Emp Serv to GCT, LSL NYP Suspended, Other NYP Changes 2018

[AmtrakBlue]

I believe thirdrail said shortly after memorial day.

And he said they’re still working out the details.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Thirdrail7]

Have observed some AM-2s with push pull capability and others not.

I'd be interested in seeing an Amtrak train that was operating push pull with an AM-2 in the consist. This doesn't mean a train with an engine on each end of the train in pull-pull operation (like some of the ALB trains). I'd like to say a train with an AM-2 in the consist in push pull operation because I don't recall ever seeing one. Can you link me?

 

[cpotisch]

Have observed some AM-2s with push pull capability and others not.

I'd be interested in seeing an Amtrak train that was operating push pull with an AM-2 in the consist. This doesn't mean a train with an engine on each end of the train in pull-pull operation (like some of the ALB trains). I'd like to say a train with an AM-2 in the consist in push pull operation because I don't recall ever seeing one. Can you link me?

Obviously they'd have to modify the car for it to be a proper push-pull train. That said, would it be possible to stick a locomotive on each end, and run them independently? So you wouldn't have the front engine running the rear engine, the rear would just effectively be deadheading? Or would that be incredibly inefficient or damage the locomotive or something?

 

[jis]

Have observed some AM-2s with push pull capability and others not.

I'd be interested in seeing an Amtrak train that was operating push pull with an AM-2 in the consist. This doesn't mean a train with an engine on each end of the train in pull-pull operation (like some of the ALB trains). I'd like to say a train with an AM-2 in the consist in push pull operation because I don't recall ever seeing one. Can you link me?

Obviously they'd have to modify the car for it to be a proper push-pull train. That said, would it be possible to stick a locomotive on each end, and run them independently? So you wouldn't have the front engine running the rear engine, the rear would just effectively be deadheading? Or would that be incredibly inefficient or damage the locomotive or something?

That should work just fine.

 

[PVD]

Basically, for trains to operate push/pull, you need to extend the control signal cables from one end to the other which involves connectors at each car end as well as cable/wiring the length of each car. To the best of my knowledge this was not done on the AM-2 series. A locomotive at each end is fine as JIS indicates, you can deadhead the back. Only one will be supplying HEP. A while back, one of the California services (Metrolink maybe) borrowed freight locos to place at one end while concerns with cab car safety were addressed. Those cars were designed for push pull, I only mention it because the HEP had to come from the passenger unit. So yes, you could do it, but where would the spare locos come from?

 

[Thirdrail7]

Have observed some AM-2s with push pull capability and others not.

I'd be interested in seeing an Amtrak train that was operating push pull with an AM-2 in the consist. This doesn't mean a train with an engine on each end of the train in pull-pull operation (like some of the ALB trains). I'd like to say a train with an AM-2 in the consist in push pull operation because I don't recall ever seeing one. Can you link me?

Obviously they'd have to modify the car for it to be a proper push-pull train. That said, would it be possible to stick a locomotive on each end, and run them independently? So you wouldn't have the front engine running the rear engine, the rear would just effectively be deadheading? Or would that be incredibly inefficient or damage the locomotive or something?

That should work just fine.

. Without communications between the engines, there is no way to monitor what is happening and this because a major issue when it comes to axle fault detection. So, if you do it this way versus the PVD explained, you'll need to man the extra engine...which is why it is avoided when possible.

 

[jis]

You’d have to staff both engines [emoji51]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[PVD]

Which we (hopefully) all agree is neither practical from an available equipment or manpower standpoint at any reasonable cost. Like a typical conversation with senior management before I retired "no sir, I'm not giving you an excuse why we can't do that, but I've got a bunch of good reasons why we shouldn't"

 

[west point]

Source of some AM-2s having the pass thru loco control was several days observing Silver service in Orlando. Granted only the car control cable was connected. All the V-1 sleepers and V-2 diners had the connectors for the loco control. As well the AM-1 lounges did as well except on one out of 8 observed. Then the AM-2 coaches some had the connectors others did not. Maybe being installed during level 2 overhauls ?

