Without additional funding, how can Amtrak improve the LD trains?

[jis]

What’s “pretty recently” ? Since the flex dining meals?

Yes.

Dinty Moore is provided to not only to Sleeper passengers. They go to Coach passengers too, since the Cafe does run out of regular fare too. So whether it is flex dining or not is somewhat irrelevant.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Yes.

Dinty Moore is provided to not only to Sleeper passengers. They go to Coach passengers too, since the Cafe does run out of regular fare too. So whether it is flex dining or not is somewhat irrelevant.

It’s relevant to my question which was - do they still cary it since the change to flex. I was just wondering if the lsa could cook it on board because of union issues.

But if you were served the emergency stew on a train that has switched to the flex meals than that answers my question.

 

[me_little_me]

Yes.

Dinty Moore is provided to not only to Sleeper passengers. They go to Coach passengers too, since the Cafe does run out of regular fare too. So whether it is flex dining or not is somewhat irrelevant.

It is relevant as it tastes better than much of the flex menu. Since crew have to pay big bucks for flex "food", they might trade me a Dinty for a flex that they then can eat for free.

 

[jimdex]

I have mixed emotions about the food issue. To the extent that Amtrak is taxpayer funded, the prime consideration needs to be transportation, not food presentation, but on the other hand, I understand that inadequate food service can cut into ridership and revenue, especially over longer distances. My recommendation would be to divide diners into two sections: a casual dining/lounge section where patrons would seat themselves and order their food from a counter, and a formal section staffed by a waiter. A single kitchen would support both sections, and where it is practical, casual diners would be able to order some of the entrees offered in the formal section.

 

[Dakota 400]

Just my opinion, of course, but there is nothing wrong with a Dinty Moore Beef Stew dinner once in awhile. Wouldn't want it for every meal and certainly would expect a better lunch/dinner than that as an Amtrak passenger.

Based on what I have learned on this thread and photos posted of Amtrak's current offerings, I'd choose a Dinty Moore Beef Stew dinner.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Just my opinion, of course, but there is nothing wrong with a Dinty Moore Beef Stew dinner once in awhile. Wouldn't want it for every meal and certainly would expect a better lunch/dinner than that as an Amtrak passenger.

Based on what I have learned on this thread and photos posted of Amtrak's current offerings, I'd choose a Dinty Moore Beef Stew dinner.

Too much Sodium and Chemicals! Homemade is the way to go on Soups and Stews!

 

[Seaboard92]

Why do the 238 rules ban gensets? They're widely mounted on long-haul trucks (for hotel power during driver rest breaks) and RV's, and I've never heard of them being a safety menace on the highways. How about back-up batteries? We had some vendors tell us that they have backup batteries that can provide 8 hours plus hotel power for an 18-wheeler sleeper cab. Is the technology developed enough for rail use? Would backup batteries be in compliance with the 238 rules?

I don't know the exact reason it bans gensets but I believe it probably has something to do with carrying a tank of flammable liquid on the car in the event of an accident. Now backup batteries are in compliance with 238 regulations. As I'm sure you've noticed in your travels every passenger car has a bank of batteries that provide emergency lights and keep the markers on without electricity. However I think they are only designed for shorter outages and completely fade after 45 minutes. In fact I just removed 10 lead acid backup batteries off a former Amtrak car just a few weeks ago. So if there is a battery that can provide hotel power for an 18 wheeler which has a significantly lighter load than an 85 foot passenger car I don't see why it wouldn't work. At least to keep the food from spoiling. It all depends what you are trying to do with the back up batteries as to how many KW you need to keep up and running.

The 238 rules are actually quite sound. If anything, they should probably be enhanced as Amtrak contemplates new equipment. They're far from arbitrary safety standards.

The reason that Private Cars are exempt is because most of those cars are historical pieces kept around for pleasure cruise purposes. They're generally more fancy toys than transit. Things like generators and fuel they need to run IS a big fire hazard and thus make most of these cars unsuitable for the general public.

Honestly I think where the rules are is good enough. I don't want to see Amtrak keep rewriting the book to keep a car compliant.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

My recommendation would be to divide diners into two sections: a casual dining/lounge section where patrons would seat themselves and order their food from a counter, and a formal section staffed by a waiter. A single kitchen would support both sections, and where it is practical, casual diners would be able to order some of the entrees offered in the formal section.

That is exactly what the original "Cross Country Cafe" was. (It only operated as designed for about 9 months I think?). Even if you take out the table service and keep the 1 LSA and 1 Chef you would have a MUCH better product without paying 1 cent more for staffing. (1 LSA and 1 Chef vs. 2 LSA's currently.)

