Boston Surface Railroad: Worcester-Providence Commuter Rail

[BandA]

Perhaps Siemens has a soft spot for private operators! They are probably easier to deal with than government agencies. And imagine if Siemens turnkey leases (with P&W maintenance base, making P&W happy) a couple of trainsets at rock-bottom rates to BSRR and uses them as demo bait for a big MBTA or Amtrak order

[ts.puruz]

Is an MU the same as an RDC?

[b&m 1566]

MU stands for Multiple Unit Train Control (meaning multiple engines together operating under 1 engineer). An RDC (aka Budd Car) is a self-propelled passenger car that can also be MU'd with other RDC's.

[ts.puruz]

I have heard Vincent and Jonathan both state that they will not use RDC's under any circumstances. I'll ask about MU cars maybe. BBQ next week weather allowing.

[Trinnau]

An EMU/DMU in this discussion is the same concept as an RDC, with MU standing for "Multiple Unit". Self-propelled/powered cars not needing a dedicated locomotive to operate the train, typically in paired sets that can be linked together to form longer trains. And RDC could be considered a DMU. Search for Electric Multiple Unit or Diesel Multiple Unit for more information.

[ts.puruz]

From BSRC:

"DMUs are "pretty" much the same as RDCs, RDC is a trademarked term for a single unit DMU that was made by the Budd company. Anyway, we won't use either on my railroad for lot's of reasons - but they are essentially glorified subway cars. In all cases you need a waiver from the FRA to run them on tracks where freight exists at all let alone in our footprint. Further I have serious reservations about fuel and propulsion mechanisms living under my customers. Think of the nasty electrical smells that invade the T cars when their motors burn up or God forbid we have an accident and diesel fuel gets spilled. Diesel isn't anywhere near as flammable as gasoline but the fumes alone are awful in the event of a spill and normal exhaust fumes can end up easily in the passenger compartments in the case of a simple leak or clog. DMUs frequently couple differently (although this can be fixed) than normal push pull equipment which means having the freight railroad be able to send a rescue engine in the event of a breakdown of one of ours becomes a problem, and no before you ask if one of them breaks down it's partners typically can't move the whole consist - it works on paper not so much in reality ask Metro North.

So short answer - no RDCs, no DMUs (and of course no EMUs which are the electric bretheren DMUs because we will be on electrified track for all of 5 miles)."

Screenshot 2018-03-07 13.28.22.png (66.78 KiB) Viewed 3656 times

[BandA]

Why would a waiver be required for a RDC? The (lack of) crush strength should be grandfathered. The ones in VT are supposedly beautifully restored. People around here state that they are treated as locomotives, requiring extra expensive inspections. I've only ridden de-powered RDC's so I can't comment on whether diesel exhaust gets inside. They should not be any more spill-prone than anything else.

[Otto Vondrak]

I have heard Vincent and Jonathan both state that they will not use RDC's under any circumstances...

This is a sad story that makes me sad.

From BSRC:

"DMUs are "pretty" much the same as RDCs, RDC is a trademarked term for a single unit DMU that was made by the Budd company. Anyway, we won't use either on my railroad for lot's of reasons - but they are essentially glorified subway cars. In all cases you need a waiver from the FRA to run them on tracks where freight exists at all let alone in our footprint. Further I have serious reservations about fuel and propulsion mechanisms living under my customers. Think of the nasty electrical smells that invade the T cars when their motors burn up or God forbid we have an accident and diesel fuel gets spilled. Diesel isn't anywhere near as flammable as gasoline but the fumes alone are awful in the event of a spill and normal exhaust fumes can end up easily in the passenger compartments in the case of a simple leak or clog. DMUs frequently couple differently (although this can be fixed) than normal push pull equipment which means having the freight railroad be able to send a rescue engine in the event of a breakdown of one of ours becomes a problem, and no before you ask if one of them breaks down it's partners typically can't move the whole consist - it works on paper not so much in reality ask Metro North.

So short answer - no RDCs, no DMUs (and of course no EMUs which are the electric bretheren DMUs because we will be on electrified track for all of 5 miles)."

So many wrong statements make my head hurt. Like, everything in that passage is incorrect. The opposite of true. Wrong, wrong, wrong, no, no, no.

-otto-

[Otto Vondrak]

Against my better judgement, I am refuting each statement, line for line. I know this is a pointless exercise, I apologize in advance.

DMUs are "pretty" much the same as RDCs, RDC is a trademarked term for a single unit DMU that was made by the Budd company.

This is true. A "Rail Diesel Car" is in fact a DMU, a diesel multiple-unit. From Wikipedia: A diesel multiple unit or DMU is a multiple-unit train powered by on-board diesel engines. A DMU requires no separate locomotive, as the engines are incorporated into one or more of the carriages. Diesel-powered single-unit railcars are also generally classed as DMUs. Diesel-powered units may be further classified by their transmission type: diesel–electric (DEMU), diesel–mechanical (DMMU) or diesel–hydraulic (DHMU).

Anyway, we won't use either on my railroad for lot's of reasons - but they are essentially glorified subway cars.

This is false. Subway cars are built for rapid transit operations and are built to a much different tolerance for crashworthiness than are cars that run on the national rail network. In specific, the Budd RDC is based on the same design as their standard coach, except redesigned with added strength to operate as a powered car, essentially a locomotive (though they are not designed as a locomotive to haul unpowered cars, they are designed to work in "multiple unit" with other powered cars). They have all the comforts of a standard coach, including bright interior lighting and climate controls.

In all cases you need a waiver from the FRA to run them on tracks where freight exists at all let alone in our footprint.

