# Sprinter



## WhoozOn1st

Sprinter, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.

When I first learned of the new diesel-powered light rail line, in northern San Diego county between Oceanside and Escondido, I was quite pleased.

Then I rode it.

A number of assumptions on my part were destroyed. Yes, I know about assuming.

First assumption, sight unseen, was that diesel-powered meant diesel electric. Sprinter is not diesel electric. It's diesel mechanical or diesel hydraulic, a distinction without a difference in operations but perhaps crucial when it comes to maintenance.

Upon alighting from a Coaster at Oceanside I was looking forward to my first Sprinter ride. Ticketing was easy, boarding was simple, the motorman was a jovial chap who bade me good morning, and I was ready for a nice train ride.

And there the fairytale ended.

Sprinter is a bus on steel wheels and tracks. It sounds like a bus. It drives like a bus. It accelerates and decelerates like a bus, with the jerky shifting of gears like a bus. If not for the horn and grade crossings one might be forgiven for mistaking Sprinter for a bus. It's that bad.

And Sprinter is SLOW. The trainset seemed to mechanically complain upon leaving each station, and there were the bus-like jerks of shifting gears as Sprinter reluctantly accelerated (if that's the word) to a speed that many racehorses would find laughable. Several breeds of snails would be competitive with Sprinter.

Sprinter stations are very elaborate, and I found myself wondering whether the money required for them could not have been better spent on electrification of the line.

I had embarked upon my Sprinter sojourn as a joyride, but it quickly became a Journey of Torture.

Maybe this equipment works in Europe, where torture is a way of life, but it's not for SoCal. A mistake.

EDIT: The only cars passed in either direction were those held behind gates at grade crossings.

EDIT 2: And I seriously doubt any cars hit would have suffered more than minor dents. Sprinter is incredibly slow.


----------



## the_traveler

Now I see what you mean! At least it doesn't run down the middle of I-5 (or does it :huh: ) and you think you're in the bus lane!


----------



## WhoozOn1st

the_traveler said:


> Now I see what you mean! At least it doesn't run down the middle of I-5 (or does it :huh: ) and you think you're in the bus lane!


No, Dave, Sprinter runs east-west between Oceanside and Escondido. I-5 runs north-south on the coast.

Your reply reminded me that I forgot to include the promised Sprinter videos.



The second one is very poor visually, because the operator pulled down the sunshade. The main point was to capture the sound, which didn't work out so well either.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

I'm sooo glad you posted that, and the videos.

I smell something (besides diesel) that the Sonoma-Marin SMART train district is about to pull.

Here see a promo video of what SMART hopes to build, the Sprinter, set to swing music, conveniently with no real world sound;

SMART promo.

Compare that with your recordings. What the heck did we buy up here?

I also assumed it was diesel/electric. Hydraulic drive? You're right, it does sound like a bus.

This is going to **** a lot of people off, especially those that voted against it, saying use buses on paved over track as an alternative. :angry:

EDIT:

I just sent a nastygram to the Community Outreach and Education Manager. He's a pretty reasonable man, I expect he'd answer.


----------



## p&sr

WhoozOn1st said:


> Sprinter is a bus on steel wheels and tracks. It sounds like a bus. It drives like a bus. It accelerates and decelerates like a bus, with the jerky shifting of gears like a bus.


This settles the issue of whether to call the Sprinter a "Light-Rail" or a "Commuter Rail". (Actually it's probably both, suited therefore only for a "light commute", since any heavy commute from its area of operation would be to San Diego or to the Orange County/Los Angeles area.)

We can just call it a "Rail-Bus"!

By the way, RailBusses have been in use in England for some while now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Railbuses

Some of them they even call "the Sprinter"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_150


----------



## WhoozOn1st

One word: Electrify

Yeah heavy initial investment, but saved in spades down the road. Patrick Predicts: Those Sprinter trainsets are gonna cost a fortune in maintenance.


----------



## access bob

WhoozOn1st said:


> Sprinter, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.
> When I first learned of the new diesel-powered light rail line, in northern San Diego county between Oceanside and Escondido, I was quite pleased.
> 
> Then I rode it.
> 
> A number of assumptions on my part were destroyed. Yes, I know about assuming.
> 
> First assumption, sight unseen, was that diesel-powered meant diesel electric. Sprinter is not diesel electric. It's diesel mechanical or diesel hydraulic, a distinction without a difference in operations but perhaps crucial when it comes to maintenance.
> 
> Upon alighting from a Coaster at Oceanside I was looking forward to my first Sprinter ride. Ticketing was easy, boarding was simple, the motorman was a jovial chap who bade me good morning, and I was ready for a nice train ride.
> 
> And there the fairytale ended.
> 
> Sprinter is a bus on steel wheels and tracks. It sounds like a bus. It drives like a bus. It accelerates and decelerates like a bus, with the jerky shifting of gears like a bus. If not for the horn and grade crossings one might be forgiven for mistaking Sprinter for a bus. It's that bad.
> 
> And Sprinter is SLOW. The trainset seemed to mechanically complain upon leaving each station, and there were the bus-like jerks of shifting gears as Sprinter reluctantly accelerated (if that's the word) to a speed that many racehorses would find laughable. Several breeds of snails would be competitive with Sprinter.
> 
> Sprinter stations are very elaborate, and I found myself wondering whether the money required for them could not have been better spent on electrification of the line.
> 
> I had embarked upon my Sprinter sojourn as a joyride, but it quickly became a Journey of Torture.
> 
> Maybe this equipment works in Europe, where torture is a way of life, but it's not for SoCal. A mistake.



I rode Sprinter when in San Diego for the APTA convention last month and most of my opinions are similar to yours. although I found the staff less than pleasant, and in fact down right nasty.

however if you give it long enough it gets up thru the gears (6 speed if I count the innumberable shifts correctly) it does move at a pretty decent clip but acceleration is glacially slow. and is as noisy as an old style bus.

be that as it may the dern thing was pretty well packed every time I rode it, so people must find it usefull.. one ride had 4 people in wheelchars and 4 bikes on board along with a standing load.

but as one says, it is cheap to get started and it can be electrified later, I hope they do.

Bob


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Here's the reply from SMART;



Code:


> Dennis,
>	I don't think anyone ever tried to hide the fact that we are talking
> about using diesel trains. This was a major part of the opposition's
> campaign against SMART, and I spent much of the past year explaining
> the reasons for this choice. You can read extensively about the
> decision in SMART's white papers on our web site,
> www.sonomamarintrain.org
>
>	DMUs - diesel multiple units -- have their advantages and
> disadvantages, all of which have been studied and debated for years as
> part of the SMART project. In the coming months, SMART's board will
> make a decision about the specific type of DMU we will use and which
> manufacturer will build the trains. There are several variables in
> this, but it will be a DMU.
>
> Chris Coursey
> Community Outreach Manager
> Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit

So, a rapid response, but no response to my concern that the Sprinter is a glorified bus, and that SMART wasn't representing accurately what a Sprinter experience is like.

I wrote back and asked if the public will be kept abreast of what equipment SMART is looking at before the final decision is made.

Any further posts I make about SMART, I'll start a fresh thread and stop hijacking WhoozOn1st's.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Oops, hang on...


----------



## PetalumaLoco

WhoozOn1st said:


> Oops, hang on...


???

Fall off the train? :unsure:


----------



## WhoozOn1st

PetalumaLoco said:


> Here's the reply from SMART;
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> > Dennis,
> >	I don't think anyone ever tried to hide the fact that we are talking
> > about using diesel trains. This was a major part of the opposition's
> > campaign against SMART, and I spent much of the past year explaining
> > the reasons for this choice. You can read extensively about the
> > decision in SMART's white papers on our web site,
> > www.sonomamarintrain.org
> >
> >	DMUs - diesel multiple units -- have their advantages and
> > disadvantages, all of which have been studied and debated for years as
> > part of the SMART project. In the coming months, SMART's board will
> > make a decision about the specific type of DMU we will use and which
> > manufacturer will build the trains. There are several variables in
> > this, but it will be a DMU.
> >
> > Chris Coursey
> > Community Outreach Manager
> > Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
> 
> So, a rapid response, but no response to my concern that the Sprinter is a glorified bus, and that SMART wasn't representing accurately what a Sprinter experience is like.
> 
> I wrote back and asked if the public will be kept abreast of what equipment SMART is looking at before the final decision is made.
> 
> Any further posts I make about SMART, I'll start a fresh thread and stop hijacking WhoozOn1st's.


Interesting that Chris Coursey, Community Outreach Manager, does not include in his reaching out an explanation of the exact nature of the DMU.


