Dragoman The Colorado Railcar (& now US Railcar) websites touted their DMU's ability to tow 1 or 2 matching non-motored trailers. I don't know about the Colorado DMU's used by WES in Oregon, but didn't the ones sold to Florida include both the bilevel DMUs and bilevel trailers?
The Colorado Railcar (& now US Railcar) websites touted their DMU's ability to tow 1 or 2 matching non-motored trailers. I don't know about the Colorado DMU's used by WES in Oregon, but didn't the ones sold to Florida include both the bilevel DMUs and bilevel trailers?
I have not been impressed with Fl Tri-Rail DMU operation. I have ridden them several times during the mid day operation of one DMU and a trailer normal cab coach. Although I do not know these DMU specs the following does apply.
1. Acceleration seemed very slow ( of course that is because the HP to weight ration is much higher with a loco hauled train).
2. Braking of the consist was conventional where as the loco used dynamic braking. That would seem to be a mtce expense (brake shoes, brake rigging, wheels).
4. The DMUs could operate a conventional loco using the standard 27 point connectors however I do not know if the DMU control stand could operate loco dynamics?
5. The DMUs due to its slower acceleration could not maintaiin schedule so arrival at the end points were 10 - 15 minutes longer than even the 6 car loco consists. That was even though there were not as many passenger offs and ons during non peak periods.
6. Car ride was slightly poorer IMHO than the conventional equipment.
7. All these points should be fixable with more robust power plants and proper trouble shooting of ride problems. The braking problem I have no answer.
NYC subways also had motor/trailers as did LIRR and others. The DL&W had the married pairs but would run odd numbers of cars...3,5.7.9,11, and 13...using one extra motor but no more than one extra motor per train. What the DL&W also did was run extra mail trains from about Thanksgiving until Christmas from Hoboken to at least Dover via the Morris and Essex. First these were of course steam or diesel hauling bulk mail and RPO's with a rider car (an old open platform coach--not a standard Boonton Line coach--with stained glassed window treatments and calestory and even a coal stove). Later they used about 8 to 10 car MU trains and would haul up to three bulk mail cars on the hind end. See Trains Dec 1993, page 54.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
You make one good argument. I agree with you on all of it :D
The South Shore uses non-motored trailers today with its single-level consist Japanese built stainless steel electric multiple unit modern cars, generally at least two motor cars for every single trailer. NYC and Metro North mu's regularliy hauled RDC's (one per train) on the rear in and out of Frand Central Terminal . This would be an eight-to-ten-car train hauling one Budd RDC with one diesel shut down and one idling for heat or air-conditioning power. Personally, I think it has been a mistake to go to all motor cars. I think the old Illinois Central Suburban and Lackawanna knew something that has been forgotton. They ran married pairs, one trailer and one motor car considered as unit . This cuts down maintenance and still gives excellent performance, just requiring somewhat more powerful motors . Then the system should have about 1.3 times the number of motor cars as trailers, since they require inspection four times as often and require longer time in the shop for overhaul. If were running a heavy rail transit system or electric commuter operation, that is exactly what I would do.
I'm not sure there are two unit MU operations either. It appears that all cars are motored. Yes, there are a few old subway systems with motor and trailer, but they are few and far between these days.
Mr. Railman Think about it. A bi-level gallery DMU that could pull gallery coaches like the ones we se today. no more MP36s or F40s
Think about it. A bi-level gallery DMU that could pull gallery coaches like the ones we se today. no more MP36s or F40s
The RDC was not designed to pull trailers and the builder stated that such operation would void the warranty. A handful of roads did so, anyway. Using DMU's to pull trailers would probably involve a 2:1 ratio of power cars to trailers designed for the service rather than conventional gallery coaches, which might be too heavy for the acceleration needed. Beyond NICTD, I'm not aware of any electric MU operations that make use of trailers.
However, I believe they are to be used in some other Texas passenger service, so they may be around a few more years.
To answer you question,the TRE RDC's have been leased to the Denton Co.Transit Authority for use until they get their new cars from Stadtler..Sometime in 2012...
