OldArmy94A snippet from the article: ... American Railcar announced the formation Thursday of a joint venture with Columbus, Ohio-based US Railcar LLC. The venture, to be called US Railcar Co., will design, manufacture and sell medium-speed passenger railcars that will travel between 70 and 90 mph. “We were looking for ways to diversify our business,” American Railcar Chief Financial Officer Dale Davies told the Business Journal. “And it’s a unique opportunity because the government is sponsoring so many grants.” ... http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/02/15/daily48.htm
Does not make sense. AMTRAK wants all replacement cars to be 125 - 135 MPH cars according to their fleet plan report. That along with commuter agencies being able to piggyback car orders onto the AMTRAK orders thereby getting a cost break. Also a a commuter agency I woul not want any equipment that could not operate on any future HSR route that may be built in the future. An example is Heritage equipment operated on the NEC long distance trains limited to 110 MPH schedules thereby gumming up the fluidity. AMTRAK fleet plan calls for replacing those NEC heritage cars first. Might be moved somewhere else.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1 OldArmy94A snippet from the article: ... American Railcar announced the formation Thursday of a joint venture with Columbus, Ohio-based US Railcar LLC. The venture, to be called US Railcar Co., will design, manufacture and sell medium-speed passenger railcars that will travel between 70 and 90 mph. “We were looking for ways to diversify our business,” American Railcar Chief Financial Officer Dale Davies told the Business Journal. “And it’s a unique opportunity because the government is sponsoring so many grants.” ... http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/02/15/daily48.htm Does not make sense. AMTRAK wants all replacement cars to be 125 - 135 MPH cars according to their fleet plan report. That along with commuter agencies being able to piggyback car orders onto the AMTRAK orders thereby getting a cost break. Also a a commuter agency I woul not want any equipment that could not operate on any future HSR route that may be built in the future. An example is Heritage equipment operated on the NEC long distance trains limited to 110 MPH schedules thereby gumming up the fluidity. AMTRAK fleet plan calls for replacing those NEC heritage cars first. Might be moved somewhere else.
US Railcar is the same outfit that bought the assets and designs of the defunct Colorado Railcar so I assume the announcement refers to Diesel Multiple Units(DMUs) rather than Amtrak coaches...
http://www.usrailcar.com/
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 US Railcar is the same outfit that bought the assets and designs of the defunct Colorado Railcar so I assume the announcement refers to Diesel Multiple Units(DMUs) rather than Amtrak coaches... http://www.usrailcar.com/
I will have to retract my earlier post. The original item that OldArmy94 used listed the speeds as 70 - 90 MPH. The above link to usrailcar states that US rail car has plans to offer 90 MPH DMU with upgrades to offer an 125 MPH DMU. These DMUs can really develop services. One item needed is the ability for these DMUs to connect to present and future single and bi-level equipment..The future looking front end may be nice looking but not very operationally flexible. ( remember BART quit ordering those fancy fronts).
There are the obvious abilities to break off a DMU from a train to fill in to an obscure destination.
1. Pennsylvanian or other train drops DMU that can carry passengers to state college.
2. Southwest Chief drop DMU at Trinidad for it to continue to Denver.connecting to Cal Z and continuing to Cheyenne. Albuqueque to go to ElPaso.
3. Empire builder: MKE - Green Bay; MSP - Rochester - LaCrosse.
4. NEC: split at New Haven - Springfield - BOS north station - join Downeaster.
5. Cardinal: Cin - Louisville - St. Louis
6. Cresent: Meredian - Jackson - Shreveport - Dallas: Birmingham - Memphis++ Atlanta - Montgomery - Mobile
7. Silver Star: Columbia - Charlotte attaches to Carolinian (Phoebee how do you like that one?)
Palmetto or other train: Either Selma or Wilson - Goldsboro - Morehead City/ Wilmington ( part of NCDOT future plans already)
Of course there are problems mainly Money.
