I hope so, too. Europe has all kinds of routes covered by similar vehicles. And we would benefit from a quality car for many commuter routes as well as inter city...remember the B&O Baltimore to Pittsburgh, the NYC Albany to Boston along with many other more rural routes.
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.
It looks like the investors are going to be playing off several states to find out who offers the best deal. It also appears that they are shopping for an existing facility.
Is this the Boston to Montreal route that appears on the HSR map? I have not heard any mention here of that route, and have asked about it a couple times. I have not searched local (eg, New Hampshire) media for news...
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
No. This is the existing Vermonter route extended to Montreal on the north end and to Boston on the south end. There is a serious plan being discussed to reroute the Vermonter north from Springfield, MA through Greenfield shortening the route and restoring long-lost service through Northampton. The folks along the present route (Palmer/Amherst) want to keep the route as-is through their towns. I was suggesting that we can have both with economical DMU service.
(BTW - it's nice to see people fighting FOR train service)
Well, I keep seeing Boston to Montreal, via Concord, NH, on the "High Speed" plan. Even getting this routes up to modest speeds would be expensive, and many stations are gone.... I found online a Vermont DOT "Phase I" plan, but no cost estimates. In a poll in the general discussion board, I once said this was a route that I would like to see service again; but mostly for sentimental reasons because I lived there...
Anyway, DMU's are the way to go! I've been on Budd RDC's several times, including North of Boston as both powered cars and trailers. But when we visited England and Scotland, they were the workhorses of the rural lines. One route had a train that split half way from Glasgow. Food service was by a "Trolley Lady," or cart; that is when I learned to like warm beer. Another route had an ancient vehicle with compartment doors and seating and manual gear shift. These things can last forever...
One of the things to remember is that today it doesn't matter how many "stations are gone". New social and geographical patterns actually make old stations bad choices for new station stops! This is one of the bad things about talking passenger rail service: today's passenger rail service is nowhere near what the system, equipment, schedules, and population needs, et al, of 50 years ago. Don't expect the Chattanooga Choo and George at your beckon call or that you will entrain or detrain in the middle of Major City or on a dusty road in the country, the windows won't open, and you can't stand in the vestibule to look out! Today's world cannot be compared to back then nor can the passenger train. As for the DMU, while you might compare it to the RDC in can only be done so in the concept of a single self propelled car or an mu'd pair, but after that the 21st Century rules.
As for routing of a Boston-Montreal Train: the North Conway Scenic was just called upon to make a freight move through Crawford Notch with some kind of electric transformer. The track is in and evidently usable at very slow speeds...but what it would take to bring it up to real passenger service speed is the question. Meantime I believe the idea being knocked around is to run the Vermonter north on the old B&M line out of Springfield, MA and the Boston train go west to Palmer then north on the New England Central on the route the Vermonter takes today. As for via Concord and Conway, its a stretch although there is a clamour for servcie from there to Boston.
The HSR route is not through Crawford Notch, but goes from Concord to White River Junction--roughly paralleling I-89. The Vermont DOT report makes it sound like this project is practically mandated by environmental laws.
http://www.aot.state.vt.us/Planning/BostonRail.htm
Budd RDC's had a 1A-A1 wheel-power arrangement, twin-disc hydraulic transmission, and a 275 hp engine; the British Class 150 was 2-B trucks, microprocessor controlled hydrokinetic-coupling transmission, and a 280 hp engine. I am having a little trouble finding details about new American DMU's..
The top picture is in Crianlarich, Scotland, food service cart, and Class 150. The train divides here for Oban or Ft. William. The bottom photo is in Plymouth, not sure of class #; circa 1990.
By maui_67photos, shot with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT at 2009-07-10.
My bad...but the route selected is in much better shape than I had thought despite the out of service area as I didn't think there was a rail in place from Bow to White River Jct. in the first place!
MaglevThe top picture is in Crianlarich, Scotland, food service cart, and Class 150. The train divides here for Oban or Ft. William. The bottom photo is in Plymouth, not sure of class #; circa 1990. By maui_67photos, shot with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT at 2009-07-10.
