BostonTrainGuy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZigeYA5g2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZigeYA5g2A
Rode the Tri-Rail test vehicle pulling 2 cars and regular 3 car trains. The only problem I saw was that the acceleration of the DMU was slow. Unit was on the double track section of Tri-Rail but it could not maintain the schedule we were 10 minutes late into Metro Rail Transfer. Not knowing the various speed limits of either ARR or the Vermonter I feel that this is certainly a consideration with the higher the top track speed is the more important it becomes . One thought is maybe the acceleration problem has been fixed. The better fuel consumption may come from this slower acceleration and ipart certainly comes from not having to move the locomotive. Anyone know the applicable weights of the DMU, Locos, and Cars?
That is interesting that they were touting the low use of fuel for the DMU when they were unable to meet the schedule. Of course you can save fuel by underpowering, but do you meet the service requirements?
On the other hand, one locomotive per 3 Bombardier cars, perhaps the HP equivalent of 3 DMU cars without added trailers, is a well-powered commuter train. Metra in Chicago is running as many as 11 gallery cars per F40 locomotives. It seems that a Metra train would not make the Florida schedule either.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Tri-Rail is scheduled to run about 70 miles in 1 hr. 43 min. with 15 intermediate stops. Sounds like they need decent acceleration.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Tri-Rail is scheduled to run about 70 miles in 1 hr. 43 min. with 15 intermediate stops. Sounds like they need decent acceleration.
One item I didn't mention was several slow orders. Just north of the West Palm Beach station is a "S" curve with a 10 MPH section about 1/2 mile in length. Farther North Between West Palm beach and Mangonia Park was a 25 MPH slow for about 1 mile but that may have been eliminated. /Somewhere around Pompano Beach there has been a municiple spped restriction of 2 miles at 60 MPH (?). The New River drawbridge south of Ft. Lauderdale had a 25 MPH limt that went for 1 -1/2 miles. The replacement New River flyover bridge ( draw left in place for Freight trains) don't know the speed limit. Just south of the Opa-Locka station is a sharp curve with a 45 MPH limit. South of Metro-Rail transfer the diamond across the FEC was 25 MPH and another diamond has been added but do not know if the original was rebuilt and if speeds have been raised. The Hialeah drawbridge over the Miami river is 25 MPH. This drawbridge only allows boats to go about 600 ft more up river to a salt water intrusion dam. Haven't seen it used for years. Up river had a barge dock for MIA airport fuel 1960s and 1970s but airport now gets fuel by pipeline from port of miami.
So that adds at least 6 additional permanent slow orders.
Well Fellow New Englanders in order to see real true working passenger train service up here, we first need to get Pan Am out of New England. They own the track rights to some key corridors and are a road block to us going forward. They use to own the tracks from White River junction to Concord,NH but tore up the rails and sold the rights to DOT NH, They still own Nashua to Concord,NH rail corridor and its in bad shape due to the total lack of repair & maintenance by Pan Am over the last 25 plus years.
New England states and New York state need to create a North East Rail Authority and use this power to upgrade the whole North East to having the best Freight & Passenger Service in the USA. By doing this it will fuel our economic engines for decades to come, otherwise we as a region will be left in the dust by the Midwest,southwest and southeast.
I would love to see a 3 car configuration used in the Concord,NH to Boston service, Colorado DMU, double-decker, Colorado DMU with the MBTA end painted in their colors and the NH end painted in NH colors of dark Green with yellow lines and letters.
I have heard it said that this DMU can not make its schedule times do to acceleration, is this because it was pulling two many cars ? Does anyone know what the best configuration is for this rail car and what it cost before it went belly up?
New Hampshire should also look at restoring the Boston to Portsmouth eastern lineas part of a long term solution, along with the Northern line.
It is going to be interesting to see how the NS/Pan Am joint venture, Patriot Rail, settles in on New England railroading in general and performance and attitude of Pan Am in specifics. The question then is what will be the long term effects of Patriot Rail and the relationship between the two railroads and the relationship with other railroads, shippers, and governments as compared to Pan Am's, er, ah, track record (!?, yeah, pun intended). This could effect both freight and passenger rail east of New York State.
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.
On problem: the current Douglas administration in Vermont is convinced that passenger rail is not right for Vermont. However, Gov. Douglas is not planning to run for reelection, maybe the next gov will be more flexible.
I must say that Douglas may be right. Passenger rail is most valuable where there is a high population density, and that does not describe Vermont. Perhaps most traffic would be through traffic between Montreal and the NE US cities. Not of much benefit to Vermont.
Jack
O
Jack_S On problem: the current Douglas administration in Vermont is convinced that passenger rail is not right for Vermont. However, Gov. Douglas is not planning to run for reelection, maybe the next gov will be more flexible. I must say that Douglas may be right. Passenger rail is most valuable where there is a high population density, and that does not describe Vermont. Perhaps most traffic would be through traffic between Montreal and the NE US cities. Not of much benefit to Vermont. Jack
What you are saying regarding population might be true . . . although adding Boston and Montreal as end points would surely change the ridership potential a bit. But the other point is that when Bombardier was up and running, it was one of Vermont's biggest employers. That's why the Governor should get involved.
(Only four employers--Central Vermont Hospital, National Life Insurance, Rock of Ages and Norwich University--have between 500 and 1,000 employers. Another handful--Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Bombardier Corp, Grand Union Stores, Montpelier Public Schools, Price Chopper stores, Cabot Creamery and Washington County Mental Health--employ between 250 and 500.)
What about IBM at Essex Junction (the Amtrak stop for Burlington)?
And tourism (a big Vermont industry)?
I agree also that commuter rail may not make a lot of sense in Vermont, but restoring a through rail line from Montreal to Boston is one of the best thing Northern New England can do. I too left VT back in the late 80's when Simmonds Precision layed off 50% of its work force, and there where no other good paying engineering jobs. I would like to see trains like the Colorado DMU running between Montreal, Burlington & Boston with at 2 to 3 trips down and back a day, once NH's Northern line is restored. Along with moving rail frieght between Boston region and Montreal.
A question would there be enough rides for a line between Burlington and Montpelier ?
DRG
For all of you currently speaking about using the Bombardier facility, perhaps you need to review exactly what the quality and status of the WACR track is.
The portion of the line continuing up the switchback is absolutely horrendous, and listed as out of service. What are the profile of these bi-level cars? I don't ever recall hauling a bi-level from the plant, especially considering the fact that the line is heavily restricted in terms of bridge heights and close clearances running behind city businesses. Even riding a calcium chloride tank car through the switch back is daunting, and not something I care for doing ever again. The ride up to the plant requires a long and tedious shove move, which is a royal pain in the rear end.
There were more then a "few" incidents with Acela cars coming off the hill, including numerous derailments, dings-dents-and-scrapes, not to mention the fact that you can only safely haul 1, maybe 2 cars down that hill without having to worry about losing your train. Yes, the grade is that steep. It's down right dangerous.
Next, the Bombardier plant is currently occupied with a new tenant. That tenant is currently doing pretty well in their industry. Who is going to pay their costs to relocate? There are NO railroad manufacturing capabilities remaining there, except for some scarcely usable track and perhaps an over head crane. Everything else is gone.
Who is going to pay for the re-hab of the WACR? I am pretty well damned opposed to tax payer money fixing a line that sees an average of 2 cars a week/bi-weekly ( 1 load in, 1 empty out), that is owned by the state, maintained by the state, and then capitalized by a private entity. I'm sorry, but this would be unacceptable. Colarado / US Rail car be damned. As it is now, during winter months, an "average" trip to do interchange from Barre to Montpelier (from WACR to NECR -- former CV) can take 2 days. That line is horrible. I remember in Winter 08 (Perhaps, January 08) going on the ground multiple times within a 1 mile stretch of track. I'm glad I'll never see that line again, ever.