A. ADA requirements cost a lot for new stations
B. Guranteeing that DMUs will activate all signals
C. being able to quickly connect to regular trains for brakes, train control, and HEP. Able to make quick brake checks.
D. DMUs can operate in trailing position behind locos.
E. Instead of having to have station switchers the DMU can be the switcher.
I expect that many more routes can be proposed and this is just food for thought.
carnej1blue streak 1 OldArmy94A snippet from the article: ... American Railcar announced the formation Thursday of a joint venture with Columbus, Ohio-based US Railcar LLC. The venture, to be called US Railcar Co., will design, manufacture and sell medium-speed passenger railcars that will travel between 70 and 90 mph. “We were looking for ways to diversify our business,” American Railcar Chief Financial Officer Dale Davies told the Business Journal. “And it’s a unique opportunity because the government is sponsoring so many grants.” ... http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/02/15/daily48.htm Does not make sense. AMTRAK wants all replacement cars to be 125 - 135 MPH cars according to their fleet plan report. That along with commuter agencies being able to piggyback car orders onto the AMTRAK orders thereby getting a cost break. Also a a commuter agency I woul not want any equipment that could not operate on any future HSR route that may be built in the future. An example is Heritage equipment operated on the NEC long distance trains limited to 110 MPH schedules thereby gumming up the fluidity. AMTRAK fleet plan calls for replacing those NEC heritage cars first. Might be moved somewhere else. US Railcar is the same outfit that bought the assets and designs of the defunct Colorado Railcar so I assume the announcement refers to Diesel Multiple Units(DMUs) rather than Amtrak coaches... http://www.usrailcar.com/
eolesenColorado Railcar spent the better part of five years trying to sell their product to every commuter railroad and transit agency in business. They didn't have a whole lot of success..... I had a inspect the DMU when it was touring Texas, and it looked about as durable as a $80K motorhome on flanges......
Maybe it looked that way, but it met FRA crash regs.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeaton eolesenColorado Railcar spent the better part of five years trying to sell their product to every commuter railroad and transit agency in business. They didn't have a whole lot of success..... I had a inspect the DMU when it was touring Texas, and it looked about as durable as a $80K motorhome on flanges...... Maybe it looked that way, but it met FRA crash regs.
So, it met FRA crash standards -- doesn't mean any of a number of things can break down.
So, "eolesen", tell us more about what you observed? What about the DMU gave the impression that it wasn't going to hold up?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sounds like a "rédux" (is that a proper word? I can't find it in my little French dictionary) of the EMD E-7 (?) B-units, the ones that had a quasi-cab, operated by the Rock Island. Doesn't Tri-Rail (Miami, etc.) have a cabless unit in their DMU fleet, running in 3-car lash-ups?
Hays
The State of Ohio wants to buy their DMU's for the 3-C plus 2 service. (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati via Springfield and Dayton.)
While I agree with a lot of what is said here, I have some reservations.
