DMU Discussion, was Article on Cars for Vermonter

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


Looks like Amtrak is trying to make Vermont be the guinea-pig to try out the Colorado Rail Car DMUs. A lot of interesting points in this article, saying the new cars will be faster and more efficient. Hmmm... I seem to remember reading that during snowy conditions, the old Budd cars would have to have locomotives haul them. So there goes the locomotive savings.

Really, how much faster would these cars be? I think if you want to improve speeds on the route, and you have money to spend on new cars, toss some money Pan-Am's way to fix up the Conn River Line through Massachusetts, or reinstate the baggage car or adjust schedules so that the train leaves later on Fridays from New York and later on Sundays from Vermont, to cater to weekend travelers, winter enthusiasts, etc.

Don't fix what isn't broken - the train works fine now.

Comments?

-Jay H.

Makes perfect sense to me... yards full of stored equipment and locomotives, why not buy something new?

Even the hint of something like this is what kills support for Amtrak from those sitting on the fence in Washington.

Unless of course, Colorado Rail Car plans to reopen the Barre facility, then all bets are off! It's a great idea! At least for the Vermont delegation!

I've never been on a Vermonter that wasn't 2/3rds full.

RichM wrote:Makes perfect sense to me... yards full of stored equipment and locomotives, why not buy something new?

I swear I remember in one of the recent Amtrak capital improvement budgets (2 years ago maybe) that there was plans to buy DMUs for short haul service - maybe they finally got around to it.... Ah:

Senate Report 108-342 - TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005 wrote:Diesel-multiple Units- The Committee is encouraged by Amtrak's advancement of the procurement of FRA compliant DMU railcars for delivery early in fiscal year 2006 that will be used for commuter rail service operated by Amtrak in Vermont, Wisconsin, Illinois, Oklahoma, New York, Oregon, Connecticut, Washington, and California. The Committee understands the numerous efficiency, environmental, operational, and cost-saving benefits that will be achieved by this procurement. This is a positive example of a sound business decision that will well serve Amtrak, its riders, and is the type of economically grounded decision that the Committee encourages.

And as for yards full of stored equipment and locomotives - I thought most (if not all) of that stuff was unusable (either wrecked, in need of complete overhaul, or just unsuitable for current service needs).

Sir Ray, with all due respect, I disagree.

Bringing new equipment into the mix of already underfunded ongoing maintenance seems to me penny wise and dollar foolish. We can have the debate about capital vs. maintenance budgets, that's fine. But equipment that differs significantly from the rest of the rolling stock implies dedicated maintenance resources if not dedicated locations. From the geographies in the article, it would appear that these units might be assigned anywhere in the US...

I just fail to see the utility here. Is Amtrak involved in the commuter business directly? I should think not, only as an operating contractor, and in that role, they are frequently displaced. If Vermont chooses to buy the units, that's one issue, if it's federal funds, we're stepping back into the Warrington area.

The snow observation is correct, although not universal. In this part of the world, the New Haven RR regularly used locomotivs to pull branchline RDCs in heavy snow conditions to prevent derailments at grade crossings with ice-packed flanges where the lightweight RDC might ride up. It's the same reason Amtrak has run a locomotive at both ends of the "Vermonter" in the winter rather than letting a cab car lead. The Boston & Maine did that sort of thing much less frequently -- the Blizzard of '78 being a notable exception -- probaby because its Boston commuter routes had such frequent service that the flangeways stayed clear.

CN and CP both ran lots of RDC routes up north and I don't recall it being a common practice on either of those railroads either (although I never rode any Canadian RDC routes in the dead of winter!), although substitutions of standard equipment for RDCs (on the CN anyway) in extreme weather did happen sometimes. In any case, the suitability of the Colorado DMU for heavy snow conditions is an issue that would hopefully be addressed.

Also, note that the DMU proposal kills through service to New York and Washington by requiring a change at New Haven. That's going to scare away a few riders.

I agree with Mr. Jay -- equipment-wise, the train isn't broken.

