Additional Danbury Run?

Greetings from the 11am train to Danbury the guy with the bike and a laptop with a bunch of radio station bumper stickers Transferring to WCSU in danbury: I was curious if the diesel train has to come up from the yard in stamford why can't they start it in stamford? I tell you it would be damn convenient to not have to transfer twice. I was sitting at the Stamford station from the Old Greenwich local watching it move back and fourth for the good 15 min I was stuck in stamford today at around 10:45 am. I really miss that 12:54 from stamford sometimes...

dutch I am sure there is a good answer to this...

I don't know specifics on that run, hopefully someone knows, but generally only the runs that have sufficient interest are run, and the remaining ones are deadheaded. The reason is that deadheads can leave early if they are deadheading to somewhere, or late if they are deadheading from, as they are not on a schedule. A revenue run may not be possible to fit into the schedule of other trains using the stations and/ or the line.

I got to WCSU to find that everthing closed at 11am outch!!!
the 12:41 from danbury was a bit crowded...
the worst I almost got stuck at South Norwalk because there was no room on the train.
I walked to the 1st car just enough room. every other car people were standing. when we got to stamford Train was so packed that many pople were turned away and had to take the local. I did the same thing front car and got home ok. I had never seen so many people on the local before from Stamford to Old Greenwich. Now home at 2pm quite nice. however, I notiiced the danbury branch train does the same thing goes down to stamford....

There is several reason the Danbury train no longer carries passengers to Stamford.
First ,ue to track work no guarantee the train makes a platform.
second due to fuel cycles the train is way behind the connection sometimes again due to trackwork.
second,during engine swaps,these trains not always go to Stamford but turn at South Norwalk.
So forget about them carrying passengers, not gone happen.

-Would DMU sets do a better job on the Danbury-South Norwalk run? A more efficient and fuel saving operation?

-Does someone in the world make reliable DMU sets which could, with some relatively minor reworking & adaptation, be FRA compliant and useful on this clearly defined, limited run? Might work for Waterbury also.

Roger

NO NO NO and NO.
There are no DMU's currently in production in USA, and DMU's have not proven to save as much as manufacturer claimed, resulting in his demise.

fordhamroad wrote:-Would DMU sets do a better job on the Danbury-South Norwalk run? A more efficient and fuel saving operation?

-Does someone in the world make reliable DMU sets which could, with some relatively minor reworking & adaptation, be FRA compliant and useful on this clearly defined, limited run? Might work for Waterbury also.

Roger

Interesting question. No one really knows.

Colorado railcar used to make DMU's that were FRA compliant, but they only ever made a few for a couple of really small operations and a couple of demonstrators. The last successful DMUs were the Budd RDC's, the SPVs were a disaster, and were so bad they even made bad passenger coaches when de-engined.

From a physics perspective, they are the best way to run a 4 car or shorter train. They weigh less, so they take less energy to run, and can accelerate faster with less noise and vibration. The question is whether anyone can make one that performs well, is reliable, and somewhat flexible, and not too expensive.

Obviously, there would still have to be a Maxi-Bomb or three to head into GCT with the P32AC-DM's during rush hour.

Dutch, as for not saving as much as they said they would, when the SPV's were built, diesel wasn't $2.30/ gallon, and we didn't have to worry about CO2 output of our transport methods.

As for the DMU's that were manufactured in Colorado I think the jury is still out. Tri-Rail here in Florida has had their
problems with them but I think they have gotten a decent share of the problems corrected. They just got the last one
this week which was held up somewhere. I do not know if it is considered as finished or not but I suspect it is.
They don't ride bad although the motor cars are something like the old BUDD RDC's when it comes to vibration and noise.
I do not think they are the answer for either the Danbury or Waterbury Branches in Connecticut. The current equipment
apparently is working quite well.
If this thread is not abused and locked like the previous one, I will post anything that I think the participants here might be
interested in regarding the operation locally of this equipment.
Noel Weaver

Do you know anything about how their fuel efficiency compares to a similar capacity mini-bomb with a regular locomotive? This is the biggest claimed advantage (among others), it would be interesting to hear how they perform in the real world.

Ok lets compare a BL20gh and 3 coaches with 3 DMU's

to run 3 cars behind a diesel like the tier 1 compliant BL20gh, it takes about 380 gallons including HEP, it only takes 2 engines to maintain, both sitting high and on top of frame out of harms way.
all fluids that may leak are drained in a enviro tank for disposal.