blue streak 1There are the obvious abilities to break off a DMU from a train to fill in to an obscure destination. Serious schedule reliability issues must be resolved; and that is more likely with greater distances and heavier traffic. Furthermore, isn't there some threshold for ridership and revenue to justify line improvement costs, even if the above-rail costs can be covered and less than for a locomotive-hauled train? I doubt one or two cars would make it on such a low-density low-frequency service.Would splitting the train, adding and dropping a string of cars, be a reasonable alternative to introducing another type of equipment little market application? 1. Pennsylvanian or other train drops DMU that can carry passengers to state college.Maybe; but maybe need multiple cars, at least on weekends. What about clearances? Last I heard the DMU's were bi-levels. 2. Southwest Chief drop DMU at Trinidad for it to continue to Denver.connecting to Cal Z and continuing to Cheyenne. Albuqueque to go to ElPaso. What's the demand for long-distance space and car supply on the Southwest? DMU riders would be isolated from diner and lounge amenities. 3. Empire builder: MKE - Green Bay; MSP - Rochester - LaCrosse.Similar as for Southwest; but Green Bay has different time-specific demand than for the Coast, has potential for a separate train, and needs more frequencies. 4. NEC: split at New Haven - Springfield - BOS north station - join Downeaster.Totally different equipment - would be case for coupling a pair of Acela-type corridor trains. What about clearances 5. Cardinal: Cin - Louisville - St. LouisDMU riders would be isolated from diner and lounge amenities. Louisville-St Louis seems to have little intermediate traffic potential, current route configuration out of Cincinnati is not conducive to a through route without mid-route change of direction, and could experience delays.Indianapolis - St Louis more doable and needs little route improvement; but distance and freight traffic problematic.Too little traffic for stand-alone low-frequency, low density service from Indianapolis to Louisville off the Cardinal. Might be an alternative to coupling push-pull Cincinnati and Louisville sections in order to reduce the number of train movements into Chicago. 6. Cresent: Meredian - Jackson - Shreveport - Dallas: Birmingham - Memphis++ Atlanta - Montgomery - MobileSome potential; but long routes could spell trouble for on-time performance - one delay affects all. 7. Silver Star: Columbia - Charlotte attaches to Carolinian (Phoebee how do you like that one?)Certainly possible, but adding car to Carolinian and running it through to Columbia seems to be a better solution. The other issue is the possible later arrival in Raleigh. Palmetto or other train: Either Selma or Wilson - Goldsboro - Morehead City/ Wilmington ( part of NCDOT future plans already)Goldsboro - Morehead City/Wilmington would be possible off the Palmetto, assuming no NEC clearance limitation, only because the State supported services to Raleigh would generate additional traffic to warrant route improvements. Of course there are problems mainly Money. A. ADA requirements cost a lot for new stationsAll you need are boarding pads - not a long platform. Doesn't seem to be on the same order of magnitude as 100 miles of track rehab work. B. Guranteeing that DMUs will activate all signals...and aren't lost by the satellite! ...D. DMUs can operate in trailing position behind locos.Operationally, it might be better ahead of the locomotive to avoid time-eating switching if other cars don't have control wiring.
Serious schedule reliability issues must be resolved; and that is more likely with greater distances and heavier traffic.
Furthermore, isn't there some threshold for ridership and revenue to justify line improvement costs, even if the above-rail costs can be covered and less than for a locomotive-hauled train? I doubt one or two cars would make it on such a low-density low-frequency service.
Would splitting the train, adding and dropping a string of cars, be a reasonable alternative to introducing another type of equipment little market application?
Maybe; but maybe need multiple cars, at least on weekends.
What about clearances? Last I heard the DMU's were bi-levels.
What's the demand for long-distance space and car supply on the Southwest? DMU riders would be isolated from diner and lounge amenities.
Similar as for Southwest; but Green Bay has different time-specific demand than for the Coast, has potential for a separate train, and needs more frequencies.
Totally different equipment - would be case for coupling a pair of Acela-type corridor trains. What about clearances
DMU riders would be isolated from diner and lounge amenities.
Louisville-St Louis seems to have little intermediate traffic potential, current route configuration out of Cincinnati is not conducive to a through route without mid-route change of direction, and could experience delays.
Indianapolis - St Louis more doable and needs little route improvement; but distance and freight traffic problematic.
Too little traffic for stand-alone low-frequency, low density service from Indianapolis to Louisville off the Cardinal. Might be an alternative to coupling push-pull Cincinnati and Louisville sections in order to reduce the number of train movements into Chicago.
Some potential; but long routes could spell trouble for on-time performance - one delay affects all.
Certainly possible, but adding car to Carolinian and running it through to Columbia seems to be a better solution. The other issue is the possible later arrival in Raleigh.
Goldsboro - Morehead City/Wilmington would be possible off the Palmetto, assuming no NEC clearance limitation, only because the State supported services to Raleigh would generate additional traffic to warrant route improvements.