I agree, I think the original CCC idea was very good and the car was well designed for that use provided a SSL car was still available for seating next door.

 

[tgstubbs1]

That is exactly what the original "Cross Country Cafe" was. (It only operated as designed for about 9 months I think?). Even if you take out the table service and keep the 1 LSA and 1 Chef you would have a MUCH better product without paying 1 cent more for staffing. (1 LSA and 1 Chef vs. 2 LSA's currently.)

I agree, I think the original CCC idea was very good and the car was well designed for that use provided a SSL car was still available for seating next door.

This is pretty much how a lot of fast food restaurants operate, isn't it? Self serve with optional seating. Some fast food places will take your name and deliver to your seat if they are busy and some do that on a regular basis.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

This is pretty much how a lot of fast food restaurants operate, isn't it? Self serve with optional seating. Some fast food places will take your name and deliver to your seat if they are busy and some do that on a regular basis.

Yeah... it would be more similar to “fast casual” restaurants like Panera Bread, Pei Wei, Zoe’s Kitchen.

Now the original version of the CCC you could order and pick up from the counter, or you could sit down and have table service. Not sure what the staffing was, most likely 2 server, 1 lsa, 1 chef but it may have even been 1 server.

 

[junebug]

I love these ideas. My opinion is on how we can bring in first class service, catering to retired boomers. Democrats brought us Amtrak. For years Republicans' long time goal has been to trash it into oblivion. Let them bankrupt it. Then we can fix this. Band together as investors. Buy it for 3 cents on the dollar. We privatize it just like anti-big government did to the prison systems and what they would love to do next, the postal system. We got this.

Sincerely, Junebug
--Retired boomer

 

[junebug]

AND, still dreaming. Soon Congress will be Democrat. Let government pitch in so we can expand routes to less profitable rural areas. The original train service was formed by Capitalists, right? I'm a highly Capitalistic Democrat. Maybe we will be so profitable from Boomer Dollars, we can do it ourselves.

 

[MARC Rider]

Things like generators and fuel they need to run IS a big fire hazard and thus make most of these cars unsuitable for the general public.

It should be pointed out that the vast majority of the American "general public" travels in motor vehicles on public highways. The vast majority of these motor vehicles, from motorcycles, to passenger cars to 18-wheeler tractor trailers are all carrying around tanks of flammable fuel. Yet, despite this fire hazard, regulators are not rushing to ban mobile internal-combustion engines. They even allow them tunnels.

Gensets are mounted on tractor trailers mostly to reduce idling emissions. Before they started using them, truckers just idled their main engines while at rest to provide hotel power. This is really overkill in terms of the power generated and caused noise, smog-causing emissions, particulates and wasted fuel. The genset is a smaller engine, more efficient, and they generally are diesel, so the fuel isn't as flammable as gasoline that might be found on some gensets. Are PV gensets gasoline or diesel?

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Are PV gensets gasoline or diesel?

Diesel.

 

[me_little_me]

Private cars could always replace the gensets with on-board nuclear reactors! Or, better yet, giant windmills that will create electricity as the train moves. Or fold-out solar panels like satellites have, on posts at the end of the car as one wouldn't want to change a historic car by using roof-mounted ones.
Okay, so an accident with choice one would render the track unusable for 10,000 years or so but there's always alternate routing. And the latter two would require stopping the train for every bridge, tunnel, overhead wire and other obstacle to lower them but the train stops every mile for freights anyway.

 

[Nick Farr]

It should be pointed out that the vast majority of the American "general public" travels in motor vehicles on public highways. The vast majority of these motor vehicles, from motorcycles, to passenger cars to 18-wheeler tractor trailers are all carrying around tanks of flammable fuel. Yet, despite this fire hazard, regulators are not rushing to ban mobile internal-combustion engines. They even allow them tunnels.

It should also be pointed out that those tanks and fuel systems in automotive vehicles have been continuously redesigned for nearly for 75 years to not explode during an accident.

The other thing to remember is that the physics of rail car accidents are much different than the physics of automotive crashes. An automobile typically sheds its kinetic energy in a few moments after an incident where a derailing incident can last up to a minute before the train comes to a stop.

Also: In many tunnels, CNG and others like it common to campers *are banned* because their explosive force is amplified in a tube. It's assumed most automotive crashes won't cause any explosion, whereas a car careening at 60 MPH into a stationary propane tank will.

 

[MARC Rider]

It should also be pointed out that those tanks and fuel systems in automotive vehicles have been continuously redesigned for nearly for 75 years to not explode during an accident.

