DMU Discussion, was Article on Cars for Vermonter

[wigwagfan]

Any SPV-2000's still around? At least the shells for those could be used, you would think. Would be nice to have equipment that matches, anyway.

As of 2003, Connecticut DOT owned them.

[RichM]

Erik, my point is that Amtrak doesn't belong in the short-haul connector /feeder/transit business. CRC is promoting a transit product, not a line-haul one.

Short haul/transit system management is not an Amtrak core competency, as they seem to demonstrate more and more frequently.

I'll meet you proponents half way though in a theoretical debate. Rather than hire another beltway bandit to study this, how about running parallel service? How about a GE and three/four/five coaches on some runs, and 2-3 CRC leased consists, and compare total cost of operation, including maintenance?

[wigwagfan]

I'll meet you proponents half way though in a theoretical debate. Rather than hire another beltway bandit to study this, how about running parallel service? How about a GE and three/four/five coaches on some runs, and 2-3 CRC leased consists, and compare total cost of operation, including maintenance?

Maybe I missed the humor

What you are suggesting is exactly what SFRTA did and is doing - they are running two DMU consists interspersed with their F59/Bombardier consists. CRC claims that in these tests, there is fuel savings.

I would love to see a real-life test in long-haul conditions - compare a three, four or five car DMU consist (possibly with some of the intermediate units either depowered coaches, or half-powered (a la Budd RDC-9s) - and use them as a "experimental revenue train" on an existing corridor - the Hiawatha, the Cascades, one of the many California or Illinois corridors, or one of the NEC feeder routes (the Downeaster? Springfield Shuttle? Ethan Allen?) How about a second Piedmont? Compare the operating costs between the two trainsets - the conventional and the DMU set. Alternate the trainsets between the schedules, and have customers complete surveys about the equipment.

If one trainset, provided entirely by CRC, proved that some cost savings was to be found, I would have no problem with Congress funding several more trainsets for other corridors, if it meant saving money in the long run -- as long as the equipment being replaced was either in need of replacement, or alternate uses could be found for them (i.e. higher density routes) rather than consigning them to the rust-yards.

[RichM]

OK, now you're talking!

That was the Air Canada model for regional jets, develop the route, then enlarge the capacity by moving to convential aircraft.

And actually that is my original point, there are too many locomotives sitting idle right now, so incremental savings don't really make sense. It's a no-brainer to say that a lower horsepower engine will use less fuel if the power is optimized to the loading. It's a stretch if you already own depreciated equipment capable of continued use so long as the upgraded maintenance costs are not excessive, or the capital rebuilding costs are less than new equipment.

Of course, it's not as pretty to be your congressman or senator standing in front of it though, vs. brand new stuff.

[Noel Weaver]

I'll meet you proponents half way though in a theoretical debate. Rather than hire another beltway bandit to study this, how about running parallel service? How about a GE and three/four/five coaches on some runs, and 2-3 CRC leased consists, and compare total cost of operation, including maintenance?

Maybe I missed the humor

What you are suggesting is exactly what SFRTA did and is doing - they are running two DMU consists interspersed with their F59/Bombardier consists. CRC claims that in these tests, there is fuel savings.

I would love to see a real-life test in long-haul conditions - compare a three, four or five car DMU consist (possibly with some of the intermediate units either depowered coaches, or half-powered (a la Budd RDC-9s) - and use them as a "experimental revenue train" on an existing corridor - the Hiawatha, the Cascades, one of the many California or Illinois corridors, or one of the NEC feeder routes (the Downeaster? Springfield Shuttle? Ethan Allen?) How about a second Piedmont? Compare the operating costs between the two trainsets - the conventional and the DMU set. Alternate the trainsets between the schedules, and have customers complete surveys about the equipment.

If one trainset, provided entirely by CRC, proved that some cost savings was to be found, I would have no problem with Congress funding several more trainsets for other corridors, if it meant saving money in the long run -- as long as the equipment being replaced was either in need of replacement, or alternate uses could be found for them (i.e. higher density routes) rather than consigning them to the rust-yards.

