Longer Lynchburger

[Nathanael]

Nice to see this out. I'm going to have to ask what the $103m for "Phase I-Lynchburg Service" is for (i.e. if that's an old expenditure that never got revised out or if it's a future expenditure related to the service that started a few years ago). The "Extension to Roanoke" bit is oddly expensive compared to either the Bristol or Richmond connections; I'm guessing there's some mess of a connecting track involved.

IIRC, Roanoake is, roughly speaking, on a branch line -- more specifically, it's on a line maintained to a lower standard (for freight purposes) than the main Charlotte-to-Lynchburg line, which runs via Danville. Accordingly there's more trackwork involved than there was for the Lynchburg extension.

 

[Nathanael]

When the FY2014 proposed 6 year spending plan comes out, reflecting the additional funds for passenger rail, I expect that the Roanoke service extension will be at the top of the list ahead of a 2nd train to Lynchburg.

It would be a really poor idea if the train from Lynchburg is reliably full. (It was noted that it may only be full on certain days of the week, however.)

 

[afigg]

Nice to see this out. I'm going to have to ask what the $103m for "Phase I-Lynchburg Service" is for (i.e. if that's an old expenditure that never got revised out or if it's a future expenditure related to the service that started a few years ago). The "Extension to Roanoke" bit is oddly expensive compared to either the Bristol or Richmond connections; I'm guessing there's some mess of a connecting track involved.

IIRC, Roanoke is, roughly speaking, on a branch line -- more specifically, it's on a line maintained to a lower standard (for freight purposes) than the main Charlotte-to-Lynchburg line, which runs via Danville. Accordingly there's more trackwork involved than there was for the Lynchburg extension.

The 2002 study covers the Roanoke to Lynchburg tracks and timetables in detail, which probably has not changed much since 2002. The Lynchburg Kinney Yard to Roanoke line is 48.7 miles with 55% single track and 45% double track. The upgrade recommendations in the 2002 report include a second connecting track at Kinney Yard, a second main track extension, a siding extension, a second main track through Roanoke terminal and a bunch of grade crossing upgrades. If NS traffic has increased since 2002, NS may be requiring more double tracking and other upgrades beyond what was in the 2002 study.

The proposed revised timetable in the 2002 study. after the upgrades, shows a mix of 50 to 70 mph max passenger speeds with not many miles at 65 or 70 mph. The Roanoke to Bristol timetable, even after upgrades, is dominated by 35, 40, 50 mph speeds with a few 60 to 70 mph segments, Hence the slow 3:45 to 4 hour trip time from Bristol to Roanoke, which it not going to help ridership south of Christianburg. A regional to Roanoke may return a small surplus over operating cost. Not so if the train is extended to Bristol. Providing service to SW VA is a worthy goal, but upgrades for the tracks to Lynchburg, Norfolk, Richmond, NPN, for VRE are more productive in the next decade.

The study also covers upgrades for the Lynchburg to Richmond line, but I don't see that happening for many years.

 

[afigg]

There is a viewgraph presentation at the April 17 VA CTB meeting (meeting page) on starting the engineering and environmentally work for extending passenger service to Roanoke. The viewgraph set of interest is "Engineering and Environmental Work for Downtown Roanoke Passenger Rail Service Briefing".BTW, the Roanoke Valley Area planning viewgraphs has a slide on building the Roanoke train station but no specifics.

The VA DRPT is not letting the grass grow under their feet while waiting for the additional funding in the FY14 budget. They are allocating $600K for NS to start on the engineering work. Set of bullets from the viewgraphs:

The Governor has made the extension of passenger rail service to Roanoke a priority.

Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) has identified a scope of work and a budget of $600,000 for engineering and environmental work to extend intercity passenger rail service to the City of Roanoke.
The Department is requesting use of unobligated VTA 2000 funds to proceed with the engineering and environmental work.

The Department intends to utilize IPROC funds to complete remaining engineering work and future construction after July 1, 2013, and will recommend allocations in the Department’s Six Year Improvement Plan.

So the Lynchburger, to be given a new nickname in a couple of years, will have to add additional cars before a second train is added.

 

[Anderson]

On the topic of train lengthening, when I took 99 back into RVR last weekend (on Saturday), it was ten cars long (BC, cafe, 8 coaches) and the Regional sitting in RVR waiting for Sunday morning was nine cars long. So, from what I can tell, those trains are edging towards longer consists...it's just happening slowly, as equipment permits and what-have-you.