The other thing to remember is that the physics of rail car accidents are much different than the physics of automotive crashes. An automobile typically sheds its kinetic energy in a few moments after an incident where a derailing incident can last up to a minute before the train comes to a stop.

Also: In many tunnels, CNG and others like it common to campers *are banned* because their explosive force is amplified in a tube. It's assumed most automotive crashes won't cause any explosion, whereas a car careening at 60 MPH into a stationary propane tank will.

Well, true, but separate gensets on 18-wheelers haven't been around all that long, and, as far as I know were allowed without any sort of regulatory review when we at EPA began toencourage truckers to use them. Anyway, auxiliary power units are usually powered by diesel, not propane. (And there are CNG and Propane powered commercial vehicles. I guess they can't use tunnels.)

As far as the 238 rules go, had the regulator been doing it right (and they may well have done so, as I've never seen the rulemaking), They would have conducted a technical analysis that would have considered the physics of rail car accidents, the risk of rail car accidents, the flammability of the fuel, the way the genset and fuel system were mounted, etc. From that they would figure out the number of deaths and injuries avoided and estimated the property damage avoided by banning gensets. Because accidents also disrupt the rail lime and impose more costs, they'd have to estimate any additional costs resulting from accidents with genset-equipped cars.

From all this, the agency could decide whether it was worthwhile to ban gensets or that the extra risks are so small that it wouldn't make enough of a difference to bother everybody. If they were going to exempt private cars, they should estimate PV mileage and risks of accidents, there, too. Of course, PV car miles are probably a small fraction to total passenger rail car-miles, which probably makes the total risk lower, but I'm speculating. If I were doing a rulemaking, I'd have to make an estimate based on hard evidence.

After the agency makes a decision, it gets published as a proposal with all the technical analysis. Then the general public (or more usually, the interested stakeholders) get a chance to comment on the proposal, and the agency has to respond to the comments. Once all that's done, the rule can go final. Of course, that's when disappointed stakeholders will sue the agency to get what they want. I should have gone to law school, after all.

According to policy, EPA requires all of the technical analyses they conduct to have outside peer review before they're incorporated into the rulemaking documents. This is not always followed, as the policy has a few ways to weasel around its intent, and some managers believe that the public comment period is suitable peer review. I'm not sure what the DOT policy on peer review of technical documents.

The bottom line is that while it seems reasonable that gensets on passenger rail cars entails increased risks, I haven't seen any analyses on how much they increase the risks. I would be interested in seeing the original rulemakings for these 238 rules and see how the agency justified them. I sort of shudder at having to dig through the Web to find them, though. I was recently looking for a couple of EPA rulemakings I was involved with 10-15 years ago, and, boy, is that website designed to make it hard to find things!

 

[Nick Farr]

As far as the 238 rules go, had the regulator been doing it right (and they may well have done so, as I've never seen the rulemaking), They would have conducted a technical analysis that would have considered the physics of rail car accidents, the risk of rail car accidents, the flammability of the fuel, the way the genset and fuel system were mounted, etc. From that they would figure out the number of deaths and injuries avoided and estimated the property damage avoided by banning gensets. Because accidents also disrupt the rail lime and impose more costs, they'd have to estimate any additional costs resulting from accidents with genset-equipped cars.

They did consider all these things when writing the regulations, which are somewhat outdated now. The other fact to consider is that gensets on private cars are such a remote use case. Every car on the train should be using HEP in normal revenue service because it's much, much safer than having flammable gas in weird locations on the train.

A lot of the regulations contemplate the accident itself, long with the realities of fighting fires on rail lines. On Freeways, emergency vehicles have a roadway they can access vehicle accidents from. Even on the NEC, there's parts of the rail corridor that are very hard for emergency services to access.

Finally, as opposed to the 70s and 80s, the past decade has been a very safe one for Amtrak and is likely to get much safer now that PTC is here.

That being said, the Genset one is a matter of convenience for Private Car owners vs. safety for the general traveling public. In these cases, the safety of the general public should always win out.

 

[Qapla]

Gas tanks on cars are not engineered to "remain in tact" during a car crash - have you ever pulled a car gas tank? I have ... several times. They are nothing more that a "glorified gas can" held under the vehicle with a couple metal straps. Not only are they not "crash proof", they are filled with an extremely volatile fuel ... gasoline.

On a train car - instead of banning gensets ... they could very easily have required all gens to be diesel (much less volatile than gas) and the tanks be secluded in a protected area under the train and built to endure the type of impact a train might face during a crash. They could be built to crash ratings similar to LP tanks which are designed to survive a crash. They could be equipped with an "antiflow valve" that would stop the flow of fuel should the tank be separated from the train car (these valves already exist - they have them on gas pumps). Someone who can afford to own a private railcar can afford to install such a tank. Such an equipped genset could be for use only when HEP is not available.