The DMU in the bottom picture is a Class 158 (350-400 hp per car, Voith hydro-mechanical transmission feeding one truck per car, 90 mph top speed).
Tony
Japan also uses a lot of DMU's. I did a little research on this when I lived on Maui, to see what kinds of used equipment might be available to use between the big hotels and Lahaina town (on existing LK&P 3' 6" tracks...). In New Zealand, my Mom and Dad rode Auckland to Wellington on Silver Fern DMU's, so this is how I have letterd my HO scale Budd RDC's.
Of course, there's always that buff-strength issue... In the US, we need more like "locomotives that carry passengers and tow a few cars..."
Right Maglev, that buff strength is an issue. If we didn't need such a heavy guage, there are literally thousands of products from Europe and Asia we could purchase off the shelf for our use. But in all of North and a lot of South America the adaptation of foreign standards is costly and time consuming often making us seemingly lagging behind the rest of the world. But can our heavy guage/buff strength standard really be compromised at this point?
Here's some more info on the Vermonter reroute:
Jul 9, 2009
Focusing on improvements that could be made to an east-west rail corridor may be the best way for Amherst to keep its railroad station open if efforts to bring the Amtrak Vermonter closer to the Connecticut River are successful. Calling Amtrak's leg through Amherst "the Palmer shortcut," Town Manager Larry Shaffer said that he is working on a plan that would make the train depot in Palmer the nexus for an east-west corridor that could preserve Amherst's passenger-rail service. "I think Palmer will play a critical part in the ability for Amherst to retain its Amtrak stop," Shaffer said. Shaffer's idea comes as officials in the Executive Office of Transportation, with support from the state of Vermont, intend to seek federal stimulus money aimed at improving the Springfield to Northfield route and placing new stops in Northampton, Holyoke and Greenfield. The application for upwards of $60 million out of the $8 billion available through federal stimulus money comes after an ongoing effort by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission to study the north-south route. "This has been something we've been pursuing on and off for the last 10 years," said Executive Director Tim Brennan. The preliminary application, due July 10, will describe how the project matches criteria in the federal guidelines, including that it be inter-city and shovel-ready. The formal application is due in late August, and Brennan said officials should know by the end of the year if it is successful. The $60 million would pay for major upgrades of the lines and stations, as well as signalization and grade crossing improvements and double tracking, Brennan said. During three technical advisory committee meetings, held last month in Northampton, Springfield and Bellows Falls, Vt., the 170 people who attended demonstrated significant interest in the project. "The level of support was very, very substantial to move forward with the idea," Brennan said. Rob Kusner, a member of Amherst's Save Our Stop Task Force, said it is important that Amherst and the University of Massachusetts be able to offer input toward the final application. Ideas for an expanded network, he said, could improve the chances for long-term success. "It makes sense to at least be thinking about it, even if not part of the project that is being funded," Kusner said. Shaffer told the Select Board that he acknowledges it will be difficult for Amherst to keep its stop, which had 12,679 riders in 2008, if the Palmer station closes. "Palmer is our gateway to Boston," Shaffer said. Palmer's station, which he recently visited, has a full-rail capacity near the Massachusetts Turnpike. As part of his work, Shaffer has met with officials in Palmer and in Mansfield, Conn., the community where the village of Storrs and the home of the University of Connecticut are both located. The latter is southeast of Amherst and due south of Palmer. Shaffer said there are similarities between Amherst and Storrs, in that they are both small towns affected by a large college population. It was unclear whether Shaffer envisioned a new rail line or use of existing lines, which may or may not need upgrades to become usable. Shaffer said he will advocate strongly that an east-west corridor study be funded separately from the work that would improve the rail lines between Northfield and Springfield. This section of the rail line is entirely subsidized by Vermont at a cost of $2.6 million annually, Brennan said, and eliminating what is dubbed as the Palmer detour would save 50 minutes off the trip, fuel and labor costs and would go through more population centers. Shaffer said referring to this as a detour is unfortunate. "Our argument to Vermont is the detour, all of a sudden, becomes a shortcut if some passengers in Vermont