Colorado Dinky

Some more observations I just remembered:

They couldn't use the signal to tell the engineer to go when operating from the DMU end. They used hand signals and their radios.

This was probably the first time in a long time that anything else besides an Arrow operated on the Princeton Branch. The last thing to operate on it that wasn't an Arrow may have been the MP54s. (Oh, and where the Arrow Is and IIs used on the branch?)

I don't propose to not use any electrified service on already wired lines, as it would still be used by many trains, especially Midtown Direct service, but i was just curious as to what the cost per mile of operation would be with EMU's compared to Colorado DMU's. If it is significantly less, than NJT would obviously stick with EMU's. But if it is close to the same or if the DMU is indeed cheaper, NJT should consider making say the Gladstone/Hoboken trains DMU's which would free up MU's for service on the NEC. Even if Hoboken Divison has 30 MU's (I really don't have any idea as to how many MU's are based out of Hoboken) that would free up 30 MU's, which could equal three new 10 car consists. The DMU's could run back adn forth by themselves, adn when necessary, throw a comet or two on with them when ridership warrants.

I never saw the DMU in person, and all the info that I have about them i have either read or heard from someone at work. So I have no "first hand knowledge" of the actualities of the equipment, but the drivetrain of the DMU doesn't seem too complicated, and with a common Detroit Diesel engine, transmission and driveshafts, any trucking maintence company could led a hand to NJT personnel (alhtough NJT does have a fleet of large Diesel trucks and equipment, other than Locomotives, so some people at NJT do have experience with similar setups) or there could even be a contractual maintence agreement with Colorado or something.

I also assume that the DMU's are considered a locomotive, and must undergo the 90 day inspections that NJT seems to loathe. But the differnce is is that its more than just an (D)MU. It can act as a self propelled car, as an Arrow does (electrically), and carry, lets say, 100 revenue passengers (a nice round number for ease). But it can also act as a locomotive, and power 1 or 2 coaches. So therefore that same 90 day inspection that woudl be required would be worth up to 300 revenue seats. (100 in each coach, 100 in the DMU) Where on the other hand, that 90 day inspection on the MU is only for 100 revenue seats, as MU's can't act as locomotives and power other revenue generating cars. The "300 seat" worth inspection, is the same as a GP40 powering 3 coaches (100 in car) as the locomotive cannot carry passengers. But its significantly cheaper to operate the DMU than the GP40, but for the same amount of possible revenue seats with a 3 car loco hauled trainset.

I hope I didn't confuse anyone with this comparison....it makes sense in my head, I just am having trouble getting it out the way I want to.

I think I understand what you're trying to say...

You're saying that the Colorado DMU would be cheaper to operate because of the following reasons:

A. It would free up other MU's for service in the Hoboken Division; providing more capacity to that section.

B. Since it's self-propelled and can carry more passengers, it means more revenue.

C. Since the parts are more common, it means easier maintenance.

Is that what you're saying?

Sort of - I sort of meant for the Arrows to go to the Newark Division, where more MU trains could be provided on the NEC, allowing for new trains to be created, or for the replacement of ALP powered push pull trains with MU's. They could also be used on the Hoboken division, but it makes more sense in my eyes to use the electric equipment where it HAS to be used, into and out of NYP. Freeing up of ALP powered consists could allow for more trains on ALL the lines - NEC, NJCL, M and E, and Montclair, maybe not necessarily during peak rush hour periods, where the slots are limited, but during other periods, especially weekends.

They don't have mroe revenue seats just because they are self propelled, as they could be roughly equivalent to an Arrow, seat wise (well, a little less, but close enough for gov't work!!) but they can pull coaches also where the Arrows can't. Thats what i mean by the increase in revenue seats. The DMU acts as a coach, but also a locomotive, pulling other revenue producing cars, where the Arrow can only power itself (well, they frequently pull other dead Arrows when put into consists, but thats another story....)

Simply put, a DMU with two trailers has approximately the same seats as a GP40 powered 3 car train, a frequent site around NJT. There is still going to be a 90 day inspection for the '40 and for the DMU, but the DMU consist has less actual cars, 3 versus 4 on the GP40 set - loco and 3 coaches, equaling less wear on the infrastructure, (25 percent less wheels actually making contact, and therefore wear, on the rails) and a SIGNIFICANT fuel savings, all for approximately the same amount of seats.

Seems like a no brainer to me......

Save the '40's and new '42's for the longer trains, 4 or more cars.

That does make sense to me. Let me add something additional to this. If this seems dumb, then let me know.

With the cross-county connection they're planning in Northern NJ, they also want to run these Colorado DMU's throughout the network. Am I right? This means that they will have two lines where they could exchange equipment. Albeit the two lines would be a little far from each other, but still the fact remains.