All you need are boarding pads - not a long platform. Doesn't seem to be on the same order of magnitude as 100 miles of track rehab work.
...and aren't lost by the satellite!
...D. DMUs can operate in trailing position behind locos.
Operationally, it might be better ahead of the locomotive to avoid time-eating switching if other cars don't have control wiring.
I'm not sure of the particulars, but RI ran one of its Minneapolis-Texas trains with an RDC in the consist to cover the south end of the schedule by itself. The RDC had to be towed with its engines running in order to activate the wheel-slip control on the RDC and to provide HVAC and lighting for the car. NYC also towed RDC's behind MU cars on some longer suburban runs to cover the run beyond the end of third rail.
In addition to NYC towing RDCs behind MU cars between GCT and North White Plains (about 24 miles), they also hooked them onto loco-hauled trains from/to Brewster (about 50 miles) to service the Upper Harlem Division. Later, when M-NR electrified to Brewster, there was across-the-platform transfers with the RDCs there. They never shut them down in GCT and ran them around one of the loop tracks to exit north. A bit of a simplified explaination, but...
Some answers using Amtrak information as a source.
1.The Amtrak fleet plan says that both single level that meet eastern clearance gauges and bi-levels from Colorado Railcar have passed vetting. Assume these and other specifications.
2. DMUs would be fully compatible with 480 HEP and would automatically switch to such when HEP power is energized thru trainline power cords.Then DMU's diesel could be turned off. Whe In a train consist DMU could be started when arriving at split off station
3. DMUs operate on same 27 point connectors that locomotives do.
4. DMUs built to allow passengers to pass thru to other equipment either single or Bi-level. None of the fancy streamlining that we see like on Tri-Rail. Even BART realized its folly and no longer orders control cabs with streamlining.
5. Amtrak states that a 4 car train is the breakover point to go to loco hauled from DMUs
6. The problem of causing the southern long distance trains to exceed the 14 car train limitations of NYP may be solved by adding/removing the DMUs either PHL or WASH where there are very long platforms. This is similar to how C&O, SOU, ACL, SAL handled their trains south of Wash mainly. The problem of storage space at Ivy City has not been addressed yet that is reason for the PHL suggestion.
7. As stated for the conventional cars all the DMU's appliances and car items would be the same specifications as the conventional cars.
8. Fully 125 MPH towed speed capable. / .
HarveyK400 While I agree with a lot of what is said here, I have some reservations. blue streak 1 There are the obvious abilities to break off a DMU from a train to fill in to an obscure destination. Serious schedule reliability issues must be resolved; and that is more likely with greater distances and heavier traffic. Write the performance specifications to meet the reliability issues. 2 off the shelf diesels per car (believe that is already the case) Furthermore, isn't there some threshold for ridership and revenue to justify line improvement costs, even if the above-rail costs can be covered and less than for a locomotive-hauled train? I Absolutely at the lower end of the scale. I believe that line upgrade costs come out of a different pot than operating costs so capital costs go up to reduce operating cost. An imperfect example is the interstate highway fund. Originally 90% Fed and 10% State. However repair costs 50 - 50. I doubt one or two cars would make it on such a low-density low-frequency service. Fleet plan proposes DMUs for development purposes of routes. Would splitting the train, adding and dropping a string of cars, be a reasonable alternative to introducing another type of equipment little market application? That is a decision that will eventually be up to Congress. I see problems with DMUs for Mtce traininig and D/H for level 2 depot Mtce. 1. Pennsylvanian or other train drops DMU that can carry passengers to state college. Maybe; but maybe need multiple cars, at least on weekends. Probably so either exceed the DMU cross over or place regular cars and cab car and loco on end of train in push pull configuration when split. Only loco would need to run around train and push it back to couple up with train What about clearances? Last I heard the DMU's were bi-levels. No, there are approved single levels. 