Trains.com

Amtrak NEC CAT and signal problems.

40515 views
195 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 8, 2015 9:25 AM

Circuit board goes pop?  Whatabout those locomotives that transmit data to a central location?

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, November 8, 2015 10:27 PM

.  Unconfirmed reports are that it actually was CETC that had failed and needed rebooting.   Center located at PHL 30th st station.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, December 2, 2015 5:07 PM

Another signal problem WASH - BAL delaying MARC.  Note: Amtrak never lists these problems so the only part that gets reliable outage info. 

MTA Maryland Alerts Subscriber

 

 
Today at 5:55 PM
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, December 3, 2015 6:45 AM

If MARC issues these bulletins in a similar style to Metra, "signal problems" can cover a whole variety of sins.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, December 16, 2015 6:27 PM

No details when failure happened but appears that the rebuilt Gate to New Rochelle 12.5 Kv 60 Hz had a failure.  Would suspect that either a step down transformer feeding the route failed or a feeder itself failed.  Brings up the question  " Why isn't there a backup source ? "

Amtrak bulletin.

Amtrak Resumes Electric Service between New Haven and New York

Temporary repairs made to overhead power system

 

Amtrak engineering forces have made temporary repairs to the overhead electrical system that powers trains on the Northeast Corridor. 
Electric operation has now resumed in the affected area between Penn Station and New Rochelle, NY, though residual delays can be expected through the evening.  
Amtrak regrets any inconvenience. This information is correct as of the above time and date. Information is subject to change as conditions warrant.
Passengers with travel plans can confirm their train's status, change their plans or review refund information using a range of tools – including Amtrak.com, smartphone apps or by calling 800-USA-RAIL. Service Alerts, Passenger Notices and other announcements are posted at Amtrak.com/alerts.
To be notified of service disruptions on the Northeast Corridor (including Acela Express, Northeast Regional and other corridor services), follow @AmtrakNEC on Twitter.
 
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, February 26, 2016 3:18 AM

  South end had another failure of signals. From MARC posting.

Feb 25 at 7:12 PM
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, February 26, 2016 11:37 AM

blue streak 1

  South end had another failure of signals. From MARC posting.

Feb 25 at 7:12 PM
EDIT  --  unconfirmed report that tree across signal code or power lines ?

High winds for the past 48 hours in the Mid-Atlantic area, coupled with saturated ground from the snow melt from last months 2 foot plus blizzard and then the 2 plus inches of rain from the storm on the 24th.  Perfect situation to blow trees over!

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 5:47 PM

  Once again another signal problem WASH - Perryville.

All northbound trains are currently experiencing  a signal delay north of Odenton Station.  Personnel are on sight working to correct the issue.  Updates will continue as they become available.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, May 27, 2016 4:51 PM

And once again more CAT failures around WASH Union station

To

Today at 3:57 PM
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, May 27, 2016 6:59 PM

Run diesels and catanary isn't needed.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, May 28, 2016 9:44 AM

The PRR did a study back around 1960 or so considering that very thing.  In the end they decided to keep the electrification.  Maybe they shouldn't have, but I'm sure at the time it made sense.

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Saturday, May 28, 2016 7:22 PM

Firelock76
The PRR did a study back around 1960 or so considering that very thing. In the end they decided to keep the electrification

And that's where the E44s came from, and later the Metroliners instead of a glorified Turbotrain.

And then Conrail almost jumped the 'right way' in the early '80s with the dual-mode plan -- I still think that made sense to do at the time*, and in some contexts still might (especially with DC-link inverted motor control and practical wayside storage).

I am amazed we still have variable-tension cat at 25Hz and ancient infrastructure so many places on what was and is some of the fastest railroad in America.

Put constant-tension in across New Jersey and watch the fun start.  (Although I will miss the amazing spark shows that the Silverliners put on with the old fixed cat during ice days in the wintertime!)

*that being, I believe, before Amtrak intentionally raised power charges in part to get freight off the Corridor.  As I recall that's the prime factor that was 'stated' as leading to shutting down the Conrail electrifications, although it is also true that reducing the number of trains that can use an electrified Corridor rapidly makes the fixed overhead costs of electric traction uneconomical; that certainly applied to the Low Grade not just in terms of the catenary wirework but the track as well...

