Home Open Account Help 134 users online

Passenger Trains > 58(10) much delayed by engine failure


Date: 02/10/19 21:31
58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: illini73

City of New Orleans departing New Orleans Sunday 2/10 has been sitting near Brookhaven, MS for over 7 hours now due to engine failure.  Relief engines will take the train to Chicago eventually.  Amtrakalerts twitter feed has been saying so for 6 hours now (as of 11 p.m. CT).

Meanwhile, closer to home, Hiawatha Service trains 340 and 341 were cancelled this evening due to motive power problems.

Final Report:  58(10) eventually arrived Chicago at 3:45 p.m. on the Monday the 11th, 6 hrs 30 mins late.  



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/19 20:03 by illini73.



Date: 02/10/19 22:34
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: goduckies

Amazed they only use one engine. Stupid with Amtrak's state of affairs

Posted from Android



Date: 02/11/19 06:27
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: PC1974

The Hiawatha problems started when 337 went "Belly Up".  It was also an OTP looser....



Date: 02/11/19 07:12
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: Englewood

The tough guy heros who wanted to send Amtrak trains out in -20 should take heed of this incident.
Good thing it happened down south and not up north in -20 in the middle of nowhere North Dakota.

Trains can operate in -20 but Amtrak trains have problems in nice weather.

Still waiting for reports on how the Chargers have been doing.



Date: 02/11/19 07:14
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: dan

BN requires 3 engines thru north dakota 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/19 07:18 by dan.



Date: 02/11/19 07:40
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: Lackawanna484

Doesn't Amtrak have an abundance of P42 units with all these chargers on line with CA MI etc?

Posted from Android



Date: 02/11/19 08:06
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: bodkin6071

58 at Carbondale (CDL) now.

Posted from Android



Date: 02/11/19 08:11
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: dan

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't Amtrak have an abundance of P42 units with
> all these chargers on line with CA MI etc?
>
> Posted from Android

amtrak is stingy with coaches and  engines and other things pushing equipment and riders  to the brink, anderson does want to create greyhound 2 thou.



Date: 02/11/19 08:44
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: 79mph

Deferred equipment purchases and maintenance budget cuts under Boardman.
Shifting money to the northeast corrridor to look more "profitable."



Date: 02/11/19 08:50
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: bodkin6071

Word is it was the traction motor bearings went out. Another unit or units were sent up from NOLA. It had two at Carbondale.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/19 08:51 by bodkin6071.



Date: 02/11/19 11:51
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: ctillnc

Each Silver Star runs ~1200 miles a day behind a single diesel. Likewise the Palmetto and Carolinian, although the mileage of those trains (behind diesel) is less than the CONO. There is the occasional failure, yes. But the tradeoff is mileage on the P42 fleet overall, with a secondary concern of additional fuel burn. And note that some kinds of over-the-road failures, such as a frozen axle because of a bad traction motor, can stop a train even if two locomotives are on it. Those types of failures are roughly twice as likely if you run two locomotives. 



Date: 02/11/19 12:30
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: MNNRfan

PC1974 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Hiawatha problems started when 337 went "Belly
> Up".  It was also an OTP looser....


Would be interesting to know what the Hiawatha engine issues were. That trainset should have been Charger powered.

Posted from Android



Date: 02/11/19 12:50
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: Lackawanna484

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Each Silver Star runs ~1200 miles a day behind a
> single diesel. Likewise the Palmetto and
> Carolinian, although the mileage of those trains
> (behind diesel) is less than the CONO. There is
> the occasional failure, yes. But the tradeoff is
> mileage on the P42 fleet overall, with a secondary
> concern of additional fuel burn. And note that
> some kinds of over-the-road failures, such as a
> frozen axle because of a bad traction motor, can
> stop a train even if two locomotives are on it.
> Those types of failures are roughly twice as
> likely if you run two locomotives. 

Understood, thank you.

Any idea on the mean time/ distance between failures for the P42 fleet?  My sense is there are fewer breakdowns than in previous years.



Date: 02/11/19 14:29
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: ctillnc

I don't know the numbers, but I agree, it does seem like the failures happen less often.



Date: 02/11/19 17:10
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: MaryMcPherson

bodkin6071 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Word is it was the traction motor bearings went
> out. Another unit or units were sent up from NOLA.
> It had two at Carbondale.
>
> Posted from Android

Two units from NOL to the rescue.  A single unit would have been limited to 30mph running light.  50mph for two units.

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions



Date: 02/12/19 08:40
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: 79mph

Surprised CN could handle the lite move, as "busy" as they are.
While the Silver Star might be one of the longer routes to be run with a single unit, it is never "far" from help.  Typically the Meteor or the Auto Train can drop a sister unit.
CNO is likely the longest away from any help.
Nothing at Carbondale unless a state train is cancelled.
And with the 24 hour inspection points being scaled back, taking an Illinois unit south out of Carbondale would likely be FRA illegal
Eagle between St. Louis and Fort Worth a similar story.  You likely could not send a Charger south out of St. Louis even if there were spares.
Should always have two engines on 21/22 and 58/59, regardless of any extra expense.
Especially with the fleet being so elderly and suffering from at least a decade of deferred maintenance.
This also brings up an interesting point, since the Illinois Chargers are not considered intercity assets
Is it even possible to put a Charger on an "intercity" train?
Not aware of it having happened yet, although the reverse situation has happened frequently in the last year, where P42's were sent to bail out "state" trains.
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/19 09:02 by 79mph.



Date: 02/12/19 12:44
Re: 58(10) much delayed by engine failure
Author: ctillnc

> Typically the Meteor or the Auto Train can drop a sister unit.

Not if the Star breaks down between Savannah and Selma, as has happened. It's CSX to the rescue, unless the P42 happens to die near Raleigh so that NCDOT can provide an F59.



Date: 02/13/19 12:47
Engine failure
Author: 79mph

#158 wuz the bad actor.
Sure, there are a lot of single-engine aircraft out there, but when was the last time you heard of commercial passenger-carriers using just one power plant?
Odds of all four engines ingesting birds at the same time and having to put down in the Hudson are slim to none.  Too bad Sully only had two!



[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.0556 seconds