2. Southwest Chief drop DMU at Trinidad for it to continue to Denver.connecting to Cal Z and continuing to Cheyenne. Albuqueque to go to ElPaso. What's the demand for long-distance space and car supply on the Southwest? DMU riders would be isolated from diner and lounge amenities. Absolutely not. Build the DMUs so they can all be cab cars.That way passengers can pass thru. Ex. The Alaska RR Bi-levels are a control car type . 3. Empire builder: MKE - Green Bay; MSP - Rochester - LaCrosse. Similar as for Southwest; but Green Bay has different time-specific demand than for the Coast, has potential for a separate train, and needs more frequencies. You may be correct about this one! 4. NEC: split at New Haven - Springfield - BOS north station - join Downeaster. Totally different equipment - would be case for coupling a pair of Acela-type corridor trains. What about clearances No I was thinking of connecting the single level DMUs to regular NEC trains and Downeaster trains not Acela type. 5. Cardinal: Cin - Louisville - St. Louis DMU riders would be isolated from diner and lounge amenities. Same answer DMUs will couple up and passengers can walk thru on the whole train. Amtrak is actually talking about the Cardinal going to St.Louis. Maybe DMUs to Indianapolis? Louisville-St Louis seems to have little intermediate traffic potential, current route configuration out of Cincinnati is not conducive to a through route without mid-route change of direction, and could experience delays. Where would be the change of direction? That is one beauty of a DMU. Indianapolis - St Louis more doable and needs little route improvement; but distance and freight traffic problematic. Too little traffic for stand-alone low-frequency, low density service from Indianapolis to Louisville off the Cardinal. Might be an alternative to coupling push-pull Cincinnati and Louisville sections in order to reduce the number of train movements into Chicago. 6. Cresent: Meredian - Jackson - Shreveport - Dallas: Birmingham - Memphis++ Atlanta - Montgomery - Mobile Some potential; but long routes could spell trouble for on-time performance - one delay affects all. 7. Silver Star: Columbia - Charlotte attaches to Carolinian (Phoebee how do you like that one?) Certainly possible, but adding car to Carolinian and running it through to Columbia seems to be a better solution. The other issue is the possible later arrival in Raleigh. DMU Cars on rear of Carolinian could be dropped in CLT and run 106 miles to Columbia by previous SOU timetable and easily couples to the Silver Star. This opens up a whole new route at minimul expense other that crews and track time. Passengers to Florida from Raleigh south and traffic north of Columbia to NEC Return time on SS also works OK. Big problem is the preceived reluctance of South Carolina to engage in any state supported operations. Also Phoebee would need to address the posible heavy commuter traffic to/from Rock Hill or beyond. With NC adding all its CLT - Raleigh service a late DMU to CLT might connect to next train? Palmetto or other train: Either Selma or Wilson - Goldsboro - Morehead City/ Wilmington ( part of NCDOT future plans already) Goldsboro - Morehead City/Wilmington would be possible off the Palmetto, assuming no NEC clearance limitation, only because the State supported services to Raleigh would generate additional traffic to warrant route improvements. Again single levels connected to single levels. Of course there are problems mainly Money. A. ADA requirements cost a lot for new stations All you need are boarding pads - not a long platform. Doesn't seem to be on the same order of magnitude as 100 miles of track rehab work. Well the ARRA funds to make stations ADA compliant are running about $600,000 per station. But yes track upgrades do cost more. B. Guranteeing that DMUs will activate all signals ...and aren't lost by the satellite! ...D. DMUs can operate in trailing position behind locos. Operationally, it might be better ahead of the locomotive to avoid time-eating switching if other cars don't have control wiring. No -- all conventional cars to be manufactured will have both loco control and train control thru wiring installed. I think it is better for DMUs to be at end of train to allow passengers to pass thru. That is still one benefit that airplanes and buses cannot duplicate. Also access to lounge/diner.. No matter where DMU is added there will be the mandantory brake and operational tests.