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Saturday, May 28, 2016 8:27 PM

Meanwhile, Walk Bridge is apparently stuck open again...

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, July 29, 2016 8:54 PM
 
 

Once again more CAT problems in the MARC area.  This time there is no excuse as Amtrak has not cleared enough trees so a tree fouls the CAT on two tracks.

 

MARC Service Alert <alert@mtamarylandalerts.com> Due to trees in the catenary between Bowies State station and New Carrollton, trains in both directions may take a possible 10 to 15 mintue delay account of single tracking. OptOut: http://mtamaryland

Today at 10:00 AM
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:52 AM

Another failure on the MARC section of the NEC.  It must be this area is the oldest part of the signal and CAT system of the PRR that has not been upgraded ?  Anyone with more info ?

MARC Service Alert <alert@mtamarylandalerts.com> Due to signal and switch issue between Odenton and Bowie all Penn Line trains in both directions will operate 30-35 minutes late. Metro is honoring MARC Tickets OptOut: http://mtamarylandalerts.com/u.

Today at 5:53 AM
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, August 19, 2016 8:28 PM
 
 

Another failure today ( Friday )

 

MARC Service Alert <alert@mtamarylandalerts.com> Due to signal and switch issue between Bowie and Odenton. All MARC trains on the Penn Line in both directions will be be operating approximately 25-30 minutes late. Metro is honoring MAR Tickets. OptO

Today at 6:10 AM
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, November 10, 2016 12:18 PM
 
 

Another failure of reported switch but it may have been a signal problem ?

 

MARC Service Alert <alert@mtamarylandalerts.com> Train 401 has encountered a switch problem just south of Seabrook station. It will be necessary for the train to reverse back towards Bowie to change tracks. We expect 401 to operate approximately 20

To
MTA Maryland Alerts Subscriber
Today at 5:28 AM
  • Member since
    February 2016
  • From: Texas
  • 1,552 posts
Posted by PJS1 on Thursday, November 10, 2016 1:10 PM

BaltACD

Run diesels and catanary isn't needed. 

For me a train speeding through the countryside is a beautiful sight.  Put it under a lot of wires, however, and it becomes ugliness personified.

What would be a maximum attainable speed today of a train like the Acela if it were pulled by a diesel electric locomotive?  

What technical constraints would prevent the building of a diesel electric locomotive that could attain top speeds of 160 to 180 mph?

Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 10, 2016 1:16 PM

Catenary can be esthetically pleasing if designed right.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Thursday, November 10, 2016 2:55 PM

daveklepper

Catenary can be esthetically pleasing if designed right.

Have to disagree on that. Some might be less ugly than others, but still ugly.

Mac

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:33 PM

JPS1

 

 
BaltACD

Run diesels and catanary isn't needed. 

 

For me a train speeding through the countryside is a beautiful sight.  Put it under a lot of wires, however, and it becomes ugliness personified.

What would be a maximum attainable speed today of a train like the Acela if it were pulled by a diesel electric locomotive?  

What technical constraints would prevent the building of a diesel electric locomotive that could attain top speeds of 160 to 180 mph?

 

Consider that a Siemens Sprinter electric weighs 215,000 lbs and developes 8600 hp (hourly rating), while an "EMD" F125 weighs 280,000 lbs and developes 4700 hp.  It would take 2 diesels for the same hp.  Do you really want half a million pounds running down the line at high speeds on a constant basis?  Plus they would need extra weight for the dual power for NEC tunnels.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, November 11, 2016 7:00 AM

Another difference is that electric locomotives and train sets accelerate much more quickly than diesel-powered trains.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    February 2016
  • From: Texas
  • 1,552 posts
Posted by PJS1 on Friday, November 11, 2016 8:24 AM

Let me restate the questions with modifications. 

My questions did not suggest restricting the trains to the NEC or taking down the existing poles and wires.  Given the constraint of operating into and out of Manhattan, that probably is not going to happen.

Using existing technology, how fast could a diesel electric locomotive run pulling a train similar to the Acela?  I had in mind power units at the front and back of the train, which is similar to the arrangement for the Acela.

If the development engineers - those that can think outside of the box - pushed the outside of the development envelope, what is the potential top speed attainable by a diesel electric locomotive.

Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Friday, November 11, 2016 9:37 AM

   Just a thought for the mechanical engineers (which I am not):  what about using higher RPM diesels?   Don't they produce higher HP per weight?   As I recall, reduction gearing is used to drive the alternator in recent designs, but couldn't alternators be designed that could run at the higher RPM's?   The higher RPM diesels supposedly would wear out more quickly, all else being equal, but would it make a difference that it would not be asked to drag the heavy loads that a freight engine would?    ---Just thoughts unencumbered by detailed knowledge.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Friday, November 11, 2016 11:18 AM

The high speed diesel solution gets you a bit higher, to probably about 150 MPH.

Be aware of the problems that doomed the ICE TD sets, though, including high fuel consumption. 

More likely would be a JetTrain type diesel+gas turbine solution.

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Friday, November 11, 2016 12:21 PM

Paul of Covington
Just a thought for the mechanical engineers (which I am not): what about using higher RPM diesels?

The difficulty is in getting proper combustion with compression ignition (even assisted with pilot injection, promoters, and lasers) at the higher speed.  Remember that there is a limited time (in degrees of crank arc translating to piston position) in which combustion has to go to completion (to produce the gas pressure that makes the engine horsepower) without quenching the combustion reaction early (this, in part, producing the nanoparticulates that are thought to be the most dangerous component in diesel exhaust).

In a locomotive engine that does not use urea but needs to adhere to Tier 4 final (and later) standards on NOx, there are limits on how much fuel you can burn even with high nominal boost and/or molecular sieve oxygen enrichment per 'combustion event', and this combined with the combustion time (and the need to avoid some of the detonation issues) will fix the output power of the engine.  Since you're not concerned with mechanical transmission there is no reason to overspeed the engine at lower nominal efficiency to make higher speed. 

Of course at higher speed other characteristics of a practical compression-ignition engine begin to cause problems or enhanced losses.  The Russians built a high-speed diesel (TEP80-0002) that was able to reach 168mph, and I believe we have discussed the technology involved there in previous threads.

I have very little doubt, however, that for any road speeds much in excess of the 125mph or so of an HST, either a gas turbine with bottoming or a free-piston engine would be highly superior, the latter having very little limitation on the efficient production of 'just' the right amount of combustion gas for instantaneous horsepower, and the ability to run a positive-displacement expander for low speed or part load work.

Did Bombardier ever get that wacky second-generation JetTrain transmission to work properly?  I suppose a little tech transfer from the B-mod Osprey might help if necessary.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, November 11, 2016 5:28 PM

NorthWest

The high speed diesel solution gets you a bit higher, to probably about 150 MPH.

Be aware of the problems that doomed the ICE TD sets, though, including high fuel consumption. 

More likely would be a JetTrain type diesel+gas turbine solution.

 

Keep in mind the top speed for ICE TDs is 125 mph (200 kmh).  I believe they will all be retired by the end of the year.  In 2014 I boarded a DSB (from Copenhagen) unit coupled to a ICE 3 (electric)in Hamburg, running to Berlin.  Compared to the ICEs, they are quite noisy.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    September 2008
  • 1,112 posts
Posted by aegrotatio on Wednesday, December 14, 2016 12:41 PM

In case you aren't aware, MARC is replacing all of its electrics with Siemens Charger diesel-electric locomotives that are designed for 125 MPH.

 

MARC doesn't run their electrics that fast, today, anyway.  There was an interview with an engineer who said that they like keep them around 119-121 MPH for passenger comfort reasons and the distance between stations since it's commuter rail.

 

MARC's Penn Line is still the highest-speed commuter rail line in the US and possibly the world.

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:34 PM

You can design diesel or electric, diesel really being diesel-electric, for any top speed that is practical for topographpy and track.  The top speed of a diesel prime mover is not directly related to the top speed of the train.   The diesel train, whether mu or loco hauled or pusj-pull, will weigh a lot more than the electric, assuming the electric does not need ballasting to assure sufficient traction on starting on steep grades.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, February 9, 2017 5:57 PM
 
 

Once again the limitations of the variable tension CAT appear to have caused more problems

 

MARC Service Alert <alert@mtamarylandalerts.com> MARC Train 447 (5:50p dpt Balt) is operating 25-30 minutes behind schedule due to catenary issues. OptOut: http://mtamarylandalerts.com/u.aspx?336934

To
MTA Maryland Alerts Subscriber
Today at 6:36 PM

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy