DMU Discussion, was Article on Cars for Vermonter

As noted in previous posts - the Vermonter has patronage ups and downs. Seems when ever I ride it, it is what I consider full, similiar to what has been posted above. I've seen all coaches opened up and packed upon southbound arrival into Springfield. This was mostly due to college traffic, or holiday period.

No food service on the train would be a huge negative - it's a long ride even from New Haven to St. Albans. Also a transfer in New Haven is going to be a hassle. I have returned to riding business class on this train - it's been full on my last four journeys, and most people in business class are going to NYC or south of NYC.

There's also a fair share of seniors riding this train who may think twice about booking via a train with no food service and then vying for a seat with the transfer at New Haven.

Amtrak should try to for the DMU's on the Springfield or Hiawatha shuttle service first. Seems they would be more suited for shorter runs - as opposed to longer runs, such as the Vermonter.

The ideal is if Amtrak could work out a deal to try both types of coventions at the same time - the current Vermonter as it exists with Amfleets, and then DMU's on a different type of schedule travelling the route betweeen New Haven and St. Albans.

Now if the State of Vermont would think about extending the Ethan Allen Express to Burlington via Rutland and Middlebury, then try the DMU service from a starting point of either St. Albans or White River Junction, that would be interesting. Srorry, but I still miss the overnight train from the the NEC destinations to Vermont. I know this will never come back on the timetable. The Ethan Allen Express seems to do well with an adjusted weekend schedule where it leaves NYP and Rutland later on Fridays and Sunday, respectively, to attract more weekend ridership. Vermonter doesn't have this luxury at present due to its longer journey.

CNJ wrote:Here is the story on the rail cars as it appeared in today's Burlington (VT) Free Press:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps ... 80311/1009

Oops....Sorry for the news article double post.....Was reading so fast I didn't realize that Jay had already posted it.

I'm still wondering about how DMU's can be faster. DMU's are slow to accelerate. They can go fast given time. The DMU train in my avatar travels at 125 mph. Even without the acceleration issue, what really slows down train speeds in this country is not the rolling stock but the slow track speeds we have.

I too think a DMU trial would be better suited for the Springfield shuttle.

Noel Weaver wrote:The lines north of Palmer do not have heavy rail traffic so in the winter time the crossings could become a major problem. Another thing, what happens when one of these new things craps out up in the middle of the Vermont countryside and they have to wait hours and hours for help? I can just see one of these things trying to cope with a weekend college and ski crowd some time too. What about food service on a long trip like that one or do we just have a long meal stop somewhere, about the only place that a meal stop work work would probably be at White River Junction.

How are any of these a fault of the equipment? Any Amtrak train, even those current operated, can break down, and mechanics could be hours away. At least with the CRC DMU, one can call a truck repair shop - many of them have 24 hour emergency service for long-haul truckers stranded on the side of the Interstate. (Try calling EMD and requesting "roadside assistance" with a one-hour response time.!) Any Amtrak train is subject to maximum capacity limits; a DMU can tow a coach just as well as a locomotive can.

As for meal service, a DMU trainset (say, three or four units) could be equipped with a galley or a small cafe section for meal service. The ICE-3 trainsets used in Germany (four-unit) have bistros; the Budd RDCs used on Oregon's Lewis & Clark Explorer Train (purchased from BC Rail) had galleys limited on-board meal service. Or prepared meals could be loaded on the train and sold enroute by a local vendor. People survive 10 and 12 hour trans-Pacific/trans-Atlantic flights without a full dining car experience, such can be replicated on a train.

pablo wrote:14 months. That's a long time. Do they have other orders currently?

The only known DMU orders are for Portland's TriMet transit agency (three DMUs and one coach). Colorado Railcar's main business is "luxury railcars", primarily for the Alaska Railroad, some cruise lines and Canadian tour groups.

If Vermont decides to pass on the DMU, maybe the state of Oregon could use one for the Eugene to Portland service, replacing the Talgos.

The one thing that I don't like about it is now you have to make a cross platform change at New Haven. The Vermonter was intended to be a through New York to St Albans train. Its bad enough that the former Montrealer no longer runs.

To me, this seems to be more of a scaling back in the level of service.