There is no need to ban something that can be made safe unless you are trying to discourage private cars.

Other than gensets - what other things are private cars not allowed to have?

 

[Nick Farr]

Gas tanks on cars are not engineered to "remain in tact" during a car crash - have you ever pulled a car gas tank? I have ... several times. They are nothing more that a "glorified gas can" held under the vehicle with a couple metal straps. Not only are they not "crash proof", they are filled with an extremely volatile fuel ... gasoline.

Nothing is "crash proof". However, there's a lot in the tank and the stem and energy management around the tank that keeps the fuel from exploding or burning in the most likely crash configurations.

The other point you're missing is that there's literally no reason for a dedicated public passenger car to have a fuel tank at all. If they're in service, they should have HEP.

 

[Qapla]

there's a lot in the tank and the stem and energy management around the tank that keeps the fuel from exploding or burning in the most likely crash configurations

Are referring to the gas tank in a typical passenger automobile? Have you ever pulled on from under a car? I have.

there's literally no reason for a dedicated public passenger car to have a fuel tank at all

I thought we were talking about privately owned passenger railcars. I can see that one my sit overnight on a "siding" not connected to HEP where they would need power ... I see no reason that should not be allowed.

 

[Nick Farr]

Are referring to the gas tank in a typical passenger automobile? Have you ever pulled on from under a car? I have.

I've seen at least 100 vehicle wrecks and took note of the gas tank in most of them. Almost all of them were still intact. Still haven't seen one that exploded. They sure don't look like much but they're not designed to look pretty...and most of that design is around the tank not in it. You're looking at the egg, when you need to be looking at the carton.

I thought we were talking about privately owned passenger railcars. I can see that one my sit overnight on a "siding" not connected to HEP where they would need power ... I see no reason that should not be allowed.

That's totally allowed. That's the use case for them, why they're there.

What's not allowed is for these cars to carry regular passengers in revenue service.

And honestly, it would probably be better for everyone involved if they had grid tie-ins and a platform for these cars to use in a lot of places.

 

[Seaboard92]

It should be pointed out that the vast majority of the American "general public" travels in motor vehicles on public highways. The vast majority of these motor vehicles, from motorcycles, to passenger cars to 18-wheeler tractor trailers are all carrying around tanks of flammable fuel. Yet, despite this fire hazard, regulators are not rushing to ban mobile internal-combustion engines. They even allow them tunnels.

Gensets are mounted on tractor trailers mostly to reduce idling emissions. Before they started using them, truckers just idled their main engines while at rest to provide hotel power. This is really overkill in terms of the power generated and caused noise, smog-causing emissions, particulates and wasted fuel. The genset is a smaller engine, more efficient, and they generally are diesel, so the fuel isn't as flammable as gasoline that might be found on some gensets. Are PV gensets gasoline or diesel?

Diesel. The best maker of gensets is Stadco and they are the only company that I know of that also specializes in PV gensets. Fantastic pieces of equipment.

They did consider all these things when writing the regulations, which are somewhat outdated now. The other fact to consider is that gensets on private cars are such a remote use case. Every car on the train should be using HEP in normal revenue service because it's much, much safer than having flammable gas in weird locations on the train.

A lot of the regulations contemplate the accident itself, long with the realities of fighting fires on rail lines. On Freeways, emergency vehicles have a roadway they can access vehicle accidents from. Even on the NEC, there's parts of the rail corridor that are very hard for emergency services to access.

Finally, as opposed to the 70s and 80s, the past decade has been a very safe one for Amtrak and is likely to get much safer now that PTC is here.

That being said, the Genset one is a matter of convenience for Private Car owners vs. safety for the general traveling public. In these cases, the safety of the general public should always win out.

We do use HEP when we are connected to the train almost 99 percent of the time. I do remember a trip where we did not use HEP because the train couldn't provide enough HEP for the PVs and the Amtrak consist so the PV owners ran with the gensets on the entire way. Cars without a genset would be tied into a car that has one, as several cars have a large enough KW load that they can power 2+ cars. I also remember another trip that had a power car when the power car wasn't fueled. We ended up running every genset on the consist, and were powering out of some gensets four cars.

And trust me we would much rather be on HEP because it costs us to run the genset by the hour when you factor in fuel consumption and wear and tear on the motor. So if we can be on HEP we will be on HEP. We use our gensets mostly for times when we are switching to keep our fridge cold, and the HVAC system on, or if we are operating on a shortline where there is not a power car present.