Just a guess, but once the Midwest cars get delivered, it seems likely that Amtrak will be able to slide the remaining single-level consists from the Midwest/West to the NEC and lengthen a number of Regionals by a car or two.

 

[City of Miami]

The Lynchburger has been running with 8 cars some days and 9 others. I don't see a rhyme or reason to it. One day last week the Crescent had 5 coaches, plus 2 Viewliners, bag, diner, 2 engines. BTW I wonder why the Crescent routinely gets 2 locomotives....there are no mountains to speak of on the route, are there?

 

[SubwayNut]

Only the Amfleet-Is from the midwest are usefull Horizons won't work on most routes (except the Empire Service to some degree, although they do block release the doors in Syracuse, Albany and New York normally, less so at the high-level Metro-North Stations) because they only have manually operated dutch doors and that would be a nightmere on the Northeast Corridor, longer dwell times requiring more staff. How many Amfleet's will be freed up by the midwest car order? It seems like those trains are mainly Horizons.

 

[Anderson]

There's an Amfleet set out in CA as well. You're right that the Midwest routes are largely either Superliner or Horizon. However, the Horizons could be used on not only the Empire Service, but theoretically the other northern-edge trains (the Shuttle, Ethan Allen, Adirondack, and Downeaster all show up as possibilities). They could probably also get swapped in for the Shoreliner, which isn't exactly a train in a hurry due to a need to be in BOS and WAS at decent hours (and the 2-1 seating in a few of the Horizons isn't bad at all).

 

[afigg]

There's an Amfleet set out in CA as well. You're right that the Midwest routes are largely either Superliner or Horizon. However, the Horizons could be used on not only the Empire Service, but theoretically the other northern-edge trains (the Shuttle, Ethan Allen, Adirondack, and Downeaster all show up as possibilities). They could probably also get swapped in for the Shoreliner, which isn't exactly a train in a hurry due to a need to be in BOS and WAS at decent hours (and the 2-1 seating in a few of the Horizons isn't bad at all).

Illinois paid for a set of Amfleet I cars to be refurbed which are in use on the CHI-STL corridor as the "premium" trains with WiFi. Digging up this press release from last fall, the Amfleets are in use on Lincoln service trains 300, 301, 304, and 305. Which means 2 Amfleet trainsets?

From the posts, I gather that there are a few Amfleet I café cars used with Horizons on the other MidWest corridors. It would be useful to get an accurate count of how many Amfleet Is are in current use in California and the MidWest. Once enough of the new bi-levels corridor cars are delivered, get through the tests, and enter revenue service, those Amfleets should be freed up and moved back to the eastern routes. But if delivery of the first Nippon-Sharyo bi-levels happens in 2015, it likely will be later 2016 or 2017 before enough new cars are in service to allow the Amfleet Is to head east.

As for the Horizons, there could be information on the plans for them in the next update of the Fleet Strategy Plan. I guess Amtrak could stick one Horizon coach car near the end of a NE Regional or Empire service consist and tell passengers in the Horizon to exit through the Amfleet car vestibule on either end.

 

[battalion51]

The Lynchburger has been running with 8 cars some days and 9 others. I don't see a rhyme or reason to it. One day last week the Crescent had 5 coaches, plus 2 Viewliners, bag, diner, 2 engines. BTW I wonder why the Crescent routinely gets 2 locomotives....there are no mountains to speak of on the route, are there?

There are some grades that the Crescent has to contend with south of Atlanta. IIRC there's a NS special instruction that says a train over a certain length has to have two engines (presumably 8 or more). Also, if you recall Amtrak had a little pissing contest a few years back over late trains with Silver Service, but so many trains were late due to engine failures. They finally came to a consensus at just running with two engines and Silver Service OTP has been better (CFRC delays notwithstanding).

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

It makes sense to me that NS wants two engines on trains of eight cars or more, regardless of terraine

I say this after years of observing trains, Amtrak and before.

In fact a number of new seven car streamliners were built in the late 30s and 40s and they had one unit.. Yet as they grew beyond that they definately added engines. IIRC the Silver Meteor was such a train, built in 1939 as a seven car one unit train which added an engine when it grew.,

 

[Anderson]

Well, and let's also not forget that in a lot of cases you had an A+B locomotive set in use in those years, too.