With the current system of how Amtrak functions in place, they'd require a minimum of two "cab cars" / "locomotives" in the train. If you want your vision of a train that splits in Brattleboro, then you're going to need double that amount. Why, might you ask? Because we don't turn Amtrak trains here. They push/pull, always. If you're going to split the train, you've just doubled the required amount of equipment necessary for head-end-control, as well as needing many more backups. Your maint. costs, inspections, on top of everything else will need some major revamping because of that.
Sorry to burst your bubbles, but some of this stuff is just way too out there
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
GraniteRailroader For all of you currently speaking about using the Bombardier facility, perhaps you need to review exactly what the quality and status of the WACR track is. The portion of the line continuing up the switchback is absolutely horrendous, and listed as out of service. What are the profile of these bi-level cars? I don't ever recall hauling a bi-level from the plant, especially considering the fact that the line is heavily restricted in terms of bridge heights and close clearances running behind city businesses. Even riding a calcium chloride tank car through the switch back is daunting, and not something I care for doing ever again. The ride up to the plant requires a long and tedious shove move, which is a royal pain in the rear end. There were more then a "few" incidents with Acela cars coming off the hill, including numerous derailments, dings-dents-and-scrapes, not to mention the fact that you can only safely haul 1, maybe 2 cars down that hill without having to worry about losing your train. Yes, the grade is that steep. It's down right dangerous. Next, the Bombardier plant is currently occupied with a new tenant. That tenant is currently doing pretty well in their industry. Who is going to pay their costs to relocate? There are NO railroad manufacturing capabilities remaining there, except for some scarcely usable track and perhaps an over head crane. Everything else is gone. Who is going to pay for the re-hab of the WACR? I am pretty well damned opposed to tax payer money fixing a line that sees an average of 2 cars a week/bi-weekly ( 1 load in, 1 empty out), that is owned by the state, maintained by the state, and then capitalized by a private entity. I'm sorry, but this would be unacceptable. Colarado / US Rail car be damned. As it is now, during winter months, an "average" trip to do interchange from Barre to Montpelier (from WACR to NECR -- former CV) can take 2 days. That line is horrible. I remember in Winter 08 (Perhaps, January 08) going on the ground multiple times within a 1 mile stretch of track. I'm glad I'll never see that line again, ever. With the current system of how Amtrak functions in place, they'd require a minimum of two "cab cars" / "locomotives" in the train. If you want your vision of a train that splits in Brattleboro, then you're going to need double that amount. Why, might you ask? Because we don't turn Amtrak trains here. They push/pull, always. If you're going to split the train, you've just doubled the required amount of equipment necessary for head-end-control, as well as needing many more backups. Your maint. costs, inspections, on top of everything else will need some major revamping because of that. Sorry to burst your bubbles, but some of this stuff is just way too out there
Your first issue is easily addressed. They built Superliner cars in this plant and shipped them out without incident. I'm sure you realize that they are the largest bi-level passenger cars Amtrak owns. (However note that Vermont planned to purchase single level cars anyway.)
I believe the plant is now only partially occupied by a small company (making windmills maybe?). I believe Bombardier only "mothballed it" so they may still own it which seems to indicate that they desire someday to reopen it. This info might not be current however. Yes, the tracks would have to be upgraded, but getting new equipment out of the plant would certainly not be a time-sensitive matter. And since this concerns DMUs (short self-propelled trainsets), switchbacks can easily be handled.
If the plant is not available or if the line is way beyond repair, the State could find another location. The basic idea is to bring railcar manufacturing back to Vermont and have the State purchase/lease DMUs for Amtrak to operate in a suitable revenue service. Amtrak wanted Vermont to buy this exact equipment for use in the State.
And your final comment regarding push-pull operation . . . these are DMUs. They can easily run independently (with cabs at both ends) or in back-to-back sets. This is exactly the type of equipment necessary to make such an operation feasible. A six car train built as follows: (DMU-TRAILER-DMU) + (DMU-TRAILER-DMU) with all DMUs facing away from their mid TRAILERS, could easily operate as suggested.
UPDATE (Looks like Vermont can save their money):
U.S. Railcar LLC, which in June bought the assets of a shuttered Colorado railcar company, intends to build a $14 million factory in suburban Columbus that would make diesel-fueled passenger cars and employ about 160 people.
