by njtmnrrbuff
Maybe the states like NC, CT, and MA will order MUs for their own corridor trains. I could see DMUs running on the SPG-Greenfield to NHV shuttles.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
njt/mnrrbuff wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:59 pm Maybe the states like NC, CT, and MA will order MUs for their own corridor trains. I could see DMUs running on the SPG-Greenfield to NHV shuttles.Could absolutely see them on the Springfield shuttles, plus any future Inland Route service and the Downeaster. I could also NY state being interested in a dual mode for Empire Corridor service.
njt/mnrrbuff wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:48 am Electrification on the Hartford Line or Empire Corridor will never happen. It’s not on CDOT’s plan for the Hartford Line.The current CTDOT plans do not go beyond construction of the additional regional rail stations. They are in the execution phase right now and I strongly suspect they will open a new planning phase soon. The Environmental Assessment completed for the most recent project was exhaustive. It will not be nearly as difficult the next time around.
njt/mnrrbuff wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:27 pmIf push pull sets run on a route, than multiple units can.Very much agreed. Here's another thought. ... Imagine the time savings from at platform turns ... No loop track required ... There's a cost savings right there.
njt/mnrrbuff wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:02 pm Yes, Downeaster trains don't need to be looped. Along the Downeaster route, many of the stops are pretty spread out, but there are spacings of less than five miles between Saco and Old Orchard Beach. It's six miles between Durham-UMH and Dover. Having DMUs run on the Downeaster will also enable extra seating capacity. The acceleration would hopefully be improved. Presently, the Downeaster Schedule is a big inconvenience, even with the 5th roundtrip. Plus, probably many of those trains can sell out too. Maybe by running DMUs on the Downeaster, there can be six or even seven car trains. I think that the Downeasters have five Amfleet 1s in the consist.Let's add some practicability and talk efficiency into this discussion, amongst the last commuter rail operators running both DMU's and locomotive push/pull double level trailers was the TRE (Trinity Railway Express). The TRE chief operator expresses his opinion to the DART board years ago where the break even point was between the two type of trains. He answered 4 DMUs were about as efficient as 4 trailers and a locomotive - or vice versa. At less than 4 cars trains, DMUs were more efficient, with 4 cars or more locomotives pulling/pushing trailers were more efficient.
electricron wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:49 pmI would be very surprised if that was the case.
Nothing has changed this dynamic since. Modern day DMUs are not that much more efficient than old Budd built RDCs.
David Benton wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:56 pmBudd RDCs diesels had zero lower emissions standards, all modern DMUs do.electricron wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:49 pm Nothing has changed this dynamic since. Modern day DMUs are not that much more efficient than old Budd built RDCs.I would be very surprised if that was the case.
njt/mnrrbuff wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:23 am That could be true about modern DMUs not being as efficient as Budd DMUs. The Springfield Line Shuttles would probably do fine with four DMUs. Many of those trains travel only between NHV and SPG and that’s a little over 60 miles. For your Vermonter and Northeast Regionals-then you run locomotive hauled push pull. The Piedmont’s can go either way. I would say run DMUs since those trains are only running between Charlotte and Raleigh. It’s not like they will be heading to the major population centers in the Northeast. Locomotive hauled sets on the Piedmont would be fine too. They would be also fine on the NHV-SPG/Greenfield shuttles. The bottom line is whatever Amtrak or it’s state partners decide to order, the equipment will accelerate better than a Genesis. The Genesis was designed for freight or even Amtrak’s long distance trains stopping several miles a part, not for corridor or commuter trains.DMU's can work on longer runs than you think. The New Haven ran RDC's from NY to Boston, the B&O had them on a Philadelphia-Baltimore-Pittsburgh train, and the Western Pacific (incredibly) used them for an Oakland CA - Salt Lake City service. Distance isn't the issue.
electricron wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:49 pmNothing has changed this dynamic since. Modern day DMUs are not that much more efficient than old Budd built RDCs. F59PHI locomotives are about as efficient as newer diesel locomotives. So the formula should remain the same.Amtrak's advantage with MU trainsets would be derived from time savings on power changes, increased utilization from quick turns, increased utilization from improved acceleration, increased reliability, decreased failure rate and improved energy efficiency from regenerative braking.
gokeefe wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:49 am Amtrak's advantage with MU trainsets would be derived from time savings on power changes, increased utilization from quick turns, increased utilization from improved acceleration, increased reliability, decreased failure rate and improved energy efficiency from regenerative braking.Downeaster trains do not require power changes either, which was the topic of the post I was replying to while limiting my discussion to just DMUs. The tracks the Downeaster trains run over are not electrified either, another reason to limit my earlier reply to just DMUs. DMUs and EMUs are different train types with different efficiencies and operating characteristics.
Trinity did not have to worry about power changes enroute, didn't have any gains to make from quick turns (unless they reduced fleet size), weren't concerned about improved acceleration (unless they increased service schedules), did not pay the same financial penalties to passengers for cancellation and don't use electric traction (so no benefits from increased regenerative braking).
The "straight" comparison may remain true but it isn't necessarily relevant. Amtrak derives their MU benefits from advantages that other operators aren't seeking.
electricron wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:25 pmI am sure Siemens, Stadler, Hitachi etc have all offered solutions in their RFPs to the challenges you mentioned. And I am betting they involve using one fleet type to save money and ease of maintenance (no doubt the new fleet will come with a mx package).gokeefe wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:49 am Amtrak's advantage with MU trainsets would be derived from time savings on power changes, increased utilization from quick turns, increased utilization from improved acceleration, increased reliability, decreased failure rate and improved energy efficiency from regenerative braking.Downeaster trains do not require power changes either, which was the topic of the post I was replying to while limiting my discussion to just DMUs. The tracks the Downeaster trains run over are not electrified either, another reason to limit my earlier reply to just DMUs. DMUs and EMUs are different train types with different efficiencies and operating characteristics.
Trinity did not have to worry about power changes enroute, didn't have any gains to make from quick turns (unless they reduced fleet size), weren't concerned about improved acceleration (unless they increased service schedules), did not pay the same financial penalties to passengers for cancellation and don't use electric traction (so no benefits from increased regenerative braking).
The "straight" comparison may remain true but it isn't necessarily relevant. Amtrak derives their MU benefits from advantages that other operators aren't seeking.
What applies for Downeaster trains do not apply to Keystone trains. As I wrote before, my recommendations for the Springfield trains differ from the Downeaster trains - having nothing to do with power as much as train length. If you wish to add dual modes power capabilities To the trains, my recommendations will change again.
What I am suggesting is that to be the most efficient, Amtrak might need to operate different train types. But let’s keep in mind the limitations of those train types while choosing the trains for the various corridors. My intention earlier was to state one of these limitations.