Amtrak DMUs

bretton88 wrote:

chrsjrcj wrote:I finally had an oppurtunity to ride one of the Sprinter DMUs today in southern California. If Anderson thinks this is a reasonble alternative for a route longer than 30 minutes, he’s out of his mind. The whole time I kept thinking I was on a bus, actually the busses where I live are quieter and more comfortable.

He needs to spend the next 6 months riding every route in the Amtrak system and some routes overseas. Take what works and throwaway what doesn’t.

The Sprinter is Diesel Hydraulic, instead of Diesel Electric. That was an awful design choice, rides so much rougher than any other DMU I've taken.

I don't think there is a correlation between ride quality and the type of transmission. Budd RDC's were Diesel Hydraulic and rode well. The Sprinters (UK Class 15X) may be rough riding for other reasons.

Jon

The RDC's were retired,the SPV-2000's were made gutless and were retired,ANY kind of DMU now requires "time separation" ,that
WONT fly on the host RR's. This idea needs to die,it's a dead horse that's beaten to death already!

Backshophoss wrote:The RDC's were retired,the SPV-2000's were made gutless and were retired,ANY kind of DMU now requires "time separation" ,that
WONT fly on the host RR's. This idea needs to die,it's a dead horse that's beaten to death already!

Why not add the French and Rohr Turbos to that list? Why do some cling to DMUs from 40 years ago? Technology and time moves on, even in the RR biz. are we to believe today's DMU is the same as the RDC of old?

The rest of world with higher standards than Amtrak in regards to reliability operate DMUs and in weather that Amtrak decides not run in. I think Amtrak will be "ok" if they decide to go the DMU route.

DMU's are a good solution. Just have to get the cost down to less than operating push-pull. Which was the purpose of the RDC.

Even with the DMU's developed in the UK,most will not meet FRA standards,require Hi -Level Platforms,and tend not to hold up
in US type service. This has become a "DEAD HORSE" issue!

When I see pictures of the New Haven - Springfield shuttles with a 4200HP locomotive pulling 2 amfleet cars it makes me wonder if this is the most efficient use of these units.
A typical DMU is around 300hp per car so a 2 car set could be achieved with 1/7th the horsepower of what we are using now.

Backshophoss wrote:The RDC's were retired,the SPV-2000's were made gutless and were retired,ANY kind of DMU now requires "time separation" ,that
WONT fly on the host RR's. This idea needs to die,it's a dead horse that's beaten to death already!

The bolded is wrong, the Stadler FLIRTs used for TEX Rail do not appear to require time separation, nor do the Nippon Sharyo DMUs used on SMART.

MattW wrote:The bolded is wrong, the Stadler FLIRTs used for TEX Rail do not appear to require time separation, nor do the Nippon Sharyo DMUs used on SMART.

In both of the cases above, the railroad tracks and corridor is owned by the government in some form or another. In SMART's case mostly by SMART itself; in TexRail's case mostly by DART. The freight operator sharing SMART's tracks and owning the rest of SMART's tracks of operation is also a government agency. Where TexRail runs in corridors still owned by privately owned freight railroads it runs on dedicated tracks running parallel to them, and always crosses them grade separated.
That's why I suggested earlier that FLIRT's would be more appropriate for railroad corridors Amtrak or another government agency owns or controls; the NEC, Keystone corridor to Harrisburg. Empire corridor to Albany, and the Inland corridor to Springfield. That's just about all the regional trains running from or through NYP. The Keystone line and NEC could use EMUs, the Inland and Empire lines could use a combination EMU-DMU train. Trains extending further; beyond Albany, Springfield, Boston. Harrisburg, and D.C. would be operating over privately owned freight railroad tracks, will probably have extreme difficulties using lightweight trains such as FLIRTs. Which is why I suggested earlier using stronger Siemens train cars as already being built for California and the Midwest corridors.
Which brings us back to why this thread was originated, the soon to be replaced Amfleet I railcars - - - which per chance run mostly on the NEC, Keystone, Empire, and Inland corridors owned or controlled mostly by Amtrak, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Additionally, there aren't that many freight trains running on these tracks either. California and the Midwest states running on privately owned freight railroad corridors have already ordered their new rolling stock, and they chose Siemens Brightline equipment. It's Amtrak turn to order new rolling stock for regional trains. They have already ordered new HSR Acela replacements, their next order of business is Northeast Regional trains. And I suggest FLIRTs, or some other brand of lightweight rolling stock, will suffice.
As for Amtrak's longer regional trains; towards Virginia, the Carolinas, and Canada; they'll probably use whatever Amtrak decides to replace their Amfleet IIs with. I don't think they will be lightweight DMUs or EMUs because much of their runs will be on privately owned freight tracks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nyqYJVl3x8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33hQkh_wKLs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Stadler FLIRT 200 has been in service since 2014 in Sweden and proven itself in harsher weather than on the NEC. Really can't compare a 21rst century product with a the RDC and SPV.