This DCTA line will run from Denton,Tx to the north end of DFW..There,passengers can catch DART to go to Dallas...
henry6 The SPV2000 was a disaster because it applied space age technology to rail but the electronics failed. But the need at that time was not what the unit did. Short, commuter type operations especially, were not conducive to electic doors and motorized traps, all of which got in the way of operations when they malfunctioned. at low platform stations.
The SPV2000 was a disaster because it applied space age technology to rail but the electronics failed. But the need at that time was not what the unit did. Short, commuter type operations especially, were not conducive to electic doors and motorized traps, all of which got in the way of operations when they malfunctioned. at low platform stations.
Thx IGN
Possibly traditional track construction is obsolete. What is needed is a structure that gives continuous support to the rail and has a wide base of support from the balast below. One posibility is use the recycled stuff used to make the most succesful plastic ties that apparently have advantages over both concrete and wood, poured over a continuous form that is placed on top of ballast and checked to be level and true, with inserts to accept Pandroil clips positioned accurately before pouring. The continuous welded rail is coated on all but the rail-head with a layer of high-durimeter neoprene or similar material for good noise and vibration control, and after installation, an additional layer of the fibrous plastic fills to a depth just below flange-tip level. At grade crossings, a continuous metal angle bar is screwed to that top coat to form a flangeway, and a third coat is applied to bring the material up to the level of the top of the rail to form the roadway. The idea is possibly to invest in a somewhat higher first cost and reduce maintenance requirements (including wheel wear with elimination of corregations).
Jerry, please email your railcar paper to me at daveklepper@yahoo.com. I have friends in the industry who will appreciate receiving it.
BaltACD Re; WILD detectors and increased surfacing frequency revolve around two words. TRACK TIME When WILD detector identify major defects, the cars must be set out of the trains....that requires track time and a place to set the car out. Minimum delay is 1 hour under ideal circumstances, a more normal delay is 2 hours and depending on the circumstance, 4 to 8 hours is not out of the question. When it comes to the operation of surfacing gangs....you can either work on the track or you can operate trains on the track....YOU CAN'T DO BOTH in the same time frame. If you turn the track over to MofW for 10 hour days more frequently, you then have to deal with operating 24 hours worth of traffic in the 14 available hours - MESSY, MESSY, MESSY and none of the stakeholders on the affected line are happy with the results.
Re; WILD detectors and increased surfacing frequency revolve around two words.
TRACK TIME
When WILD detector identify major defects, the cars must be set out of the trains....that requires track time and a place to set the car out. Minimum delay is 1 hour under ideal circumstances, a more normal delay is 2 hours and depending on the circumstance, 4 to 8 hours is not out of the question.
When it comes to the operation of surfacing gangs....you can either work on the track or you can operate trains on the track....YOU CAN'T DO BOTH in the same time frame. If you turn the track over to MofW for 10 hour days more frequently, you then have to deal with operating 24 hours worth of traffic in the 14 available hours - MESSY, MESSY, MESSY and none of the stakeholders on the affected line are happy with the results.
Ten hour windows for trackwork are relatively new. Used to be that all work was done under traffic. But in the late 80's work windows started being used which proved quite effective in many applications. Even transit agencies learned to utilize them as often the work leads to worthwhile operating improvements. A lot more work can be done, and more easily, when the crews are not working under the pressure of minutes per task instead of hours; the stop, clean, clear, return, start, stop cycle is time consuming and not very fruitful either. Of course there are particular instance where 10 hour windows are totally impractical and others where they are absolutely essential. As with all of railroading except for the rule that you can expect a movement on any track in any direction at anytime, there are no real, hard, fast, general rules.
oltmannd blue streak 1: Even well-maintained track that has only moderate freight use causes some kind of a wear on track that leads to a heavy level of vibration in the passenger equipment. Freight cars are much heavier today than in the golden era of passenger services in the US, even as late as the 1960's, and much heavier than European freight cars. This is a very succient observation and needs much thought and work. Can it be that use of many "WILD" detectors to prevent out of balance cars, flat wheels, &etc can mitigate this problem by not allowing those cars onto MSR and higher routes?. Another solution in conjunction may be to run surfacing equipment much more frequently over such routes such as the Illinois MSR CHI - STL line?Maybe the solution is for AMTRAK to provide the surfacing machine for every 2 of 3 surfacing passes? That seems IMHO to be a less expensive option. I wonder if NC DOT has given this problem a look see?
blue streak 1: Even well-maintained track that has only moderate freight use causes some kind of a wear on track that leads to a heavy level of vibration in the passenger equipment. Freight cars are much heavier today than in the golden era of passenger services in the US, even as late as the 1960's, and much heavier than European freight cars.
