Does anyone know the story with the RDC parked at the roundhouse in St. Albans, VT? It's been there for a while now.
6130? No idea. What railroad is AEAX?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkYEqPXcsDY
The usual sites for reporting marks dont list AEAX. I'll have to see if I can find anyone from NECR who can help answer.
Paul Erena The usual sites for reporting marks dont list AEAX. I'll have to see if I can find anyone from NECR who can help answer.
Paul, Sometime back there was a Thread here titled:'AEAXReporting Mark Owner' @ http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/p/257947/2892636.aspx
Our resident Car Identifier CSHAVERR "replied he had not heard of that mark'
Mudchicken said it was a "Pharma/Minerals/Chemicals/Fertilizer raw materials."
Norm48327 added it stood for AE ADAMSON CO
I guess the questions are still pretty much unanswered?
Why would an 'elderly' RDC be parked on railroad property in St Albans, VT.?
A little 'Searching' turned up some possible pertinent info/maybe???
link @ http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/2010ExternalReports/253921.pdf
"Passenger RailEquipment Options for the AmtrakVermonter and Ethan Allen Express
Report to the Vermont Legislature
The information says it was prepared for the Reort to the Vermont Legislature by THe Vermon Transportation Agency in Jan of 2010.
You had stated the RDC had been in St Albans for quite a while(?) The Report goes to several pages and has a number of pertinent title sections for both conventional trainsets and DMU's. In the section below DMU's on page 7 it mentions the availability of older, used and refurbished RDC for $70K to $1M for totally rebuilt RDC's from Industrial Rail Services in Moncton, New Brunswick. It further mentions that apparently, the older RDC cannot be reuuilt to current FRA standards for strength, and are not suitable for AMTRAK service. 9see page 7&8 on the linked report.
The RDC shown on page 7 would seem to be an ex-VIA Car, but w/o any visible numbers?
So I'll leave it there, for now.
Sam, thanks very much. It's still weird to me that the Budd car would have that mark. It's on private RR property, so I haven't gone close to check it out, but maybe I can get permission from NECR. Someone in the St. Albans office might be able to account for it in some way.
There are still quite a number of people who communte to the Global Foundry (formerly IBM) plant in Essex Junction, which is adjacent to the NECR line. Maybe a possible commuter service from Franklin County and northern Chittenden? A tourist ride to Misissquoi wildlife area?
samfp1943http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/2010ExternalReports/253921.pdf
Don't you just love the parts about Amfleet ? Believe that a lot of it is misinformation.
blue streak 1 samfp1943 http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/2010ExternalReports/253921.pdf Don't you just love the parts about Amfleet ? Believe that a lot of it is misinformation.
samfp1943 http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/2010ExternalReports/253921.pdf
I knew it when I posterd it, but the value seemed to be in the 'why and wherefore ' of the presence of an RDC of vintage character in St.Albans, Vermont.
Back in 2010 and maybe before, they were doing whatever it would seem to take to get the 'Vermonter' and 'Ethan Allen' trains to service Vermont. I seem to recall that the Guilford folks were dead set against any passenger services in. or on, oraround their system at the time(?).
I thought that the 'pdf' linked by me was 'shamelesly promotional', but felt like it would have some information that poster's here could enjoy.
Perhaps the AEA in AEAX stands for all Earth.
https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BUDD-RDC/conversations/topics/3345
https://www.allearthrenewables.com/our-leadership-team
wanswheelPerhaps the AEA in AEAX stands for all Earth.
As the wise old Mr. Owl once said, "Let's Fffind out"
Here is the official contact page where someone can ask about this
FWIW the 6130 (its VIA number) was built for CP in 1955 as their 9057, Budd Serial # 6223.
If David Blittersdorf is not the owner of AEAX 6130, he is at least a rail advocate.
Excerpt from All Earth blog
https://www.allearthrenewables.com/blog/the-real-way-to-get-around-alternative-transportation-for-a-sustainable-future
In a world with less available energy, we’re going to have to change our transportation to be less energy intensive and more energy efficient. The reality is that we will always need to move things from point A to point B, and just about every form of freight system uses oil to do this. However, the energy intensity of each method varies greatly, with water transportation (such as cargo ships) being the least intensive, and air transportation being the most. Moving something on water at approximately 20 mph uses much less energy than flying something at 500 mph — speed matters, and the faster you go, the more energy you use. It takes 100-150 times more energy to move something by airplane than by ship.
For most people, the process of getting an item to your door isn’t something you think too much about. You order something, UPS shows up at your door a couple of days later. We need to start slowing down our freight systems — Amazon one-day shipping just isn’t going to work in the long term, and customers need to get used to waiting a little longer to get their orders. As energy prices rise and fossil fuel availability decreases, we’ll need to relocalize to cut the transportation of goods as much as possible, build goods closer to where we live and not move it as far.
For the things that we do need to move greater distances, we need to transition away from airplanes and trucks and rely more on water and rail. This shift is already beginning to happen, with UPS using rail more often for their shipments, which is a lot cheaper and much more energy efficient. I think we’re also going to end up using our old canal systems, using them for water transportation of goods. Vermont is a great example of how this could work: we might have a port in Burlington, on Lake Champlain, where we can receive and ship goods through our canal system, which extends all the way down to the Hudson River and out to the ocean.
When it comes to the transportation of people, the challenge is getting everyone out of their cars. Cars are central to our way of life: people consider the car the primary way of getting places, except when it comes to very long distances, in which case they rely on airplanes. Both of these modes of transportation are very energy-intensive and unsustainable in the long term — even higher-efficiency airplanes or electric cars (which require the same resources to build and use the same energy-intensive infrastructure as regular cars).
Soon, we’ll need to move back to a train system as our main method of moving people long distances. Planes will still be in use, but much less frequently—and at a much higher price to the traveler. The U.S. doesn’t have enough investment in a passenger transportation program. We need to give more funding to Amtrak and build better infrastructure to create a workable train system with nice facilities and stations and many more destinations across the country. We also have much of the infrastructure already in place with freight rails. In many places, there’s a lot of capacity, since freight trains often only run a few times a day, which presents a great opportunity to incorporate commuter rail into these existing railways.
Love those last 3 paragraphs...this is a bold look to the future and gives us rail advocates great hope as well as some good counter arguments. It is sobering to think that we had all of that in place and run privately and efficiently to every nook and cranny in North America and not that long ago...how we lost that is hard to get one's head around, ...but lose it we did! More to the story than meets the eye.
Test
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.