Passenger Trains > Amtrak CN/IC Test Train Featuring 301

Shunt enhancer test. Reportedly overnighting in CDL and back up Thursday morning. Anyone know any details or train number? DS addressed them as “Amtrak 301.”

light speed

301, Viewliner baggage, 2 Horizon cars.

Dispatcher: “Amtrak 301, you are relieved of speed and axle restrictions under Amtrak passenger trains.”

Was wondering what it was and that was my guess. It was on the Chicago sub leaving downtown at around 9:30am yesterday, and like stated, consist was 301, viewliner baggage, and two Horizon cars.

This is a good sign.  It appears that CN and Amtrak are testing to see if they can run shorter consists on the CN to Carbondale.  Ultimately, the superliners used on the Saluki and Ilini could be returned to the long distance fleet.  

A mystery why this positive development has taken so long.

The real mystery is why track circuits dating to about 1872 are no longer reliable. Not that they were ever perfect but come on, how did IC manage without Superliners for a hundred years? It seems unrelated to Electrocode eliminating line side wires as that goes back a great many years. I’ve heard speculation that it may relate to the speed predictive circuitry.

But as they won’t fix the basic issue they will make IDOT buy these things.

I wonder if we will see 301 assigned to some 39X trains for further tests.

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real mystery is why track circuits dating to
> about 1872 are no longer reliable.

Simple.  The only thing the same is a pair of rails.  Different equipment, different results.  I'm led to understand that the minimum allowed voltage in the rails is not reliable with short trains, and therein lies the crux of the matter.  If higher votage was required by regulation, the problem would go away.  If the railroad would increase the voltage on its own, the problem would go away.  But the minimum is the minimum, and a voluntary increase would cost money... and that's not going to happen in the era of genuflecting at the feet of the Wall Street raiders.

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

Anyone know how long the "test trains" will continue and what is the measurement for success and failure of the new feature being employed? 

The IC randomly ran 100MPH long passenger trains on double track under rule 251.  I remember riding the REAL CNOriding in the observation car and the conductor confirmed the speed with his Hamilton railroad approved watch..

raytc1944 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The IC randomly ran 100MPH long passenger trains
> on double track under rule 251.  I remember
> riding the REAL CNOriding in the observation car
> and the conductor confirmed the speed with his
> Hamilton railroad approved watch..

And how long were those 100 mph trains?

301 died on the test train. 390 also had its charger die. As I understand it, a GTW geep pulled both trains to Chicago together after they set 390's SC44 out. 

I read that a more efficient wheel ( less contact area) profile is part of the problem years ago, is this not true?

Molasses moves faster than this issue.

sethamtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 301 died on the test train. 390 also had its
> charger die. As I understand it, a GTW geep pulled
> both trains to Chicago together after they set
> 390's SC44 out. 
OMG!  You can't make this stuff up!
Just contract out some buses and return the Superliners to the LD trains!

Dan, I think wheel profiles were investigated and did not resolve the issue.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> raytc1944 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>>
> And how long were those 100 mph trains?

I do know that the many trains I rode at 90 mph  before single tracking on the Champaign Sub.
were an F40 and 3 or 4 cars.

A nice touch that the 301 died.  All can see that amtrak has more problems than the CN
car requirement. Problems they can't blame someone else for.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/24 03:09 by Englewood.

mp51w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sethamtrak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 301 died on the test train. 390 also had its
> > charger die. As I understand it, a GTW geep
> pulled
> > both trains to Chicago together after they set
> > 390's SC44 out. 

> OMG!  You can't make this stuff up!
> Just contract out some buses and return the
> Superliners to the LD trains!

AGREE, sadly. 

sethamtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 301 died on the test train. 390 also had its
> charger die. As I understand it, a GTW geep pulled
> both trains to Chicago together after they set
> 390's SC44 out. 

Oops

Posted from Android

Just to  chime in  14  car  90 mph  trains on IC common. But  they often  hit 100 plus. Don't  tell!!

> I do know that the many trains I rode at 90 mph 
> before single tracking on the Champaign Sub.
> were an F40 and 3 or 4 cars.
>
This is interesting to me.  I used to ride the Illini and Panama Limited between Rantoul and Chicago in the late 70s before the single tracking.  I was 9 or 10 years old then, so I did not know how to calculate speed using mile markers.  I do remember that of the two tracks, one was smoother than the other.  I remember standing on the playground explaining to a perplexed teacher that the roadbed in one direction was better.  My grandfather worked on the C&E on a track gang.  So he knew all about that and taught me what he knew.  

Where was the 90 MPH routine with the F40s and Amfleets?