----------



## access bob

PetalumaLoco said:


> Here's the reply from SMART;
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> > Dennis,
> >	I don't think anyone ever tried to hide the fact that we are talking
> > about using diesel trains. This was a major part of the opposition's
> > campaign against SMART, and I spent much of the past year explaining
> > the reasons for this choice. You can read extensively about the
> > decision in SMART's white papers on our web site,
> > www.sonomamarintrain.org
> >
> >	DMUs - diesel multiple units -- have their advantages and
> > disadvantages, all of which have been studied and debated for years as
> > part of the SMART project. In the coming months, SMART's board will
> > make a decision about the specific type of DMU we will use and which
> > manufacturer will build the trains. There are several variables in
> > this, but it will be a DMU.
> >
> > Chris Coursey
> > Community Outreach Manager
> > Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
> 
> So, a rapid response, but no response to my concern that the Sprinter is a glorified bus, and that SMART wasn't representing accurately what a Sprinter experience is like.
> 
> I wrote back and asked if the public will be kept abreast of what equipment SMART is looking at before the final decision is made.
> 
> Any further posts I make about SMART, I'll start a fresh thread and stop hijacking WhoozOn1st's.



I don't think SMART ever hid the fact that it was to be DMU, in fact I seem to recall reading about how they were going to decide between the non compliant DMU's like the Sprinter or weather they were going to use FRA sized units like the Colorado Railcar. I don't think they said much on the fact that the performance was so poor but it was never a secret that it was to be diesel.

and while the vehicle itself is much like a bus, the fact that it is rail does mean it rides better and is more spacious, so half a loaf is better than none, and it can be converted to electric at a later date. it would not be like taking a BRT and converting to LRT it would just be hanging overhead and transitioning to new equipment..

Bob


----------



## PetalumaLoco

access bob said:


> I don't think SMART ever hid the fact that it was to be DMU, in fact I seem to recall reading about how they were going to decide between the non compliant DMU's like the Sprinter or weather they were going to use FRA sized units like the Colorado Railcar. I don't think they said much on the fact that the performance was so poor but it was never a secret that it was to be diesel.
> and while the vehicle itself is much like a bus, the fact that it is rail does mean it rides better and is more spacious, so half a loaf is better than none, and it can be converted to electric at a later date. it would not be like taking a BRT and converting to LRT it would just be hanging overhead and transitioning to new equipment..
> 
> Bob


I guess I don't explain myself very well. 

I wasn't complaining that it was a DMU per se. But how many citizens around here know what a DMU is? And why hide clues to what the ride is like behind snappy big band music?

Interesting note, there was a letter in the local paper today by 2 of the rail district commissioners thanking the public for the vote, and explaining what the next step is (equipment selection) and inviting the public to stay informed. So I will be paying closer attention from now on.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

I thought the Budd RDC and CRC DMUs also have hydraulic transmissions. Is there any example of a real-world DMU that uses the diesel-electric configuration?

(Somehow I don't want to call it a DEMU, because that would make me think of something that could run into NYP as well as run in non-electrified territory. I think a few of the Budd RDCs once existed in that configuration, but used a hydraulic transmission when running the diesels.)

With the number of long-established commuter services along the NEC that aren't electrified and never have been, I wouldn't be too optimistic that Sprinter will electrify anytime soon. Then again, who knows, maybe the results of the most recent election will lead away from diesel consumption.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I thought the Budd RDC and CRC DMUs also have hydraulic transmissions. Is there any example of a real-world DMU that uses the diesel-electric configuration?
> (Somehow I don't want to call it a DEMU, because that would make me think of something that could run into NYP as well as run in non-electrified territory. I think a few of the Budd RDCs once existed in that configuration, but used a hydraulic transmission when running the diesels.)


Yes, both Ottawa's O-Train and NJT's RiverLine operate with diesel-electric light rail vehicles. There is no mechanical transmission between the diesel engine and the wheels. Instead like most engines and MU equipment, there are traction motors on the trucks to drive the trains.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

access bob said:


> acceleration is glacially slow. and is as noisy as an old style bus.


Deceleration into stations is also glacial, due to the need to mate doors with boarding gates at every stop. Tricky approach every time.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

WhoozOn1st said:


> access bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> acceleration is glacially slow. and is as noisy as an old style bus.
> 
> 
> 
> Deceleration into stations is also glacial, due to the need to mate doors with boarding gates at every stop. Tricky approach every time.
Click to expand...

I visited Siemens website and looked at Desiro (Sprinter) specs, the diesel/mechanical model (they make diesel/electrics too). Siemens claims 120kph top speed (75mph) while SMART says whatever they end up with will have a 79mph top speed. The Sprinter is billed as having a 55mph top speed I believe. Siemens listed acceleration as 1.1 meters sq/second but that means nothing to me. Siemens, and other webpages I ran across, claimed the Desiro was fast and quick accelerating.

Maybe the Sprinter is throttled back for some reason? Economy? Noise? Schedule?