Gosh, it's striking how hostile to change people on this board are--especially considering that most people here find so little to like in the current Amtrak ops. The DMU has the possibility to reconfigure Amtrak operations on certain routes for the better, and this arrangement with Vermont is a low-cost, low-risk way to test it. (If Amtrak tested them on the Springfield line, it would have to pay for the test itself--here it shares the cost with Vermont.) And remember: this is only a test. If it doesn't work, Vermont will send them back to CRC and it will be out only $2 million. If it works, then chances are you'll see many more DMUs, making the overhead for maintaining the fleet more reasonable.

The question is, what would it take to run the DMUs into Penn Station? I know diesel is allowed under the East River, and if I remember right, Amtrak has run diesels from NYP to New Haven in emergencies. But could you run them into NYC on a regular basis?

--Robb

I know diesel is allowed under the East River

If that were true, then the LIRR would be running DE30ACs instead of DM30ACs into Penn Station.

The DMU has the possibility to reconfigure Amtrak operations on certain routes for the better

Amtrak used to have DMUs operating in that region (the Roger Williams RDCs) but retired them. And how "for the better"?

I think Amtrak should try these things between new Haven and Springfield
first and if they work fine and have no problems, then think about running
them to Vermont.
I wonder if these things have been really tested in extreme weather
conditions which are not exactly rare in northern New England and
especially Vermont. My guess is that they would have to just assign a
diesel to them for the winter season due to the possible of problems on
grade crossings and going through heavy snow.
I do not think this equipment will provide dependable, year around and
satisfactory service on this route.
Noel Weaver

voith transmissions were a diaster on the british rail railbuses . but that was a single axle set up .

i would have thought the flexiliner would be the way to go . with their ability for quick hookups , uncouples .

The Springfield shuttle certainly seems like a better application for this. As for the Vermonter, having a cross platform transfer at New Haven would definitely be a downgrade in service, albeit a small one, much as the Albany transfer for the Boston section of the Lake Shore Limited is in my view.

I would find it hard to support the purchase of new equipment while Amtrak has a large number of Amfleet coaches, newly rebuilt Turboliners, at least one 6 year old HHP-8, many diesels, and who knows what else just wasting away in storage. Amtrak needs to make better use of its existing assets before I can really get behind something like this.

shadyjay wrote: Stations are not closed - they are open and staffed by Amtrak employees but ticketing facilities are no longer available. If such services were reinstated, I think more passengers would ride the train. Those who show up at the last minute expecting to get on are requested by the crew to call Julie to get a reservation number, then hop on board. I've seen large crowds board at both Essex Jct/Burlington and at White River Jct.

What follows is likely a technicality, Mr. Hogan, for "99 & 44/100%" of the folk out there, but of note to those of us who have been in railroad Labor Relations along the way.

The "Amtrak employees" you have observed at the Vermont stations are Caretakers who hold a contractual relationship with Amtrak to perform their duties. As a result of this particular "contracting out' initiative, Amtrak avoids payment of RRTA, RRUI, FUTA and H&W on the "contract payments' made to these folk. Also since they are not employees they do not hold seniority or, in vernacular, are "out of the Union".

However, these persons will not sell tickets as that work falls within the scope of the existing clerical crafts Agreement between Amtrak and the BRAC/TCEU (note; I stand corrected from my previous thought that TCEU had merged with the UTU - there is NO rivalry amongst the several organizations representing railroad employees!!! ).

We're not hostile to change.

I think many of us are concerned that with extremely limited resources, this isn't the time to invest in equipment that is significantly different from what Amtrak now operates. While the capital costs may already be ear-marked, the ongoing expenses associated with its operation can quickly deplete already scarce resources.

Unfortunately, we've seen this very recently in Acela. While it may be true that ultimately the contractor has settled most claims, it still created a diversion of resources as well as a lightning rod for public criticism.

I'll go a step further. Personally I don't think this is Amtrak's sweet spot, this is at best a low population-density regional activity, perhaps even a state-managed operation. In most areas, Amtrak has left the commuter arena, whether voluntarily or not.

Gotta Love It!!!

From Mr CNJ's post:

"The way I look at this, we are buying a pig in a poke," Starr said. The state would be responsible for buying and maintaining the new, untried cars while still paying Amtrak to operate them, he noted. He worried that state officials hadn't explored leasing rather than buying the new equipment.

Amtrak wants Vermont to pay for new rolling stock as a Demonstration Project, and it wants Vermont to keep paying 403(b) fees.

Memo to senior planners at 60 Mass: It's impolite to have your cake and eat it too. Pick one, either Vermont gives you free rolling stock for a demonstation, or Vermont pays 403(b) fees.

John Perkowski
wearing only my Member hat for this post!