Conditionally false. A waiver might be needed if you are going to operate some sort of equipment that does not meet crashworthiness standards. There are operations around the country where non-standard equipment shares the tracks with freight, but they work out a "temporal separation" agreement where the passenger trains run during the day, and freight trains run at night, and never the twain shall meet... But only when using non-standard equipment. Never mind the FRA, the host railroad might have their own rules...

Further I have serious reservations about fuel and propulsion mechanisms living under my customers. Think of the nasty electrical smells that invade the T cars when their motors burn up or God forbid we have an accident and diesel fuel gets spilled. Diesel isn't anywhere near as flammable as gasoline but the fumes alone are awful in the event of a spill and normal exhaust fumes can end up easily in the passenger compartments in the case of a simple leak or clog.

There are two types of trains in use today: Diesel-electrics, and electrics. A diesel-electric uses a diesel-powered generator to produce electric power that is fed to the traction motors mounted directly to the axles. That is how every diesel locomotive in America works. An electric draws power from overhead wires or third rail and the power is fed to the traction motors. A Budd RDC is powered by a common Detroit Diesel engine with a hydraulic torque converter transmission to the wheels, no electric motors involved. So no matter what train is operated on this proposed service, there's the potential for "fuel" and "electric motors" to be involved. There is no train in America that is operated by gasoline, so I don't understand that comparison. The Budd RDC has a 65-year track record of successful operation and passenger comfort (and probably better than any modern DMU you can purchase today). I don't know what the "nasty electrical smells" are referring to. If you are using a diesel locomotive to haul coaches or a set of DMUs, either has the potential to spill diesel fuel in an accident.

DMUs frequently couple differently (although this can be fixed) than normal push pull equipment which means having the freight railroad be able to send a rescue engine in the event of a breakdown of one of ours becomes a problem, and no before you ask if one of them breaks down it's partners typically can't move the whole consist - it works on paper not so much in reality ask Metro North.

Conditionally false. Budd RDCs use standard railroad couplers. Regarding break-downs: If you are running a train consisting of two or more RDCs (or any DMU for that matter), if one shuts down, the other will still continue to operate and will be able to pull the train at reduced speed. That is the point of "multiple-unit" control. If you are operating a DMU with a non-standard coupler, there are adapter couplers, and yes, the whole consist gets towed. Yes, let's ask Metro-North: Here's my photo of a GP35 towing a set of M-2 electrics with an adapter coupler.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ottomatic77/3505384732" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So short answer - no RDCs, no DMUs (and of course no EMUs which are the electric bretheren DMUs because we will be on electrified track for all of 5 miles).

Obviously if the whole route is not electrified, there is no reason to use an EMU. But to dismiss the cost savings and operational flexibility of DMUs (whether using the RDC or a modern variant) seems a bit naive.

-otto-

[mackdave]

Thank you Otto, you saved me from composing the same reply.

Dave Mackay

[BandA]

I'm assuming their operator, presumably G&W's P&W, told BSRR that they want to run conventional push-pull equipment because that is what they are used to. But they are clearly fuzzy about the technology, giving the wrong reasons! Making money as the only for-profit running passenger service on someone else's track is going to be tough, so choosing the right rolling stock could make or break their operation.

I assume an RDC has a much smaller fuel tank than a regular locomotive. Each time they fill they probably spill a little and potential for a big spill, so if they have to fill 3x as often the risk is 3x. Also 50's equipment & technology is going to be more polluting and spill-prone than 70s-90s or new equipment, I think.

Thanks Otto for the good info!

[YamaOfParadise]

I'm assuming their operator, presumably G&W's P&W, told BSRR that they want to run conventional push-pull equipment because that is what they are used to. But they are clearly fuzzy about the technology, giving the wrong reasons! Making money as the only for-profit running passenger service on someone else's track is going to be tough, so choosing the right rolling stock could make or break their operation.

Besides from G&W being a potential confounding source of said information, there's another source that's an option: the insurance company/companies. While I would imagine that when you are insuring a railroad you do have to have more than a laymans knowledge of railroading--they have to make informed decisions on what monetarily is worth insuring for them after all--the insurance company would still be the one who is most gunshy about using such things. Their money is on the line, after all, as much as it's so easy to (often rightfully) gripe about what any insurance company is willing to insure or not.

[MaineCoonCat]

[quote="On May 06, 2018 In an article entitled "State abandons rail study funding", DAMIEN FISHER, Staff Writer of The Nashua Telegraph's staff"]

State abandons rail study funding
Donchess: ‘They are turning their backs on the future’

NASHUA – Mayor Jim Donchess said Friday the city will continue to go after a commuter rail service despite a vote in Concord against funding a train study.

“They are turning their backs on the future,” Donchess said of legislators who opted to remove $4 million of federal funding from the 10-year transportation plan.

The Capitol Corridor study looked at bringing commuter rail from Massachusetts up to Nashua and Manchester. It came to a halt in 2016 when the legislature voted against using the federal funding. Chris Sununu called the commuter rail proposal a “boondoggle” when he ran for governor.

Mike O’Brien, a city alderman and Democratic state representative who long fought for the funding, said getting the state behind the effort makes sense. Nashua and Manchester make up 35 percent of the state’s economy. A commuter rail line would boost the region’s economy, creating thousands of estimated jobs and boosting the real estate market.

“It would be nice if the state took the lead,” O’Brien said.[/quote]

Read more of this story at The Nashua Telegraph's web site

[BandA]

This ¨paves¨ the way for BSRR. They probably don´t need a $4M study.

[newpylong]

No, but they'll need a hell of a lot more capital than that to get it going and maintain it.