"Amtrak phases out overhauls at Indiana shop"?

[D.P. Roberts]

Not being a subscriber, I wasn't able to access this article at the Trains website from 4/25. Does this mean the end of Superliner refurbishments (which I thought was already over, pending new funds), or canceling the PPC car refurbishments, or what?

 

[AlanB]

No, not at all.

Amtrak is changing how they handle overhauls to the P42 fleet. Here's the relevant part of the article.

Beginning in early April, Amtrak began phasing out complete locomotive overhauls and wheel shop operations at its Beech Grove Heavy Maintenance Facility. The move comes as an extension of its consolidation at Chicago of all scheduled P42 diesel locomotive preventive maintenance [see May 2008 "News"].

Also workers affected by this change are being given the chance to relocate to either Chicago or Deleware, depending on their specialty. So overall no jobs are being lost at Amtrak.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

Thanks. I think I'm going to have to cave in and get a subscription to Trains, just to get the news.

 

[daniel3197]

Thanks. I think I'm going to have to cave in and get a subscription to Trains, just to get the news.

Very Sadly here is a posting off of the excellent Yahoo Group "All Aboard" back on April 8, 2008.

I fear that this new DANGEROUS policy could easily be FATAL to many Amtrak passengers with any locomotive breakdown.

You do need locomotive power for such passenger comfort essentials as Summer A/C COOLING and Winter HEATING.

This certainly sounds like it is a new LOW for Amtrak.

Here is that posting off of "All Aboard" list from 4-8-08:

----Daniel

************************************************

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/All_.../message/164802

by user "Ralph Baker"

On Thursday the third of April 2008, Vince Nesci, Chief

Mechanical Officer for Amtrak, came to the Beech Grove Maintenance

Facility to announce that Amtrak would no longer be doing locomotive

overhauls in the Beech Grove Locomotive Shop. He basically said

that because the Presidents Emergency Board decision went against

Amtrak, in favor of the unions, that Amtrak could no longer afford to

overhaul locomotives here at Beech Grove.

For those of you who have not seen the History Channel's Bone-

yard Series, the Beech Grove Locomotive Shop has been the only place

Amtrak has updated, modified and overhauled their locomotives for the

long distance train service in the last 28 years. Prior to that they

were having outside vendors do the overhauls and because of

dissatisfaction with the work being done, Amtrak felt it necessary to

start doing their own locomotive overhauls in 1982. Since one of the

buildings at the Beech Grove Facility was originally designed, just

to do locomotive overhauls, it was the perfect spot for Amtrak to

start a locomotive shop.

As Mr. Nesci put it, Amtrak has been overhauling their

locomotives for the long distance trains, excessively, doing

overhauls just because the locomotive had reached a certain mileage

criteria. And now the corporation does not think that it was

necessary to overhaul locomotives in that fashion anymore. Instead

the new criteria will be based on fixed estimates provide by GE of

when certain components in a locomotive are at the end of their

usable life. The biggest problem with this, is that those estimates

are of the best case scenario. Obviously no manufacture is going to

put out estimates of the useable life of their products based on the

worst case scenario. Their competitors would eat them alive.

Since Amtrak will not need to do overhauls on it long

distance train locomotives, but only replace parts on this

predetermined schedule, it no longer needs a overhaul shop at Beech

Grove, nor most of the people who work there. Also there was a

conversation about closing our wheel shop, because it is of excess

capacity. Problem with that statement, is that the wheel shop runs

two shifts and even with considerable overtime, it often can barely

keep up with demand.

So what does this mean for the average Amtrak long distance

train passenger. What it may mean, is that when Amtrak stops doing

these overhauls, the age of the locomotive components will increase

to where failures are more likely to occur. Since nearly every

engine component on a locomotive is critical to the function of that

engine, any engine component failure, be it a water pump or a turbo

charger will effect a shutdown by the onboard computers controlling

that locomotive, no matter where the train might be, or how critical

the service is that it might be performing. Since GE locomotives

depend on one engine to provide both tractive effort (pulling the

train) and head end power for the train functions, (heat, air-

conditioning,refrigeration-waste management), the shutdown of the

engine will in effect shut down every device on the train, except

emergency lighting.