Then maybe we did not know what we were observing ?

 

[cpotisch]

Yeah, so the only point of having independent locomotives at each end would be to avoid wying, at the cost of half the horsepower and twice the crew running them. Easier to modify the AM-IIs one time and have smooth sailing from there on out.

 

[PVD]

When you see a LD train running with 2 units, they are almost always together, either elephant style or back to back, set up for MU control, both units can run, one or both for traction, one for HEP. This eliminates the need for the train to be wired for push pull wiring, and the second crew. It does not allow for eliminating looping or wyeing. I'm not sure this is really a big issue in the running of the SL LD trains, I'm sure someone else will fill us in if it is.

 

[Thirdrail7]

While I suspect connecting service at WAS is off the table, I am interested in seeing how they will accommodate the passengers with existing reservations.

When using "Modify Trip" for my pre-existing reservation (not rezzy) on the Cardinal from CHI to BAL the following was displayed: "A portion of your trip has been canceled. For Assistance, contact an Amtrak representative at 1-800-USA-RAIL (800-872-7245) for assistance."

I've not yet called, but an Arrow query just now shows the WAS to BAL portion of the Cardinal trip replaced with NER #66 arriving BAL at 10:52pm instead of the Cardinal's original 7:16pm. Too late for this old coot, so I'll cancel and fly instead.

I guess someone was feeling your pain and decided they were feeling optimistic about 50's OTP. The connecting train to 50 (615pm arrival) has been changed from 66 (10:15p) to 90 (8:30p). That's a little tight for my liking, particularly when it comes to transferring luggage and passengers. When CSX starts implementing the heat restrictions, this may delay 90, which is another long distance train that is already combined with a corridor train.

Information has changed. There are now connections to corridor services, with the exception of 51 on Sundays. There doesn't seem to be a connection, probably because 65 is the only train that arrives in time to intercept.

Update on altered Cardinal ticketing: Since I found out by non Amtrak means about this train being cut back to Washington, thus altering my Philadelphia to Chicago ticket for May 16, the discussion with the agent a few days ago amounted to being told to call back, as it was not known how this would be handled. Last night I saw that the connecting Corridor train is #111, leaving PHL at 7:01am instead of 8:15 on the Cardinal. I did manage to get a nice agent, Sheila, promptly on the phone just now and my friend and I are now ticketed on #111 in Business Class. While I would hav e preferred the original way, I can live with this. When I first read in these threads about the Empire Service West Side Line being closed, I wondered what this would have to do with the Cardinal. OK, so they are performing more track work in Penn Station, New York, which I am well aware tends to be a zoo. But the westbound 51 departs at 6:45am and the return trip arrives late in the evening, so I am puzzled over why they chose to omit this train and cut it back to DC. Please enlighten me, New York experts.

I guess someone took a good look at this whole scenario and decided they wanted consistency. To assist with the lack of a Sunday connection, it was decided that the connecting train to 51 is 89. I mean, its not like 89 doesn't already carry NEC commuters (off the cancelled 181) and luggage for its own long distance passengers. Let's stuff 50's connecting passengers in there as well...and let them make New Brunswick and Princeton Junction while we're at it. We can finally tap the lucrative Rutgers University and Princeton University to University of Virginia in Charlottesville market!!

Let the good times roll!!

 

[cpotisch]

I guess someone was feeling your pain and decided they were feeling optimistic about 50's OTP. The connecting train to 50 has been changed from 66 to 90. That's a little tight for my liking, particularly when it comes to transferring luggage and passengers. When CSX starts implementing the heat restrictions, this may delay 90, which is another long distance train that is already combined with a corridor train.

The Palmetto is combined with a corridor train? Which one (or are you just talking about those NYP-WAS coaches)?

