DMU Discussion, was Article on Cars for Vermonter

[wigwagfan]

OUCH.

I think that speaks volumes for an agency that uses both types of equipment. It'll be interesting to see how the DMU fares on TriMet, out here in Portland. I believe the biggest concern will be reliability, since we don't have an existing commuter rail system to compare equipment against, and our system will only be a 16 mile, limited service route with five stations. Already, the service expectations have been cut from running two-car consists to one-car consists.

Will the SFRTA DMUs be returned to the builder?

[Vincent]

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.

This problem brings into question the economic viability of FRA crashworthiness standards. I presume that the acceleration problem is related to the DMU being built like a tank to comply with FRA safety standards. Perhaps we need to build more safety into the railbeds and signalling and not rely on the vehicle for all the crashworthiness. Our highways and roads are engineered to prevent accidents and in aviation the emphasis is on accident prevention rather than accident survivability. If we build a safer, smarter rail system that prevents accidents then we can build rail vehicles that are safe and economically viable.

[RichM]

You cannot change the rules to suit the equipment.

If any of the corridors in question could isolate regular freight traffic from the transit runs, that opens a door to lighter weight equipment. In the Vermont and Florida cases, that may not be possible.

But CRC knows the rules going in. It's not like this is a road-block that's thrown up at the last moment.

[Gilbert B Norman]

If any of the corridors in question could isolate regular freight traffic from the transit runs, that opens a door to lighter weight equipment. In the Vermont and Florida cases, that may not be possible.

It appears Mr. Rich, you are noting the existing conditions on the New Jersey light rail system operating out of Camden to Trenton. While I cannot relate any first hand experiences on this system, from informed sources here at the Forum, who I know face to face, there are wide windows between "Conrail Shared Asset" freight operations over the line and that of the "non-compliant" passenger equipment,

[Vincent]

...CRC knows the rules going in.

That's exactly my point: is this CRC DMU the best we can do under the existing set of rules? Nobody wants to reduce transit safety, but if we regulate more emphasis on accident prevention will we have an overall safer transportation environment? Rail accidents are rarely collisions but more often caused by faulty maintenance.

[RichM]

Mr. Norman, yes, I'm familiar with the New Jersey Delaware Valley situation because it's almost in my extended backyard, but I also believe that is (or was) the situation in San Diego as well, and in line with the thread, the counter situation as may exist in Vermont, northeast NJ, and south Florida.

I guess to the point of other posters, there are significant opportunities and enterprises that already exist with heavy rail, without compromising or modifying the safety concerns requiring heavier weight equipment. And perhaps seeing the coverage of grade crossing accidents lately, I believe you would be hard-pressed to see a significant lowering of these standards now.

[miamicanes]

Ouch.

Was Tri-Rail's dissatisfaction mainly with the performance of a bi-level DMU pulling a single bi-level coach? Or was it more a matter of CRC overselling the "pull additional cars" capability and leading Tri-Rail to believe it could easily pull two or (god forbid) three of Tri-Rail's existing bi-level coaches?

I still suspect that a single bi-level DMU propelling only itself can probably do a perfectly good job... but probably strains a bit pulling a bi-level coach, and fails miserably trying to pull two (I noticed in their literature, the preferred consist seemed to be a pair of bi-level DMUs with a non-powered bi-level coach sandwiched in between).

Does anybody have access to some real-world acceleration benchmarks involving a single bi-level DMU, vs a bi-level DMU pulling one coach, vs Tri-Rail's normal consists (engine + 3 or more bi-level coaches)?

[ryanov]

Hard to say...

http://www.coloradorailcar.com/news-trirailtest.htm

...this would indicate they were happy enough... so I really don't know.

[Vincent]

Date of the test run was September 21. I presume 2005, maybe things have changed since then.

[hsr_fan]

Has there been any word on the cause of the fire that destroyed the single level CRC DMU car?

[wigwagfan]

A few years ago there was a detailed article in Trains Magazine, that discussed the differences in how U.S. and European railroads dealt with the topic of safety.