Now imagine that you as an Amtrak passenger, are riding a

train in the middle of winter, through the mountains and suddenly the

train stops, all the heat and most of the lights go out. Next you

wait and wait, because obviously you are not going anywhere in the

deep snow. In the mean time Amtrak has to purchase freight

locomotive power from the nearest location. That power and crew use

to be thousand dollars a day, I am sure it's more then that now.

Also unless they are lucky and a road crew just happens to be

available, a road crew will have to be called in, a locomotive will

have to be readied, fueled, sand added to the sand boxes for traction

and then that locomotive has to make it's way to the disabled Amtrak

train. In the meantime you sit there getting colder and more

frustrated by the minute. Why wasn't Amtrak prepared for this? Why

didn't Amtrak run better locomotives on this train. Could it be,

because they are not overhauling locomotives anymore. Who knows?

In the meantime the freight locomotive has arrived and

coupled to the front the of the lead Amtrak locomotive. However

since freight locomotives do not come equipped with head end power,

nothing has change in the cars except now they are moving

again, "Finally." No heat or lights for you to use, and probably no

toilets either. Finally you arrive at a populated area, where you

can disembark from that cold dark train and try to find some warmth

and a few of the other creature comforts that we humans often take

for granted.

So now you warm again and you think, this was a terrible

trip, what can I do about this. Well you can chose to drive, but

that's a lot of work, all that constant attention to the wheel. Or

you can fly, but again with all the security measures and the

upheaval in the airline business, flying can be no picnic. Or you

can take the train, "Again." However if you do so, you might want to

think about writing your U.S. Congressman or Senator and complaining

about the fact that Amtrak did not provide the service you expected

and that maybe if Amtrak had a little more funding, they could

overhaul those locomotives or even buy a few new ones. Then just

maybe the next time you trip on Amtrak will not only be successful

but enjoyable as well.

No matter what state you are in, I hope you will chose the last

alternative.

Ralph H. Baker

 

[daniel3197]

Here is that Trains Mag News item about the drastic change in policy regarding Amtrak locomotive overhauls.

This was posted to the Yahoo "All Aboard" group on friday APril 25, 2008:

--- Daniel

*****************************************************

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/All_.../message/165531

 

[PRR 60]

Wow, some people are not very receptive to change. I, for one, am happy to see Amtrak arriving in the 21st Century. This is the same maintenance plan instituted for Acela and it has been very successful. Train availability is up and cost is down.

I hope the passenger fatalities are minimal.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

The proof as to who was correct will come as statistical data emerges over time on failures to P42s after the change vs failure rates before the change.

 

[had8ley]

Having worked on Alco's, Ge's and EMD's I saw this happen more than once on freight RR's. Our RR moved maintinence from New Orleans to Little Rock. It wasn't six months before they couldn't find an engine that would run so that they could couple up the Bad Orders to ship off to Little Rock.

 

[yarrow]

from a passenger point of view, from someone who knows nothing about locomotives and their maintenence, this change in maintenence schedules sounds unwise. my understanding is that most amtrak equipment is quite old. preventive maintenence makes sense. i am sure that costs money but for once amtrak should look at long term over short term gain.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Check out The Savvy Aviator, in particular columns 47, 48, and 49. If it's being done right, Amtrak's new maintenance strategy may increase reliability while reducing costs.

If being without HEP for several hours is considered life-threatening, then carrying a second HEP source on the long distance trains needs to augment any maintenance program, no matter how good it is.

 

[AlanB]

from a passenger point of view, from someone who knows nothing about locomotives and their maintenence, this change in maintenence schedules sounds unwise. my understanding is that most amtrak equipment is quite old. preventive maintenence makes sense. i am sure that costs money but for once amtrak should look at long term over short term gain.

Much of the passenger car fleet may qualify as "quite old", but that is certainly not true of the P42 fleet. Half of the fleet isn't hasn't even reached it's 10th birthday, the other half just celebrated its 10th.

And again, they aren't cutting the maintance out. Just changing how, where, and when it's done. They are instituting the program that has proved so successful on Acela's power cars, that they now get more equipment on the road each day and therefore can run more Acela's each day.