blue streak 1 There are the obvious abilities to break off a DMU from a train to fill in to an obscure destination. Serious schedule reliability issues must be resolved; and that is more likely with greater distances and heavier traffic. Write the performance specifications to meet the reliability issues. 2 off the shelf diesels per car (believe that is already the case) Furthermore, isn't there some threshold for ridership and revenue to justify line improvement costs, even if the above-rail costs can be covered and less than for a locomotive-hauled train? I Absolutely at the lower end of the scale. I believe that line upgrade costs come out of a different pot than operating costs so capital costs go up to reduce operating cost. An imperfect example is the interstate highway fund. Originally 90% Fed and 10% State. However repair costs 50 - 50. I doubt one or two cars would make it on such a low-density low-frequency service. Fleet plan proposes DMUs for development purposes of routes. Would splitting the train, adding and dropping a string of cars, be a reasonable alternative to introducing another type of equipment little market application? That is a decision that will eventually be up to Congress. I see problems with DMUs for Mtce traininig and D/H for level 2 depot Mtce. 1. Pennsylvanian or other train drops DMU that can carry passengers to state college. Maybe; but maybe need multiple cars, at least on weekends. Probably so either exceed the DMU cross over or place regular cars and cab car and loco on end of train in push pull configuration when split. Only loco would need to run around train and push it back to couple up with train What about clearances? Last I heard the DMU's were bi-levels. No, there are approved single levels. 2. Southwest Chief drop DMU at Trinidad for it to continue to Denver.connecting to Cal Z and continuing to Cheyenne. Albuqueque to go to ElPaso. What's the demand for long-distance space and car supply on the Southwest? DMU riders would be isolated from diner and lounge amenities. Absolutely not. Build the DMUs so they can all be cab cars.That way passengers can pass thru. Ex. The Alaska RR Bi-levels are a control car type . 3. Empire builder: MKE - Green Bay; MSP - Rochester - LaCrosse. Similar as for Southwest; but Green Bay has different time-specific demand than for the Coast, has potential for a separate train, and needs more frequencies. You may be correct about this one! 4. NEC: split at New Haven - Springfield - BOS north station - join Downeaster. Totally different equipment - would be case for coupling a pair of Acela-type corridor trains. What about clearances No I was thinking of connecting the single level DMUs to regular NEC trains and Downeaster trains not Acela type. 5. Cardinal: Cin - Louisville - St. Louis DMU riders would be isolated from diner and lounge amenities. Same answer DMUs will couple up and passengers can walk thru on the whole train. Amtrak is actually talking about the Cardinal going to St.Louis. Maybe DMUs to Indianapolis? Louisville-St Louis seems to have little intermediate traffic potential, current route configuration out of Cincinnati is not conducive to a through route without mid-route change of direction, and could experience delays. Where would be the change of direction? That is one beauty of a DMU. Indianapolis - St Louis more doable and needs little route improvement; but distance and freight traffic problematic. Too little traffic for stand-alone low-frequency, low density service from Indianapolis to Louisville off the Cardinal. Might be an alternative to coupling push-pull Cincinnati and Louisville sections in order to reduce the number of train movements into Chicago. 6. Cresent: Meredian - Jackson - Shreveport - Dallas: Birmingham - Memphis++ Atlanta - Montgomery - Mobile Some potential; but long routes could spell trouble for on-time performance - one delay affects all. 7. Silver Star: Columbia - Charlotte attaches to Carolinian (Phoebee how do you like that one?) Certainly possible, but adding car to Carolinian and running it through to Columbia seems to be a better solution. The other issue is the possible later arrival in Raleigh. DMU Cars on rear of Carolinian could be dropped in CLT and run 106 miles to Columbia by previous SOU timetable and easily couples to the Silver Star. This opens up a whole new route at minimul expense other that crews and track time. Passengers to Florida from Raleigh south and traffic north of Columbia to NEC Return time on SS also works OK. Big problem is the preceived reluctance of South Carolina to engage