they actually sold rooms and seats in those cars or if they just ran empty, but still that was 3 extra passenger cars on top of what the CONL really needed.

I've no doubt that those 4 extra cars were more than enough to warrant, if not require, an extra loco. With them gone now, one P42 is enough to do the job. The only question that remains is, is it worth the gamble that a loco won't fail vs. the inconvenience and perhaps life threatening situations if it does fail and you only have one loco.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 23, 2009)

Alan,

Yes its interesting that the City could be almost counted on to come though Centralia with 11 cars, sometimes 13 at holiday. Now its a very sad looking little train and to me the draw to ride somehow just isn't quite the same. Every time I have ridden it, and I had a lot the past couple years every crew hated the consist as too small, no overflow for the huge load they can get in chicago headed to at least carbondale.

I think the whole thing for me is the perhaps outdated concept that railroads stuck too even most of them in bad times. You advertised and built a wonderful set of cars that was designed to give people a reason to choose that train. All that for the most part is gone with Amtrak. Were left with all the same and less and less of that. No lounge, No baggage, and the CCC. I give the railroads one thing, the Panama ran as the Panama had for all of its existence till it was removed. I also just noticed the photo of the last run of the California Zephyr. It still had its engines, its many domes and other essential cars, for some reason the thought of running a four car Zephyr with no domes or lounges was beneath the railroad that operated it. Today we have no problem diminishing once great trains to nearly nothing, and then some of our flock defend it.

I hope someday the lessons learned with the Empire Builder, when it was still a premium Amtrak rollout will be seen for what it is, a draw to passengers that could be recreated if the right equipment was provided. I can't really fault Amtrak as the past administrations wouldn't fund it. But somehow I still find it hard to see a silver lining in the way they are dragging their feet on expansion or improvements to long distance travel.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 23, 2009)

I think that the number of people that ride the train because of it's length are pretty much insubstantial when you can't even get agreement on the fact from folks on a railfan board.

Would I love for the grand trains of yesteryear to be plying the tracks? Absofreakingloutely. Do I care how long the train is when I'm sitting in my sleeper? Not at all, and I'm grateful for the fact that Amtrak doesn't try to recreate those trains and run themselves out of business in the process.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 23, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> I think that the number of people that ride the train because of it's length are pretty much insubstantial when you can't even get agreement on the fact from folks on a railfan board.
> Would I love for the grand trains of yesteryear to be plying the tracks? Absofreakingloutely. Do I care how long the train is when I'm sitting in my sleeper? Not at all, and I'm grateful for the fact that Amtrak doesn't try to recreate those trains and run themselves out of business in the process.



Here is how I see that.. there are various reasons why one can't buy a sleeper for months in advance often. Yes no cars is one of the biggest. But the decision to run consist that all were the same basic length flew in the face of customer demand. I know, I know.... the rail road doesn't have the equipment perhaps, but my main issue is why isn't this being addressed properly by someone up the line. I can't guess what the load factors or lengths of trains would be if everyone who wanted to "sit" in their bedroom would been able to also board? That mainly is my gripe. Somehow a sold out train the in "day" would have been pretty unusual as most companies had the extra equipment to accommodate those who wished to ride and didn't just turn them away and then report passenger loads that really don't reflect actual demand. I mean what is the demand if a great deal of customers are turned away, let alone the inconvenience to those who must travel on short notice and are not able too. Its supposed to be a National Rail Passenger system, not a hobby set.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 23, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Here is how I see that.. there are various reasons why one can't buy a sleeper for months in advance often. Yes no cars is one of the biggest. But the decision to run consist that all were the same basic length flew in the face of customer demand.


What are you talking about? I can get a low bucket roomette for 59(12/1)...


----------



## Ryan (Nov 23, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Here is how I see that.. there are various reasons why one can't buy a sleeper for months in advance often.


Factually incorrect. I don't know which bucket they are, but there are also rooms available for 12/1 for 91, 97, 29, 98 (roomette only), 92, 30, 50 (roomette only), 48 and 49. The only trains on the east coast that are sold out for rooms is 19/20. (I checked JAX/WAS, ATL/WAS, CHI/WAS and CHI/NYP)


> Yes no cars is one of the biggest. But the decision to run consist that all were the same basic length flew in the face of customer demand.


Really? What trains should have sleepers removed and what trains should they add to? What data do you have to back that up?


> I know, I know.... the rail road doesn't have the equipment perhaps, but my main issue is why isn't this being addressed properly by someone up the line.


How so? Get more money from Congress that just isn't there?


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 23, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Here is how I see that.. there are various reasons why one can't buy a sleeper for months in advance often. Yes no cars is one of the biggest. But the decision to run consist that all were the same basic length flew in the face of customer demand.
> ...