Even well-maintained track that has only moderate freight use causes some kind of a wear on track that leads to a heavy level of vibration in the passenger equipment. Freight cars are much heavier today than in the golden era of passenger services in the US, even as late as the 1960's, and much heavier than European freight cars.
This is a very succient observation and needs much thought and work. Can it be that use of many "WILD" detectors to prevent out of balance cars, flat wheels, &etc can mitigate this problem by not allowing those cars onto MSR and higher routes?. Another solution in conjunction may be to run surfacing equipment much more frequently over such routes such as the Illinois MSR CHI - STL line?Maybe the solution is for AMTRAK to provide the surfacing machine for every 2 of 3 surfacing passes? That seems IMHO to be a less expensive option. I wonder if NC DOT has given this problem a look see?
The original WILD was used to keep high impact (out of round/flat spot) wheels off of the NEC. It's still in place doing the same job.
[/quote]
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
henry6 1. Start with a new train position called Conductor/ Engineer. At combining points/ separations one could be engineer and one conductor with swap off capabilities. 2. With PTC coming there would ample reason to operate a DMU with a single person (As buses do now). 1&2 not good idea. Rail passenger service, commuter or LD, is not mass transit and would need one person to contorl the locomotion and at least one other to handle passengers. 3. All DMUs would be fully Amfleet compatible including using HEP, train control, & loco control. Also all the features in the latest Amtrak specifications would be included including but not limited to destination signs, door control, PAs etc 3. Not bad idea 4. NC DOT could originate single DMUs at Elizabeth City (or Norfolk in conjunction with VA DOT), Morehead City, Camp Lejeune, Wilmington, North Weldon (or Rocky Mount), Norlina to join up at the various junctions of Goldsboro, Selma, etc all to join at Raleigh to a waiting Piedmont. Locomotive(s) then hauls train to Greensboro. Enroute to Greensboro excess Conductors seat various passengers to proper cars. At Greensboro last DMU car(s) would go to Winston Salem - Barber Jct - CLT. 5. At Salisbury -- the train drops DMU cars for Salisbury -Barber - Marion - Asheville (connecting with Greensboro, Barber, CLT) loco hauled train that also acquired car(s) from another northbound Piedmont train from CLT. Souithbound Piedmont continues to CLT (for connections to/from Barber, Hamlet, Fayetteville, Wilmington. DMUs go to Rock Hill - Columbia, Gastonia - Spartanburg, & Bostic(?). 6. At Asheville one DMU to Hendersonville and DMU(s) to Canton, Waynesville, Bryson City. 7. Of course can run trips in reverse order and not all trains would go to all destinations at all times. Yes, there are union craft rules involved here, but also it all depends on how complicated or simple the coupling/uncoupling and cable or whatever connections are necessary. One reason there is no longer the splitting of train on NJT lines. 8. DMUs could be both single level and bi-level with control compartments isolated from passengers but engineer/conductor could quickly access dutch door to collect tickets from both people getting off and those getting on. 9. DMUs would need to be very reliable with probably 2 prime movers in each car with capability to lug up a 3% grade with one engine operating. Prime movers should be of a standard engine configuration well proven such as some present CAT diesels. 10. Agreeded DMUs should be EMU capable as well and since the electrical requirements for a single car are much less that is well within present state of the art technology. Saves diesel fuel at terminals and junctions(with short streach of CAT) and would be much quieter. EMU portion out of station could increase acceleration rate. 11. To speed connections an electrical jumper coupling system similar to present EMUs should be considered for DMU - DMU couplings with standard HEP and 27 point connections as a back up and for connection to Amfleet / SL type equipment. See comment above 12.. Switching at junctions could be accomplished by conductor-engineers negating stationed switch engines. Switch engines not even considered here. Down sides. 13. Money - money - money. Invest in the future...invest, invest, invest. Or the hell with it all and hitch up the horses. 