It's also important to note that Amtrak isn't just laying off workers either, those whose jobs are moving to new places are being offered a transfer to that new location, with assistance by Amtrak for the move.

So it hardly seems like a bad thing IMHO that Amtrak is making these changes.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Are the workers going to end up being in a different union as a result of this move?

 

[AlanB]

Are the workers going to end up being in a different union as a result of this move?

I wouldn't think so, they're still doing basically the same jobs, assuming that they move. Depending on just how the union is organized for Amtrak, they might end up in a different local, but they should remain in the same union.

Perhaps if they don't wish to leave Indiana and find work in a different craft at BG they might end up being in a different union.

 

[Mark]

from a passenger point of view, from someone who knows nothing about locomotives and their maintenence, this change in maintenence schedules sounds unwise. my understanding is that most amtrak equipment is quite old. preventive maintenence makes sense. i am sure that costs money but for once amtrak should look at long term over short term gain.

Much of the passenger car fleet may qualify as "quite old", but that is certainly not true of the P42 fleet. Half of the fleet isn't hasn't even reached it's 10th birthday, the other half just celebrated its 10th.

And again, they aren't cutting the maintance out. Just changing how, where, and when it's done. They are instituting the program that has proved so successful on Acela's power cars, that they now get more equipment on the road each day and therefore can run more Acela's each day.

It's also important to note that Amtrak isn't just laying off workers either, those whose jobs are moving to new places are being offered a transfer to that new location, with assistance by Amtrak for the move.

So it hardly seems like a bad thing IMHO that Amtrak is making these changes.

I believe the program is called 'reliability centered maintenance' and its much more than just GE's best case prediction on when parts give out. From what I understand part of the process is reviewing all the failures from traction motors to door hinges and then replace them before they break based on data gathered over a period of time, (hopefully years). It is also used by some of our armed forces- I believe the Navy in particular.

Time will tell. The difference here is that there is not as much distance without 'Amtrak help' should an Acela, (or other Amtrak train), go down on the NEC. Out west they'll have to rely on the freights. I hope it works. I think it can work if it is done properly. I don't know why the PEB going against Amtrak should have any bearing on this program, they mentioned it in Amtrak Ink months before contract negotiations began to firm up if I recall correctly.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I believe the program is called 'reliability centered maintenance' and its much more than just GE's best case prediction on when parts give out. From what I understand part of the process is reviewing all the failures from traction motors to door hinges and then replace them before they break based on data gathered over a period of time, (hopefully years). It is also used by some of our armed forces- I believe the Navy in particular.

If you follow the link to the Savvy Aviator columns I posted above, there's a discussion of how a lot of what reliability centered maintenance is about is noticing that many parts basically don't wear out, and in some cases have high infant mortality rates, such that, at least on airplanes, for most parts it is actually most reliable to not replace the part unless it should happen to break.

(I found myself wondering for a second how you tow an Acela trainset that lacks standard couplers if it breaks, and then was reminded that they have two power cars, although there's probably still some possible failure mode where the communications path between the engineer and the engine fails. And I guess I don't know for sure that they didn't put standard couplers on the normally not coupled end of each power car.)

 

[Green Maned Lion]

IIRC, the Acela has couplers that are covered, and the cover can be removed for towing.

 

[AlanB]

IIRC, the Acela has couplers that are covered, and the cover can be removed for towing.

You recall correctly, GML. The nose cone on each power car lifts to reveal a standard coupler so as to allow a trainset to be towed in an emergency/problem situation. In fact I once saw an Acela set that had just been uncoupled from a MN diesel engine, since the Acela had lost at least one pantograph, if not both, and pulled down the wires too. It was rather interesting to see something so sleek and modern (the pride of Amtrak's fleet) being towed by a tired old FL9 in faded New Haven livery.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Ah, yes, the possibility of pulling down the wires explains why those couplers are necessary.

 

[sechs]

Not a great look for them....

 

[Green Maned Lion]

IIRC, the Acela has couplers that are covered, and the cover can be removed for towing.

You recall correctly, GML. The nose cone on each power car lifts to reveal a standard coupler so as to allow a trainset to be towed in an emergency/problem situation. In fact I once saw an Acela set that had just been uncoupled from a MN diesel engine, since the Acela had lost at least one pantograph, if not both, and pulled down the wires too. It was rather interesting to see something so sleek and modern (the pride of Amtrak's fleet) being towed by a tired old FL9 in faded New Haven livery.