have the desire to go to Boston instead of New York," Shaffer said. In fact, Shaffer said he feels a good number of college students in Amherst would prefer an option in which the train would take them east to Boston instead of south toward New York City. And with the interest coming from Mansfield, there could also be an option for getting passengers on this line to points as far south as New London, Conn. A lot of these plans could depend on whether Massachusetts is willing to fund such infrastructure improvements. While U.S. Rep. John Olver obtained $700,000 for an east-west corridor study, no matching funding has been available from Massachusetts, though Brennan is optimistic such an appropriation may be coming. Shaffer said it is not unreasonable to think Amtrak could have two lines, one that follows the Connecticut River more closely, and the other that extends toward Boston. "Our pitch will be that $30 million may be better spent elsewhere," Shaffer said. Brennan said he sympathizes with what Shaffer is trying to do. "All his points are well taken," Brennan said. He said there may be opportunities for more funding in the future, but that getting a study done is the first priority. The PVPC would be amenable to launching a study of the east-west corridor at some point, but there is no way to do that at this time. And without a study being complete, there is no way to get money from the federal stimulus for an east-west project. Meanwhile, the local task force set up in Amherst is still being formed and will study railroad issues and report back to Amherst officials early next year.
On a fifth Google search for "Colorado Railcar DMU, " here is the first sentence of the site I found today: "The most noteworthy part of this is the FRA crashworthiness compliance and the commitment to move up to 125 mph. performance." (On a blog called "Trains for America.")
And this is in the Trains General Discussion Forum: "Car hits train."
I was on an Amtrak train to Florida that hit two cars in one night. The one time I finally got my flight-attendant step-daughter to ride Amtrak in Illinois--her train hit a suicidal car.
And I mentioned the LK&P, a tourist railroad on Maui that goes about 10 mph. That train actually managed to hit a school bus!
The US obviously needs extra crashworthiness, especially for rail cars operating in rural areas with wildlife, livestock, and numerous grade crosssings. Too bad if this will prevent a forward-facing window on bi-level rail cars...
I remember reading somewhere that there was a plan to redesign bi-level DMUs with the engineer's compartment on the second level to make them more survivable in a collision. I don't recall if this was a Colorado Railcar design revision or not. This would be better for driver visibility of course, but would eliminate the forward-facing dome experience for the passengers.
In the Colorado Railcar design, putting the engineer's cab on the second level would permit car-to-car passage below. If this design was utilized, a six-car DMU could leave Montreal and then split in Brattleboro with half of the train going south to New Haven and the other half going east to Boston.
I don't know the layout on other bi-levels, but gallery-type bi-level control cars have the engineer's cab on the upper level.
We seem to be suffering from a lack of information here. Any modern, American DMU design or picture links would be appreciated.
It is my impression that the end of a bi-level car can have a door and engineer's compartment at either the upper or lower level, but not both. The ends of the car are never truly "bi-level."
SO is there really talk of using such equipment in New England? And more interesting--is there really push for a Boston-Nashua-Montpelier-Montreal rail service?
Yes to both. Amtrak was pushing Vermont to purchase DMUs for the Vermonter to reduce costs (before Colorado Railcar closed down) and Boston - Montreal via Nashua is on the approved list of high-speed corridors competing for stimulus money.
Maglev SO is there really talk of using such equipment in New England? And more interesting--is there really push for a Boston-Nashua-Montpelier-Montreal rail service?
I think the answer to the first is no and yes. VT was playing with the idea of Colorado Rail Car DM's but dropped it. And yes there is talk of resurrecting some kind of Boston-Montreal service. And it could be Nashua-Conconrd-White River Jct-St. Albans-Montreal or via Palmer to Brattleboro-Bellows Falls to White River Jct.
I am really amazed that Boston-Concord-Montreal is a HSR proposal. Although this was one of the most lucrative routes in the nation 100 years ago, there has been no train service for 50 years. It is my impression that New Hampshire has been reluctant to contribute to the Boston to Maine trains.
I am guessing about 400,000 people in southern New Hampshire would benefit from this service. And aren't there some unemployed passenger car builders in Vermont?
