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

-even after the M-8 arrivals ease the strain on use of electric MU's for GCT service, would there be a useful role for a new RDC type diesel MU car on the outer branches of the Metro North/CDOT system? This could work east of Stamford and as far east or north as new CDOT branches expand .
-it might even be possible to develop a dual service diesel MU with third rail capability, which could run into GCT.
-conceding all the usual objections, "it will cost too much", "nobody makes one right now" "we already have Big Locomotives to do the job". "the last attempt was a poorly engineered failure" still......
-The New Haven's experience was that diesel MU car service was a flexible and economical way to handle branch lines with thin ridership, and that cars could be added as needed for rush hours or special trips. Trains of MU's could be split or combined, and operated to two or more different destinations, bringing them together at a major station.
-this is long range thinking, I don't imagine either the railroad or the industry are ready for it. But does the idea have a possibility, and could it help in some situations where locomotive hauled trains are presently or prospectively employed?

Roger

You're going to have a long row to hoe with this discussion. In my opinon, DMU's are not part of anyone's long-term planning at CDOT or Metro-North.

-otto-

And currently no viable DMU's are in production, (no Colorado cars in production), or proven to work in USA.
MNCR has had plenty of DMU's in past (RDC/SPV) , they where mechanical nightmares, which take up valuble man hours to maintain and fix.
The many engines needing way to much attention from debris hits, leaks etc, and are a EPA nightmare, and the cars do not show any significant savings over push pull.

The best DMU was the RDC, but in todays market you would need to many gadgets put on and would again need to complicate the simple RDC design.
We had to cancel many of RDC runs simply because of leaks caused by running over a tree branch or rock or debris, where either casing was mangled and we could not get it open to do repairs.
or it would take to long to do repairs asnd fill new fluids, no one wants to spill 70 gallons of anttifreeze every time a tree branch drops.
Leaf ingestion in engine casings caused at least a few fires every year.

Also the fuel savings are just not there, a single RDC used 250 gallons a day, addding a second used slightly less but added still another 200 gallons.
now with two cars you needed 4 drive eninges to maintain.
Compare that to todays zippers with one drive engine and a HEP, mounted above frame height, and using only 450 gallons for 3 cars and 335 seats.
The RDC's were noisy and smelly, todays push pull are quite, and your not sitting on 250 gallons of smelly fuel and oil and exhaust gasses on each car.

Dutch makes some interesting points. As a non-railroader but frequent rider I knew PC-CR-MN had many problems with the Budd cars but I don't think I ever saw it so clearly explained exactly why before.

As far as long-range planning, following the 1996 blizzard snafu MNRR President Don Nelson told Railway Age (you can probably Google up that article quite easily) the railroad was going to start ordering a lot more locomotive-hauled equipment, that they would not be ordering any MUs for quite a while, they were going to get away from the MU style operation.

That plan -- and Mr. Nelson -- didn't seem to last very long.

Tommy Meehan wrote:....following the 1996 blizzard snafu MNRR President Don Nelson told Railway Age (you can probably Google up that article quite easily)...

Forty-five frustrating minutes later:

I'm going to take that back. Apparently you can't easily Google (or ProQuest) a link to that article.

I like to give a link or at least the issue date for articles I cite -- it was in Railway Age in early 1996 with author Mike Vantuono, I'm fairly certain of that -- and I'm pretty sure I have a hard copy at home and will look tonight.

The Budd Cars (RDC's) of the past suffered a lot from poor or should I say lack of maintenance on the NHRR, PC, Conrail and
probably Metro-North as well. They died a slow death but they were a great piece of equipment when they were new, and if
they had been well maintained they could have still been running today.
Having said that, I don't think it would be practical for Metro-North to try to use them, it is a very old technology and I tend
to agree with "Dutch" and others that the present push/pull equipment is better and cheaper to operate, probaaby more
practical too. If the Budd Company had designed a successor to the RDC that was as simple, well built and dependable as
the RDC was, maybe it would have worked just fine but the powers to be wanted a car that could do this and that and a lot
more as well and it was way beyond the RDC of the 50's.
I rode Budd RDC's all over eastern Canada in the very late 1980's and they were reasonably quiet, rode good and ran like
clocks according to the crews. Indeed enroute from Edmunston to Moncton on a rather fast line of the Canadian National we
lost an engine and the engineer said he would not need it in order to maintain the schedule which called for a lot of 70 MPH
running between stops. I don't recall any fumes inside these cars either. I do recall fumes inside the cars that ran on the
Harlem, Hudson and Danbury Branch for sure, I ran these cars and there were fumes everywhere. I'd love to get up to
Canada to ride the remaining ones, I would bet they still provide a good ride. Maybe I'll get out to Dallas sometime to ride
the ones there which came from Canada previously, I'll bet they do pretty good there too.
Noel Weaver

The great part about RDC was its simplicity and its advantage over loco hauled standard coaches for not having to run around.
Push-Pull made the runaround absolete, and simplicity is just not there anymore.
No way, could you have a car with two 12Kw generators just feed a battery and work all electricals off that battery,
Why not ?? Todays cars need 3 times amount of headlights, they need twice amount of HVAC, they need electric outlets for customers.
They would need electric doors, bigger cabs, bigger bathrooms, more protection for wheels, cabsignal, atc etc etc etc.
The car would be a monstrousity.
Original poster suggested a way to run of third rail, hmm electric propulsion, now were talking weight of M-7 plus the added weight of a Diesel generator system.
One diesel would be asking for trouble, so two engines, and a Generator set and...... wait can you see where we are going, SPV again ????
And a fuel use exceeding that of that 3 car Push pull zipper.

Dallas' DART operation supplements its fleet of modern push-pulls with some beautifully rebuilt RDC's that ride and operate like a DREAM. Did I mention the "beautifully rebuilt" part? The only other operator I know looking at RDC's is Portland, Oregon's Tri-Met, they purchased some ex-Alaska RDC's to use as backup for their Colorado DMU sets. I don't know anyone else in America using RDC's for common-carrier commuter service.

Trinity is selling their RDC's, but this was about Metro-North /CDOT and a new DMU.

One big advantage of the RDC when they were being sold was they allowed a reduction in crew size. At that time any diesel locomotive weighing 45 tons or greater required, by railroad full-crew union agreements, a fireman. The RDC's only had two of the four axles powered, keeping the weight under 45 tons, thus no fireman.

With today's work rules, there is no longer a crew advantage for DMU's over locomotive-hauled, and in fact the operating costs get higher than a locomotive hauled train pretty quick as the train length increases. Onoe of the last RDC operators was Maryland MARC, where their numbers showed that even with only two cars, a locomotive hauled train was cheaper. Of course the cars were old then, but I think the trade off point with the Colorado rail cars is no more than three cars.

-thank you, Dutch and Noel for your thoughtful technical responses. Despite the fact that the original RDC's, if well maintained, were able to handle many present type railroading functions, it would be impracticable and impossible to reproduce them today. The economice of fuel cost, pollution, labor etc. would no longer give them an advantage over mainline diesels plus cab cars. That is on a main line.
-the SPV's were a disaster, something to be learned there about simplicity and sturdiness in design. Let's not go there.
-but would there be advantages in using say two car paired MU units, taking advantage of modern green technology, (perhaps even burning used oil from french fries!), on branch lines? Presumably they would run much more efficiently and economically than the old RDC.
-Does CDOT need a whole train, locomotive and coaches, to run non-rush hour shuttles to New Canaan, Danbury? Or future extensions beyond Danbury, New Haven etc. Is it possible that MU cars could provide some of the advantages of light rail, while being substantial and powerful enough to run on standard railroad lines. It's a speculative question, but I don't think I've seen an answer. I wonder what would be the requirements for a rail vehicle which could efficiently fill such light duty needs?

Roger

Any extention would need to be heavy rail, HHRC north of Danbury, PanAm north of Waterbury, CSO on Springfield line.
It really does not matter what you burn in engines, a BL20gh can be modified to run on wast oil or on oil from McDonalds and Burgerking.
The enviromental concerns and labor and damage assesments for DMU's still is same, engines do not belong under a floor.
even if you build a two car MU type DMU you would still need at least 3 engines, of which one would be critical (HEP) or train stops.
A locomotive has that adressed differently and can keep moving, it seldom happens that critical stuff breaks above frame.
And yes even in Daytime minimum amount of cars is two cars, as per railroad requirement, no one wants to sit next to someone yakking on a cellphone, or near toilet, or near that weirdo three seats up.

-Dutch and Otto have also contributed to this topic in the neighboring Self Propelled Railcars forum. It looks like too many compromises may have been made in the latest attempt for a new American made DMU, the Colorado Rail Cars, and in any event, the company is presently out of business. America's strict FRA standards make most of the world's DMU units made by major non-US manufacturers unusable here (too light construction).
-it doesn't look like a new alternative to the Colorado cars is in any manufacturer's sights right now. If so, the US rail car picture may remain confined to a few revived Budd cars. And if it's not out there already , CDOT or Metro North are probably too small a market to create a vehicle which might meet their future branch line needs.
-but there seems to be some kind of a market, and some manufacturer might seize upon the opportunity. Future stuff......

Roger
-

-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 Stadler GTW and other European DMUs seem to be the heirs apparent to the Budd RDC. At the moment, they don't comply with FRA regulations, but supposedly the FRA is drafting alternate crash compliance regulations so these units can run anywhere on the American rail network. The Colorado Railcar units are probably the last of their kind, unless the FRA doesn't ever release those alternate regulations.