Home Open Account Help 246 users online

Passenger Trains > An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen


Pages:  [ 1 ][ 2 ] [ Next ]
Current Page:1 of 2


Date: 02/09/20 17:20
An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: BoilingMan

Number 5 limped into Sparks, NV this morning with a rather common problem- the lead unit had failed (fuel leak).  The solution was pretty routine as well- borrow a freight unit from the hosting RR (in this case, the UP).
But this time, the common turned interesting..
The only locomotives available were all facing East- and the Sparks wye is, at the moment, Out Of Service!   So the UP 5271 was tucked behind the ailing 168, but ahead of the 138 (so that HEP could be provided).
Trust me- you've not likely seen this combination before, nor likely to see it again.
SR

Photo 1.  Out of Tunnel 41 and approaching Norden-  Thank You engineer Jones for the little wave (and the heads up text this morning!).
Photo 2.  Rounding Gorge with it's great view of The Giant's Gap.

BTW:  Engineer Jones tells me he did see this once before- years ago with F40's.






Date: 02/09/20 17:35
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: GenePoon

The UP unit is facing the wrong way and is dirty, but who cares?  The train would not have made it over The Hill without it.



Date: 02/09/20 17:46
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: HotWater

OK, so the lead Amtrak unit "failed" due to a "fuel tank problem". Then how is that lead Amtrak unit kept running, if there is a "fuel tank problem"?



Date: 02/09/20 17:51
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: BoilingMan

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, so the lead Amtrak unit "failed" due to a
> "fuel tank problem". Then how is that lead Amtrak
> unit kept running, if there is a "fuel tank
> problem"?

It's not-  it's in "glider" mode.
SR



Date: 02/09/20 17:51
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: GenePoon

It doesn't have to run any more than required to keep its batteries charged so it can function as a controlling unit.  In effect it would be a cab car, incapable of traction.



Date: 02/09/20 17:59
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: ExSPCondr

Ha, ha, ha!
G



Date: 02/09/20 18:00
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: HotWater

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't have to run any more than required to
> keep its batteries charged so it can function as a
> controlling unit.  In effect it would be a cab
> car, incapable of traction.

Don't thing so. There must be "local control" from the auxiliary generator in order to maintain all throttle and trainline power, plus the air compressor must be running in order to keep the air brake control in that lead unit. Thus, the prime mover must be at least idling.



Date: 02/09/20 18:16
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: BoilingMan

Jack, Mark only told me there was a fuel leak, but no real details (his original text said "The inbound crew reported a bad fuel leak on #168- fuel spilled all over engine")  I wasn't more specific because "fuel leak" was all I had.  Most of our discussion was about the UP loco being between the two P42's, the wye being OOS, and where I'd be to shoot them (for The Wave).
I expect he'll check this thread out once he's tied up in Oakland and off duty.   Maybe he'll better address your, um...     concern?
SR



Date: 02/09/20 18:26
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: HotWater

BoilingMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jack, Mark only told me there was a fuel leak,
> but no real details (his original text said "The
> inbound crew reported a bad fuel leak on #168-
> fuel spilled all over engine")  I wasn't more
> specific because "fuel leak" was all I had.  Most
> of our discussion was about the UP loco being
> between the two P42's, the wye being OOS, and
> where I'd be to shoot them (for The Wave).
> I expect he'll check this thread out once he's
> tied up in Oakland and off duty.   Maybe he'll
> better address your, um...     concern?
> SR

OK, a "fuel leak" on the engine is a whole lot different than a "fuel tank" leak/issue. Thus, keeping the prime mover at idle, would tend to reduce the leak and potential of fire, as compared to a fuel leak while at full load, with everything really hot.



Date: 02/09/20 18:46
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: atsf121

Great photos, that is an unusual combination!

Posted from iPhone



Date: 02/09/20 19:28
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: dan

3 hours to ADD THAT BABY



Date: 02/09/20 19:38
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: BoilingMan

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3 hours to ADD THAT BABY

Yes, well, they had to wash it first.
SR

Oh.
Wait....



Date: 02/09/20 20:06
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: trainjunkie

BoilingMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not-  it's in "glider" mode.

I call it "silent mode" where I work. Makes for a nice trip.



Date: 02/09/20 20:13
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: dan

BoilingMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 3 hours to ADD THAT BABY
>
> Yes, well, they had to wash it first.
> SR
>
> Oh.
> Wait....  i saw that loco in in'n'outs drive thru 



Date: 02/09/20 20:55
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: IC_2024

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The UP unit is facing the wrong way and is dirty,
> but who cares?  The train would not have made it
> over The Hill without it.


That is absolutely “spot-on”, Gene !!
We had a great trip, thanks to inbound Reno crews for doing the “dirty work” of adding #5271! ( Don’t worry, I’ve done this many times over my career)- haha. Anyway, made it into EMY at 1827– a good run, and nice and quiet in the isolated 168, too — all is well!!



Date: 02/09/20 20:57
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: IC_2024

Thanks, SR, for this post and your awesome photos ! No problem making it down from Norden to Rocky point and then back to your “Shangri-La” at Alta, eh?!?



Date: 02/09/20 21:01
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: IC_2024

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BoilingMan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jack, Mark only told me there was a fuel leak,
> > but no real details (his original text said
> "The
> > inbound crew reported a bad fuel leak on #168-
> > fuel spilled all over engine")  I wasn't more
> > specific because "fuel leak" was all I had. 
> Most
> > of our discussion was about the UP loco being
> > between the two P42's, the wye being OOS, and
> > where I'd be to shoot them (for The Wave).
> > I expect he'll check this thread out once he's
> > tied up in Oakland and off duty.   Maybe
> he'll
> > better address your, um...     concern?
> > SR
>
> OK, a "fuel leak" on the engine is a whole lot
> different than a "fuel tank" leak/issue. Thus,
> keeping the prime mover at idle, would tend to
> reduce the leak and potential of fire, as compared
> to a fuel leak while at full load, with everything
> really hot.

Absolutely correct from your career w/ EMD, hotwater... We had her isolated, but were still building up a few amps on the TM’s as you well understand — they’re so hot! Anyway, all’s well that ends well—great seeing SR and all the other fans out recording this today, too!!



Date: 02/09/20 21:20
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: IC_2024

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't have to run any more than required to
> keep its batteries charged so it can function as a
> controlling unit.  In effect it would be a cab
> car, incapable of traction.

We were down to about 59 volts ( out of 74 volts) and were in “glide mode” ( ahh, nice and quiet!) but had everything in control — well stated, Gene !



Date: 02/09/20 21:24
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: IC_2024

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BoilingMan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's not-  it's in "glider" mode.
>
> I call it "silent mode" where I work. Makes for a
> nice trip.

❤️❤️❤️

Posted from iPhone



Date: 02/09/20 22:08
Re: An Amtrak Loco Combination You've Probably Never Seen
Author: BoilingMan

IC_2024 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, SR, for this post and your awesome photos
> ! No problem making it down from Norden to Rocky
> point and then back to your “Shangri-La” at
> Alta, eh?!?

I was at Carpenter Road too, but did like the result well enough to post it- then joined TO member Stevo_W for a cold one.
SR
Pretty successful day all ‘n all.



Pages:  [ 1 ][ 2 ] [ Next ]
Current Page:1 of 2


[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.103 seconds