Edit: The other key with two locomotives is that if they're both working, you've got the extra motive power. If one breaks, you can still limp along. I'm reminded of the "emergency brake" thread, where the use of the break messed up the steam locomotive. Yes, they had trouble limping back to town, but at least they could limp back to town rather than being dead in the water on the main line.

 

[battalion51]

HEP failure is another major consideration too when your trains get to be 9 or 10 cars long (or more). HEP starts pulling a lot of amps off of the prime mover. IIRC of the 4250 horsepower that a motor has, when you draw HEP off of it that number drops to about 3,000 for traction. One of the things holding back Auto Train from adding cars is that you're drawing a lot of power off the trailing unit since you've got so many passenger cars. Seems like I heard rumblings about the concept being floated for there to be a power car created just for Auto Train so the engines can do their thing without being slowed down by HEP. Additionally, when you have an engine fail you could have a major issue if it involves the motor itself or its major components. I know there have been situations where an engine has died and passengers were put on buses even though a freight motor has towed the train in. Yeah you might be moving, but those cars get really hot/cold really fast when the power is down more than five or ten minutes.

 

[AlanB]

One of the things holding back Auto Train from adding cars is that you're drawing a lot of power off the trailing unit since you've got so many passenger cars. Seems like I heard rumblings about the concept being floated for there to be a power car created just for Auto Train so the engines can do their thing without being slowed down by HEP.

No, the AT's problem isn't that they're drawing too much power off of the trailing unit. The problem is that if they add another car beyond what they do right now during peak periods, they'll be drawing more power than the HEP cables can safely carry without melting and shorting out. They would overload the cables, which would not be a good thing for anyone.

One of the things often talked about more by railfans, than serious engineers & Amtrak I think, is to short loop the train. Power the front half of the cars from the engines, power the rear half from a power car. The problem with this idea, so I was once told by someone, is that FRA regs may well prohibit short looping. The reason for that is that in the case of a problem, a conductor on the ground calling for 3 point protection, is expecting that the 480 power is off. But if he were standing at the rear half of the train, that wouldn't be the case if the engineer had dropped HEP from the front end.

Some sort of system is needed, whereby the engineer can also shut down the 480 from the power car, such that the rear half of the train is made safe and people aren't in danger of electrocution.

 

[AlanB]

Definitions for those wondering what the heck I'm talking about:

HEP: Head End Power, also sometimes called Hotel Power. It's what powers the cars.

480: Nickname for HEP, and the voltage going to the cars from the engines.

Short loop: Currently the power cables run from the engine to the end of the passenger cars. Short looping means that at some point along the way, one doesn't continue the circuit or power flow to the rear. Instead the flow of power from the engines is cut at that point in between two cars.

Then the other half of the train is powered from another source, most likely at the rear of the passenger cars.

3 Point Protection: A condition that the engineer implements that lock the brakes, turns off the power, and effectively locks the engine controls so that the engine cannot move either itself or the entire train. This is done to ensure the safety of anyone on the ground working on, under, or around the train. It prevents both the possibility of a sudden movement by the train, or electrocution, either of which could injure or worse someone on the ground.

 

[GG-1]

One of the things holding back Auto Train from adding cars is that you're drawing a lot of power off the trailing unit since you've got so many passenger cars. Seems like I heard rumblings about the concept being floated for there to be a power car created just for Auto Train so the engines can do their thing without being slowed down by HEP.

No, the AT's problem isn't that they're drawing too much power off of the trailing unit. The problem is that if they add another car beyond what they do right now during peak periods, they'll be drawing more power than the HEP cables can safely carry without melting and shorting out. They would overload the cables, which would not be a good thing for anyone.

Aloha

A solution could be what Ringling does with their train. They carry 40 passenger cars plus a power (HEP) in the middle so they do not overload the 480 cables. They can not however take any power from the pulling engines because they are pulled by freight motors. This may not be true when on the NEC.

 

[battalion51]

Well given that the Auto Train typically has captive power (814, 818, 830, 831, 832, and 835) you could figure out a way to where when the Engineer shuts down the HEP it would send a message to the power car for it to shut down its power as well. You've got a remote dump ability for the EOT, seems like you should be able to do the same for an HEP system too.

 

[user 1215]

That would be sorta similart to MU'ing the HEP in a similar manner to the locos.

 

[jis]

Unfortunately the Locotrol protocol does not have HEP Control built into it. So it will have to be a special purpose built additional message set carried on a different communication link. Does not sound like something that will get done soon.