I have yet to see a DMU train on Tri-Rail although I have been watching
for them. I am not saying that they haven't been used, I know they used
the demo equipment for a while but I haven't seen them on the road so
far. I did take a ride on a regular train down to Miami a couple of months
ago and there was a test train out with one of them but it crapped out and
gummed up the whole works for an hour or more, got back here really
behind schedule that day and I couldn't even blame CSX for it although
CSX did contribute to the delay.
They might not be bad cars for Tri-Rail if and when they get the "bugs" out
of them, I think the jury is still out though.
Noel Weaver

[wigwagfan]

I have yet to see a DMU train on Tri-Rail although I have been watching for them. I am not saying that they haven't been used, I know they used the demo equipment for a while but I haven't seen them on the road so far. I did take a ride on a regular train down to Miami a couple of months ago and there was a test train out with one of them but it crapped out and gummed up the whole works for an hour or more

Boy am I happy to hear from someone who is more knowledgable about the cars in their new homes in Florida. I'm surprised to hear they aren't used more often, and I heard that an initial test run of the bi-level DMUs was actually cancelled due to mechanical.

Keep us updated on their status, particularly if you get a chance to ride them.

[Noel Weaver]

I have yet to see a DMU train on Tri-Rail although I have been watching for them. I am not saying that they haven't been used, I know they used the demo equipment for a while but I haven't seen them on the road so far. I did take a ride on a regular train down to Miami a couple of months ago and there was a test train out with one of them but it crapped out and gummed up the whole works for an hour or more

Boy am I happy to hear from someone who is more knowledgable about the cars in their new homes in Florida. I'm surprised to hear they aren't used more often, and I heard that the "initial run" of the bi-level DMUs was actually cancelled due to mechanical.

Keep us updated on their status, particularly if you get a chance to ride them.

Please, a correction, it was not the initial trip but rather a test trip that
conked out that particular day.
I have been watching for the DMU's and when I get an opportunity, I will
ride them as soon as I can after they are finally up and running.
Noel Weaver

[miamicanes]

Is there anyone at Tri-Rail who (unofficially) knows when the DMU is likely to be used? I've been randomly running by the Miami Airport station (ready to drop everything and ride it to WPB and back if I happen to see it there), but no luck so far. So far, the closest I've gotten to the DMU is riding past it in the Hialeah yard on a "normal" Tri-Rail train. I emailed them, but the useless canned reply just listed their normal schedule (my guess is that it ended up on the computer of an outsourced employee in Nevada or India who has no idea what a "DMU" is, or knew... but lacked a relevant canned reply, and simply bounced back the schedule to keep up their quota).

Now... keeping this relevant to Amtrak... one potential application for DMUs I thought of would be for routes that begin their runs at a common station and run for a few hundred miles together (possibly pulled by a normal diesel locomotive at 100-110mph, if CRC could tweak the DMUs to be passively pull-able at higher speeds than they can run under their own power), then break apart and go their separate ways under their own power for the last 50-100 miles. This approach would provide the best of all worlds... labor savings for Amtrak (individual engineers only needed for the "last stretch"), plus the convenience of direct service for passengers who'd otherwise have to change trains.

[JimBoylan]

Any SPV-2000's still around? At least the shells for those could be used.

Some of the shells for the unbuilt SPV-2000s were moved to Metchon Industries in Wilmington, Del. after the Budd Red Lion Rd. Plant liquidation auction. Budd had been planning to build some for stock, inventory, and speculation, about 9 or 12 got as far as shells on trucks. Look on the West side of the NorthEast Corridor just North of Wilmington Amtrak station. There's often something interesting there, they also do commuter car wreck repairs.
The consultants for the Dallas-Ft. Worth commuter line considered the shells, but thought that the de-powered Boston RDCs were also stainless steel, but more completed.
A previous post mentioned that the operating SPV-2000 demonstrator car was torn down along with the buildings when Red Lion Plant was turned into a county club.

[henry6]

Erik, my point is that Amtrak doesn't belong in the short-haul connector /feeder/transit business. CRC is promoting a transit product, not a line-haul one.

Short haul/transit system management is not an Amtrak core competency, as they seem to demonstrate more and more frequently.

