Capacity Management/Revenue Enhancement

[ThirdRail7]

The maximum length of the Auto train is 50 cars as per CSX. As for the putting a locomotive at the end of the passenger coaches, I don't believe the Auto Train superliners are wired for push pull service which means there would be no way to monitor or control the engine en route. At this point, you'd have to place a rider on the engine for the entire route to monitor and control the engine.

[Dick H]

Amtrak has the F40 cabbage #406, which has a HEP generator and
was used for the anniversary train consist. This unit could be placed
between the coaches and the auto carriers and used to provide HEP
to a certain number of cars, decreasing the power load on the locomotives.
Of course, this would require the conversion of probably three more
retired F40s to HEP units, so as to have a total of four, one for each
trainset and a spare at Lorton and Sanford. It might be an issue with
CSX counting the F40 against the car count. I am not familiar with the
switching procedure at Sanford and Lorton to ready the train for the
next trip. Perhaps the F40 HEP would require an extra switching move.
I believe Amtrak does have several retired F40s still in storage.

[lirr42]

Good idea, Mr. H, but now Lorton/Stamford, who only have to stock parts and such for Superliners, P42's, and auto carriers now have to get parts and expertise for the F40's. And they couldn't even service those in Washington, as there are no F40's in use on the east coast (with the exception of the isolated Downeaster.

[Dick H]

Actually the F40 cabbage would essentially just be along for the ride.
Only the running gear, brakes, etc. would need service. The HEP
generator would require some service. I am not familiar what the
make and sixe of the unit is. It's probably a truck engine type unit,
that would need the oil changed after so many hours and the like.
It would have to fueled. As I noted previously, there would likely
be some extra switching involved at the terminals..Before
committing to turning out three addional HEP units, the #406
could be tried on a couple of test runs on an Auto Train round trip.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[gokeefe]

The maximum length of the Auto train is 50 cars as per CSX. As for the putting a locomotive at the end of the passenger coaches, I don't believe the Auto Train superliners are wired for push pull service which means there would be no way to monitor or control the engine en route. At this point, you'd have to place a rider on the engine for the entire route to monitor and control the engine.

Also I'm under the impression that generally the Auto Train comes pretty close to using maximum allowable length anyways (per CSX) meaning that the ability to extend the train beyond 50 cars might not matter.

But Dick is right, "nothing ventured, nothing gained." Perhaps over the next few years Amtrak will take another look at some of the more creative revenue enhancement measures mentioned here.

[ThirdRail7]

The F40 would count toward the total train length. If memory serves, the F40s would still need a rider. The onboard detection would still need to travel through the superliners which aren't push pull capable. Additionally, you now have your HEP source 16-20 cars away from anyone that can monitor/troubleshoot it. If you divide the trains into zones, you won't even know if there's a problem in a section of the train. Imagine if you needed three point protection for some reason?

That's nightmare inducing.

The trains aren't turned at the facilities, so you'd have the flat shift the F40. That shouldn't be a problem since the engine wouldn't need pointing.

All in all, you'd still need to come up with extra cars to even consider this.

[Dick H]

I never worked for a railroad. Mr. ThirdRail7 apparently did or does,
so he knows the rules and regulations. Some questions, please.

Did Amtrak have a "rider" in the F40 #406 on all its travels around the country?
The Downeaster routinely rotates an extra F40 cabbage and other locomotives
and cars on the rear of regular trains to Boston, where an extra crew takes the
extra equipment to Southhampton St. via the Grand Junction, (which should be
reopening soon). Are they required to put a "rider" in the F40 cabbage?

Looking up a "three point protection" as stated here:
http://madisonrails.railfan.net/r_3point.html

It appears all the functions are performed in the locomotive
where the engineer is located. Where would the F40 cabbage
fit into this procedure?

The P&W has a former B unit set up as a HEP unit for its passenger excursions
and OCS trains. There is no "rider" there, as there is no place to ride. Comments,
please.

[ThirdRail7]

I never worked for a railroad. Mr. ThirdRail7 apparently did or does,
so he knows the rules and regulations. Some questions, please.

Did Amtrak have a "rider" in the F40 #406 on all its travels around the country?
The Downeaster routinely rotates an extra F40 cabbage and other locomotives
and cars on the rear of regular trains to Boston, where an extra crew takes the
extra equipment to Southhampton St. via the Grand Junction, (which should be
reopening soon). Are they required to put a "rider" in the F40 cabbage?