14. Almost all trackage would need to be at least double track on any route that has freight traffic more than one freight. If you want or need something bad enough... 15. Many more dispatchers would be required to meet FRA dispatch requirements and those locations that presently do not require a full time dispatcher. 16. Station tracks at junctions would need to be off main line with one or more full mid platform crossovers in place to enable cars to be quickly placed ( switch operation either manual or electric key operated not dispatcher) for ultimate destination. Nothing to worry about, probably not as much of a problem as you make it here. 17. In a pinch on loco hauled portions; if loco failed DMUs could continue trip at a increased trip time. 18. Spare DMU engines would need to be located at all end points and major mid-points (Selma.Raleigh, Greensboro, CLT, Asheville; etc). You'd think. But it is expensive. And current business philosophies do not prepare for an emergency, it is just "write off" down time. 19. Change out of engine should take no more than 15 minutes by using quick disconnects (including movable clutch for engine - generator, fuel lines, & engine controls)(ie disconnect 3 items, slide out onto fork lift with other connectors disconnecting, slide in another engine, 3 quick connects and fire up engine.See comments above. As I often say we are hung up on running trains in this country rather than providing a service. If you can run one one or two car train an hour in each direction with two man, even three man, crews might provide service where a locomotive dragging up to eight cars and a four man crew every two or three hours in each direction doesn't. Running a service,not running trains. I believe that this would provide the service that we think needs to be provided!! If an MU set doesnt set well, then how about an engine unit that generates electricity to motored cars that can be used either locomotive hauled or under wire? Engine could cut out going to where diesels are not allowed (NYP, GCT, etc.) but bring a trian in from the hinterlands where there are no wires. Engine unit doesn't have to be monsterous, no need for full fledge motor on trucks, just large enough to move unit itself in switching and yarding and disengaged in running service, so it would be light.; cars all interchangeable with other trainsets and are actually electric MU. These types are on the drawing boards in Europe if not in fact, but like too many European and Asian pieces of equipment, Agreeded -- DMUs should be EMU capable as well and since the electrical requirements for a single car are much less that is well within present state of the art technology. Saves diesel fuel at terminals and junctions(with short streach of CAT) and would be much quieter. deemed too light, not able to meet North American heavey guage standards. There are a lot of economies attained overseas which cannot be achieved Sta
1. Start with a new train position called Conductor/ Engineer. At combining points/ separations one could be engineer and one conductor with swap off capabilities.
2. With PTC coming there would ample reason to operate a DMU with a single person (As buses do now).
1&2 not good idea. Rail passenger service, commuter or LD, is not mass transit and would need one person to contorl the locomotion and at least one other to handle passengers.
3. All DMUs would be fully Amfleet compatible including using HEP, train control, & loco control. Also all the features in the latest Amtrak specifications would be included including but not limited to destination signs, door control, PAs etc
3. Not bad idea
4. NC DOT could originate single DMUs at Elizabeth City (or Norfolk in conjunction with VA DOT), Morehead City, Camp Lejeune, Wilmington, North Weldon (or Rocky Mount), Norlina to join up at the various junctions of Goldsboro, Selma, etc all to join at Raleigh to a waiting Piedmont. Locomotive(s) then hauls train to Greensboro. Enroute to Greensboro excess Conductors seat various passengers to proper cars. At Greensboro last DMU car(s) would go to Winston Salem - Barber Jct - CLT.
5. At Salisbury -- the train drops DMU cars for Salisbury -Barber - Marion - Asheville (connecting with Greensboro, Barber, CLT) loco hauled train that also acquired car(s) from another northbound Piedmont train from CLT. Souithbound Piedmont continues to CLT (for connections to/from Barber, Hamlet, Fayetteville, Wilmington. DMUs go to Rock Hill - Columbia, Gastonia - Spartanburg, & Bostic(?).
