A Look Back at Mail & Express: What might have been.

For switching, perhaps an improved Green Goat would have been a good idea, Remote-Control for the Locomotive Crew, and the Green Goat could have been provided a good boost for the train.

Be assured, Mr. EWU, your proposal will get a rousing endorsement from the IBT/BLET.

Also, let us not give some airline executive ideas and propose having you and I to be flown about in drones. A Flight Attendant with a "legacy carrier" I know once said, "I wouldn't put THAT past (NVRMINDHOO)".

I certainly could understand unions objecting to remote-controlled switchers replacing existing crews, but a remote-controlled unit that travels with the train is a different story.

It's hard to justify maintaining a crew at an intermediate station just to pull a few cars off a train that comes through once a day. But a remote-controlled unit that can be controlled by the engineer of the lead locomotive could generate sufficient productivity gains to make the cost of servicing that station manageable. And, it doesn't hurt to have a booster on the rear to help get a long train over mountain grades.

I beleive another reason for dropping mail was simply that the USPS wanted to offer a LOT less money for it.

At some point you just have to say no.

railfanofewu wrote:For switching, perhaps an improved Green Goat would have been a good idea, Remote-Control for the Locomotive Crew, and the Green Goat could have been provided a good boost for the train.

I would of loved that idea. Maybe yiu can get an endorsement from RailPower

AmtrakFan

LI Loco wrote:I certainly could understand unions objecting to remote-controlled switchers replacing existing crews, but a remote-controlled unit that travels with the train is a different story.

It's hard to justify maintaining a crew at an intermediate station just to pull a few cars off a train that comes through once a day. But a remote-controlled unit that can be controlled by the engineer of the lead locomotive could generate sufficient productivity gains to make the cost of servicing that station manageable. And, it doesn't hurt to have a booster on the rear to help get a long train over mountain grades.

Well, in that case, why does it have to be remote-controlled? Why not just have the engineer get out and go back to the other engine? Somehow, I can see problems with an engineer at the front of the train controlling switching moves in back (though I suppose a conductor would be around on the radio).

Switchers, however, tend to have lower speed restrictions (even when not in the lead), so you'd be killing the schedule by doing that. Might as well just use the extra road power to do the switching (which, I believe, is what they did in some areas).

A big part of the problem with express involved terrible switching practices. I am continually mystified about why any kind of switching Amtrak does, whether M&E or passenger cars, takes way longer than it did "back in the day." The worst case, as others have mentioned, seems to be Albany. But switching in Chicago was a mess. And, switching between electric and diesel at NHV (prior to NHV-BOS electrification) was way slower than in NH days, as is switching between electric and diesel in Harrisburg compared to Pennsy days. (Is there still any switching a Harrisburg? I guess I'm thinking of the last time I experienced this, but I guess with no more Broadway there may not be...) And, engine changes at Harmon or at Manhattan Transfer took less than 5 minutes. There is much less labor available now than "back in the day" but I'd think that HEP should be switchable faster than having to do separate air and steam lines, especially in the winter. A while ago on the NJT forum, an NJT engineer said that an engine change involving HEP could be done in a a couple of minutes. But, it isnt done that way by Amtrak. Then again, it isn't done that way by NJT either. I wonder why not.