a new "RDC" type diesel MU for Metro North/CDOT

Dutch/Noel,

Wasn't the main problem with the RDC and SPV's that they removed one of the drive shafts? I heard that they were removed thus eliminating the need for a Fireman? After that they became a mechanical problem.

The RDC was always only driven on inner axle of each truck(axle 2 and 3) the outer axles 1 and 4 were idlers , yes SPV had drive shaft removed between 1 and 2 axle and 3 and 4 axle leaving only no 2 and 3 powered.
The removal of drive shafts had nothing to do with failure of SPV, only over complicating the design did the car in.

fordhamroad wrote:-perhaps Dutch or one of the other operating members of the forum could explain a point to me. One objection to using DMU units, say on Metro North, is that they would not be sturdy enough in the event of crashes, either with a freight train or a freight truck. This makes sense, but what would the diference be between crashing a DMU and the cab car of a Bombardier push-pull into a cement truck?

Roger

The cab cars are completly safe, they have same frame strenght as the locomotive and comply with all requirements at date of manufacture.
most European DMU's are totalled in a crash with a 18 wheeler.

-thanks, Dutch. While accidents are rare on today's commuter lines, they are always a possibility. I still remember vividly seeing the wreck of the M-2 cars at Mount Vernon, crunched, split open and scattered over three tracks. One certainly would not want anything flimsier.
When L.B. Stilwell designed his cars for the H&M, NYW&B and Erie, it was in an age of frequent railroad accidents. The combining of many separate sections into a steel truss, almost like a bridge, gave his cars both lightness and strength. In the case of accidents, damaged sections of the car could be replaced with new sections. In the event of a collision at moderate speed, the car end sections would crumple and absorb most of the blow. This happened on the NYW&B. I have never seen pictures of Stilwell cars involved in a really high speed collision, which would have been the real test of the system. On the Erie???
-with modern metal alloys and composite materials, and similar ingenuity, perhaps a stronger, lighter DMU able to meet FRA standards of safety could be designed.

Roger

DutchRailnut wrote: The removal of drive shafts had nothing to do with failure of SPV, only over complicating the design did the car in.

What was it about the SPVs that made them overcomplicated and unreliable?

Latest on Alternate Vehicle Technology (AVT)
http://www.dcta.net/apps/AdminFiles/Get ... -22-10.pdf

DCTA staff continues to work with Stadler regarding design and procurement of the DMUs. Good progress continues to be made toward the development of the FRA Alternate Compliance guidelines. FRA has commenced the development of the final criteria for Alternate Vehicle Technology.
DCTA staff met with FRA officials in Washington D.C. in March to discuss the timeline which appears to be FRA issuance of the DRAFT Criteria in May 2010.
DCTA staff has had two very successful conference calls with Stadler with regard to the desire to partner with Stadler and the FRA to implement this criteria. It appears that Stadller is very interested in working with DCTA and the FRA to accomplish this effort of being the first agency in the USA to implement AVT using crash energy management technology. DCTA staff intend to issue Stadler a notice of potential change to incorporate the AVT criteria upon receipt of the DRAFT from the FRA.

If FRA makes the rules, and if Stadler can build the GTW to meet the rules, it appears DCTA will want to change its order of 11 GTWs for AVT compliance. That probably means after the change order that the first 11 GTWs DCTA buys will able able to run with freight trains and TRE trains on the TRE, Cotton Belt, or BNSF corridors.
But that is still many ifs.....

Light weight DMUs capable of sharing tracks with freight trains are coming, sooner than many expect....

right, it will arrive at same time as high speed rail for all.
But the subject was MNCR/CDOT and answer is still "no way"

your post contains to many If if if

DutchRailnut wrote: your post contains to many If if if

I'll agree that there stlll are many ifs. My point was that if the ifs are met, the time for light weight DMUs running on freight tracks at the same time isn't too far away. DCTA hopes to have the first delivery of "Alternate" compliant GTWs in around 2 years, definitely in less than 3 years, with high hopes they will not have to run them under temporal separation exemptions.

If CDOT and MNRR decide to buy and run new light weight DMUs in the future, it'll certainly happen after DCTA clears the way.

My concern is that by the time the design committees get done the new DMUs will be more expensive than sticking with push/pull locomotive-hauled equipment.

