Capacity Management/Revenue Enhancement

GOK,Door Comm cable-27point,as is the MU cable.

syncronising power is quite common these days , most inverters are capable of doing it .
So you could have the head end p42 providing hep power , a p42 on the rear of the passenger cars , also providing power through a synchronising inverter , perfectly safely electrical wise .

David Benton wrote:syncronising power is quite common these days , most inverters are capable of doing it .
So you could have the head end p42 providing hep power , a p42 on the rear of the passenger cars , also providing power through a synchronising inverter , perfectly safely electrical wise .

That's not the problem. The problem is the load capacity of the cables running the power through the train consist. That's the limiting factor (as has been confirmed by those who know) on train length.

yes , so if your feeding power from both ends your halving the load on the cables . im saying techincally it is possible to do this without having to electrically isolate the 2 halves of the train . you can feed in from both ends as long as one inverter is set up to synchronise with the other .

David Benton wrote:yes , so if your feeding power from both ends your halving the load on the cables . im saying techincally it is possible to do this without having to electrically isolate the 2 halves of the train . you can feed in from both ends as long as one inverter is set up to synchronise with the other .

Hmmm....reaching the outer ends of my knowledge regarding HEP systems. Does sound about right though.

There is a limit of how much Power can drawn off the 480 v buss,the highest power draw is the electric heating elements.
it would be easier to split the HEP load between 2 seperate HEP sources then trying to sync up the whole mess!
When VIA still used the Alco powered LRC loco's, x-amount of cars were split between the 2 Locos.
(Roughly half the train was feed from the front loco,the rest from the trailing/rear loco)

David Benton wrote:They could remove one dining car.it has three .make meals optional or make otjer arrangements.

The dining cars are heavily used (and they have dining sessions late into the night (I think at 5p/7p/9p). To accommodate these people in less space you'd have to add another session, either at 3p or 11p, all too far away from dinnertime.

Meals are already optional . Nobody comes to your seats and drags you buy the ear to the dining car for the special delectable Amtrak cuisine! Dinner on the Auto Train is included, so I guess you probably meant make it not included with the ticket (making people pay could free up space).

Other arrangements could be made as well (i.e. preparing meals in the dining cars and bringing them to people's seats) but I don't see any of them materializing at this stage.

yes , well they do have 400 or so people to feed . But , yes i meant to make it so you pay for your meal , i would think 20 % or so might opt for a cafe meal instead . an another 20% would prefer to eat at their seat , or sleeper . It seems with no intermediate stops , there's not a huge amount for coach and sleeper attendants to do . they could assist with delivering meals at seat .
I guess the sleeper attendants want to get the passenger out of the berth to make the bed up as well , though who would want thier bed made up at 5p.m ???

Backshophoss wrote:There is a limit of how much Power can drawn off the 480 v buss,the highest power draw is the electric heating elements.
it would be easier to split the HEP load between 2 seperate HEP sources then trying to sync up the whole mess!
When VIA still used the Alco powered LRC loco's, x-amount of cars were split between the 2 Locos.
(Roughly half the train was feed from the front loco,the rest from the trailing/rear loco)

Backshophoss,

Thanks for the above and also the previous clarification regarding MU cables.

We know the other major limiting factor is the train length limit set back CSX for Auto-Train which if I recall is something like 75 cars?

You know David the other possibility here is that their fares are a little on the low side. They might be underpricing what they should be charging at this time of year.

Hard to say for sure.

It would be more economic to make the cars more efficent anyway . It would be easy to shave 30- 50 % off the power use , making the need to supplant hep redundant .
the Hvac systems are over 30 years old , they still use elements for heating instead of heat pumps . plus use variable speed and soft start fans / pumps etc , it would pay for itself in a few years . You'd get better climate control as well .

gokeefe wrote:You know David the other possibility here is that their fares are a little on the low side. They might be underpricing what they should be charging at this time of year.

Hard to say for sure.

It would be nice to see this train cover its costs . i think its around 84 % now . It seems possible to me for it to get to 100% , which must be a political coupe .

David Benton wrote:It would be more economic to make the cars more efficent anyway . It would be easy to shave 30- 50 % off the power use , making the need to supplant hep redundant .
the Hvac systems are over 30 years old , they still use elements for heating instead of heat pumps . plus use variable speed and soft start fans / pumps etc , it would pay for itself in a few years . You'd get better climate control as well .

That's a very good point which has been supported by a user on this site who works with these systems (HVAC in particular) within Amtrak. He indicated quite a few apparent advantages and savings with the new systems as installed on the new Viewliner Diner #8400 Indianapolis, which featured among other things LED fixtures throughout.

David Benton wrote:

gokeefe wrote:You know David the other possibility here is that their fares are a little on the low side. They might be underpricing what they should be charging at this time of year.

Hard to say for sure.

It would be nice to see this train cover its costs . i think its around 84 % now . It seems possible to me for it to get to 100% , which must be a political coupe .

Coup indeed as it would be the only of Amtrak's Long Distance trains to do so. Of course we all know that the Auto Trainis in a special category and has special arrangements that make it more efficient, but all the more reason to see it as a model for how to do things elsewhere.

If Amtrak had more rolling stock flexibility I have to wonder if they could make some in roads with the Empire Builder as well. Hopefully over the next few years we should see some improvements in this area generally.

Speaking very frankly the outcome of the Presidential election is likely going to result in some very very favorable outcomes for Amtrak. I think they're going to get some more money for rolling stock rehabilitation at some point. If they do that's largely going to "clean out the barn", especially at Bear, DE of cars that can be placed back in service.

Figures that CSX would limit train lenght.
CSX may not allow "Distruibuted Power" on the Auto Train route as well