I'll meet you proponents half way though in a theoretical debate. Rather than hire another beltway bandit to study this, how about running parallel service? How about a GE and three/four/five coaches on some runs, and 2-3 CRC leased consists, and compare total cost of operation, including maintenance?

And therein lies the problem: a defnition of the role AMTRAK has in moving passengers in the USA. Is it just for long distance (and define long distance)? Is it just for inter city operations (and define intercity)? Can it be for commuters, too (and define commuter and commuter corridor)? Or is it just a politcal financial football to be kicked around every years while the goal posts keep moving?

Remember, too, that European rail is geared toward passenger service while highways are for freight...different operating cultures, needs and philosophies than American freight oriented railroading.

All that being said, there defnitiely is a need for DMU type trains. B&O, NYC, Pacific Great Eastern and other Canadian roads (to name a few) all had non-commuter (just for discription) services with Budd RDC's. Like any car RDC's were built for commuter and long distance services with different seating arrangements and styles.

Rationalizing a rail passenger, or just plain "passenger", system is what has to be done here. Feeder lines using DMU makes a lot of sense, even DMU service of several hundred miles, plus other line services not integrated with corridors. The role of each route, each train has to be taken into consideration but not until the whole role of AMTRAK is defined and (the impossible dream) depoliticized.

[wigwagfan]

And therein lies the problem: a defnition of the role AMTRAK has in moving passengers in the USA. Is it just for long distance (and define long distance)? Is it just for inter city operations (and define intercity)? Can it be for commuters, too (and define commuter and commuter corridor)?

Legally, the role of Amtrak is of the following:

(b) Purpose.--By using innovative operating and marketing concepts, Amtrak shall provide intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation that completely develops the potential of modern rail transportation to meet the intercity and commuter passenger transportation needs of the United States.

Specific to commuter operations as referenced above,

(6) As a rail passenger transportation entity, Amtrak should be
available to operate commuter rail passenger transportation through its
subsidiary, Amtrak Commuter, under contract with commuter authorities
that do not provide the transportation themselves as part of the
governmental function of the State.

Of which, the definition of "commuter" and "long-distance" are:

(4) ``commuter rail passenger transportation'' means short-haul rail passenger transportation in metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, multiple-ride, and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak period operations.
(5) ``intercity rail passenger transportation'' means rail passenger transportation, except commuter rail passenger transportation.

All that being said, there defnitiely is a need for DMU type trains. B&O, NYC, Pacific Great Eastern and other Canadian roads (to name a few) all had non-commuter (just for discription) services with Budd RDC's. Like any car RDC's were built for commuter and long distance services with different seating arrangements and styles.

Rationalizing a rail passenger, or just plain "passenger", system is what has to be done here. Feeder lines using DMU makes a lot of sense, even DMU service of several hundred miles, plus other line services not integrated with corridors. The role of each route, each train has to be taken into consideration but not until the whole role of AMTRAK is defined and (the impossible dream) depoliticized.

Unfortunately, as long as Amtrak remains as is (the status quo) Amtrak will be a political football. Without a dedicated source of funding (who wants to raise gas taxes even higher to fund Amtrak now?) or profitability, or a clearly defined benefit for the cost, Amtrak will be subject to the annual "will we shut it down? will we appropriate it more money?" song and dance. The LD network itself costs $600M annually to operate and maintain, for just over 3M passengers - the remaining $600M in Amtrak's FY06 appropriation covered systemwide depreciation, overhead, and the much smaller operating loss from the NEC and 403(b) operations. "Amtrak Commuter", a business that Amtrak is largely getting out of, is generally "profitable" for the company and returns money towards the other operations, as does Amtrak's real estate holdings.