6. At Asheville one DMU to Hendersonville and DMU(s) to Canton, Waynesville, Bryson City.
7. Of course can run trips in reverse order and not all trains would go to all destinations at all times.
Yes, there are union craft rules involved here, but also it all depends on how complicated or simple the coupling/uncoupling and cable or whatever connections are necessary. One reason there is no longer the splitting of train on NJT lines.
8. DMUs could be both single level and bi-level with control compartments isolated from passengers but engineer/conductor could quickly access dutch door to collect tickets from both people getting off and those getting on.
9. DMUs would need to be very reliable with probably 2 prime movers in each car with capability to lug up a 3% grade with one engine operating. Prime movers should be of a standard engine configuration well proven such as some present CAT diesels.
10. Agreeded DMUs should be EMU capable as well and since the electrical requirements for a single car are much less that is well within present state of the art technology. Saves diesel fuel at terminals and junctions(with short streach of CAT) and would be much quieter. EMU portion out of station could increase acceleration rate.
11. To speed connections an electrical jumper coupling system similar to present EMUs should be considered for DMU - DMU couplings with standard HEP and 27 point connections as a back up and for connection to Amfleet / SL type equipment.
See comment above
12.. Switching at junctions could be accomplished by conductor-engineers negating stationed switch engines.
Switch engines not even considered here.
Down sides.
13. Money - money - money.
Invest in the future...invest, invest, invest. Or the hell with it all and hitch up the horses.
14. Almost all trackage would need to be at least double track on any route that has freight traffic more than one freight.
If you want or need something bad enough...
15. Many more dispatchers would be required to meet FRA dispatch requirements and those locations that presently do not require a full time dispatcher.
16. Station tracks at junctions would need to be off main line with one or more full mid platform crossovers in place to enable cars to be quickly placed ( switch operation either manual or electric key operated not dispatcher) for ultimate destination.
Nothing to worry about, probably not as much of a problem as you make it here.
17. In a pinch on loco hauled portions; if loco failed DMUs could continue trip at a increased trip time.
18. Spare DMU engines would need to be located at all end points and major mid-points (Selma.Raleigh, Greensboro, CLT, Asheville; etc).
You'd think. But it is expensive. And current business philosophies do not prepare for an emergency, it is just "write off" down time.
As I often say we are hung up on running trains in this country rather than providing a service. If you can run one one or two car train an hour in each direction with two man, even three man, crews might provide service where a locomotive dragging up to eight cars and a four man crew every two or three hours in each direction doesn't. Running a service,not running trains.
I believe that this would provide the service that we think needs to be provided!!
If an MU set doesnt set well, then how about an engine unit that generates electricity to motored cars that can be used either locomotive hauled or under wire?
Engine could cut out going to where diesels are not allowed (NYP, GCT, etc.) but bring a trian in from the hinterlands where there are no wires. Engine unit doesn't have to be monsterous, no need for full fledge motor on trucks, just large enough to move unit itself in switching and yarding and disengaged in running service, so it would be light.; cars all interchangeable with other trainsets and are actually electric MU. These types are on the drawing boards in Europe if not in fact, but like too many European and Asian pieces of equipment,
Agreeded -- DMUs should be EMU capable as well and since the electrical requirements for a single car are much less that is well within present state of the art technology. Saves diesel fuel at terminals and junctions(with short streach of CAT) and would be much quieter.
deemed too light, not able to meet North American heavey guage standards. There are a lot of economies attained overseas which cannot be achieved Sta
This is part of the problem Instead of figuring out how simple, we're figuring out complicated/flexible it can be. This poor DMU is doomed to a life of a hangar queen!