Now run 3 DMU's, say with one unpowered and two powered, the fuel savings are not much, as it takes same horsepower to move the train at any speed.
But now 4 engines have to be maintained, which are very un-ergonomicaly mounted under the floor, where debris hits them and causes all kind of havoc to those engines.
Maintaing these engines is now double your cost and time as you got twice the engines to maintain, and after a few years or some of that havoc, a lot more leaks and damage.
Those leaks at engines nearly 8 inches over rail can not be contained and result in EPA getting annouyed due to drippings etc etc.

as for fuel use a single RDC used around 230 gallon off fuel on branch, a SPV used to run at about 260 gallon, with two SPV's the fuel use was 2 x 260 gallons no savings as some claimed.
A Fl-9 and two or 3 coaches used same 420 gallon day in day out,

-Dutch, -- Much Appreciation, (as usual) for your informed and considered replies. Reality checks are a fine thing, as long as they include a broad enough spectrum of reality.
-I guess we won't be having a Treibzug for our Treibzugfuhrer very soon. Use of DMU units seems to be proliferating all over Europe, on all those branch lines. There has been so much development in Europe and Japan and Britain lately, that I wouldn't limit the discussion to generations-old concepts like the Budd cars or SPV's.
-your figures comparing fuel costs and pollution problems of DMU units with the modern locomotive and three coaches on the Danbury line are interesting.
-how would the FL-9 and three coaches compare with a reelectrified operation in terms of efficiency and ecology?
-how many years would it take to amortize new wires? At that point it would presumably become cheaper to operate.
-would having main line electric MU operations allow more flexibility in running Danbury trains to Stamford or even in the opposite direction to New Haven? I think that running Danbury to Stamford was the original point of this discussion, though We Do Wander.
-Thanks


Roger

fordhamroad wrote: -how would the FL-9 and three coaches compare with a reelectrified operation in terms of efficiency and ecology?
-how many years would it take to amortize new wires? At that point it would presumably become cheaper to operate.
-would having main line electric MU operations allow more flexibility in running Danbury trains to Stamford or even in the opposite direction to New Haven? I think that running Danbury to Stamford was the original point of this discussion, though We Do Wander.

Oh, no....here we go again. Quick - Where's that padlock?

Jim

instead of locking it, can someone post the link to that topic? thanks


I really like the 10:24pm that leaves danbury it gets me home in 68 min and a empty transfer train in SoNo. my other favorites are the 6:20 am taking 69 min. I also did want to give an honorable mention to the 3:15 departure goes to stamford.. IMHO try to move the 315 train to 10 min later that would make a wicked afternoon connection in stamford for the lower NH line.

there is my S/B Danbury branch feedback.. I really enjoy Western CT in Danbury a lot more than Lyndon State up in VT

Dutch... I wanna give a special thanks to the 12:42 Train crew last week.. I lost my Ipod on the train and told the 4:pm train crew I lost it and gave them my contact info. my 160GB ipod was found on the 1863 that day and the Conductor of the train gratefully contacted me via Cell phone

Dutch, that's an interesting comparison, but that is comparing old equipment to new equipment. What would new DMU's be like? The whole theory, as it was explained to me in another thread, is that the DMU's are lighter, and these efficiencies compensate for the inefficiencies of running multiple engines as opposed to one many times over, in net saving fuel. The savings should be a lot bigger where only two cars are needed, and they could even run with just one car to operate more trains that don't have very many people on them (assuming DS'ing capacity).

Fordhamroad, electrics would allow for more efficient running on the main line, including to GCT. Diesels could run to NHV, I don't know if there's demand for that. The current system of transferring with an occasional run to GCT by a P32 takes a lot less capital than electrification. The best (reasonable) compromise system would be to get the P32's to be truly dual-mode so that they could shut down their prime movers at Pelham when they engaged with the third rail.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have DMU's from Danbury to SoNo and "Real" dual-mode P32's from SoNo to Stamford, we're getting a little ridiculous now. Either way someone completely missed the point that Dutch made in his first post. There are reasons other, like availability of equipment due to maintenance, inspections etc. as well as the availability of crews as well as time in the schedule as effected by trackwork.