When you see the 406, it is usually mu'ed with another locomotive, so it wouldn't need a rider. When it is not mu'ed, as long as the equipment is push pull compatible, you won't need a rider. The Downeaster sets are indeed push pull compatible, so as long as the engines are properly mu'ed, they can communicate with each other and to the lead locomotive.

Looking up a "three point protection" as stated here:
http://madisonrails.railfan.net/r_3point.html

It appears all the functions are performed in the locomotive
where the engineer is located. Where would the F40 cabbage
fit into this procedure?

The P&W has a former B unit set up as a HEP unit for its passenger excursions
and OCS trains. There is no "rider" there, as there is no place to ride. Comments,
please.

I can't speak for freight operations and their requirements. The definition you referenced was the original intent of three point/three step protection. However, Amtrak is not a freight railroad. The intent of the rule was an additional measure of safety prior to fouling, going under, or getting between standing equipment.
The three point/three step protection mirrors the Norac blue flag unavailable rule:

d. Blue Signal Unavailable
When emergency repair work is to be done on, under, or between engines and/or
cars, and a Blue Signal is not available, the Engineer must be notified. The
Engineer must take three actions:
1. Apply the brakes.
2. Place the reverser lever in neutral position or the controller in off position.
3. Open the generator field and/or control switch where equipped.
The engineer must maintain this protection until notified by the employee who
requested it that the protection is no longer required

This is reasonable for freight operations. However, passenger trains have other things that can cause huge problems, like the HEP system. So, basically the rule says your protected from movement and you are now free to crawl around thick cables carrying 480 volts of electricity since there is no provision under this rule or the quoted three step rule to disable it.

As such, Amtrak has their own rule. It is long and addresses the responsibility of each crew member. To tie this in to your cabbage question, we'll highlight the appropriate portion of the rule with a scenario using your 406.

The auto trains is cruising along with two diesels, 18 passenger cars, the 406 which is providing HEP and 22 auto carriers. All of a sudden, it goes into emergency. The conductor walks the train and there is a hose parted between 15th and 16th car. Before he can reconnect the hoses, he must request three point protection.

Three-Point Protection: Engineer – The engineer must take the following actions when “Three-Point Protection” is required:
a) Be sure that the slack has adjusted, then apply the train and engine brakes.
b) Throttle must be in idle position, or controller in off position, and then place the reverser in neutral position.
c) Shut down and isolate HEP from the providing locomotive, if applicable.
d) Confirming Three-Point Protection: Engineer must then confirm to the requesting employee that “Three-Point Protection” has been provided, using radio communication, not hand signals. When radio communication is not available, the confirmation can be accomplished by face-to-face verbal communication.
e) Releasing Three Point Protection: When “Three-Point Protection” is no longer required, only the employee who requested the “Three-Point Protection” can release it. This must be done over the radio, not by hand signal. When radio communication is not available, release can be accomplished by face-to-face verbal communication.

If the train is providing HEP from the locomotive where the engineer is located, this would take a few seconds. With the 406 providing HEP in the middle, the engineer would be required to walk back and confirm the HEP is disabled and isolated prior to granting three point protection. After it is released, the engineer would now walk 18 car lengths and two engines to assume the position.

I'm sure CSX would loooooove that!

By the way:

[gokeefe]

If the train is providing HEP from the locomotive where the engineer is located, this would take a few seconds. With the 406 providing HEP in the middle, the engineer would be required to walk back and confirm the HEP is disabled and isolated prior to granting three point protection. After it is released, the engineer would now walk 18 car lengths and two engines to assume the position.

I'm sure CSX would loooooove that!

Surprisingly enough in the recent issued Performance Improvement Plan for the Auto Train (see PDF page 29/84) the addition of a "power car" that would allow for additional passenger cars is seriously contemplated.