I remember last time I worked a trip into Chicago we ran our genset all night because Metra (we weren't on Amtrak for this trip) didn't bother to plug us in the night before. While we could have plugged ourselves into their ground plug that is not our job. Not our railroad, and without a blue flag none of us are willing to chance our lives and livelihoods to plug ourselves in. So we ran our genset all night.

The other point you're missing is that there's literally no reason for a dedicated public passenger car to have a fuel tank at all. If they're in service, they should have HEP.

I think you are missing the point that brought the topic of gensets up in the first place. The dining car and it's freezers, and refrigerators needs to be powered in the event of a long delay without HEP available. For instance from personal experience. A few years back when I was riding No. 91 the Silver Star we stopped in Rocky Mount, NC for six hours to assist the Auto Train No. 53 due to locomotive issues. So they took one of our three engines to the broken down train. For most of that time the train sat without head end power because the locomotives were taken off while the crew wyed one to get it oriented properly for No. 53. By the time they took the power off, waited for CSX to clear the wye, wyed the engine they needed to wye, and returned to 91 the cool cycle had been broken.

And in the hot Carolina summer it can quickly become unbearable on the cars, and the items in cold storage can spoil and then not be usable. But had the car been equipped with a Stadco Genset under it the cool cycle could have been maintained. And if you had a large enough one by KW load to power the diners HVAC system you could have one car that is cooled for senior citizens who might have adverse health effects in the hot climate. Railcars are greenhouses basically so having one car that would be cooled for people with health problems could be of benefit in a long delay.

Now imagine it is the Southwest Chief broken down somewhere in the desert or the Sunset Limited how great having a genset on the diner would be.


Another point I want to make too is HEP isn't completely fool proof it can and will fail from time to time. This is what makes the Canadian version of HEP in my opinion a far better system. There are two HEP lines on VIA's fleet and each car alternates which locomotive it draws it's HEP from. Now if there is a problem with HEP coming from one of the locomotives all of the cars automatically shift to the system that is still up and running. Whereas Amtrak's is one and done. The two systems are both 480 volts and compatible with an adapter kit provided the USA HEP car runs rearmost.

That is also one reason thinks VIA doesn't take PVs which they actually do from what I've been told. You just aren't allowed to run rearmost when there is a Park Car so that eliminates the Ocean, Skeena, and Canadian. However it would still be allowed on the Hudson Bay, Corridor, and Quebec Rural services if my source is correct.

 

[Nick Farr]

I think you are missing the point that brought the topic of gensets up in the first place. The dining car and it's freezers, and refrigerators needs to be powered in the event of a long delay without HEP available.

For Private Cars, absolutely agree on the genset. It's a shame Amtrak and the other railroads treat you that badly.

I stupidly brought it up pitching private cars as a way of providing upscale service on Amtrak. It would be nice for Amtrak to make it easier for partners to provide services but that doesn't seem like a solution.

I'm pretty sure we're going to disagree on this, but if it's a choice between lugging around a bunch of fuel and creating a preventable safety hazard versus letting food rot--I say let the food rot.

If a train loses A/C for long enough to create a safety hazard, then they need to evacuate the passengers to safety.

 

[Seaboard92]

For Private Cars, absolutely agree on the genset. It's a shame Amtrak and the other railroads treat you that badly.

I stupidly brought it up pitching private cars as a way of providing upscale service on Amtrak. It would be nice for Amtrak to make it easier for partners to provide services but that doesn't seem like a solution.

I'm pretty sure we're going to disagree on this, but if it's a choice between lugging around a bunch of fuel and creating a preventable safety hazard versus letting food rot--I say let the food rot.

If a train loses A/C for long enough to create a safety hazard, then they need to evacuate the passengers to safety.

I wouldn't say it is stupid at all to come up with that type of idea. I do think Amtrak should work with us more. One of the big problems now with the elationship between PV owners and Amtrak is the mistrust that PV owners feel towards Amtrak. After what Amtrak has done to the industry in 2018 and raising the rates multiple times there is a mistrust from us towards Amtrak. It will take a lot of work to get that trust back. Not saying it is impossible as it is very doable. But it will take some time and work.

Amtrak actually is trying to a degree as they are running a special for PVs this summer however not many people have taken them up on it either due to Covid concerns, or the fact a lot of owners were ran out of business by Amtrak back in 2018. Amtrak has added back Portland, OR as a place we can go which it previously wasn't and they did so for all of the national network trains there. However they have made things difficult going there as well. But that is more for another thread where I can gripe about it without dragging too far off the topic.