Railroad Forums 

  • Colorado Railcar DMU Status

  • Discussion about RDC's, "doodlebugs," gas-electrics, etc.
It is currently Tue Apr 30, 2024 8:19 am

Colorado Railcar DMU Status

Discussion about RDC's, "doodlebugs," gas-electrics, etc.
 Reply

 #434244  by AgentSkelly
 
wigwagfan wrote:I'm not looking forward to the arrival of the cars.

TriMet intentionally violated its own procurement rules by allowing only one bidder (Colorado Railcar) to bid on the cars, and failed to conduct due diligence by looking at other manufacturers.

At least TriMet did include a performance clause, and I believe that CRC has a three year absolute guarantee on the cars, in which CRC must buy the cars back after three years if TriMet decides to return them. However unlike Tri-Rail, the entire commuter rail line in Oregon is being built with two-car DMU sets (with high-level boarding) in mind; so if the AeroDMU turns out to be a flop, buying MPI engines and bi-level coaches just isn't an option without rebuilding every single station platform.
I'm going to make a wild guess they will work fine as both units are powered.

I also wasn't aware the entire platform is high platform too.

If Kawasaki Bi-Level cars were used, they could use high level platforms.

 #434828  by wigwagfan
 
AgentSkelly wrote:I'm going to make a wild guess they will work fine as both units are powered.

I also wasn't aware the entire platform is high platform too.
TriMet's order is for three powered and one unpowered trailer. (The original order was for two trailers, but budget cuts required cutting back one car.) In regular service only two single-car trains will be in operation, allowing for one spare unit (that could be mated for a two-car train) and the trailer for crush loads.

Yes, the full platform will be high level.

 #435081  by DutchRailnut
 
DutchRailnut wrote:The Tri-rail DMU's can not operate of High level platforms see for yourself with following picture of highly succesfull(snicker) DMU.

Image

 #435287  by wigwagfan
 
Okay, Dutch - where's the photograph? I'm dying to see this! :wink:

 #436292  by mxdata
 
Could it be that they board from the locomotive at high level platforms? :wink:

I wonder how fast you are allowed to tow one of those. :wink:

 #436320  by AgentSkelly
 
I was under the impression the single-level CRC DMU was high level...

 #437807  by mxdata
 
I had a great time reading the DMU "study" that is linked below, and about fell out of the chair laughing when I saw the statement that the maintenance cost estimates were "based on the minimum operating cost for DMU's" and then noticed who is credited as the source of all the information used in the comparison. See the small print adjacent to the cost comparison table on page four: :wink:

http://library.slocog.org/PDFs/Agency_M ... ne/D-5.pdf

 #437972  by wigwagfan
 
AgentSkelly wrote:I was under the impression the single-level CRC DMU was high level...
You're both right.

The bi-level cars are low-level boarding (as Dutch clearly illustrated).

The single-level cars are high-level boarding; TriMet is ordering the single-level cars. Actually they can be made for low-level boarding (the entrance would require stairs inside the car) but would not be ADA compliant.

CRC did have drawings of a low-floor single-level car; it essentially had a lowered center section, with stairs to the "upper level" above the trucks. It was available only as a trailer (unpowered) coach, and designed for use with a powered Aero DMU. Needless to say that concept was not pursued further as soon as CRC decided to go for the bi-level car.

All I have to say about that photograph is that it destroys CRC's marketing plan, and it is a waste of fuel (a single 3,000 HP engine pulling only two cars). But I bet the acceleration is fast!!

 #437993  by mxdata
 
I wonder if they have to idle an engine on the DMU for hotel power when it is being towed around with a locomotive like you had to do on the Budd RDC's. :wink:

It has been a long time since the RDC's, people forget...

Every one is legally a locomotive and requires locomotive inspections.

Individually powered units all have to be fueled individually.

Every time you have an accident the customers arrive at the scene riding on top of a fuel tank.

 #438001  by DutchRailnut
 
Yup I question the data on this study.
DMU's are not as fuel efficient as one may think, When I was Car foreman in Danbury my experience with both RDC and SPV and locomotive hauled equipment showed a fuel use per day of 375 gallon for a two car locomotive hauled consiston the brach shuttles.
A single RDC used 240 gallon for one car
A single SPV used 290 gallons for single car or 270 per car if two cars were used.
I can not imagine the Colorado DMU to be twice as efficient as a SPV for example, not for one car and specialy not if it has to lug a dead trailer around and provide HEP to that trailer.

The EPA/DEP factor is not as much how much pollution comes from the stack but how many drips/leaks spills occure when servicing two hard to reach underfloor motors.

Any DMU may be nice and cute when new and demonstrating but lets imagine the car in daily use for a few years and maintained by people who's main concern is on how fast they can lay down at night.
There is a reason why railroads were no longer interested in RDC and SPV, its called Push/Pull where if a problem occures you may need to change a cab car or engine but atleast you don't loose both.

 #438004  by mxdata
 
I looked back at the couple of available DMU studies and found considerable variation in the fuel consumption figures for the cars, probably a result of profile and operating conditions. I suspect in a lot of cases the "comparisons" are made with locomotives that have main engine driven HEP to make the DMU look good, the figures don't look very accurate sometimes compared with a stretch F40 with a separate Cummins or CAT for HEP, they usually have a lot lower fuel consumption than the old F40PH.

 #438379  by wigwagfan
 
Judging from who's buying the DMU and who's not, I don't see any of the existing rail operators going for the DMU or any other powered equipment from CRC. (Trailer coaches, maybe, but I think Bombardier still has an edge here for various reasons.)

On the other hand, the DMU might be acceptable to an agency that doesn't have or plan to have significant rail operations. One of TriMet's key points with the DMU is that mechanically it's similiar to a bus - and TriMet owns some 660 busses. Now add three DMUs. For the few things that they can't handle (i.e. wheel turning), there's a shop located close by that can be contracted to handle that (incidently, the shop for the railroad that will operate the trains, dispatch the trains, and operates freight trains on the same track.)

That significantly reduces the number of potential buyers for this vehicle. And TriMet's only doing it because it was prodded along by the four cities along the route (and Washington County) - if it had its way, it'd be light rail.

 #438572  by mxdata
 
Depending on how you read them and what you are looking for, the numbers provided by Colorado Railcar in the study linked above indicate that the dividing line where the DMU provides a cost advantage over locomotive hauled coaches is somewhere between a four and six coach conventional train size. However the retired general manager of a large system that had lots of RDC's told me very directly that the point where an RDC had an advantage over locomotive and coaches was less than two cars if you were looking at fuel, which exactly coincides with what Dutch posted above. He was also very critical of the inconvenience of working on vehicles where most of the machinery is under the floor.

 #438969  by wigwagfan
 
mxdata wrote:He was also very critical of the inconvenience of working on vehicles where most of the machinery is under the floor.
Another example of where a transit operator would see no differece (since most of a bus's mechanical system is under the floor) but a rail operator would see things otherwise.

 #438976  by AgentSkelly
 
wigwagfan wrote:
mxdata wrote:He was also very critical of the inconvenience of working on vehicles where most of the machinery is under the floor.
Another example of where a transit operator would see no differece (since most of a bus's mechanical system is under the floor) but a rail operator would see things otherwise.
Heh, even the light rail techs are used to crawling under the train :)
 Reply
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 Return to “Self-Propelled Railcars”
 - All times are UTC-05:00 -