Amtrak DMUs

PRII specifications : http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... doc-ir.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DutchRailnut wrote:PRII specifications : http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... doc-ir.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NS DMU meets that spec right now (FRA Tier 1 crashworthiness), and afaik no other machine does.

mtuandrew wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:PRII specifications : http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... doc-ir.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NS DMU meets that spec right now (FRA Tier 1 crashworthiness), and afaik no other machine does.

Yes, maybe. There are several PRII specifications they don't meet, as yet.
The NS DMUs don't meet level boarding at high level and low level platforms - they don't have traps or whatever Amtrak wants.
The NS DMUs are limited to just three cars in length, with all of them requiring diesel power units. The specifications suggested unpowered cars in the consist - something they can't do.
The specifications require 600 mile range over 20 hours, I'm not sure the NS DMUs have large enough tanks.
NS DMUs aren't capable of the specify 110 mph maximum speeds. Maybe they can, maybe they can't?

I'm sure these DMUs, if ordered, will be of a new offering, either from an entirely new design or a redesign of an existing DMU. Nothing exists today as is that meets them.

electricron wrote:

The specifications require 600 mile range over 20 hours, I'm not sure the NS DMUs have large enough tanks.
NS DMUs aren't capable of the specify 110 mph maximum speeds. Maybe they can, maybe they can't?

Amtrak wish list dreams. Who needs a 110 mph puddle jumper when it's going to make a station stop every few miles? Wouldn't 100 mph be sufficient?
As for 600 miles in 20 hours, that's an average 30 mph over the whole trip. One would think they might be able to stop for 30 minutes for fuel somewhere along the way.

Ron: my mistake, I thought the SMART or UPX cars had traps. Where does it state they are limited to three cars? Amtrak could buy as many flat-ended C-cars as they want, rather than the streamlined end A and B-cars. They’re currently carded at 79 mph and 550 miles range (275 gallons x 2 mpg est) according to their specs, I don’t know if they could increase the speed to 110 and fuel capacity to at least 600 gallons.

Harry: I’m picturing the Michigan Line, the Lincoln Line in Illinois, the future SEHSR, Keystone East, and Empire Service if so equipped. Also California, and possibly the 90 mph BNSF between CHI and KCY. Good to future-proof.

ConstanceR46 wrote:

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

Which will never ever ever bloody happen. Try to follow this and quit talking rubbish:

1. The US is the world's largest economy. If something bad happens here, it affects the world's economy.

2. The US rail network underpins our economy. If the rail network falls apart, IE nationalized for passenger traffic, the economy tanks.

3. The US rail network is owned by stockholders, mostly pension, insurance, and retirement funds belonging to the little people. If you nationalize, they lose their insurance and retirement.

So to recap, this rubbish talk of nationalization means we are going to tip the world's economy upside down and hose the pension plans of the working man.

NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

This ain't Marxism.com, guys.

mtuandrew wrote:Ron: my mistake, I thought the SMART or UPX cars had traps. Where does it state they are limited to three cars? Amtrak could buy as many flat-ended C-cars as they want, rather than the streamlined end A and B-cars. They’re currently carded at 79 mph and 550 miles range (275 gallons x 2 mpg est) according to their specs, I don’t know if they could increase the speed to 110 and fuel capacity to at least 600 gallons.

Harry: I’m picturing the Michigan Line, the Lincoln Line in Illinois, the future SEHSR, Keystone East, and Empire Service if so equipped. Also California, and possibly the 90 mph BNSF between CHI and KCY. Good to future-proof.

I arrived at the three car limit by watching SMART board videos posted when they bought the DMUs. I don’t think that number was ever published on paper. Maybe that limit was set by the station platforms in San Rafael. I would like to point out the UP trains in Toronto also top off at three cars. But I suppose the train line stuff could be redesigned for more cars?

Never-the-less, these DMUs are’t designed to pull trailers (non-powered cars) far.

The good news is that both SMART and UP toot these DMUs could be changed into EMUs later. Maybe it would be better for Amtrak to buy more EMUs than DMUs?

Ahh, my favorite criticism. "You want to do what almost every other country has done to trains? Obviously a marxist."

electricron wrote:Never-the-less, these DMUs are’t designed to pull trailers (non-powered cars) far.

Even Budd would not permit a RDC to tow a trailer or other unpowered unit in tow, doing so would void the factory warranty. The only example of MUs as towing units I can think of is SEPTA which can and does uses Silverliners to haul dead cars from to time to time, and uses single units as "shop switchers".

Then it NEEDS to be in the specs:"MUST be able to TOW up to X trailer type cars and supply HEP to them"
That's not going to happen!

DutchRailnut wrote:PRII specifications : http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... doc-ir.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you, very informative. Amtrak has been planning the next gen DMU for a while now.

ConstanceR46 wrote:Ahh, my favorite criticism. "You want to do what almost every other country has done to trains? Obviously a marxist."

Obviously government ownership of anything at all doesn't compute to some folks.

The whole idea of DMU's is you don't "tow trailers", if you want to add cars you simply add another DMU, so the power /weight ratio is always correct.

David Benton » Sun May 13, 2018 4:20 am

The whole idea of DMU's is you don't "tow trailers", if you want to add cars you simply add another DMU, so the power /weight ratio is always correct.

Exactly!!!!

But that rule doesn’t apply universally when discussing train units.
TexRail will have 4 cars per DMU FLIRT, Arrow ordered 2 cars per FLIRT with Stadler suggesting they up it to 3 cars, DART’s Cotton Belt will probably have 4 cars initially but they hint at expanding that to 5 cars in their DEIS for the future. So how many cars can a DMU FLIRT train set have; two, three, four or five? The answer is all of them!

So how can that be? With Stadler’s DMU FLIRT, each car can have one power bogie (truck) with just one diesel power car added to the unit. The point being that each car in the unit doesn’t require a very noisy and vibrating diesel engine under the floor.