I agree with Electron, we are talking about NEC equipment in essence. The west and midwest states has made their purchases for corridor service with Siemens. Though the Hiawatha could use equipment such a DMU.

MattW wrote:

Backshophoss wrote:The RDC's were retired,the SPV-2000's were made gutless and were retired,ANY kind of DMU now requires "time separation" ,that
WONT fly on the host RR's. This idea needs to die,it's a dead horse that's beaten to death already!

The bolded is wrong, the Stadler FLIRTs used for TEX Rail do not appear to require time separation, nor do the Nippon Sharyo DMUs used on SMART.

The Nippon Sharyo DMU is FRA Tier 1 compliant, so it can be used anywhere without time separation. The FLIRT is FRA alternate compliant which I'm not entirely sure what that means, but it might not work with the freight railroads. As far as the NEC goes, all of these modern DMU's should be usable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Sharyo_DMU
https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7. ... 0415en.pdf

'Alternative Compliance' refers to an FRA NPRM that will allow fairly off the shelf European equipment in mixed service in the United States. The actual performance spec will be called 'Tier III' but simply refers to equipment built to the relevant structural standards in use in Europe. They are then adding a new Appendix to 49 CFR 238 saying that Tier I compliance can be achieved alternatively by complying with Tier III.

"Passenger rail equipment crashworthiness and occupant protection design standards have been largely standardized by Euronorms. FRA concluded that there are no significant differences between trains built to the design standards contained in Euronorms and trains built to meet the crashworthiness and occupant protection requirements in the proposed rule [link below]. FRA estimates that on average trainset prices would increase $310,250 (0.62 percent) per trainset to meet the proposed Tier III requirements in this rule."

"Trainsets compliant with international design standards (such as European or Japanese) would require extensive modifications to meet existing Tier I requirements if FRA elected to take no regulatory action. However, under the proposed Tier I Alternative requirements, FRA believes the cost associated with compliance would be similar to those discussed for Tier III equipment."

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FRA-2013-0060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ConstanceR46 wrote:

george matthews wrote:There are huge numbers of DMUs and many different varieties in the rest of the world. There is no need to invent new types. Just choose a suitable style and buy them in. That's what the rest of us do with passenger aircraft. Most of them are American designed. But the US has very sparse railway service and very few vehicles, so would do best to make use of the much greater experience in other countries.

Passenger planes don't need to be reinforced so that if a heavy-as-heck freight train hits them they don't crumple like a can

All European passenger trains share the tracks with freight trains and are built to deal with this. Just buy in suitable diesel trains. Anyway the US needs to electrify far more of their network, if only to deal with health and climate conditions.

george matthews wrote:
All European passenger trains share the tracks with freight trains and are built to deal with this. Just buy in suitable diesel trains. Anyway the US needs to electrify far more of their network, if only to deal with health and climate conditions.

That sort of goes against

There is no need to invent new types.

I do agree about electrification, but i can only forsee that being done if the Govt takes over all Class 1s

I'm not a fan of any DMUs, at least the ones that I've been on (I prefer not to feel the vibrations from the engines).

However, I agree about short locomotive-hauled trains being way overpowered. The Hartford shuttles and the Piedmont in NC (one locomotive on each end, but only a couple of cars) come to mind, and I'd rather deal with engine vibrations than waste cash and fuel by overpowering a train.

SouthernRailway wrote:I'm not a fan of any DMUs, at least the ones that I've been on (I prefer not to feel the vibrations from the engines).

However, I agree about short locomotive-hauled trains being way overpowered. The Hartford shuttles and the Piedmont in NC (one locomotive on each end, but only a couple of cars) come to mind, and I'd rather deal with engine vibrations than waste cash and fuel by overpowering a train.

The Hartford line would be ideal for a conventional EMU service - after electrification. Once an hour all day, at least as far as Springfield.