Here is a link for more detailed information on this car design:
http://www.usrailcar.com/documents/usrailcar-brochure.pdf
The mileage is interesting: 4 gallons per mile carrying 90 passengers seems worse than any bus. In addition, why do they use two engines with hydraulic transmissions instead of electro-motive traction?
aegrotatio The mileage is interesting: 4 gallons per mile carrying 90 passengers seems worse than any bus. In addition, why do they use two engines with hydraulic transmissions instead of electro-motive traction?
I missed the section in the brochure specifying 4 gallons per mile.
The figure I remember from back in the day of Colorado Railcar was 2 miles per gallon. The figure I seen regarding an Amtrak F40 pulling 8 Amfleet cars (a consist used on the NEC north of NY prior to electrification) was 1.7 gallons/mile. So a locomotive and four Amfleets is about break-even with the CRC DMU (four of them).
The CRC DMU is also rated to pull a trailer coach, something that was a no-no with the Budd RDC because you could smoke the transmission. Colorado Railcar reported some favorable fuel economy for their single-level DMU demonstrator pulling a (was it two) Bombardier bilevels in Florida commuter service tests.
An intercity bus is nominally rated at about 6 MPG (on Diesel fuel -- equivalent to about 5 MPG on gasoline, which has fewer BTU's per gallon).
Remember YMMV. The 2 MPG of the CRC DMU was some kind of figure they put up on their Web site. The actual fuel economy will depend on HEP requirements, gradients, number of stops, speeds, just like with your car. A bus also gets downward from 6 MPG in transit service with many stops.
Figure that a DMU is like a pair of buses -- in fact it has the same powertrain (actually two of them) as a bus over OTR truck. What a DMU gains in somewhat lower air drag in might lose because it seems everything on rails is at least twice as heavy per seat/length of train than anything on rubber tires. Don't know why this is so, but attempts to build lightweight trains (Talgo, Alan Cripe TurboTrain, Budd Pioneer III) have gotten mixed reviews in the railfan/advocacy community.
So I think the best you do with passenger equipment is about what an intercity bus does, and this number goes downward with things like lounge and diner cars, low density seating arrangements, crossing mountain ranges (on account of a bias towards heavier weight on trains), and so on.
You might be able to double the gas mileage of a bus if you ran long strings of Amfleet (8-10 cars) behind single P42s with no cab car at the other end -- or by using trailers with the CRC DMU. You could probably do even better if there was the most rudimentary effort at better streamlining (Don Oltmann's recent remarks about bunching under-coach equipment or treatment of trucks) and some effort at weight reduction. On the other hand, when you are subsidized at the rate of Amtrak, pinching pennies (i.e. trying to save fuel when it was cheap) was not on the radar.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
aegrotatioIn addition, why do they use two engines with hydraulic transmissions instead of electro-motive traction?
I think electric transmission (for the sort of power/torque levels in a DMU) is more expensive/more complex (and hence potentially less reliable) than a modern hydro-dynamic transmission e.g. voithturbo
(Voith are pretty much the world standard in DMU transmissions - and if you fancy something more powerful how about the Voith Maxima ....)
owlsroost aegrotatioIn addition, why do they use two engines with hydraulic transmissions instead of electro-motive traction? I think electric transmission (for the sort of power/torque levels in a DMU) is more expensive/more complex (and hence potentially less reliable) than a modern hydro-dynamic transmission e.g. voithturbo (Voith are pretty much the world standard in DMU transmissions - and if you fancy something more powerful how about the Voith Maxima ....) Tony
Also there is a space consideration for electric equipment and ancillary devices. It took me a while to figure out where the engines are in the bi-level DMU. They do not have a low floor, and the drive shaft runs between the stairs.
I download most of the PDF documents from Colorado Rail Car's site before the assets were purchased (and the site disappeared into that one-page press release site).
I mis-stated the fuel economy rating for the two-engine DMU. It is 2 gallons per mile, not 4.
The luxury dome model is in service on the Alaska Railroad among other places.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZigeYA5g2A
BostonTrainGuy 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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.