So in reality, you'll have the equipment running on two lines vs. a single line. Maybe NY&GL can also get in on the deal and run the DMU's on the lower boonton line as well. There are some options out there for this whole thing. Maybe NJ Transit would be more willing to cooperate with NY&GL if they got in on that deal. There are many possibilities with the whole thing.

I think the Colorado DMU overall opens a new door for bringing more rail service to all of NJ. In addition to the proposed cross-county connection, the replacement of the DINKY, and the possibility of NY&GL Lower Boonton Line, you could introduce a number of feeder services into the main lines. I think the truth of the matter is NYP and Hoboken Terminals are at their respective capacities for traffic. Morning and evening you see each entry point filled with trains. Changing of schedules and whatnot only solve the problem temporarily. If NJT was smart, they would spread more of the traffic to the other stations. For example, with the NYSW proposed line, run some DMU's through to the stations, and then terminate at Hawthorne where people transfer to the main line and go onto Hoboken. That would be a viable solution that costs less then going on directly into Hoboken like what was proposed. Lower Boonton Line can be the same thing. Make the stops, terminate at the Boonton Line/Midtown Direct Line.. MOM can operate along the same lines. This way, there would be service. People can get to where they want to go, and the system wouldn't be overloaded as much.

The other thing NJT should do is fragmented launches of service. From what I seen with NJT, they do everything in one shot. Why not just do a phased launch of each proposed line. This way, they can allocate enough money to get things online and running. Washington Metrorail has done this with great success. Launching parts of each line to increase ridership, and expanding and extending as time progresses. Overall this is the best way to do business.

No, nothing will ever make NJT supportive of NY&GL's proposed service! It doesn't matter what equipment he runs! They don't like the fact that Jimmy Wilson was an ex NJT employee and the fact that he wants to now show NJT who can run a better commuter railroad!! It is all a conspiracy to prevent him from running the train! It makes no sense, but believe it or not, the higher ups at NJT think he will take passengers away from their service!

Buying a DMU to allow NJT to use the Dinky elsewhere is a great idea. Imagine the extra revenue seats that would be made available...exactly one more M.U. Is it worth the millions invested? Or would it be cheaper to light a fire under the mechanical department and get a few of the "broken" Arrows fixed and back out of the MMC (some have been there over a year)?

Considering that all costs will remain the same for either the Arrow or DMU (crew, car inspectors, cleaning) with the exception of fuel. Every so often, a tank truck will have to show up at the Junction and fiil 'er up. Of course the crew will receive pay for the "fuel move", and some type of pad will have to be built to contain any spills, and certainly, the cost of trucking fuel in will be higher than NJT now pays for the bulk fuel at the terminals.

The DMU might be a fine idea, somewhere else, but the Dinky ain't broke. Why fix it?

From what I seen with NJT, they do everything in one shot.

Then why isn't the Montclair Boonton Line is electrified from Montclair to Hackettstown or the NJCL electrified out to Bay Head? They do a project that pleases a few people, when they very well know that they're not doing the whole job.

Why not just do a phased launch of each proposed line.

NJT is no stranger to phased launches of service. Take a look at the HBLRT, for example.

I think the Colorado DMU overall opens a new door for bringing more rail service to all of NJ. In addition to the proposed cross-county connection, the replacement of the DINKY, and the possibility of NY&GL Lower Boonton Line, you could introduce a number of feeder services into the main lines.

This is where I really disagree with the DMU concept. It was stated that the River Line could have been DMU compliant, if the cars were available during the planning phases. There was also talk among our wonderful politicians about converting the ACL to DMUs and now the NYSW and new north Jersey services are magically going to be run with DMUs. While the DMU's may look nice and appeal to the public, I don't understand why on earth NJT would want to make any new rail lines exclusively DMU. Its absurd, these lines could be using the same push pull equipment that is used elsewhere on the system. With different equipment for each line, then NJT has to burden themselves with "Where is this equipment today?", "There's an equipment shortage on that line, what do we do?" and issues like that. And if lines are exclusively DMU, then who wants to hear the complaints when the push pull sets start running on the lines to sub in for the DMUs when they are in the shops? Run the same equipment on all lines and standardize the system, don't segregate it by having certain lines come with special instructions.

Simply put, a DMU with two trailers has approximately the same seats as a GP40 powered 3 car train, a frequent site around NJT.

But they can only pull two cars, no more. That maxes out the train at three cars, including the DMU. If a car needed to be added to a train, the DMU is automatically out of the picture as being used as the locomotive. Spending money on locomotives that can only pull three cars, even if the locomotive has revenue seats, is not a smart move. NJT's diesel locomotives now can pull far more than three cars and the new PL42ACs should be able to handle even more than the existing locomotives.

If NJT has the money to spend on DMUs, then it should be spent on completing their projects that were never done. Electrify the whole Boonton Line and the whole Coast Line. Finish converting stations to high level platforms. And maybe repair the broken equipment now and then, instead of leaving it in service or out in the yard at the MMC.

