SMART - Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit

I recently ran across a 5 page TRE report, much of which has no relevance to SMART, but two paragraphs contain information SMART supporters may find interesting.
http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/20 ... -Costs.pdf

"The shift from DMU to locomotive hauled equipment provided a major cost savings. In addition to the significantly lower capital cost per seat, the staffing requirements for a train of either type of equipment are similar. Each train requires one train operator and one train attendant. Fuel consumption is equivalent at two gallons per mile.
The savings are realized when the ridership demand exceeds approximately 280 seats on a train. This is the seating capacity of either a two car bi- level consist or a three car RDC set. To provide a seat costs approximately $0.064 per seat mile (one seat traveling one mile).
The expansion west created peak period passenger demands which required the TRE to commence operating consists of three and four bi- levels. These loads greatly exceeded the carrying capacity of the earlier RDC trains. A three car bi- level train costs $0.048 per seat mile to operate. Adding the fourth car to the train decreases the costs to $0.042 per seat mile. In the future, the TRE plans to operate five car trains at a cost estimated to be $0.037 per seat mile."

There's the data that shows RDCs (DMUs) are cheaper to operate up to three DMUs on a train. Of course, this report suggest the opposite is true, that DMUs are more expensive to operate when you have more than three DMUs on a train. Both statements are true.

What's relevant to SMART supporters is that SMART will be operationing trains with just two DMUs initially, and expanding train consists to a maximum of three DMUs later. Therefore, DMUs should be cheaper to operate than conventional bi-level trains for SMART.

another thing to keep in mind is that RDCs were FRA-compliant and therefore heavy. The DMUs that SMART will be using will require FRA waivers and will be much lighter, and thus, should consume significantly less fuel.

lensovet wrote:another thing to keep in mind is that RDCs were FRA-compliant and therefore heavy. The DMUs that SMART will be using will require FRA waivers and will be much lighter, and thus, should consume significantly less fuel.

The DMUs SMART is buying will be FRA complaint, will not need any waivers at all, and will be heavier than non FRA compliant DMUs they could have ordered. All DMUs are lighter than traditional locomotives because the diesel engines in them are smaller. SMART's DMUs will nmeet the same crashworthiness standards of larger, heavier locomotives.
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents ... sPart2.pdf
Here's the list of manufactures who submitted bids to SMART's RFP, only two of the bids needed waivers.
Proposer Price (9 three car sets)
CAF USA Inc. $136.7 M (FRA Compliant)
U.S. Railcar $131.5 M (FRA Compliant)
Stadler Rail AG $124.0 M (Needs Waiver)
Siemens $121.2 M (FRA Compliant)
Siemens Alternate $104.6 M (Needs Waiver)
Sumitomo / Nippon Sharyo $82.7 M (FRA Compliant)

electricron wrote:

lensovet wrote:another thing to keep in mind is that RDCs were FRA-compliant and therefore heavy. The DMUs that SMART will be using will require FRA waivers and will be much lighter, and thus, should consume significantly less fuel.

The DMUs SMART is buying will be FRA complaint, will not need any waivers at all, and will be heavier than non FRA compliant DMUs they could have ordered. All DMUs are lighter than traditional locomotives because the diesel engines in them are smaller. SMART's DMUs will nmeet the same crashworthiness standards of larger, heavier locomotives.
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents ... sPart2.pdf
Here's the list of manufactures who submitted bids to SMART's RFP, only two of the bids needed waivers.
Proposer Price (9 three car sets)
CAF USA Inc. $136.7 M (FRA Compliant)
U.S. Railcar $131.5 M (FRA Compliant)
Stadler Rail AG $124.0 M (Needs Waiver)
Siemens $121.2 M (FRA Compliant)
Siemens Alternate $104.6 M (Needs Waiver)
Sumitomo / Nippon Sharyo $82.7 M (FRA Compliant)

hm, i stand corrected.

While there is more to milage than engine horsepower vs total weight of the train, those two data points are usually pretty accurate for determine which type of train is cheaper to operate. Labor costs between the two types of trains (FRA rules in effect) are the same.