They used to drag idling RDCs in to GCT all the time. Keep it really simple - and cheap.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1 schlimm: Even well-maintained track that has only moderate freight use causes some kind of a wear on track that leads to a heavy level of vibration in the passenger equipment. Freight cars are much heavier today than in the golden era of passenger services in the US, even as late as the 1960's, and much heavier than European freight cars.
schlimm:
schlimm
The more I ride Chicago-area commuter rail, the more I believe passenger services, whether commuter or corridor and certainly anything approaching HSR, need their own tracks, not shared with freight. Why? Even well-maintained track that has only moderate freight use causes some kind of a wear on track that leads to a heavy level of vibration in the passenger equipment. Freight cars are much heavier today than in the golden era of passenger services in the US, even as late as the 1960's, and much heavier than European freight cars. So in Europe now and here in the past, the rail is/was more compatible with shared services.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I presented a paper on this subject in 1995 titled, "A SJHORT HISTORY OF THE RAIL DIESL CAR IN NORTH AMERICA" at the CONEG Policy Research Center's DMU Workshop. It covered the SPV 2000 and Dual Mode Turbine Electric experiments as well as the origonal RDC. If you America want a copy, I can probably E-mail one to you.
The Alaska RR ran RDC's until fairly recently. In 1995 there were still 113 RDC's owned and 25 in service in North America.
Jerry Pier
Henry I would like to expand on your presentation.
henry6 . Instead of 4 or 5 main crews for just one car trains of yore you can get by with a two or three man crew for even three cars! . DMU's would make for another set of rules and practices, parts and labor knowlege that not too many managements want to hassle with. As a service I will propose a hypothetical example. 1. Start with a new train position called Conductor/ Engineer. At combining points/ separations one could be engineer and one conductor with swap off capabilities. 2. With PTC coming there would ample reason to operate a DMU with a single person (As buses do now). 3. All DMUs would be fully Amfleet compatible including using HEP, train control, & loco control. Also all the features in the latest Amtrak specifications would be included including but not limited to destination signs, door control, PAs etc 4. NC DOT could originate single DMUs at Elizabeth City (or Norfolk in conjunction with VA DOT), Morehead City, Camp Lejeune, Wilmington, North Weldon (or Rocky Mount), Norlina to join up at the various junctions of Goldsboro, Selma, etc all to join at Raleigh to a waiting Piedmont. Locomotive(s) then hauls train to Greensboro. Enroute to Greensboro excess Conductors seat various passengers to proper cars. At Greensboro last DMU car(s) would go to Winston Salem - Barber Jct - CLT. 5. At Salisbury -- the train drops DMU cars for Salisbury -Barber - Marion - Asheville (connecting with Greensboro, Barber, CLT) loco hauled train that also acquired car(s) from another northbound Piedmont train from CLT. Souithbound Piedmont continues to CLT (for connections to/from Barber, Hamlet, Fayetteville, Wilmington. DMUs go to Rock Hill - Columbia, Gastonia - Spartanburg, & Bostic(?). 6. At Asheville one DMU to Hendersonville and DMU(s) to Canton, Waynesville, Bryson City. 7. Of course can run trips in reverse order and not all trains would go to all destinations at all times. 8. DMUs could be both single level and bi-level with control compartments isolated from passengers but engineer/conductor could quickly access dutch door to collect tickets from both people getting off and those getting on. 9. DMUs would need to be very reliable with probably 2 prime movers in each car with capability to lug up a 3% grade with one engine operating. Prime movers should be of a standard engine configuration well proven such as some present CAT diesels. 10. Agreeded DMUs should be EMU capable as well and since the electrical requirements for a single car are much less that is well within present state of the art technology. Saves diesel fuel at terminals and junctions(with short streach of CAT) and would be much quieter. EMU portion out of station could increase acceleration rate. 11. To speed connections an electrical jumper coupling system similar to present EMUs should be considered for DMU - DMU couplings with standard HEP and 27 point connections as a back up and for connection to Amfleet / SL type equipment. 12.. Switching at junctions could be accomplished by conductor-engineers negating stationed switch engines. Down sides. 13. Money - money - money. 14. Almost all trackage would need to be at least double track on any route that has freight traffic more than one freight. 15. Many more dispatchers would be required to meet FRA dispatch requirements and those locations that presently do not require a full time dispatcher. 16. Station tracks at junctions would need to be off main line with one or more full mid platform crossovers in place to enable cars to be quickly placed ( switch operation either manual or electric key operated not dispatcher) for ultimate destination. 17. In a pinch on loco hauled portions; if loco failed DMUs could continue trip at a increased trip time. 18. Spare DMU engines would need to be located at all end points and major mid-points (Selma.Raleigh, Greensboro, CLT, Asheville; etc). 