in any state supported operations. Also Phoebee would need to address the posible heavy commuter traffic to/from Rock Hill or beyond. With NC adding all its CLT - Raleigh service a late DMU to CLT might connect to next train? Palmetto or other train: Either Selma or Wilson - Goldsboro - Morehead City/ Wilmington ( part of NCDOT future plans already) Goldsboro - Morehead City/Wilmington would be possible off the Palmetto, assuming no NEC clearance limitation, only because the State supported services to Raleigh would generate additional traffic to warrant route improvements. Again single levels connected to single levels. Of course there are problems mainly Money. A. ADA requirements cost a lot for new stations All you need are boarding pads - not a long platform. Doesn't seem to be on the same order of magnitude as 100 miles of track rehab work. Well the ARRA funds to make stations ADA compliant are running about $600,000 per station. But yes track upgrades do cost more. B. Guranteeing that DMUs will activate all signals ...and aren't lost by the satellite! ...D. DMUs can operate in trailing position behind locos. Operationally, it might be better ahead of the locomotive to avoid time-eating switching if other cars don't have control wiring. No -- all conventional cars to be manufactured will have both loco control and train control thru wiring installed. I think it is better for DMUs to be at end of train to allow passengers to pass thru. That is still one benefit that airplanes and buses cannot duplicate. Also access to lounge/diner.. No matter where DMU is added there will be the mandantory brake and operational tests.
Write the performance specifications to meet the reliability issues. 2 off the shelf diesels per car (believe that is already the case)
Furthermore, isn't there some threshold for ridership and revenue to justify line improvement costs, even if the above-rail costs can be covered and less than for a locomotive-hauled train?
I Absolutely at the lower end of the scale. I believe that line upgrade costs come out of a different pot than operating costs so capital costs go up to reduce operating cost. An imperfect example is the interstate highway fund. Originally 90% Fed and 10% State. However repair costs 50 - 50.
I doubt one or two cars would make it on such a low-density low-frequency service.
Fleet plan proposes DMUs for development purposes of routes.
That is a decision that will eventually be up to Congress. I see problems with DMUs for Mtce traininig and D/H for level 2 depot Mtce.
Probably so either exceed the DMU cross over or place regular cars and cab car and loco on end of train in push pull configuration when split. Only loco would need to run around train and push it back to couple up with train
No, there are approved single levels.
Absolutely not. Build the DMUs so they can all be cab cars.That way passengers can pass thru. Ex. The Alaska RR Bi-levels are a control car type .
You may be correct about this one!
No I was thinking of connecting the single level DMUs to regular NEC trains and Downeaster trains not Acela type.
Same answer DMUs will couple up and passengers can walk thru on the whole train. Amtrak is actually talking about the Cardinal going to St.Louis. Maybe DMUs to Indianapolis?
Where would be the change of direction? That is one beauty of a DMU.
DMU Cars on rear of Carolinian could be dropped in CLT and run 106 miles to Columbia by previous SOU timetable and easily couples to the Silver Star. This opens up a whole new route at minimul expense other that crews and track time. Passengers to Florida from Raleigh south and traffic north of Columbia to NEC Return time on SS also works OK. Big problem is the preceived reluctance of South Carolina to engage in any state supported operations. Also Phoebee would need to address the posible heavy commuter traffic to/from Rock Hill or beyond. With NC adding all its CLT - Raleigh service a late DMU to CLT might connect to next train?
Again single levels connected to single levels.
Well the ARRA funds to make stations ADA compliant are running about $600,000 per station. But yes track upgrades do cost more.
No -- all conventional cars to be manufactured will have both loco control and train control thru wiring installed. I think it is better for DMUs to be at end of train to allow passengers to pass thru. That is still one benefit that airplanes and buses cannot duplicate. Also access to lounge/diner.. No matter where DMU is added there will be the mandantory brake and operational tests.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.