The company would apply for $8.7 million in federal stimulus money to build the plant, with the state offering $3.6 million in economic assistance. The remaining $2.1 million would come from private investment.
The Ohio Rail Development Commission agreed to sponsor the company's stimulus application, which is due Tuesday.
The U.S. Department of Transportation expects to make a decision in January. The agency has about $1.5 billion in discretionary spending to award to projects that have a significant impact on the nation, a region or a metropolitan area and can create jobs.
U.S. Railcar aims to compete with international companies that dominate the passenger train industry.
Among the most prominent are Montreal-based Bombardier Inc., which helped build Amtrak's Acela Express between Boston and Washington, D.C., the only high-speed service in the U.S., and the Spanish company Talgo SA, which has a $47 million deal with Wisconsin to produce two 14-car trains to run on the state's Milwaukee-Chicago corridor.
U.S. Railcar will re-establish passenger train production the United States, said Barry Fromm, CEO of Columbus-based Value Recovery Group, whose investors are behind the new rail company.
Iconic U.S. train builders such as Pullman Co. in Chicago and Budd Co. in Philadelphia died out more than 30 years ago with America's shift to highway and air travel.
Fromm's plan calls for building a factory in Gahanna, Ohio, east of the Port Columbus International Airport. Workers would earn an average of $22 an hour, he said. The diesel trains can travel between 79-90 mph and can be upgraded for 125 mph service.
Obama's $787 billion economic recovery package, signed in February, sets aside $8 billion for passenger rail projects in the U.S., something Obama sees as a down payment for a future high-speed network.
The administration's plan requires hundreds of new passenger trains.
Washington state alone is seeking $1 billion for high-speed rail projects, and Michigan is applying for $800 million.
Ohio is seeking about $400 million to launch a startup service along a 250-mile route linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. The state's application is due Oct. 2. If approved, passenger trains traveling up to 79 mph would start running in 2011.
Bottom line here is a Colorado Rail Car train would be good for Vermont Service and it should be considered for New Hampshire service that is being planned from Boston to Concord,NH.
A six car train built as follows: (DMU-TRAILER-DMU) + (DMU-TRAILER-DMU) with all DMUs facing away from their mid TRAILERS, could easily operate on the Lowell MBTA Commuter line instead of the current trains.
BOTTOM LINE IS: this equipment has so much potential applications for lower density applications everywhere. Good for states and other authorities to utilize for intercity as well as commuter type applicatons. The Budd RDC proved the concept, Europe practices it. Americans have to adopt it.
NewHampshireTrainGuy Bottom line here is a Colorado Rail Car train would be good for Vermont Service and it should be considered for New Hampshire service that is being planned from Boston to Concord,NH. A six car train built as follows: (DMU-TRAILER-DMU) + (DMU-TRAILER-DMU) with all DMUs facing away from their mid TRAILERS, could easily operate on the Lowell MBTA Commuter line instead of the current trains.
Push-pulls can accomplish a lot of the same flexibility by having additional cab cars placed in the body of the train. For example, an eight-car rush-hour consist can depart on a midday schedule with only three cars, leaving the additional cars at the station. C&NW did this when they modernized their suburban service with bi-levels, HEP and push-pulls.
CSSHEGEWISCH NewHampshireTrainGuy Bottom line here is a Colorado Rail Car train would be good for Vermont Service and it should be considered for New Hampshire service that is being planned from Boston to Concord,NH. A six car train built as follows: (DMU-TRAILER-DMU) + (DMU-TRAILER-DMU) with all DMUs facing away from their mid TRAILERS, could easily operate on the Lowell MBTA Commuter line instead of the current trains. Push-pulls can accomplish a lot of the same flexibility by having additional cab cars placed in the body of the train. For example, an eight-car rush-hour consist can depart on a midday schedule with only three cars, leaving the additional cars at the station. C&NW did this when they modernized their suburban service with bi-levels, HEP and push-pulls.