19. Change out of engine should take no more than 15 minutes by using quick disconnects (including movable clutch for engine - generator, fuel lines, & engine controls)(ie disconnect 3 items, slide out onto fork lift with other connectors disconnecting, slide in another engine, 3 quick connects and fire up engine. As I often say we are hung up on running trains in this country rather than providing a service. If you can run one one or two car train an hour in each direction with two man, even three man, crews might provide service where a locomotive dragging up to eight cars and a four man crew every two or three hours in each direction doesn't. Running a service,not running trains. I believe that this would provide the service that we think needs to be provided!! If an MU set doesnt set well, then how about an engine unit that generates electricity to motored cars that can be used either locomotive hauled or under wire? Engine could cut out going to where diesels are not allowed (NYP, GCT, etc.) but bring a trian in from the hinterlands where there are no wires. Engine unit doesn't have to be monsterous, no need for full fledge motor on trucks, just large enough to move unit itself in switching and yarding and disengaged in running service, so it would be light.; cars all interchangeable with other trainsets and are actually electric MU. These types are on the drawing boards in Europe if not in fact, but like too many European and Asian pieces of equipment, Agreeded -- DMUs should be EMU capable as well and since the electrical requirements for a single car are much less that is well within present state of the art technology. Saves diesel fuel at terminals and junctions(with short streach of CAT) and would be much quieter. deemed too light, not able to meet North American heavey guage standards. There are a lot of economies attained overseas which cannot be achieved Stateside.
. Instead of 4 or 5 main crews for just one car trains of yore you can get by with a two or three man crew for even three cars! . DMU's would make for another set of rules and practices, parts and labor knowlege that not too many managements want to hassle with.
As a service I will propose a hypothetical example.
deemed too light, not able to meet North American heavey guage standards. There are a lot of economies attained overseas which cannot be achieved Stateside.
You'd think, too, that with today's crew laws, it would be a lot more cheaper. Instead of 4 or 5 main crews for just one car trains of yore you can get by with a two or three man crew for even three cars! The practicality of the DMU concept really hasn't sunk in too many commuter organizations simply because they are going for uniformity and compatablity of equipment. NJT, for instance, can put any car on any train, be it diesel or electric locomotion; and except for NYP and MU trains, it can put a diesel on any train. DMU's would make for another set of rules and practices, parts and labor knowlege that not too many managements want to hassle with. As I often say we are hung up on running trains in this country rather than providing a service. If you can run one one or two car train an hour in each direction with two man, even three man, crews might provide service where a locomotive dragging up to eight cars and a four man crew every two or three hours in each direction doesn't. Running a service, not running trains.
If an MU set doesnt set well, then how about an engine unit that generates electricity to motored cars that can be used either locomotive hauled or under wire? Engine could cut out going to where diesels are not allowed (NYP, GCT, etc.) but bring a trian in from the hinterlands where there are no wires. Engine unit doesn't have to be monsterous, no need for full fledge motor on trucks, just large enough to move unit itself in switching and yarding and disengaged in running service, so it would be light.; cars all interchangeable with other trainsets and are actually electric MU. These types are on the drawing boards in Europe if not in fact, but like too many European and Asian pieces of equipment, deemed too light, not able to meet North American heavey guage standards. There are a lot of economies attained overseas which cannot be achieved Stateside.
While the DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit -the generic term, RDC being a Budd trade name) may be in decline in the United States, the concept was raised to a high art in Japan - including long-haul limited express service with 'green' cars and diners. Other configurations include commuter (multiple sliding doors, like American rapid transit cars) and short-hau/local designs, in trains of up to ten cars. Since Japanese stations all have high platforms, the car to platform geometry is a lot simpler than that in the US.
One advantage cited for DMU over locomotive-hauled trains was reliability. If a diesel loco had a road failure, the train was stranded until a replacement locomotive could be provided. If a ten car DMU set had one engine fail, there were fifteen to nineteen other engines available to keep the train on schedule. Quick-change engine packages make repair simple - just slide out the failed unit and replace it with a like serviceable item - and also make it simple to upgrade to more efficient/modern/powerful engines without having to rebuild the entire car.