Personally, I'd think it a cosmetic improvement. The Acela has nothing on an F series.

 

[transit54]

Personally, I'd think it a cosmetic improvement. The Acela has nothing on an F series.

Different style, I'd argue. I think an F series would look horrible pulling a high speed passenger train. Yet when Metro North occasionally pulls one out to pull a train up the Danbury branch, it looks absolutely beautiful. Different context, different design necessary. I think F units look fantastic (particularly in the NH livery), but everything has its place.

I think the Acela looks great for a modern passenger trainset. In fact, I hope that's the direction that the rest of the fleet is going, once someone actually finds the money to buy some new equipment. The "corrugated metal" look is definitely out in the world of passenger rail. It's all about the smooth finish like the Acela, or NJ Transit's new bilevels.

 

[daniel3197]

Thank you all for the input.

I did not realize that this is new policy does not necessarily signal the end of the world for Amtrak.

That posting from the "All Aboard" list certainly made it sound like the end of the world.

The writer of that piece did certainly sound like a well informed source to me.

I still think that for redundancy it would be far better to have separate generators on each passenger car.

It just seems like centralizing the very basic power for heating and cooling on the locomotive may not be the best thing.

That is just my feeling on this topic however.

I really would love for my worries to be proven to be groundless.

Thank you again for this interesting discussion!

--- Daniel

 

[AlanB]

Mind you, I still love this shot that I took at a Try Transit event in Delaware several years ago. Talk about a culture clash!

Now granted the little steam engine wasn't pulling the Acela, but I'd bet money that the guys who designed and built that little steamer never would have envisioned the train sitting next to their creation.

 

[AlanB]

The writer of that piece did certainly sound like a well informed source to me.

He may well be an informed source, who got caught up in the Amtrak grapevine. Stories often have a way of getting blown out of proportion as they get retold. Or it could have been given to him by someone who doesn't want to move, and therefore is going to loose his/her job. It could also be that people tend to fear change and think it bad no matter what, so this could be the reasoning behind the story. We may never know the full truth behind it, but I do think it safe to say that this will be good for Amtrak overall.

It has certainly improved the reliablity of the Acela trainsets. Now granted they do operate in a more confined environment, but again it is working for them. Amtrak is now getting more trainsets on the road each day than they were when they were doing things the "old" way. And anything that increases reliability, availability, and revenue, is always a good thing in my book.

I still think that for redundancy it would be far better to have separate generators on each passenger car.It just seems like centralizing the very basic power for heating and cooling on the locomotive may not be the best thing.

But now you need a fuel powered generator in each car. That means more noise, more fuel, more danger to the passengers, and more part to fix and replace. And what happens if one car's generator goes out? Will the other car have enough power to help cover?

Personally what I'd like to see more of is the F59PHI style of providing HEP. Those engines have a seperate, smaller diesel that provides the HEP to the train. This way if the prime mover fails, power is still maintained in the cars, even if the train isn't going anywhere. And if the HEP engine dies, they can draw power off of the prime mover to keep hotel power on in the cars, even though it will decrease performance of the engine.

 

[transit54]

Personally what I'd like to see more of is the F59PHI style of providing HEP. Those engines have a seperate, smaller diesel that provides the HEP to the train. This way if the prime mover fails, power is still maintained in the cars, even if the train isn't going anywhere. And if the HEP engine dies, they can draw power off of the prime mover to keep hotel power on in the cars, even though it will decrease performance of the engine.

Huh, I was always under the impression that the engine that provided the HEP was always separate, so as not to require the prime mover to idle at a higher rate than normal when the train wasn't moving (or some sort of similar reasoning). Am I wrong about this? While we're on this topic, am I correct in understanding that the P32s are the only units that can use current from dynamic breaking to reduce the load on the HEP generator? And, one final question: I was reviewing the latest copy of Amtrak Ink and there an article on how increased use of dynamic breaking is saving Amtrak fuel. I understand using dynamics reduces wear on the equipment's brakes, but how does it save fuel?