Passenger Trains > UP to require 30 axle train sets north of Los Angeles

A UP notice was seen, saying that 30 axles will be required north of Los Angeles, to shunt the circuits..  Possible two week delay for Amtrak to work out the details.

What has changed over the past 120 years on the coast to require this.?

climate change

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> climate change

Hahaha! Awesome.

mundo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A UP notice was seen, saying that 30 axles will be
> required north of Los Angeles, to shunt the
> circuits..  Possible two week delay for Amtrak to
> work out the details.
>
> What has changed over the past 120 years on the
> coast to require this.?

Nothing has changed.  This has been a problem with short trains for ages and was experienced in many places by operators of RDC trains.

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/16088

This should be interesting with Metrolink trains to Montalvo as far as parking them for the night  How many San Diegans run with 6 cars?

Unless something has changed on the coast, can't remember of ever hearing about shunting problems with Amtrak or Metrolink trains. This is going to be good with the few locals they run. Can't wait to see a 7 car train on the Santa Paula Branch to deliver 1 car.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mundo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A UP notice was seen, saying that 30 axles will
> be
> > required north of Los Angeles, to shunt the
> > circuits..  Possible two week delay for Amtrak
> to
> > work out the details.
> >
> > What has changed over the past 120 years on the
> > coast to require this.?
>
> Nothing has changed.  This has been a problem
> with short trains for ages and was experienced in
> many places by operators of RDC trains.
>
> https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/16088



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/19 22:41 by SP4360.

Some things to consider:

changed rail grinding practices and rail profiles 
wheel tread configuration on passenger equipment 
crossing predictor technology.   

Whatever the root cause(s), going to 30 axles is a crutch, not a solution.  This is a safety problem that has been studied for at least five years with no conclusion reached.  It reminds me of a major derailment scene where the engineering team is looking for wheels, the mechanical guys are measuring cross level and the transportation guys are looking everywhere except train makeup and crew performance.   It was an organizational problem when a derailment was not closed out and it is an industry problem that a safety issue like short shunting cannot be resolved.  

Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.  Big business always exhibits its inability to solve small problems.

-John

Metrolink has been running  20 axle trains everywhere without any issues.  

Sounds like some corporate BS to me.   And lawyers running the show, like thats something new



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/19 00:12 by pdt.

Yup, taking a page out of CN's playbook. All the years I worked there, no shunting issues north of Los Angeles. If the UP has has issues of their own above SLO, then they should deal with their own problem.

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Metrolink has been running  20 axle trains
> everywhere without any issues.  
>
> Sounds like some corporate BS to me.

If they need more cars to fill the trains out to seven cars, then bring the dozen or so brand new diners that they have stored back east out west!

Is this the same territory that the "Chatsworth" wreck happened? If so I would start asking the question....What, if anything, was potentially missed during the investigation when it comes to shunting circuit problems before this decsion.

Before anyone beats me up. If this is a stupid question........ I am terrible on California geography and avoid the entire state like the plague.

The only thing missed was the fact the engineer did not stop for a red signal. 

YoungOldHead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this the same territory that the "Chatsworth"
> wreck happened? If so I would start asking the
> question....What, if anything, was potentially
> missed during the investigation when it comes to
> shunting circuit problems before this decsion.
>
> Before anyone beats me up. If this is a stupid
> question........ I am terrible on California
> geography and avoid the entire state like the
> plague.

Sounds like the Congress will have to override the lawyers of the stupid railroads...........

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only thing missed was the fact the engineer
> did not stop for a red signal. 
>>>

That usually means it's management's fault.

Posted from Android

Doug Wetherhold
Macungie, PA

How did the one car Western Pacific Zephyrette RDC between Oakland and Salt Lake ever make it with tripping all the track circuits, or didn't it ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/19 09:12 by joemvcnj.

PTC issue perhaps.

Posted from iPhone

Don't know how far "north of LA"  goes, but this might be another strike against the much maligned Talgos.  If this is just a certain area and not system wide, then I think we have to ask why there is a problem only on this stretch of track?

howeld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PTC issue perhaps.
>
> Posted from iPhone

That's what I'm thinking too.

Allen

Posted from Android

Maybe that is the reason that some more modern outfits are opting for axle counters instead of track circuits. Of course they have their own issue, but they are apparently not as unpredictable as the ones for track circuits.