Of course, nobody in Japan has mandated that the end of a passenger train has to be fitted with an armored ram like the bow of a 19th century battleship...
Chuck
It is because we think too big. Big business has not been interested in passenger rail, the railroad industry has not been intererested in passenger rail, Amtrak is not interested in low volume, short trips. The SPV2000 was a disaster because it applied space age technology to rail but the electronics failed. But the need at that time was not what the unit did. Short, commuter type operations especially, were not conducive to electic doors and motorized traps, all of which got in the way of operations when they malfunctioned. at low platform stations. After that, the rail passenger industry did not feel it had a marketable need for such a unit. Only recently has the need re-arisin. Yet the costs are high, too high many feel to be useful. Some prototypes have been built and demonstrated but no one seems to be able to wrap themselve around them. Remember in rail passenger service in this country we are having to reinvent the wheel in many ways, and this type of self-propelled vehicle is one of the pieces of hardware that has to be accepted along with the philosophy of its use.
And, yes, there are a few still going strong long after their 50th birthdays and several stored in Canada I believe awaiting disposition.
There is a small number of Colorado Railcar DMUs in use. There is a set in use at Portland on their Westside Extension, and a couple of cars in Alaska where they replaced Budd RDCs. For a look at a Modern European style RDC the Sprinter service in Oceanside, California. This service uses a modified Siemens Desiro DMU.
North County Transit Sprinter
As of a few weeks ago, you could still ride Budd RDC cars for some runs on the Trinity River Express between Dallas and Ft. Worth TX, but their days in this service are numbered. However, I believe they are to be used in some other Texas passenger service, so they may be around a few more years.
There was a latter-day RDC by Budd called the SPV-2000 -- it looked like an Amcoach turned into an RDC. It may have been that someone forgot how to build an RDC, or it could have been deployed out East where they have particularly fine snow in winter that got into the works, but the knock on that one was the "Seldom Powered Vehicle."
More recently Colorado Railcar tried to market an improved RDC-like rail car, but there were no takers, perhaps for the reasons just mentioned.
The overall concept known as a "DMU" (Diesel multiple unit train) has had some success overseas.
On the other hand, there probably still is merit to the idea of powered axles throughout the train, keeping axle loadings low, using a propshaft drive to keep unsprung mass low, and saving on the weight of a separate locomotive -- especially if you want high speeds or high levels of acceleration. There was also some discussion of EMU (electric multiple unit) and DMU (Diesel multiple unit) trains vs locomotives and how back in the day, some interurban operators thought the optimum balance was to alternated powered coaches with trailers in a consist.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
A number of factors were at work.
Their original role was often to replace a conventional passenger train with a single, occasionally a pair, of cars that were a lot cheaper to run. One RDC-2 or RDC-3 could take the place of a locomotive, baggage car and coach, need less crew to operate, and consume a lot less fuel. Where traffic was light it was a way to reduce (not eliminate) the operating losses. But the same reasons why an RDC could replace a conventional train also mean that the justification for the train was questionable and they were discontinued as fast as the railroads could get permission.
If business required several cars the RDCs could be coupled up to make a longer train but at some point it becomes cheaper to run a conventional locomotive and coaches. It's easier to maintain one engine than four or five, and fuel economy may be negative. Most passenger trains today carry enough passengers to require several coaches.
And of course, remember that the RDCs would be over 50 years old now, and mechanical parts do wear out. The basic carbody shells no doubt were still good, if perhaps battered at the ends from grade crossing accidents. Motors, transmissions, wiring, seats, etc. would be getting tired and need heavy overhaul or replacement. Some RDCs have seen a career extension as de-motored coaches. VIA here in Canada has two routes that still use one or two RDCs, and I believe the small group has been re-engined to restore reliability.
And as far as something similar, it has been promoted and even demonstrated. But the reality is that in most cases if volume is low enough that a single car can fill the need, there is not enough need to support spending the money to buy the cars, and then operate the service.
John
Whatever happened to the Budd RDCs and why hasn't anyone thought of something similar to run on americas railroads?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN9LhwQvQqg
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.