2.5 Auto Train Initiatives
Expanded Consist Size
The most significant impediment to improving ridership and revenue, along with
financial performance, is the long-standing 50 car consist limit. Being able to operate
trains that exceed this limit would immediately set in motion a plan to increase revenue
by at least $2mm - $3mm per year, and would also allow us the opportunity to fully
consider the possibility of a pet car on this train. Overcoming this situation would
require successful resolution of two issues:
 At any consist level above 50 cars, there is an unacceptably high risk of HEP
failure during the trip. HEP power for the train comes from one locomotive, and
its capacity is at risk of being overloaded if the passenger consist exceeds 16 cars.
A possible option is the development of a power car, which could support the
HEP capability of the existing locomotive. The challenge with this issue is the
cost of the car, and whether the operation of this power car would add costs that
would mitigate the revenue benefit. We are continuing to evaluate this option,
and a decision will not be made until sometime in FY13.
 The second issue is the ability of Amtrak to safely operate more than 50 cars as it
relates to braking. Longer trains make it more difficult to send a signal to the
rear cars to apply the brakes, and Amtrak’s System Road Foreman has
determined that a train length over 50 cars with traditional air brakes would not
be a prudent approach. Amtrak is looking at various electronic braking systems
that could address this issue, and hopes to test them during FY13.
Because of this limitation, our focus shifted to a series of customer service and added value
revenue enhancements which will benefit overall performance.

[electricron]

I understand why HEP can limit the length of trains, but I'm at a lost why brakes are an issue.
Aren't most freight trains on America's main lines longer than 50 cars? can someone explain why hazardous chemicals can be shipped on train longer than 50 cars safely while people can't because of brake issues?

[JimBoylan]

I understand why HEP can limit the length of trains, but I'm at a lost why brakes are an issue.
Aren't most freight trains on America's main lines longer than 50 cars? can someone explain why hazardous chemicals can be shipped on train longer than 50 cars safely while people can't because of brake issues?

The problem is freight car versus passenger car brakes. When freight car brakes are released, they release all the way. Passenger car brakes do not have that design limitation, they can have a "graduated" or partial release. As an earlier quote from Amtrak said, it takes a while for the air brakes on the rear of a long train to react, and that can be much worse with graduated release, so freight trains don't have it.
To get around this problem, cars assigned to the Auto train have their brakes adjusted to behave like freight car brakes. Some mechanical work is necessary before cars can be swapped between the Auto Train and other passenger trains.
The compressed air pressure change in a train's brake pipe travels at about the speed of sound, a mile every 5 seconds, a little more than the length of a 50 car passenger train. So, for almost 5 seconds after the engineer releases or partially releases the brakes, the rear of that long passenger train is still slowing down and giving a rough or worse ride. Some railroads require freight trains in that situation to come to a complete stop before releasing the brakes, lest the couplers break apart.
In the 1930s, some higher speed streamlined trains had Electro-Pnematic brakes, the air brakes were primarily controlled by electricity, which travels at about the speed of light, about nine hundred million times faster than sound. Even on a long train, that's almost instantaneous. While E-P brakes went out of favor like passenger trains and steam engines, modern consultants are trying to develop and sell Electronically Controlled Pneumatic brakes, which could solve Amtrak's long train problem at a higher cost.

[AgentSkelly]

I remember once hearing from an retired Amtrak employee who told me about various "experiments" that were tried; one of them was an auxiliary CAT generator that would be placed what usually is the baggage room on the lower level of a Superliner that would of provided more power for HEP use. He said this was tried shortly after the Superliner was introduced but it had issues as the power management system used didn't exactly work right and sometimes caused the entire HEP voltage to vary up to 20%.

[jstolberg]

Heard that there were some problems trying to get tickets to PAX Prime in Seattle. http://prime.paxsite.com/registration

Apparently the web server also had trouble keeping up with sales this year to Comic Con in San Diego. http://www.comic-con.org/cci/attending- ... ase-badges It looks to be sold out once again.

Almost 200,000 people took the trolley last year to the convention site during the 5 days of the show. http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/1 ... 93036.html Amtrak didn't appear to add any capacity to the Surfliners, which made for some stuffed trains.

Now that the new Talgo sets have been delivered to Oregon, (relieving the need for protect equipment up there) and California is taking delivery of 14 refubished Comet 1Bs, how many cars can Amtrak add this year July 17-21?

[H Street Landlord]

^^^will be interesting to see, for sure.

[David Benton]

I remember once hearing from an retired Amtrak employee who told me about various "experiments" that were tried; one of them was an auxiliary CAT generator that would be placed what usually is the baggage room on the lower level of a Superliner that would of provided more power for HEP use. He said this was tried shortly after the Superliner was introduced but it had issues as the power management system used didn't exactly work right and sometimes caused the entire HEP voltage to vary up to 20%.

modern inverter based gen sets should be able to synch in and provide exactly the same power as the hep supply . if , anything they would stabilise it .
But as i have said many times on here , i'm 100% sure its not really necessary , if Amtrak couldnt find ways to improve their current onboard power use by 20 -50 % , i'd eat my solar hat . That would be way more cost effective .