Passenger Trains > What happened to Silver Meteor #98?

Arrived Richmond 4:39 am/departed 5:11 am and did not leave Alexandria till 7:45 am. Would have been ahead of time if it had gotten out of Richmond within ten minutes and made a normal 1'35" RVR-ALX run.

Andy

It only lost 14 mins between the 2, why be concerned about that?

Posted from Android

Was in Richmond from 439am until 539am setting off locomotive (AMTK 12) for today's train 94. Dixieland does not reflect corrected station times.

SandHouseTalk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was in Richmond from 439am until 539am setting off
> locomotive (AMTK 12) for today's train 94.
> Dixieland does not reflect corrected station
> times.


An hour to set off a locomotive? Should be five minutes at most.

for starters, may not have been the lead unit that was set out

The_Chief_Way Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> for starters, may not have been the lead unit that
> was set out


OK, give them 10-15 minutes.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> An hour to set off a locomotive? Should be five
> minutes at most.

======================================================

Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

An hour IS excessive but it will take more than five minutes if it was the
lead unit being set out and the second one has to be set up to lead.

But what is Train 94(17) using for power out of Newport News? It departed on
time but hasn't reached Richmond yet. Did the AMTK 12 run light-engine
to NPN?

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ptolemy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > An hour to set off a locomotive? Should be
> five
> > minutes at most.
>
> ==================================================
> ====
>
> Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
>
> An hour IS excessive but it will take more than
> five minutes if it was the
> lead unit being set out and the second one has to
> be set up to lead.
>
> But what is Train 94(17) using for power out of
> Newport News? It departed on
> time but hasn't reached Richmond yet. Did the
> AMTK 12 run light-engine
> to NPN?

All I Know is that is what they can do in Europe--change engines in five minutes or less, with one person in the cab and one on the ground.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The_Chief_Way Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > for starters, may not have been the lead unit
> that
> > was set out
>
>
> OK, give them 10-15 minutes.


If #12 was NOT the lead unit, why was IT selected to be set out for the 94 train -- and WHO decided to do it that way? This ain't rocket science -- or is it?

Fritz in HSV, AL

Ptolemy Wrote:

> All I Know is that is what they can do in
> Europe--change engines in five minutes or less,
> with one person in the cab and one on the ground.


Whether in Europe or in the USA...when a scheduled engine change occurs
at a major station (not an enroute, unscheduled one like this), a fresh
engine is brought from the engine house, all set up and ready to lead.
The old one comes off, the track switched, and the new one ties on. If
there are automatic connections for electric power and communications,
no separate cables have to be unhooked from the first engine and connected
to the second.

In this case, with two units that just came into Richmond off the
road, one has its control computer set up as controlling unit, the other
as controlled unit. Proper settings need to be made so that only one
engine will be controlling all by itself and so that the other one
can be moved and set out. Two sets of HEP cables need to be disconnected
and hooked back up. The proper inspections of the unit now set up to lead
must be done by the engineer, and signed off.

It is the road crew that is doing the work, not a bunch of Mechanical personnel
and carmen from the enginehouse, and the road crew also have the responsibility
for properly securing the set-out unit safely (some time back, an improperly
tied-down runaway went from Staples Mill Station to Acca Yard before it was
stopped, fortunately without derailment).

It all takes longer than five minutes. Amtrak can do it in a lot less than
an hour at Washington DC, and usually does.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/14 09:08 by GenePoon.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ptolemy Wrote:
>
> > All I Know is that is what they can do in
> > Europe--change engines in five minutes or less,
> > with one person in the cab and one on the
> ground.
>
>
> Whether in Europe or in the USA...when a scheduled
> engine change occurs
> at a major station (not an enroute, unscheduled
> one like this), a fresh
> engine is brought from the engine house, all set
> up and ready to lead.
> The old one comes off, the track switched, and the
> new one ties on. If
> there are automatic connections for electric power
> and communications,
> no separate cables have to be unhooked from the
> first engine and connected
> to the second.
>
> In this case, with two units that just came into
> Richmond off the
> road, one has its control computer set up as
> controlling unit, the other
> as controlled unit. Proper settings need to be
> made so that only one
> engine will be controlling all by itself and so
> that the other one
> can be moved and set out. Two sets of HEP cables
> need to be disconnected
> and hooked back up. The proper inspections of the
> unit now set up to lead
> must be done by the engineer, and signed off.
>
> It is the road crew that is doing the work, not a
> bunch of Mechanical personnel
> and carmen from the enginehouse, and the road crew
> also have the responsibility
> for properly securing the set-out unit safely
> (some time back, an improperly
> tied-down runaway went from Staples Mill Station
> to Acca Yard before it was
> stopped, fortunately without derailment).
>
> It all takes longer than five minutes. Amtrak can
> do it in a lot less than
> an hour at Washington DC, and usually does.

I would think all this would be true in Europe, too.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would think all this would be true in Europe,
> too.

=====================================================

Not if it had to be done in mid-route at a station without engine service facilities.

If you have ridden two million miles on passenger trains and picked up a modicum of
knowledge about railroading, surely you would know that.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ptolemy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I would think all this would be true in Europe,
> > too.
>
> ==================================================
> ===
>
> Not if it had to be done in mid-route at a station
> without engine service facilities.
>
> If you have ridden two million miles on passenger
> trains and picked up a modicum of
> knowledge about railroading, surely you would know
> that.

I have seen this happen in Europe (in mid-route at a station without engine facilities), and even then it took only a few minutes.

I do find it curious that one of the most notorious Amtrak-bashers on TO is now defending an Amtrak practice I find intolerable. Is it just because I was the one to mention it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/14 10:12 by Ptolemy.

Ptolemy Wrote:

> I do find it curious that one of the most
> notorious Amtrak-bashers on TO is now defending an
> Amtrak practice I find intolerable. Is it just
> because I was the one to mention it?
===================================

No...it's because I've done it (an hour IS rather much...five minutes
will require cutting corners, which shouldn't be done).

And you haven't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/14 10:34 by GenePoon.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ptolemy Wrote:
>
> > I do find it curious that one of the most
> > notorious Amtrak-bashers on TO is now defending
> an
> > Amtrak practice I find intolerable. Is it
> just
> > because I was the one to mention it?
> ===================================
>
> No...it's because I've done it (an hour IS rather
> much...five minutes
> will require cutting corners, which shouldn't be
> done).
>
> And you haven't.

OK, we're agreed that five minutes is too little and an hour is too long, not to speak of the over two hours I've seen twice at Buffalo on #48. The problem is, of course, that it can be so terribly inconsistent. And I stand by what I said that it is done regularly in Europe in a very few minutes: maybe they cut corners there.

12 was lead.

Posted from Android

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem is, of course, that it can be so terribly
> inconsistent.

=================================================

Yes. We are absolutely agreed, there.

E#12 was cut from 98 and left for 94 due to E#513 having cab signal issues, thus unable to lead over the RF&P.

Posted from iPhone

I can not comment on Europe's rules, but Mr Poon's assessment is spot on. The reason for the inconsistency is due to the different layouts of the facilities. Although the move on 98's engine change was contemplated earlier in the night, the actual decision to cut the unit came as it was sitting in RVR after NPN informed CNOC that 95's inbound was unable to be repaired.

New Haven can knock out a planned engine swap in 7 to 9 minutes since it has relay tracks specifically for that purpose. However, not ever terminal is set up for quick engine moves.

They may be cleaning it before they put it on train 94. Because 98 hit someone just south of Jacksonville