posted
NB Eagle No. 22 suffered engine failure 2 hours north of Little Rock, AR near Walnut Ridge, AR about 02:15 Christmas morning. So SB Eagle No. 21 β which had passed No. 22 and was almost at Little Rock at Jacksonville, AR, β backed up north (49 miles) to join up with stalled No. 22 and then haul it BACK to Little Rock, where 22 had left at 11:40 pm.
Here's a video link of No. 22 pushed back to Little Rock, AR by UP 7753, 7:57 a.m. 25 Dec. Pony 38 had major oil leak, and engine shut down, is my understanding. The combined 21 and 22 stopped in the UP North Little Rock yards where No. 22's consist was uncoupled at the fuel rack and UP loco 7753 was added.
Merry Christmas β detraining PAX treated to milk, OJ, and about 30 dozen doughnuts before boarding the buses.
Four buses took PAX to Chicago, making the station stops, along the way, is my understanding. I dunno if there was an "express" bus(es) for Chicago only. That would have made sense, so it's doubtful?
Later, No. 22(24) deadheaded to Chicago by different UP loco. I'm guessing that was a forward move.
This time of year those Arkies wear shoes,,,
Freight cabooses used to have air whistle attached β for reverse moves β to "blow" the crossings.
sbalax Member # 2801
posted
One of the comments said that the Amtrak engine had lost HEP and that the UP engine doesn't have that capability. Does that mean the passengers were without lights and working toilets?
Frank in dark and cool SBA
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
I'm trying to remember how the P-42's are setup as far as HEP goes. I'm pretty sure that the HEP does indeed work off the prime mover, so if the locomotive was shut down, then the HEP was as well. Let me do some checking to confirm that though.
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
Okay, I just did some checking...The P-42's HEP is connected to the prime mover. So I guess that means that the HEP was down for those passengers. It's the F59's that have a separate HEP, so on those trains (AmCal and Surfliners), the prime mover can break down but the HEP can continue running. And then of course there are the Cascades trains in the Pacific Northwest (Talgo trains), and they have their own "power car" and can provide their own HEP at all times--even with no locomotive connected at all.
sbalax Member # 2801
posted
I see lots of compensation being paid out by Amtrak to these folks. Which reminds me that I have a $200.00 credit I need to use before May 27th from my "bustitution" on the Starlight last year.
I'm having arthroscopic surgery on my knee on the 9th so should be up and running (well, walking reasonably well) soon after.
Frank in sunny and cold (for us -- 35 degrees) SBA
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Incidents such as this are simply going to result in the host roads requiring Amtrak to assign not less than two locomotives to LD trains (even if not needed for 21-22 owing to its seven car consist and relatively flat terrain). There goes the cost to operate these trains "skyward". There go the critics of LD's "also skyward".
There goes Mr. Boardman's pledge of "no LD cuts".
Ocala Mike Member # 4657
posted
Would it be feasible for Amtrak and the host railroads to enter into some kind of agreement for "rescues" in cases like this?
What ever happened to the "protect" concept?
I would think the Surface Transportation Board or some such transportation oversight agency should look into situations like this. If requiring Amtrak to provide a redundant engine is the answer, fine, but that can't be the only answer, right?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Well obviously, Mike, UP rode to the rescue, and as such, there appears to be some kind of procedures in place,
But if Amtrak has allowed their motive power to come into such a state of disrepair, a Class I is well within its prerogative to require assignment of two locomotives to any train.
I don't think one wants the alternative; that of a road refusing to accept the train on to their rails.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
The TE/Sunset is on my 'ride' list for 2012 as it seems to be the most vulnerable of all LD's due to its high cost, less interesting scenery than other western LD's, and tri-weekly service that makes it hard to argue it is an essential transportation service. Something will have to give by Amtrak's next fiscal year in the fall of 2012.
If the Susnet/TE are sacrificed, perhaps a consolation prize might be an opportunity to extend the Heartland Flyer to a KC connection with the SWC on the north and from Dallas to Austin and San Antonio on the south - which covers some of the TE route and probably provide faster service to Texas from Chicago - shades of the Lone Star.
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
The reliability of Amtrak's locomotives is a concern, but honestly, it doesn't have to be that way. My dad (now semi-retired at 80 years old) is one of the original "gurus" of something called RCM, which stands for "Reliability Centered Maintenance". RCM is something that was first applied (in large scale) to the nation's nuclear submarine fleet. From there it expanded, and today you will find RCM in place all over the country (and the world). RCM is used to build every Boeing aircraft that rolls out of the hangar, it's used to build every piece of equipment that Caterpillar Tractors makes, it's used on the country's sewage treatment plants and pump stations, the list goes on and on. It has been proven as being rock solid, and is a money saver as well.
RCM is basically "scheduled maintenance", but at a much deeper level. When applied correctly, RCM would prevent the majority of mechanical failures on Amtrak's locomotives. My dad got the contract to apply RCM to Southern Pacific's locomotive fleet, but just as he was about to sign on the dotted line, they were bought by UP and the program was dropped.
Amtrak started using RCM on their locomotives at the Chicago hub about 4 years ago. My dad is friends with the gentleman who got hired at 60 Mass to lead the program. It is probably not appropriate for me to talk about "inside info", but suffice it to say, trying to apply RCM at a company like Amtrak is like trying to negotiate with North Korea. They have their way of doing things, and that's that! End of discussion! "We've always done it this way--why should we change?!?!" pretty much sums it up. He was able to successfully implement the program, over many protests and obstacles, but he did implement it. Within a few months, the failure rate of the locomotives dropped significantly. The "brass" at Amtrak was so impressed by what they were seeing, they said that they wanted to do RCM system-wide at Amtrak---not just on the locomotive fleet, but on every piece of rolling stock they own. Richard Phelps (VP of Amtrak--just recently retired with a golden handshake) was pushing for it---THE PROGRAM WORKED!
But like ALL things Amtrak, unfortunately, CEO's come and go, management comes and goes, everyone has their own idea of how things should be done, and the program just fell apart. This is far from being the first time I've seen the inner-workings of 60 Mass. This, unfortunately, is status quo for them---this is how they operate on a daily basis. Someone gets a "great idea", they drop a few million on it, then the project is forgotten about when that management person quits and some new guy is hired. Then the new guy has some "great idea", and they spend millions to tear apart what the previous guy did, and then drop several million more into the latest and greatest idea. Amtrak is a company without vision, and without a clear goal. And yes, the unions get in the way also---terribly so. I understand that the unions are sometime necessary in order to stop management from doing stupid things, and the union is the only protection that the line level employees have. But it's a double-edged sword----can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
I personally think that the only solution in fixing Amtrak on a permanent basis is to do something big--something huge. I don't know what that "something" is, but it would involve terminating a lot of people, reinventing themselves, and changing their whole outlook. The system is so old and broken that it's now just a network of band aids.
That's my 2 cents.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
I wonder sometimes whether the better solution 40-plus years ago, at least in terms of the long-distance operations, would have simply been determining which routes would be required and then directly compensate the host railroads involved for operating them under their own auspices.
Yeah..... it's a simplistic idea but I bet it would have been no worse than the spotty service one often sees with the LD's today.
Ocala Mike Member # 4657
posted
quote:Originally posted by notelvis:
... directly compensate the host railroads involved for operating them under their own auspices.
The compensation would have been prohibitive. The phrase "you couldn't pay me enough" comes to mind. Look at what UP wants today vis a vis the SL operation.
posted