Do Any of the Major RRs Use Brandt Rail Vehicles?

I recently had a discussion about the benefit of the multi-purpose trucks manufactured by Brandt. The outcome was that they are not used very much in the RR industry. Does anyone have any experience with these vehicles?

-G-

CP, CN, CSX, and UP all have a few of them. They can actually haul a rather impressive number of cars.

Check out the "Brandt Power Unit" video on this page: http://road-rail-corp.brandt.ca/video.php

But can it push a snowplow?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frBh5vO_2g0

Amtrak has a Brand "Rail Tool" sitting in providence and they have at least two of those Peterbilt tugs working on the TLM project around Guilford CT now.

I know the big issue is with those truck type railcar movers. Brandt calls them "Power units". The unions are very much against them and rightly so. They are taking the place of a locomotive. They go so far as to have 26 type air brake controls in them. Nobody is griping about a Burro crane or a diesel crane pulling one gondola or flat car. But when you are taking a truck and pulling a dozen cars with it and using a locomotive type air brake control system, call it a truck all you want, it's a locomotive. And only engineers should be running locomotives. The railroads use these "power units" instead and let track department employees run them, which takes jobs away from Locomotive Engineers. Railroads like them because it saves them from having to pay an Engineer.

Just another invention to take jobs away from train crews and instead pay laborers less money.

From my pov as a foamer, I'd have to agree. It sounds to me like a rail-capable version of a semi is not much more than the current incarnation of an 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 steam switcher, or a 26 or 44 ton Diesel switcher.

And now, a friendly note from your moderator:

I'll keep looking in on this thread. If we talk more about how unions view a Brandt, then I'll look to splitting the topic and sending the labor stuff off to the General Discussion: Employment forum. Thanks in advance for understanding.

To avoid encouraging a "craft war," I'll briefly explain the purpose of my question, and move on. The suggestion was made by a railroad manager who felt that Brandt trucks would give Track Department improved mobility. Another manager stated that none of the major railroads use them. I was curious to see if that statement was correct. Thanks for the information, guys.

-G-

gjk1716 wrote:To avoid encouraging a "craft war," I'll briefly explain the purpose of my question, and move on. The suggestion was made by a railroad manager who felt that Brandt trucks would give Track Department improved mobility. Another manager stated that none of the major railroads use them. I was curious to see if that statement was correct. Thanks for the information, guys.

-G-

I did not mean to come off as though i was about to start a craft war. I'm not. I was just pointing it out.

From one side, i agree, it is a versatile piece of equipment and can make things a bit easier for track screws since it can go from location to location far easier then a locomotive. And that is why some railroads do use them. But i also agree with T&E crews that it is in effect a device to (simply put) screw them out of work. But in the end, both sides will have arguments.

Either CP or CN (Cannot recall which) has been using a similar type vehicle for years. Looks like the Brandt machine but i am pretty sure it's not made by them.

John_Perkowski wrote:But can it push a snowplow?

Actually they do make a plow attachment for it! Obviously it's not going to replace a Russell or a rotary when it comes to cleaning up after a major blizzard, but for lesser amounts of snow, it looks like it could be a big money saver for the railroad (compared to a plow pushed by a locomotive).

As has already been stated, train crews are probably not enthused about that.

MEC407 wrote:

John_Perkowski wrote:But can it push a snowplow?

Actually they do make a plow attachment for it! Obviously it's not going to replace a Russell or a rotary when it comes to cleaning up after a major blizzard, but for lesser amounts of snow, it looks like it could be a big money saver for the railroad (compared to a plow pushed by a locomotive).

As has already been stated, train crews are probably not enthused about that.

I cant imagine it being able to push much snow. 130ton + locomotives often get wheel slip and struggle when pushing snow. A 30 ton truck would not even come close.

That's what I thought too as soon as I saw it. They must know something we don't!

Can anybody remember the rubber tired 'switchers' used by PRR on the streets of Baltimore? They resembled steeple cab locos and had a ships wheel for steering. They could run around a cut of cars on the street, couple up, and move on without having to go to a parallel track. Since they weren't locomotives they were operated by drivers not engineers. I guess some ideas never die.

I've always considered some type of motive power similar to the Brandt vehicle as the future for shortline/region railroads (as did Brandt: note the images of their vehicles being used in V-Line Freight service, which I believe has since been brought out) - much larger and more capable than the usual 2-3car-pull railcarmover, and cheaper & more flexible than third hand switchers & Geeps.
Perhaps the labor issue is why they haven't taken off yet, I don't know.

Sir Ray wrote:I've always considered some type of motive power similar to the Brandt vehicle as the future for shortline/region railroads (as did Brandt: note the images of their vehicles being used in V-Line Freight service, which I believe has since been brought out) - much larger and more capable than the usual 2-3car-pull railcarmover, and cheaper & more flexible than third hand switchers & Geeps.
Perhaps the labor issue is why they haven't taken off yet, I don't know.

IIRC, one of the major problems that the Australian operator that was using a Brandt as a "Roadable Locomotive" found was excessive tire replacement costs as that service was very hard on the truck's rubber. There were a couple of US regional railroads (LIRR was one) that experimented back in the 80's with using a Ford Hi-Rail Semi-tractor to pull short strings of trailers mounted on rail bogies(using a system somewhat similar to Roadrailer) and they experienced the same sort of tire issues..

NV290 wrote:

MEC407 wrote:

John_Perkowski wrote:But can it push a snowplow?

Actually they do make a plow attachment for it! Obviously it's not going to replace a Russell or a rotary when it comes to cleaning up after a major blizzard, but for lesser amounts of snow, it looks like it could be a big money saver for the railroad (compared to a plow pushed by a locomotive).

As has already been stated, train crews are probably not enthused about that.

I cant imagine it being able to push much snow. 130ton + locomotives often get wheel slip and struggle when pushing snow. A 30 ton truck would not even come close.

Many railroads use snowplows mounted on Ballast Regulators and similiar equipment for snow removal, I doubt they weigh much more than a Brandt unit..

NV290 wrote:I did not mean to come off as though i was about to start a craft war. I'm not. I was just pointing it out.

I just felt some responsibilty for opening the door to one, since I started the thread. No harm intended.

Honestly, it is important to discuss the union implications when new equipment is involved. I recall a union official in NYC Transit stating how he fought against production equipment in Track Construction to avoid losing jobs. New ideas can also be stifled by management, as I have learned from experience. I never would have thought about the wear on tires, though.

-G-