That assumes that your cab cars have passageways when coupled on to a longer consist of cars with another cab car. Can't do that with an F-40 conversion to an NPCC "cabbage car."
One question remains, and it also affects DMU's. Do you need a non-revenue locomotive-weight "thing", either a locomotive or a NPCC at the end of each push-pull train on account of grade crossing safety at the speed Amtrak operates? The FRA waiver for operating the Cascades Talgo requires just that.
I would say a (90 passenger DMU & 102 passenger TRAILER &90 passenger DMU ) would meet that requirment
The thing I missed, or is missing, in discussing splitting push-pull equipment is that you have to have either two power units, one for each part of the train/ the two seperate trains, or the Cab being left behind has to be facing in a way that it can accept the power behind to be effective as the operating cab car.
henry6 The thing I missed, or is missing, in discussing splitting push-pull equipment is that you have to have either two power units, one for each part of the train/ the two seperate trains, or the Cab being left behind has to be facing in a way that it can accept the power behind to be effective as the operating cab car.
In suburban service, the locomotive is always located on the outbound end. Also, bi-level cab cars have the cab on the upper level, and there is a full passageway through the car. In the example I cited, the excess cars would be left at the downtown terminal for servicing since they are not needed to cover midday schedules and passenger loads.
CSSHEGEWISCHbi-level cab cars have the cab on the upper level, and there is a full passageway through the car.
To clarify, on Metra those on the upper level need to go to the lower level to have passage to the connected cars.
Lot of politics going on in Vermont, don'cha know? Vermont's renegeing on the DMU order with Colorado Railcar put the company out of business. The NIMBYs and Eco-freaks are happy to see Bombardier's plant shuttered. Most of them would prefer rails-to-trails, anyway, to give them a place to walk their trendy Yellow Lab, on an occasional weekend. The only hope for the "Vermonter" is to restore full-service thru to Montreal. It is, now, "a train to howhere"!
The Boston-Montreal service would have to come thru the population centers of Manchester and Concord, NH. Good luck, with New Hampshire's record of supporting Amtrak. It is in the league with South Dakota and Wyoming!
The western Vermont service is ripe for DMUs, but don't hold your breath. Vermont is not ready for any realistic rail service, unless you can take your un-boxed bicycle on it!
Bill Hays -- Stowe, VT (1968-1985)
You really mean America in general, with building rail systems that any good. We are a third world when it comes to commuter rail systems, all we do is talk and study them to death, while the auto industry builds new roads and stops any progress in rails.
DRG NH
Funny a guy from New Hampshire should talk about "Third World" rail service. NH ain't even fifth-world. For a state that can pay 400+ legislators to banter their thoughts about in Concord, they couldn't even pay their lone railroad (Amtrak) station's light bills. Claremont, that is. New Hampshire was a "one-station-state" for over thirty years! They were, finally, shamed into picking up some of the tab of the "Downeaster", which stops at three New Hampshire stations, including the huge-loading Durham-UNH stop. I can't forsee the Boston-Montreal service ever becoming a reality, politics aside. I think New Hampshire has the most abandoned railroad mileage, next to Pennsylvania, in the country. That's just a guess. The place ain't "railroad friendly", as their supremes recently ruled, squashing a complaint from a railroad company that wasn't owned by an incumbent legislator.
BTW: No, guys! Crawford Notch is a long way from being a viable passenger route. Sorry.
Hays wdh@mcn.net (I enter my e-mail address in case someone wants to argue/discuss/etc.. All e-mails answered, I hope.)
Yea
New Hampshire wants a free ride for rail and thinks only of cars,trucks and buses. But then New England as a team of states needs to work together to rebuild all our rails to work together.
I rail lines need to be like our interstate system with 80 / 20 funding by feds and states
I have created google maps of most of all the rail lines in New england
Thank you NH train guy for spelling "buses" correctly. The Boston to Montreal route via Manchester and Concord needs to be developed for the economic security of your region.
Mr. Bose
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Yes we need this rail line, which also would bring Vermont more into the New England economic engine. We also need Colorado Railcar DMU's instead of the old locomotive / coach cars like MBTA uses.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.