I disagree with the prevailing sentiment here--I think this arrangement is a great idea. First off, the whole point is to test the DMUs, not install them permanently. So if the new equipment doesn't work in the snow, or if they don't save any fuel, they'll find out. Read to the end of the article and you'll see that at the end of the three years (before interest on the loan is due), Vermont has the option to sell the trainsets back to Colorado Railcar for 90 percent of the original purchase price--so the total risk to the state is under $2 million. It sounds like VT and Amtrak are pretty much sharing the costs equally.

It's clear Amtrak needs DMU, particularly north of New Haven, where they power a lot of two- and three-car trains behind full diesels, which has to be a huge waste of fuel. As the article notes, the Vermonter requires two diesels, which is especially ridiculous, considering the train doesn't seem to break 50 mph north of Springfield. And my (albeit single) experience riding the Vermonter on a warm August day last year was that the train was packed to Springfield, and practically empty north of Springfield.

Since Amtrak predicts a 40 percent rider increase with DMUs that hold less capacity than the current configuration, it sounds like they expect to add frequencies, which again is a better deal for everyone.

One thing I'm not clear on, though, is what basis do they have for saying the DMUs would be faster?

--Robb

The idea of Vermont trying to maintain a sui generous fleet of 5 DMU units for a once-a-day frequency sounds extraordinarly inefficient to me. In addition, having to switch trains at New Haven to corridor trains which can otherwise be extremely crowded really stinks. Moreover, I wonder what the odds are of having any food service available on the DMUs. Furthermore, a DMU shuttle will kill forever any hopes of seeing station services and checked baggage restored.

Once again, Amtrak's neocon beholden, beltway management team is still proving that it has yet to reach rock bottom when it comes to terrible service. Just when you think the service could not be worse, Amtrak's beltway management steps up to the plate to demonstrate that the depths of low-quality service have yet to be plumbed.

From a purely financial standpoint, I fail to see why the feds is so englamored with one specific company. Already, the FTA has helped one transit agency buy six Colorado Railcarproducts (South Florida Regional Transportation Agency/Tri-Rail), and that agency has not placed a single, larger order from CRC on its own - but has purchased more locomotive/car trainsets. No other entity in the United States - not even the Alaska Railroad, which CRC says provided the inspiration for the DMU - has placed an order. Obiviously, the DMUs are not being sold on their own merits. Just judging from Colorado Railcar's own webpage and press releases, the flood of frequent, positive reviews of the DMU have gone away, and the most recent information shows a leadership change so that one of their top execs can work on CRC's new venture (the takeover of the former American Orient Express). I would be led to believe that CRC knows something and that the future of the DMU might be in question.

From a mechanical standpoint, has all of the testing proven that the CRC DMU is more reliable - a three-car trainset now has SIX engines, not one. Do those six engines save fuel versus one P42? Could Amtrak possibly look at purchasing a smaller locomotive; say something based upon a GP38-2 (2000 hp) or GP40-2 (3000 hp), that meets the EPA Tier II emissions requirements, but is more mechanically suited to a shorter train? All of the testing documents I show are of an extremely biased and unequal comparison - a single DMU's fuel usage, compared to a F59PHI and trainset. (Can the DMU pull the number of coaches equal to the number of cars in the trainset? Can multiple DMUs be hooked up for a more equal comparison? Colorado Railcar would have to actually build twice as many DMUs than what already exists, just to test!)

On the surface, this sounds like a great idea - but some big questions need to be asked and answered. If CRC truly is willing to lease a trainset for three years and then buy the trainset back no questions asked, let's make it happen. But if CRC is just holding its hands out for more federal money that isn't being offered equitably, then it's just another case of pork-barrel spending that needs to be cut off at the source.

Although Amtrak has a surplus of unassigned A-I's, Vermont apparently has a "surplus" of railcar building facilities, namely with this Farmrail concern as well as the shuttered Bombardier facility at Barre. Somehow, I think these pols lining up in favor of the project have in mind a major subcontract let by CRC to a Vermont industry.

That subcontract could well be final assembly; look at all those grand photo-ops as the cars roll off the line with the pol "beaming for the cam' surrounded by worker/constituents.

