How are consists put together?

JCitron wrote:I wonder why the T doesn't look into something like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5022007_graz.jpg

The Desiro units are extremely popular in Europe. They have fast acceleration and are built to the latest safety standards. I think they are used in California for commuter service, so if this is true then they have already been certified by the FRA. The advantage of these is they are individual DMUs just like the old Budd Liners, and can be combined into individual trains, or run as single units. I would think that they would be a cost savings (after initial investment), due to their efficient modern engines, and would be a way to cover the off peak hours, or even provide service on less densely populated lines.

John

Probably the best (and it's a long shot) chance for an FRA compliant DMU is the concept that Sumitomo/Nippon Shayro are working on for SMART (Sonoma/Marin Counties, Cal.) and Metrolinx/GO Transit in Toronto. It's intended to be capable of operating in a regular railroad environment, much like the ill-fated Colorado Railcar DMU was intended to do.

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 11&t=76280

At one time SMART had a PDF that included drawings of all proposed car types - but the file is gone. Before anyone says something about the cab design, that included a plan for a more conventional MU cab in addition to the streamlined noses proposed. That variant would follow roughly the same format as modern EMUs (M7's and 8s, Silverliner V's).

JCitron wrote: I think they are used in California for commuter service, so if this is true then they have already been certified by the FRA.

Nope. The Sprinter trains have a waiver from the FRA that allows them to operate a separate times from freight trains (freights run only at night on that line, when there's no commuter service), but are not certified to operate in mixed traffic (either freights or conventional passenger trains), which anything on the T would have to do.

MBTA3247 wrote:

JCitron wrote: I think they are used in California for commuter service, so if this is true then they have already been certified by the FRA.

Nope. The Sprinter trains have a waiver from the FRA that allows them to operate a separate times from freight trains (freights run only at night on that line, when there's no commuter service), but are not certified to operate in mixed traffic (either freights or conventional passenger trains), which anything on the T would have to do.

That's too bad. I suppose though they maybe good for something like the Fairmont line?

John

AEM7AC920 wrote:Has to do with braking as stated before. Ive herd it came from an engineer blowing a red signal because he couldn't get the train to stop in time with a short consist. Funny how the rule was cut back to 3 some time ago.

Trains don't approach stop signals above 30mph anyways, so I don't see how train set length is relevant to stop signals (in other words, that story doesn't add up). I know it's an MBCR policy but I don't have any idea why, unless they want to prevent cutting trains for another reason and use "braking safety" to justify it. It's certainly not a reason to shun a concept because the rule could be changed back just as easily as it was put into effect.

JCitron wrote:

MBTA3247 wrote:

JCitron wrote: I think they are used in California for commuter service, so if this is true then they have already been certified by the FRA.

Nope. The Sprinter trains have a waiver from the FRA that allows them to operate a separate times from freight trains (freights run only at night on that line, when there's no commuter service), but are not certified to operate in mixed traffic (either freights or conventional passenger trains), which anything on the T would have to do.

That's too bad. I suppose though they maybe good for something like the Fairmont line?

John

Doubtful. FRA waivers like the ones Sprinter and a few other lines have require complete space and/or time separation between non-compliant trains and regular freight and passenger trains, something the Fairmont line doesn't have. The only line where the T would be able to do that is the Newburyport/Rockport line, and would require dedicating Tracks 1 and 2 at North Station for the exclusive use of that line and running single-track from there to Reading Junction via the Tuttle Track; the CSX train to East Boston and whatever Pan Am service still uses the line would be restricted to running in during the early morning hours.

CRail wrote:

AEM7AC920 wrote:Has to do with braking as stated before. Ive herd it came from an engineer blowing a red signal because he couldn't get the train to stop in time with a short consist. Funny how the rule was cut back to 3 some time ago.

Trains don't approach stop signals above 30mph anyways, so I don't see how train set length is relevant to stop signals (in other words, that story doesn't add up). I know it's an MBCR policy but I don't have any idea why, unless they want to prevent cutting trains for another reason and use "braking safety" to justify it. It's certainly not a reason to shun a concept because the rule could be changed back just as easily as it was put into effect.

I don't know the full story myself it was explained to me sometime ago, I will have to dig deeper on that one.

I just noticed that the RDC on TD's post on the first page of this thread is the one that I had been talking about as being wrecked in West Roxbury. That's spooky as it was days before my conversation came up !
http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 0&start=15 (15th post down)

AEM7AC920 wrote:

CRail wrote:

AEM7AC920 wrote:Has to do with braking as stated before. Ive herd it came from an engineer blowing a red signal because he couldn't get the train to stop in time with a short consist. Funny how the rule was cut back to 3 some time ago.

Trains don't approach stop signals above 30mph anyways, so I don't see how train set length is relevant to stop signals (in other words, that story doesn't add up). I know it's an MBCR policy but I don't have any idea why, unless they want to prevent cutting trains for another reason and use "braking safety" to justify it. It's certainly not a reason to shun a concept because the rule could be changed back just as easily as it was put into effect.

I don't know the full story myself it was explained to me sometime ago, I will have to dig deeper on that one.

I believe that there was an explanation on top of the braking explanation in one of the MBCR bulletins back in 2009. I'll see if I can find it.