Ok.. Maybe I wasn't clear on exactly what I was thinking. And obviously there's a number of trains throughout the network. I was just trying to say that systematically putting these trains into circulation would expand capacity throughout the system, providing them with more rolling stock, and then allowing NJT to systematically introduce new service on new routes. (I.E. Cross County/NY&SW/etc.)

Obviously NY&GL doesnt have the support of NJT for the Lower Boonton Line. So? Big deal. If he can reactivate it, then all power to him.

I was just trying to say that systematically putting these trains into circulation would expand capacity throughout the system, providing them with more rolling stock, and then allowing NJT to systematically introduce new service on new routes.

Purchasing more push pull coaches would provide NJT with more rolling stock as well. And push pull coaches could be used systemwide, even on the electrified lines into and out of NY Penn. The DMUs can not. In a nutshell, the DMU is a locomotive that can only pull two coaches. I don't see that working on NJT given the number of lines that have diesel service with more than three cars. NJT needs equipment that can be interchanged on all lines.

Like I stated before, purchasing these cars just to introduce service on a line isn't a wise choice. The proposed lines will no doubt take off with ridership, creating the need for more than three car trains, and that leaves the DMUs useless once the line is up and running.

And push pull coaches could be used systemwide, even on the electrified lines into and out of NY Penn. The DMUs can not

Neither can EMUs, but that does not stop almost all of the other tri-state transit agencies from regarding EMUs as valuable. The LIRR could convert to all push-pull rolling stock and Metro-North has the option of converting to all-Shoreliners, but they are not doing it but rather they are buying new EMUs (the M7). SEPTA has push-pull but actually favors EMU operation, plus also has plans to buy new EMUs.

DMUs would still cut operating costs for off-peak trains (i.e in theory). They can be used with the Comets; that has already been proven. Three-car (i.e. DMU and two trailers) setup for off-peak and weekends could certainly save a bundle over the three-car-plus-loco setup that is all too common on NJT nowadays (not to mention the increasingly more common two-car-plus-loco travesty). (CRC has to cut their price back from that $3 million or so, however...)

I just saw the Colorado DMU at Thirtieth St. Station Friday evening. It looks to be close to the size of the Riverline's units. Perhaps NJT would like to purchase a couple to provide late night service on that portion of the line north of 36th St where the present light rail vehicles cannot operate. I don't know if they could run in Camden's streets but if not there could be a passenger transfer at 36th St.

That is an interesting idea, using Colorado DMUs for overnight service on the RiverLINE. The platforms are at an intermediate height on the RiverLINE, so the DMU would have to be modified somehow to match the platforms.

Another problem spot would be getting into Trenton. My eye says that the roller-coaster curves into Trenton are just as sharp as the street running in Camden, if not sharper. Changing to a shuttle at Hamilton Avenue for the last half mile is an option; it would be just like changing at 36th Street in Camden, but then it becomes a three seat ride, and in the middle of the night?

I also wonder if Shared Assets (and/or it's assigns) would be able to (or want to) schedule passenger service on the line in the eight hours per day that they are allowed to operate freight trains.

It is an interesting concept though-

I also think $2.9 million is a bit rich for one of those cars; one of the other forums (Self Propelled Railcars) mentioned the rebuilt RDCs going for a lot less; VIA Rail had five cars rebuilt for 4 million CDN.

CRC DMU is 85 feet long, same length as other commuter railcars. Unlike the River Line's DLRVs, it does not bend in the middle; the smallest-radius curve the DMU can negotiate is 250 feet (according to CRC's DMU brochure).

If the connector between the Northeast Corridor and the Bordentown Secondary was rebuilt, the CRC DMU could stop at the NEC station platforms.

Rebuilt RDCs for VIA would not meet the current FRA crash regulations (and possibly not the emissions regs either). Not to mention the RDCs in question are never rebuilt with automatic doors but retain the manual ones.

Running an FRA DMU service on the River Line would give CSA greater operating flexibility since then its ability to operate trains in the daytime would be restored. Consequently, River Line passenger service could operate any time of night...

Current River Line platforms are not "intermediate height" but are low platforms. Their height is identical to many platforms in Hoboken Terminal (and are actually lower in height than certain Hoboken platforms). CRC DMUs (according to their website) have wheelchair lifts available as an option.

Also worth keeping in mind that other manufacturers have DMUs on their list of available products...

Irish Chieftain wrote:

This thing is capable of 110 mph, right?

Nope...where did you hear that? CRC website says top speed is 90 mph.

I heard from a CRC rep on the train that that particular vehicle has done 110, and should be able to do 125.

In other news, I thought that the early end to RiverLine service was due to freight needs overnight. Is that wrong?