I can't cite a rail example off the top of my head but-

Off-topic-according to an FTA report I just read, hybrid electric buses burn 90% as much diesel fuel as a straight diesel bus and the emissions are virtually the same. And the hybrids are more costly to acquire and maintain.

Btw, I rode the TRE RDC cars a couple years ago. They did a great job rebuilding them. None of the fumes in the passenger compartment I remember from the original Budd cars, much smoother riding, none of the yank-and-lunge, and quieter. I remember asking myself, as I rode along, is the ride comparable to say an M7? I thought it was, yes.

mncommuter wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote: The removal of drive shafts had nothing to do with failure of SPV, only over complicating the design did the car in.

What was it about the SPVs that made them overcomplicated and unreliable?

The SPVs were rushed into production before they were fully tested and sorted out. Nothing on them was new or untried technology, the components were all 'off-the-shelf' items. Given enough time they, like the Metroliners would have been corrected. The reason the outer axles were uncoupled from the inner axles was a union issue on Metro North. The crews considered them to be locomotives since all axle were powered and they were capable of pulling a trailer. Metro North ordered Budd to remove the connecting drive shafts and on rest of the order had the gear set removed from the outer axles. This had the unfortunate side effect of seized bearings due to insuficient oil in the empty gear box.

The over complication was mainly the transmission and fact it could not freewheel. if one transmission did not switch gears the other engine would drag the drive train including engine slowly to hell.
One reason the transmissions failed to switch was a frequency based speed box (electronical) that would not be right from subcontractor despite what it said on specification plates.
Other thing was the overflow tank on all 3 engines with electronic full sensor, the system needed to be filed with a barrel pump from a 50/50 barrel.
Old railroad way of doing this was hook it up to city water and let it fill till it overflows, resulting in blown hoses and cracked sensor mountings.
In short a RDC could be maintained by Chimpanzees, A SPV needed sophistication and knowledge, something not found on the crowbar and hammer equipped mechanics on railroad.
yes Budd man i got a lot of time on both RDC and SPV, and was quite succesfull in keeping the cars running despite the lax knowledge of most bosses.

ex Budd man wrote:The reason the outer axles were uncoupled from the inner axles was a union issue on Metro North.

Budd man I took a photo of the new SPVs within the first few days they entered service and it was a bit before Metro-North came along. It was still Conrail. Maybe about 1980? The markings on the car were ConnDot, I think.

The single car was operating on the Danbury Branch. I went back a week later and they were gone. Puzzled I asked the trainman on the RDC, where's the new cars? He said the Brotherhood wanted firemen on them and the railroad took 'em off.

I also sent a photo to TRAINS Magazine's news column. It didn't get published but an editor wrote me back to say it was a weight-on-drivers issue.

The Con DOT cars and Metro North cars were assembled at the same time. I don't remember all the specifics about which came first. I believe that the Con DOT cars had all axles powered and the Metro North cars were deilvered that way. It wasn't until the BLE fussed about crew assignment that the drive shafts to the outer axles were removed. BTW, Con DOT cars had Amtrak like markings to blend in with the Amfleet cars when they ran as part of the Senator. They were coupled on to the south bound in New Haven and cut off of the north bound to complete their trip. But since they had on board APU and didn't train line HEP the get-set ran all the time to provide lighting and HVAC.

If the NRHS-Philadelphia Chapter Budd production list is accurate -- and they are usually pretty reliable -- the ConnDot and NY-MTA SPV-2000s came in two two separate orders. Here's a link to the page-

http://www.trainweb.org/phillynrhs/BuddCarOrders.html

Thirteen ConnDot cars were delivered in 1980 and ten NY-MTA cars arrived the following year, 1981. The Connecticut cars were Job 940, lot no. or project 5238. The MTA cars were Job 970. There is no project number provided for the MTA cars. Maybe they were an add-on?

That jibes with what I remember. The ConnDot cars came first, and they weren't great but they were good enough that MTA decided to order enough to replace the existing RDC car fleet on the Harlem and Hudson Lines.

Also, Buddman the SPVs weren't delivered to Metro-North as you keep writing. Metro-North did not begin until 1983. The cars were delivered while Conrail was still the contracted operator.

I thought this thread was supposed to be about "new" diesel MUs, I'm disappointed to read an argument about past diesel MUs. Can we keep the discussion on topic?