The next re-election campaign caption will read "s/he creates jobs for Vermonters; s/he brings visitors to Vermont"

Pro DMU:

• *Colorado Railcars can be built with large panorama windows to provide excellent viewing,
  *the financing package is low risk to Vermont citizens,
  *the Colorado Railcar is the only new FRA compliant DMU manufactured in the world (that I know of), it's time for a road test,
  *these cars will be shiny new and more reliable, unless (see below)...

Against DMU

• *a 2 seat ride from Vermont to NYC isn't going to be very attractive,
  *this new train is unproven and subject to who knows what bugs (see Acela).

Let's leave it up to the good citizens of Vermont to decide and wish them the best.

Well said, everyone, but I cannot escape the conclusion that if the Vermonter's ridership does not support conventional train service -- and I would not be surprised to hear that it doesn't, considering the low quality of services that Amtrak is currently providing -- then it would be better to simply bag the train service north of Springfield and replace it with connecting motor coach service that operates all the way up to Montreal.

Under the current service pattern, the connection to Montreal is gone. The schedule is unbelievably slow. The stations are all closed. Baggage service is no more.

With DMUs, the connection in New Haven would be extremely inconvenient. No one has addressed the services, if any, that would be offered on board.

At least motor coaches could connect with a train in Springfield (hopefully a through train with food service being offered). Two or three Motor coaches could depart Montreal covering more than one route route through Vermont. This would bring more service to the state. A motor coach can travel almost twice as fast as the train under current track conditions in Vermont. (Six hours, ten minutes by train from SAB to SPG? Puh-leeze.)

As far as I am concerned, this DMU proposal is just more of our federal government operating at its worst.

They've gone back to using the cab car, instead of a second Genesis diesel unit, on the Vermonter, or at least on the last four times I've ridden it recently. Will be on the Vermonter over Labor Day weekend, so I'll report back. The Cab Car is only in service from New Haven to Palmer Junction (just east of Springfield) - before the reverse move occurs.

Interesting - I know Vermont was looking at extending the Ethan Allen Express to Burlington, extending one or two Springfield Shuttles to White River Junction etc. There were a few things being thrown around, but none ever materialized.

I have to admit that Wigwagfan has forced me to stop and question my original total enthusiasm for the DMUs. I still haven't quite stopped thinking they're nearly perfect (at least, on paper and in the tests that have been done and documented so far), but he does have a point.

I think the sentiment can pretty much be summed up as...

* For small trains carrying fewer than 200 people, DMUs are one of those ideas that just fundamentally make sense. The pervasive presence of DMUs in Europe for medium-distance intercity rail seems to back this sentiment up.

* The Colorado Railcar lovefest is mainly because they're the only ones who actually have a market-ready DMU to sell in America. I suspect if someone like Siemens, Bombardier, or Talgo had a comparable market-ready product, CR would likely lose the transit-agency market instantly (though it would probably still maintain a strong base among small operators whose entire fleets can be parked along a single station platform... the ones too small for the larger companies to even bother with). Frankly, given the amount of interest CR has aroused, I'm surprised that at least Bombardier hasn't "gone all the way" and gotten their own DMU officially approved.

IMHO, if/when Bombardier finally releases their DMU as a market-ready product, I suspect Siemens, Talgo, or another manufacturer will step in and buy CRC outright (or at least buy the rights to manufacture and sell its design). I still suspect CRC's biggest problem right now is lead time and manufacturing capacity, and that more than anything might be leading otherwise-interested parties into looking elsewhere. The fact is, if I need n railcars in y months, it doesn't matter how nice CR's might be if they can only sell me 1/3 the number I need and need twice as long as my timeline to make them.

To me, the issue seems to be the time between first sticking snow and last snowmelt:
- If the consist requires pilot locomotives or ex-locomotives in the cab-baggage role (think tonnage) as a railwy "icebreaker," then are you getting payoff using DMU units as trailing cars?
- Has Amtrak and/or Vermont committed to buying the various spare parts needed to maintain the fleet? Sending a broken car to Colorado makes no sense. As an old truck, howitzer, and APC maintenance officer, not having parts on hand when the end item goes bad-order extends the delay until the unit is back in service.