 

[Thirdrail7]

Then maybe we did not know what we were observing ?

Probably.

 

[Thirdrail7]

I guess someone was feeling your pain and decided they were feeling optimistic about 50's OTP. The connecting train to 50 has been changed from 66 to 90. That's a little tight for my liking, particularly when it comes to transferring luggage and passengers. When CSX starts implementing the heat restrictions, this may delay 90, which is another long distance train that is already combined with a corridor train.

The Palmetto is combined with a corridor train? Which one (or are you just talking about those NYP-WAS coaches)?

Here. This is what I mean: Amtrak replacing 2 northeast regional trains with Palmetto??

 

[Anderson]

Yeah...if I'm not mistaken, when the "toaster pop" happens at WAS, I think 89/90 drop/add some coaches in DC.

 

[west point]

This Palmetto substitution has happened before. Northbound no problem as diesels detach at WASH and ACS-64 backs onto train with as many AM-1 coaches needed. South bound due to CAT limitations max electric + 2 coaches. However Palmetto has had more coaches attached to rear that are dropped.

 

[Thirdrail7]

This Palmetto substitution has happened before. Northbound no problem as diesels detach at WASH and ACS-64 backs onto train with as many AM-1 coaches needed. South bound due to CAT limitations max electric + 2 coaches. However Palmetto has had more coaches attached to rear that are dropped.

Actually, they typically used 79, the Carolinian for the Cardinal's connection. Additionally, WTC can cut 4 cars and an engine off the head end.

You've been on quite the roll as of late buddy. You might want to regroup and dream it up again before you make any more posts (your spillway explanation not withstanding, of course!)

 

[Thirdrail7]

Yeah...if I'm not mistaken, when the "toaster pop" happens at WAS, I think 89/90 drop/add some coaches in DC.

This is why I'm not a fan. You're setting yourself up for failure. Sure, some people will look and say "I'm not waiting 3 hours for a connection. I'll find another mode of transportation." However, I'd rather passengers make that sort of decision than to have false hope of making a connection to an earlier train. In other words, the wait to 66 may be long but you'll likely make that schedule. If you promise them 90 and they miss it, that is bad all around. How long do you intend to delay 90 waiting for 50's transfers? How many corridor passengers will turn their nose up if this train (which is typically late anyway) becomes later?

Additionally, 66 is a small train. What happens if it is sold out. Where will you squeeze 50's passengers?

If anything, I would have preferred advertising 66 and if 50 happens to be on time, accommodating them on 90.

 

[cpotisch]

If I'm making a connection, I generally try for at least a four hour layover, since that gives me time to leave the station and see the sites, get a bite to eat, etc. A two or three hour layover is somewhat the worst of both worlds, since it's generally not enough time to see the sites, but is long enough to make the wait in the station miserable.

 

[PVD]

I agree that it is way better to have time to get out and "explore". But probably not a factor at that hour around WUS

 

[Seaboard92]

At that hour there is nothing to do in DC. Once the government closes for the day most of the sidewalks are empty. Unless you go to Georgetown

 

[PVD]

Not as bad as before, a few decent bars and restaurants walking distance to station, some stuff around the arena, but not my choice of cities to walk around at night

 

[sitzplatz17]

Actually, there’s quite a bit to do around Union Station in the evenings now. The H street NE area has a free streetcar from Union Station that runs until at least midnight on weekdays and there’s countless bars and restaurants that are open to at least 10pm on weeknights, MUCH later on weekends.

As for PVDs comments about safety, that’s completely laughable. While the area might have been somewhat concerning a couple years ago, it’s a vibrant, safe neighborhood. Just keep your usual “city wits” about you and you’ll be fine.

If you need a guide, DM me and I can give you some tips about my neighborhood.

Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum

 

[Ryan]

^^^ Nailed it. DC is awesome at night, provided you possess an ounce of common sense.