ukclique > railway

Clive D.W. Feather (18.09.2017, 19:27)
In article <817253275.525484983.635408.recliner.ng-
btinternet.com>, Recliner
<recliner.ng> writes
>I'm currently in the US, and have only noticed a couple of moving freight
>trains so far. As far as I could see, both were top and tailed by pairs of
>locos. I don't know if all four were under power, but I assume that would
>be normal here? I didn't spot any mid-train locos, but in such long
>trains, it would be easy to miss them.


Easier that you might think: I believe some US railways have cabless, or
at least single-ended locos, for this purpose.
Recliner (19.09.2017, 20:58)
Clive D.W. Feather <clive> wrote:
> In article <817253275.525484983.635408.recliner.ng-
> btinternet.com>, Recliner
> <recliner.ng> writes
> Easier that you might think: I believe some US railways have cabless, or
> at least single-ended locos, for this purpose.


Most normal US locos are single-ended, like a bonetted Class 20. I'm not
even sure if they have any double-ended locos. But I'd had have spotted a
cabless loco among the freight wagons.

Something else that surprised me: at Grand Junction, a coupled pair of
silent, unattended locos were parked in a siding next to the running lines.
Suddenly, they sprang into life, but with no engineer in sight. It seems
they're on either a timer, or remotely controlled, and run periodically to
keep in good health. This was on an autumnal day, but might be more
necessary in the cold winter.
hounslow3 (20.09.2017, 12:17)
On 19.09.17 19:58, Recliner wrote:
> Clive D.W. Feather <clive> wrote:
> Most normal US locos are single-ended, like a bonetted Class 20. I'm not
> even sure if they have any double-ended locos. But I'd had have spotted a
> cabless loco among the freight wagons.
> Something else that surprised me: at Grand Junction, a coupled pair of
> silent, unattended locos were parked in a siding next to the running lines.
> Suddenly, they sprang into life, but with no engineer in sight. It seems
> they're on either a timer, or remotely controlled, and run periodically to
> keep in good health. This was on an autumnal day, but might be more
> necessary in the cold winter.

That does happen. I have heard of cases in North America were they
generally did not shut down diesel locomotives in cold weather for fear
that the engines would quickly freeze over. It would then be an effort
and a half to spool them up, when needed.
Recliner (20.09.2017, 15:38)
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:17:59 +0100, "hounslow3"
<hounslow3> wrote:

>On 19.09.17 19:58, Recliner wrote:
>That does happen. I have heard of cases in North America were they
>generally did not shut down diesel locomotives in cold weather for fear
>that the engines would quickly freeze over. It would then be an effort
>and a half to spool them up, when needed.


But these engines were shut down and silent, before suddenly starting
up on their own, either on a timer or by some sort of radio remote
control.

Here they are:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/36532396263/in/album-72157686894912794/lightbox/>

They're GE ES44C4 locos, parked at Grand Junction.

This is an Amtrak station, with a grand total of one train a day in
each direction. On the day we were due to catch it, it was running
over three hours later than an already delayed schedule.
hounslow3 (20.09.2017, 18:01)
On 20.09.17 14:38, Recliner wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:17:59 +0100, "hounslow3"
> <hounslow3> wrote:
> But these engines were shut down and silent, before suddenly starting
> up on their own, either on a timer or by some sort of radio remote
> control.


Newer technology. Helps to save on petrol and cut down emissions.

Probably a connection to a thermostat in there somewhere, which allowed
this.

Metro North's M2s, for example, have something a similar system that
automatically regulates temperatures, rather than requiring action by
the crew.
> Here they are:
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/36532396263/in/album-72157686894912794/lightbox/>
> They're GE ES44C4 locos, parked at Grand Junction.
> This is an Amtrak station, with a grand total of one train a day in
> each direction. On the day we were due to catch it, it was running
> over three hours later than an already delayed schedule.


Unsurprising, considering the current administration's attitude towards
Amtrak, though that is purely speculation on my part.

On-time performance markedly improved under the previous administration,
AIUI, though Amtrak trains in the '80s and '90s were notorious for their
abysmal on-time performance.
furnessvale (20.09.2017, 19:50)
On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 14:38:55 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:

> But these engines were shut down and silent, before suddenly starting
> up on their own, either on a timer or by some sort of radio remote
> control.


It wouldn't surprise me if they were remotely started so that when the crew
arrived, perhaps an hour later, they were warmed up and ready to roll.

George
Recliner (20.09.2017, 21:37)
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:50:36 -0700 (PDT), furnessvale
<furnessvale> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 14:38:55 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
>> But these engines were shut down and silent, before suddenly starting
>> up on their own, either on a timer or by some sort of radio remote
>> control.

>It wouldn't surprise me if they were remotely started so that when the crew
>arrived, perhaps an hour later, they were warmed up and ready to roll.


Yes, that may well be the case, but we'd gone by then. Note that there
was no train attached, so I'm not sure what they would be pulling.
However, maybe they would be needed as bankers for the gradients
through the Rockies.

Similar Threads