Passenger Trains > Railway Age on Empire Builder/Siemens Chargers

This article discusses the many crippling delays to the Empire Builder this winter and includes comments about the problems with Amtrak's Siemens ALC-42 Charger locomotives.  It precedes the latest Empire Builder/Siemens Charger fiasco involving Train 8(12).

In Railway Age:

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/whats-triggering-empire-builder-service-setbacks/ 

Hate to be in the shoes of the Siemens trouble-shooter on board, deal with the stress of the all eyes on him(her), dealing with design flaws the can't be fixed on the spot.  

VIA Rail is getting Chargers, but will have a protected life and not leave the "Corridor", like their GE P42's, and won't have to deal with Canadian winters west of Sudbury. I wonder if their design is more like our Midwest ones or Long Distance ones. 

Hopefully the issues with the ALC-42 units will get resolved sooner rather than later, just like the Midwestern States owned SC-44 units. I'm so glad that I rarely have to depend on the Empire Builder on a regular basis as with the state supported routes out of Chicago. If I did, I would be very reluctant to use any of the services when I'm in a rush. It seems that the MARC SC-44 units and the ones on the Pacific Surfliner are holding out fine. I haven't heard any consistent bad news about the MARC and Amtrak Pacific Surfliner ones.

A fair and balanced article. It not only focuses on the problems that the locomotives themselves have, but how their service failures cascade through host railroad operations and Amtrak crew scheduling and availability.

MC

Article does nothing to address the depth that Amtrak has cut T&E x-boards across the system causing trains to sit and wait on rested crews. I grew up believing that you kept the wheels turning and that requires a warm body even when the train is hours late. That was then, this is now. Have fun getting Amtraked!

PC1974 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Article does nothing to address the depth that
> Amtrak has cut T&E x-boards across the system
> causing trains to sit and wait on rested crews. I
> grew up believing that you kept the wheels turning
> and that requires a warm body even when the train
> is hours late. That was then, this is now. Have
> fun getting Amtraked!

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

This aspect of recent Amtrak service failures has been under-reported in many industry reports and again here. The unwashed media that are the target of the Amtrak Propaganda Ministry are largely unaware of how the off-Corridor crew bases have been stripped to the point of non-function in case of itregularities. Railway Age, however, should know better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/23 09:38 by GenePoon.

Before exercising any options with Siemens, I would borrow a couple of SD70MACH's from Metra and give them a try on the Empire Builder.

Broadening the topic somewhat, I recall that in the 12/1/22 board meeting, Amtrak said that 60% of its delays were host railroad related.  I thought that was an astoundingly low percentage.  I would have expected Amtrak to claim virtually all delays were someone else's fault.  The Empire Builder's problems fit into that statistical picture.  

Maybe the 60% figure takes the NEC into account.  Presumably,  Amtrak is responsible for virtually all the delays there.  Maybe I'm not remembering correctly.    If I am correct, I sure hope Amtrak wasn't bragging about that stat!

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before exercising any options with Siemens, I
> would borrow a couple of SD70MACH's from Metra and
> give them a try on the Empire Builder.

How does buying locomotives older than the P42 help Amtrak? Is there any proof they’d handle it better? Running at 79 while providing HEP in below zero temps is different than pulling mostly slow freight trains or short distance commuter trains.

Posted from iPhone

TransitTyrant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does buying locomotives older than the P42
> help Amtrak? Is there any proof they’d handle it
> better? Running at 79 while providing HEP in below
> zero temps is different than pulling mostly slow
> freight trains or short distance commuter trains.

Completely rebuilt. No doubt Metra is expecting to get 15 years of good service out of them pulling passenger trains, with frequent stopping and starting (not exactly light duty and they will be assigned Metra's longer trains).

If Amtrak decided that was the way to go, I am sure that they would buy new.

Just about everyday, freight train locomotives are on the point of Amtrak passenger trains.

Maybe Amtrak is happy with an expensive POS on the LDTs if its motive is to get rid of those trains.

PC1974 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Article does nothing to address the depth that
> Amtrak has cut T&E x-boards across the system
> causing trains to sit and wait on rested crews. I
> grew up believing that you kept the wheels turning
> and that requires a warm body even when the train
> is hours late. That was then, this is now. Have
> fun getting Amtraked!

Good point. Yes, it does not address extra board cutbacks in depth. But that really is a separate, although related topic.

The article's focus, well captured in the title, was "What's Triggering Empire Builder Service Setbacks?" The key operative word there is "triggering". Discussing the triggering causes for the service issues was the focus of the article. And it discussed those triggers pretty thoroughly, both the failures with the Siemens locomotives, and the cascading impacts of those failures on railroad operational scheduling and Amtrak crew availability. And as far as Amtrak crewing impacts goes, the article gave a full paragraph of attention to that factor. Yes, you had to read in a deeper understanding of that point. But the effect of crewing impacts was not ignored.

I am totally with you on the negative effects that too-small, or no, extra boards can have on service. Many years ago when I drove for Greyhound, we had extensive extra boards, and I worked one for quite some time until I finally had a smidgen of seniority to bid on and hold a regular run. I can think without trying very hard of dozens of situations where having a too-small or no extra board would have had real negative impacts on our service. The importance of extra boards (or "spare" boards or lists, as known in some industries) is not lost on me at all. I've commented a number of times here on TO about the negative effects not only for Amtrak, but for the freight railroads.

It is a very real issue and problem. But it really is another whole article's topic - and a worthy one. And I think Bruce Kelly, who is well known in railfan writing and photography circles for many years, as well as his editor recognized that. The article dealt fairly and in reasonable depth and detail for its length (which an editor assigns to a writer, even another editor as writer - been in the business, and know that from the inside). Let's hope that Railway Age will give that issue the full attention that the topic deserves. And you know what, you can prompt them to do so with a message to the editor or the writer. Bill Vantuono is generally regarded as an open and fair-minded guy, and if he is like most editors I've known through the years, he's always looking for a newsworthy topic to cover. And I have little doubt that Bruce Kelly would be as well. And the issue of extra boards, both for Amtrak and the freight railroads, certainly is a newsworthy topic.

MC
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/23 11:07 by ironmtn.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TransitTyrant Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How does buying locomotives older than the P42
> > help Amtrak? Is there any proof they’d handle
> it
> > better? Running at 79 while providing HEP in
> below
> > zero temps is different than pulling mostly
> slow
> > freight trains or short distance commuter
> trains.
>
> Completely rebuilt. No doubt Metra is expecting to
> get 15 years of good service out of them pulling
> passenger trains, with frequent stopping and
> starting (not exactly light duty and they will be
> assigned Metra's longer trains).
>
> If Amtrak decided that was the way to go, I am
> sure that they would buy new.
>
> Just about everyday, freight train locomotives are
> on the point of Amtrak passenger trains.
>
> Maybe Amtrak is happy with an expensive POS on the
> LDTs if its motive is to get rid of those trains.

Metra only bought them because they can’t afford anything else. And 1-2 milk runs a day is pretty light duty.

Why would Amtrak buy 125 of them if they were getting rid of the LD trains?

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe Amtrak is happy with an expensive POS on the
> LDTs if its motive is to get rid of those trains.

Somewhere somehow I knew someone was going to say that ALC 42 issues were deliberate sabotage to end all long distance trains. But that argument kind of falls apart when one considers that this exact same locomotive was just purchased en masse for what many of us all the “nothing else matters” corridor. If they were intentionally buying a bad design why would they put it on their crown jewel service?

TransitTyrant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would Amtrak buy 125 of them if they were
> getting rid of the LD trains?

Amtrak can use them on all of these new corridors which are to replace the LDTs.

TransitTyrant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Metra only bought them because they can’t afford
> anything else. And 1-2 milk runs a day is pretty
> light duty.

My mistake. I thought Metra was being smart in buying them.

I guess in a year or so, we will see which of us is the smart one.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TransitTyrant Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why would Amtrak buy 125 of them if they were
> > getting rid of the LD trains?
>
> Amtrak can use them on all of these new corridors
> which are to replace the LDTs.

Are you sure that's a great idea TS? Never gonna forget your claimed back in the 2000s how millions of corridors would do wonders in place of LD Trains and I shot you down on that!

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you sure that's a great idea TS? Never gonna
> forget your claimed back in the 2000s how millions
> of corridors would do wonders in place of LD
> Trains and I shot you down on that!

I am being facetious, ProAmtrak. I do not think Amtrak is capable of creating a successful new corridor on its own.

Would I be interested in torpedoing LDTs today, if I am advocating for more economical and better power for LDTs?

Seems like the safe move for anyone making a choice on something funded by the government unfortunately is to chose the expensive POS.

TransitTyrant Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> Metra only bought them because they can’t afford
> anything else. And 1-2 milk runs a day is pretty
> light duty.
>

Really? The BNSF run is “light duty”? You’ll find that 4-6 roundtrips per day is the norm.

Posted from iPhone

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ProAmtrak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are you sure that's a great idea TS? Never
> gonna
> > forget your claimed back in the 2000s how
> millions
> > of corridors would do wonders in place of LD
> > Trains and I shot you down on that!
>
> I am being facetious, ProAmtrak. I do not think
> Amtrak is capable of creating a successful new
> corridor on its own.
>
> Would I be interested in torpedoing LDTs today, if
> I am advocating for more economical and better
> power for LDTs?
>
> Seems like the safe move for anyone making a
> choice on something funded by the government
> unfortunately is to chose the expensive POS.

They've been that way since Amtrak got 'em almost a year ago, go figure why they're too stubborn to know the ALC's really are a peice of junk!

kevink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TransitTyrant Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > Metra only bought them because they can’t
> afford
> > anything else. And 1-2 milk runs a day is
> pretty
> > light duty.
> >
>
> Really? The BNSF run is “light duty”? You’ll
> find that 4-6 roundtrips per day is the norm.
>
> Posted from iPhone


I clearly mentioned Metra, can you read? But even so freight trains spend a ton of time not actually moving, it’s a common complaint with management and one the motivations behind PSR.