The reason you're seeing the DMU sold as a transit vehicle is because that's how Colorado Railcar, the manufacturer of the vehicle, is marketing it. Even in Europe, DMUs are largely a "regional" train concept, although "regional" takes on a very different meaning in Europe than in the U.S. (A mainline European train, for example, would qualify as a "regional" train in the U.S. Only the international, cross-border trains in Europe would qualify as a "Long Distance" train in the U.S.) The Budd RDC wasn't sold as a commuter vehicle, it was sold essentially as a way for railroads to continue providing required services (in the days before Amtrak and deregulation) with lower costs. Of course, some of the northeastern railroads successfully used the RDC in commuter service. Railroads like the Southern Pacific, Great Northern, Western Pacific, Northern Pacific, and Santa Fe - only owned a few RDCs - in fact SP owned only one. The RDC appeared to be more successful in Canada, being used on routes of several hundred miles - but hardly routes that had a significant "tourist" or "first class" clientele - rather routes that needed the essential service (a la Alaska RR's Hurricane Turn, Via's Malahat).

I entirely agree that we need to look at the role of intercity transportation, and look at where transportation is needed and the best way to accomplish it. I do not for one second believe we need to focus on rail - in many, many cases - motorcoach (bus) transportation is the best way to go - in terms of fuel economy, pollution, and matching of need to capacity. It is not to say, however, that rail is not the answer - rail can and very well is the answer in many cases, and the DMU has an important part to play in making rail viable. DMUs have the benefit of being combined together, or broken apart - as miamicanes suggested. For example, in my neighborhood of northwestern Oregon, a DMU train could theoretically start in Portland and make its way to Eugene - with individual cars breaking off the mainline at Woodburn (for Mt. Angel and Silverton), Albany (for Corvallis/Philomath to the west, Lebanon/Sweet Home to the east), Eugene (for the suburbs to the west and east). On the under-construction Beaverton-Wilsonville Commuter Line, a two-car DMU consist could be broken up (southbound) in Tualatin - one car continue to Wilsonville, but the other car use the line to Sherwood.

Are there going to be labor issues that need to be addressed? Of course. But first we must analyze the need, determine the best way to resolve the need, and make it happen. Will it cost money? Of course. But we must keep at the forefront, that we need to focus on need - not mode. If rail doesn't make sense, we need to have the discipline to say so. If busses don't make sense, we need to have the foresight to look at rail options.

[John_Perkowski]

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

I have edited the title of the thread, as we have wandered far afield from the Vermonter to a broader discussion of DMU.

[John_Perkowski]

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

I have not yet learned how to move a single post between threads.

Mr TrainHQ posted a new thread on the Vermonter DMU. To bring the discussion here closer to our original topic, I have brought his message to the threadline:

Message
trainhq
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 287
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: DMU Vermonter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like Vermont is seriously considering running the Vermonter with DMU's, and stopping it at New Haven.

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df0 ... shtml#News

So what do people think? Is this a good/bad idea? I personally sort of like it; I've ridden the Vermonter, and I think it would be a good run for DMU's, since there's usually about 100 people on board. However,
not having a direct connection to New York might cause some people to stop riding it. Any comments?

[trainhq]

My apologies on the late post; I didn't see the thread from Friday when I posted it. You guys are way ahead of me! I'd also been wondering about how well the DMU was doing in Florida, but apparently the answer is,
not very, which is too bad. I think the best that CRC could do now would be to have a bigger company (Bombardier) buy out their design and build it. I just think most agencies have been scared off by the
Rader railcar reputation for workmanship problems, and the lack of a sizable maintenance crew/facility to back up the equipment; plus, there are doubts whether the company will be there in 10-20 years to provide parts and service for their vehicles. Overall, I think it's too bad that the DMU didn't catch on; under the right circumstances, I definitely think there is a market for it, and it's sad that no major company has acted to fill this niche.

[trainhq]

Some more info I dug up from the "Trains" web site on the DMU test in Florida. It's really too bad it didn't work.
If done right, it was a good idea.

I've talked to some people over the past few weeks regarding Tri-Rail and the Colorado Railcar DMU project, and it doesn't look like Tri-Rail will recieve any powered cars. After testing the units it was determined because of the transmission (not having traction motors) that the units could not accelerate as quickly as the F-40's, and they were not suited for their operation. They do plan on recieveing Colorado Railcar Cab Cars and Coaches, but no powered units will be delivered, especially after the fire with the original DMU. No delivery date has been set for the new units, but a few have been tested within the past few weeks. Also note, this is not official, but it's the word on the street from some reliable sources.