In short: European safety rules deal with preventing collisions - through enhanced signal systems, grade separations, separating high speed from local traffic; U.S. safety rules deal with preventing injuries/fatalities/damage in a collision - thus higher crashworthiness standards.

Whether one is right or wrong can be debated until the end; but one need only look at the number of passenger deaths onboard trains (excluding those caused by terrorism) in the U.S. and abroad - even with such incidents as that on Metrolink a few years ago, rail travel in the U.S. rarely results in little more than cuts and bruises, and maybe a trip to the hospital for a broken bone or observation, if you're involved in a collision/derailment.

Again speaking of my local backyard, the sole reason the CRC DMUs will be used is that the host railroad, the Portland & Western, would not agree to time-separation of passenger and freight movements. That restricted the choice of equipment to the DMU, a Budd RDC (which was deemed as too unreliable, even as completely rebuilt), or locomotive hauled consists. Since the trains will consist of exactly one car to start, maximum of two cars (limited due to the station design/location in Beaverton), a locomotive hauled trainset didn't seem to be a logical choice.

[miamicanes]

Well, one update. Apparently, Tri-Rail is planning to use DMUs for the proposed southern extension to Tri-Rail from MIA to Homestead. It looks like the plan is to start off with individual bi-level DMUs. For that purpose, I think just about everyone will agree that the DMUs are just about perfect. In fact, if Tri-Rail owns a single-level DMU, THAT ALONE would probably be adequate for some/most of the runs during the first year or two.

Personally, I think Tri-Rail should try an even more radical experiment... keep 6-10 rows of First-Class leather seats, and charge a few bucks extra for First-Class Tri-Rail tickets. It's not like they're going to come anywhere close to filling the trains anyway for quite a while, and it'll enable them to squeeze a few more dollars out of the first few years' worth of passengers... then again, I think Metrorail should do the same (set aside the lead car for First Class passengers, and put a second set of turnstiles on the platform where anyone wanting to sit in first has to pay an extra buck for the upgrade)....

[GeorgeF]

Personally, I think Tri-Rail should try an even more radical experiment... keep 6-10 rows of First-Class leather seats, and charge a few bucks extra for First-Class Tri-Rail tickets. It's not like they're going to come anywhere close to filling the trains anyway for quite a while, and it'll enable them to squeeze a few more dollars out of the first few years' worth of passengers...

MARC in Maryland tried that a few years ago. I think they were the last to operate true Parlor Cars in regular service; well, half a car, anyway. By "true" I mean all single seats (1+1), rotating, and reclining. There was a snack area which buffered the First Class section from the coach section. It didn't last too long, alas! I rode it just once from New Carollton to BWI airport. The parlor charge was $5 extra.

[wigwagfan]

Personally, I think Tri-Rail should try an even more radical experiment... keep 6-10 rows of First-Class leather seats, and charge a few bucks extra for First-Class Tri-Rail tickets.

That sounds exactly like German practice, having "first class" sections onboard otherwise "second class" commuter trains. Although on many trains, there is no difference between the two classes other than having a small partitioned area at one end of the train - the seats are sometimes exactly the same.

It would be interesting to see if there is a market for it, but also whether there would be a public outcry, kind of like the "Lexus Lanes" argument.

[Gilbert B Norman]

As Mr. Halstead notes, First Class commuter service seems to have stayed overseas (I can't recall if such is offered in Asia). The only version of such here has been the various Commuter Clubs but, save the METRA/UP/C&NW operation serving the Winnetka, Kennilworth, and Lake Forest crowd, all are extinct (FAIK, even the METRA operation is same; when I go to Ravinia I have "Wolfie on my mind" and not railviewing).

Strange as it sounds, there has even been a First Class subway ride in this world. The Paris/RATP Metro offered such; bevond a separate area and doorways with a "1" there was no difference in the "on-board amenities'. I rode such once in this life "just to say I did it".

But then something tells me that an airline could take one row of seats in an aircraft otherwise configured all-Coach, mark them with a label saying "First Class", treble the fare for such, and someone would still pay up to ride.

Even though the premium is only about 20%, Amtrak Regional Business Class is pretty much the same idea - but then, it seems to be what I ride when I'm "out that way".