F59PH locomotive = 3,000 hp, 260,000 lbs
Nippon Sharyo "Gallery" = 110,000 lbs
Nippon Sharyo "DMU" = 600 hp, 116,000 lbs (TriMet's WES DMU hp, Nippon Sharyo EMU cab weight)

It would take 5 DMUs to reach the same hp of one locomotive.
It would take more than 2 DMUs to reach the same weight as one locomotive.
Both statistics are advantages in favor of the DMUs.

Does anyone have confirmation as to the powerplant in these DMUs? Google is being vexingly vague on the matter. TIA.

dowlingm wrote:Does anyone have confirmation as to the powerplant in these DMUs? Google is being vexingly vague on the matter. TIA.

I had difficulties finding horsepower and weight for the Nippon Sharyo DMUs too, that's why I used similar DMU and EMUs as data for them.

The likely powerplant is a Cummins product, such as their QSK19. Nippon Sharyo has used Cummins engines in their Japanese market DMUs.

http://www.cumminspr.com/Off-Highway-Pr ... a=24935366

kaitoku wrote:The likely powerplant is a Cummins product, such as their QSK19. Nippon Sharyo has used Cummins engines in their Japanese market DMUs.

http://www.cumminspr.com/Off-Highway-Pr ... a=24935366

Per the link:
The new Cummins QSK19-R engine with 755-hp (563 kW) with an integrated Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) aftertreatment meets both the U.S. EPA Tier 4 and European Stage IIIB Railcar very low-emissions regulations taking effect in 2015. The 6-cylinder, 19-liter engine and SCR aftertreatment is available ready for incorporation within a Cummins-designed underfloor railpack for installation in Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) railcars.

The probability this will be the diesel engine package is very high, imho. 755 hp is slightly larger than 600 hp, still much smaller than the 3,000 hp traditional diesel locomotives.

thanks guys. Presumably (surely) the same powerplant is going in the Metrolinx ones - trying to get a handle on likely ambient noise using manufacturer data as the complaining from vocal residents groups along the Toronto Air Rail Link construction zone is something else. I don't know if anyone else is doing powerpacks of that size for railroad applications in the US anyway, and MTU's wouldn't work for Buy America content.

Progress report on work being done on the line:

With construction crews finishing track replacement work through Santa Rosa this month, officials at Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit are starting to plan for the final stages of the $360 million project that will link Santa Rosa to San Rafael.

So far about 15 miles of track have been completed in Sonoma County, along with the repair or replacement of 25 road crossings and six bridges, work that was part of a $105 million package of contracts now nearing completion.

Next, SMART plans to award up to $80 million in new contracts this spring, primarily to finish the southern end, from the Marin Civic Center to downtown San Rafael, but also to complete work in Sonoma County.

complete article:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... /130319877

Seating passes safety tests:

The seats for the new Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit commuter rail cars have passed required safety tests, a month after failing the first round of testing.

The manufacturer, Kustom Seating Unlimited of Bellwood, Ill., made modifications after the first tests and the units passed, SMART officials said.

In the original test, the frame of the seats failed under the force of a simulated high-speed collision, so the company made improvements to better absorb crash energy, spokeswoman Carolyn Glendening said.

more:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... /130419567

An update on track work. Includes some photos of the work done so far.

OFFICIALS FOR THE Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit commuter train announced a milestone last month: Half of the new track for the train's first segment has already been put down on terra firma.

That might come as a surprise to Marin County residents who have seen little work so far in Marin, where voters helped fund the train by approving a quarter-cent sales tax in 2008. Though some 17 miles of track has been laid in Sonoma County, beyond removal of some old rail near the Civic Center in San Rafael there has been little train work in Marin.

SMART officials say that soon will change as Marin activity picks up over the coming year.

http://www.marinij.com/novato/ci_233576 ... -next-year" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some pictures of the railcar bodyshell:
http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfi ... _Final.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Residents angry about passing track being built behind their fences...

The board of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit system approved a $3.4 million passing track project in Rohnert Park and Cotati today despite angry protests from neighbors, which led to one man being removed from the meeting and provoked testy discussion among board members.

The project will add a second set of tracks along about 4,000 feet. This will allow the planned high-speed commuter rail trains, set to debut in 2016, to pass one another safely in both directions.

The passing track in Rohnert Park and Cotati is one of four planned projects along the otherwise single-track line. Other siding projects to allow trains to pass one another will be in Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Novato.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... ati#page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

*are 4000 foot passing tracks necessary? Isn't a loop at the station adequate, if you have good schedule discipline?