Although the conversation about small trains has focused on the City, the trains I really had issues with were the western and eastern trains during the busier season. Of course with the worst economy in many years things are lighter than they were which would open more spaces without question. I just know when we attempted to plan a trip on the empire builder a couple years back it took quite some doing four months out to get a round trip that had the available bedrooms and roomettes we needed without it being the most expensive bucket. And I think we ended up with that as well due to space problems on return. Same on the Zephyr and Chief, very difficult to work around when a set of rooms were available and that was way in advance. So I don't buy your opinions that there is no need for additional equipment on many runs especially at holiday and summer seasons. And yes the major railroads added cars to what were already fairly long consist during Christmas and summer.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 23, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Here is how I see that.. there are various reasons why one can't buy a sleeper for months in advance often.
> ...



Your totally missing the point. I am talking in general and in normal travel times which this economy is not. Do you not recall the massive crowds at stations and on board about a year ago when gas hit 4.00?

I didn't say they should remove cars from any train, far from it. I said that in order to increase business they needed to run more cars when sleepers are sold out which anyone that has discussed the situation over the years here certainly knows is an issue in the peak seasons. As in the previous post, we tried for months out to get rooms and found it very difficult to come up with round trips that had the needed rooms and checking many trains they were saying sold out way in advance. I also found the same on the Cardinal which was unavailable any time that we tried to make connections for it during the previous fall to New York. And have you never found days the Lakeshore had no bedrooms? I just wonder where you all come up with your defense which is as thin as you think mine is?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 23, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Although the conversation about small trains has focused on the City, the trains I really had issues with were the western and eastern trains during the busier season. Of course with the worst economy in many years things are lighter than they were which would open more spaces without question. I just know when we attempted to plan a trip on the empire builder a couple years back it took quite some doing four months out to get a round trip that had the available bedrooms and roomettes we needed without it being the most expensive bucket. And I think we ended up with that as well due to space problems on return. Same on the Zephyr and Chief, very difficult to work around when a set of rooms were available and that was way in advance. So I don't buy your opinions that there is no need for additional equipment on many runs especially at holiday and summer seasons. And yes the major railroads added cars to what were already fairly long consist during Christmas and summer.


I never said Amtrak didn't need more gear... so that's out of left field. Nobody here is abdicating that Amtrak doesn't need more sleepers-- I really have no idea where you think any of us thinks they don't need more sleepers. The fact if the matter is that there are very few spare cars in the fleet and they won't magically appear. We can't change that, you can't change that. Amtrak does what it can and you know as soon as Congress came up with a pro-Amtrak budget they jumped on the chance to order more Viewliner sleepers.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 24, 2009)

Were talking past each other here! I agree with your opinion that we need new and more cars. That is all I have advocated from the start of this conversation. I also recognized that Amtrak has had poor funding which limited its equipment. That doesn't mean that the premise of running trains that need extra cars in the seasons where that would boost revenues if incorrect or faulty. I think we both agree on that.

Where I and some others here probably have issues is with the whole premise that the Government agreed to run the trains and let the railroads off the hook. For those of us who were around pre Amtrak it has been a rather steep decline in routes, services and equipment. That is what I am saying. Its sort of the whole philosophy our congress people have taken is often so negative towards rail that they have starved the routes and equipment which of course has made rail travel much more inconvenient for many. Its sort of the old "You can't get there from here" saying. Or if you do it might take you two days and a hotel room out of your way. Not exactly encouraging to people considering rail travel.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 24, 2009)

well with all due respect amtrak doesn't have any extra cars to add. why you ask well it takes money to refurbish cars. money amtrak didn't have untill now. so if you got a problem with that take it up with congress.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 24, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Your totally missing the point. I am talking in general and in normal travel times which this economy is not. Do you not recall the massive crowds at stations and on board about a year ago when gas hit 4.00?


It's "you're" not "your", and it's equally laughable that you think that last year when gas prices spiked were "normal travel times".

Yes, of course it would be great if Amtrak had longer trains on more routes. Instead of blaming the government for this through, try blaming the people that quit riding trains that make Amtrak a necessity, and then the people that continue to elect representation that's hostile to rail. If this were truly important to most people, you'd bet that Amtrak would be getting what we would consider to be sufficient funding.

You're also erroneously seeming to focus on sleepers and the price of them being what you deem affordable. The point is for the transport to be there, not necessarily at the comfort level and price that you seem to think is necessary.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 24, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> well with all due respect amtrak doesn't have any extra cars to add. why you ask well it takes money to refurbish cars. money amtrak didn't have untill now. so if you got a problem with that take it up with congress.


Gosh, sometimes I wonder if people really read these post or just see what they want.. In the previous post I say that amtrak has not had the funding to obtain equipment. I also write fairly regularly Sen. Durbin who is our state senator.


----------

