2019 NJ Chamber of Commerce Special

[Thirdrail7]

Here is a video of the 14 car,  2019 NJ Chamber of Commerce special. I remember when this ran with 20 cars.  It has been as low as 12 cars so I guess it is good to see it up to 14.

 

[Acela150]

Caught it at Prospect Park on Thursday going to DC. 

 

[Acela150]

Photographic evidence of the train bypassing the Prospect Park station or "MOORE" according to Amtrak. 

Train #855 passing under the "94" Signal Bridge. This signal southbound is the distant signal to "BALDWIN" interlocking. 



Train #855 leans into the Super-elevated curve at MOORE.

 

[jis]

Does 14 cars really require two ACS-64s? Or was it just insurance in case one crapped out? Just wondering.

 

[cpotisch]

Does 14 cars really require two ACS-64s? Or was it just insurance in case one crapped out? Just wondering.

Correct. A single ACS-64 can handle up to 18 cars.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Does 14 cars really require two ACS-64s? Or was it just insurance in case one crapped out? Just wondering.

642 needs protection from foamers .

 

[Thirdrail7]

Correct. A single ACS-64 can handle up to 18 cars.

It can handle 18 AMFLEETS. That is an important distinction.

 

[cpotisch]

It can handle 18 AMFLEETS. That is an important distinction.

Like as opposed to Superliners?

 

[Thirdrail7]

Like as opposed to Superliners?

And Heritage cars, and  power sucking dining cars, or Herzog cars, CAT Cars.........

 

[cpotisch]

And Heritage cars, and  power sucking dining cars, or Herzog cars, CAT Cars.........

Fine, but I think the context should be self evident. This is a train of 14 Amfleets, and when Jis had asked "Does 14 cars really require two ACS-64s?", I responded that an ACS can handle 18 cars. Has the Chamber of Commerce Special run on recent years with anything but Amfleets?

 

[Thirdrail7]

Define recent years. I kind of remember them running with NJTransit  COMET cars and I DO remember them tacking on a Horizon car here and there.  I also remember a MARC car, but the years have started to blur together.

Additionally, while an ACS-64 is RATED for 18 cars, can 1 ACS-64 maintain the SCHEDULE for this train with 14 cars?

Having seen the schedule, I'm not sure the answer to that is yes. You can definitely maintain it with two though.  I also remember the train operating with 1 HHP-8, since they were rated for 18 cars as well.  The train couldn't maintain the schedule, particularly with it sprinting from station to station in NJ.

So, I will say 'to maintain the schedule in all conditions (like in case it rains or snows),"  two ACS-64s are needed.

 

[Thirdrail7]

This is a train of 14 Amfleets, and when Jis had asked "Does 14 cars really require two ACS-64s?", I responded that an ACS can handle 18 cars. Has the Chamber of Commerce Special run on recent years with anything but Amfleets?

Define recent years. I kind of remember them running with NJTransit  COMET cars and I DO remember them tacking on a Horizon car here and there.  I also remember a MARC car, but the years have started to blur together.

Additionally, while an ACS-64 is RATED for 18 cars, can 1 ACS-64 maintain the SCHEDULE for this train with 14 cars?

Having seen the schedule, I'm not sure the answer to that is yes. You can definitely maintain it with two though.  I also remember the train operating with 1 HHP-8, since they were rated for 18 cars as well.  The train couldn't maintain the schedule, particularly with it sprinting from station to station in NJ.

So, I will say 'to maintain the schedule in all conditions (like in case it rains or snows),"  two ACS-64s are planned since I can say with certainty; 1 ACS-64 in inclement weather would not maintain the schedule.

 

[jis]

That is the answer I was looking form My wondering is now over. Thanks.

A side question, is the problem tractive effort at the wheel rail interface or is it shortage of horsepower? Would a hypothetical Co-Co make any difference?

 

[Thirdrail7]

That is the answer I was looking form My wondering is now over. Thanks.

A side question, is the problem tractive effort at the wheel rail interface or is it shortage of horsepower? Would a hypothetical Co-Co make any difference?

I don't have the scientific, accurately defined reason for it. I will however, tell you what I refer to as.

I call it the Tyrannosaurus Rex syndrome TM pending.

Not unlike the powerful T Rex, The ACS-64 is this powerful engine. It has tons of power at its disposal...and just like the T Rex, with its puny little arms flailing uselessly about, The ACS-64 has puny little wheels, flailing around, trying to absorb all of that power. On nice dry rail, they dig right in there. On slippery rail, they definitely behave better than the HHP-8s. However, they are no match for the AEM-7AC and its monster wheels, which would take the power and run with it.  (The DCs would attempt to run, slide and you'd have a speed pick up fault, which would disabled the affected traction motor). They tend to slide and attempt to correct itself. With  a small train  like a Keystone, it will compensate and barely loose time. With a heavier regional (think 94) that makes multiple stops, this will impact the schedule.

They also don't carry a lot of sand, so it can run out quite easily. This doesn't help the cause.

So, there you have it. Tyrannosaurus Rex syndrome TM pending.    Formula= Lots or power,+tiny wheels+limited sand capacity=wheel slip potential. Add inclement weather= wheel slip and schedule loss.

 

[jis]

That pretty much jibes with what I have heard from an acquaintance of mine at RDSO (Research Design and Standards Organization) of Indian Railways. You see, when they went looking for 3 phase AC motor electric engines, under advice from Bombardier, India acquired TRAXX platform based Bo-Bo units (Class WAP-5) for passenger service and Co-Co units (class WAG-9) for freight service, both of more or less equivalent HP. After trying things out they came to the conclusion that the Bo-Bos were not suitable for use with the typical long LD trains (20 or more cars, each 65'-75' long) that they operate. So as a lark they re-geared a freight Co-Co and tried it out with a long passenger train. It performed so much better than the Bo-Bo, simply for having additional traction points on the rail apparently, that a new class of engine was born (class WAP-7), and they are now the passenger work horse on IR. After some significant tinkering around with the trucks and suspension and dampers, they have been tested upto 180kph and are cleared for 160kph (100mph), track and signaling system permitting of course - and in addition fences permitting. The safety outfit that governs IR insists that any track where trains operate faster than 140kph must be fenced or something like that (don't know the exact details).