I think I saw an option at Siemens for extendable loading ramps.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

PetalumaLoco said:


> Maybe the Sprinter is throttled back for some reason? Economy? Noise? Schedule?


Sprinter is billed as traveling "up to" 55 mph. I guarantee one and all that on my rides it never did more than 35 or 40, tops. And that was a stretch, even on a straight line over level track. The monstrosity accelerates so slowly that it can only reach speed for the briefest periods before having to jerkily decelerate and brake into a station.

Sprinter did keep to the published timetable: an hour to cover 22 miles. I believe electrification could cut this greatly.


----------



## Rob_C

That is absolutely atrocious! We're trying to get motorists out of cars with service that takes an hour to cover what would take no more than 30 minutes in a car? 

Such a waste of money and time. I'm surprised anybody takes the thing. I suspect it's mostly people that already don't have cars and would otherwise use local buses. So the people that still use their cars are still using them and our dent into autos towards mass transit is a whopping zero.


----------



## p&sr

PetalumaLoco said:


> Siemens listed acceleration as 1.1 meters sq/second but that means nothing to me.


In automotive terms, I think that means zero to 60 mph in 24 seconds. Fairly glacial if you ever need to merge onto the Interstate!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

WhoozOn1st said:


> Sprinter did keep to the published timetable: an hour to cover 22 miles.


That speed sounds a lot like the newly rebuilt MBTA Greenbush Line, which has been operating for a bit more than a year, after decades of neither freight nor passenger service. But one of my coworkers actually does ride it; I believe he rides the whole length of the Greenbush line, and then takes the Red Line all the way from South Station to Alewife.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

I found this youtube clip from the operator's perspective, complete with startup procedure in case anyone wants to "borrow' one.


You can hear the bus-like engine in the background. I see what's meant by slowing for a station, it takes forever.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Thanks for the video, Petaluma. That's a run eastbound to Escondido, past the Sprinter shops and some freight. In both directions on this segment Sprinter makes its best speed, which as can be seen is pretty pathetic.


----------



## Alice

PetalumaLoco said:


> I found this youtube clip from the operator's perspective, complete with startup procedure in case anyone wants to "borrow' one.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Alice said:


> I found this youtube clip from the operator's perspective, complete with startup procedure in case anyone wants to "borrow' one.



Yeah, I saw that too.


----------



## Rob_C

That's pretty amazing considering standing trackside filming the train going by is pretty harmless compared to say... taking a video from the CAB showing the startup procedure AND posting it all on youtube! And if I'm understanding correctly, the agency did that as a training video? lol

*shakes head* Sillyness.


----------



## chuljin

I keep meaning to reply to this thread, and keep forgetting.

I took a similar trip back in June, and was similarly unimpressed. They got *way* less than they deserved or (over)paid for.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Patrick, I'd like to see you write a review comparing Sprinter to the MBTA SL1 bus when you're here in 11 months.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Patrick, I'd like to see you write a review comparing Sprinter to the MBTA SL1 bus when you're here in 11 months.


I look forward to the opportunity. Joel, you mentioned in another thread about a bus putting up the poles. Boston has trolley buses?

At the L.A. Gathering me and chuljin were talking about trolley buses in San Francisco. He hadn't understood at first why trolley buses, but had come to understand that the torque of electric motors is very effective in a hilly environment. Vancouver, BC, also has trolley buses in a hilly environment, and Seattle - hilly as well - has dual-use buses. But Boston's pretty flat, isn't it? So what's the trolley bus rationale?

EDIT: As a railfain it may seem like apostasy, but I like trolley buses. Electrics!


----------



## AlanB

WhoozOn1st said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick, I'd like to see you write a review comparing Sprinter to the MBTA SL1 bus when you're here in 11 months.
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to the opportunity. Joel, you mentioned in another thread about a bus putting up the poles. Boston has trolley buses?
Click to expand...

Yes, the Silver line buses can operate either on a regular diesel motor when on streets and highways or via trolly wire when they are running in the underground tunnels.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick, I'd like to see you write a review comparing Sprinter to the MBTA SL1 bus when you're here in 11 months.
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to the opportunity. Joel, you mentioned in another thread about a bus putting up the poles. Boston has trolley buses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Silver line buses can operate either on a regular diesel motor when on streets and highways or via trolly wire when they are running in the underground tunnels.
Click to expand...

There are actually two types of buses the MBTA calls Silver Line buses. The Washington Street buses have no trolley wire capability. Only the South Station ones do. And in practice I think the outbound trolleybuses from South Station all continue beyond the trolley wire these days.

Then there are also the Harvard Square trolleybuses.

This Wikipedia article really needs some renaming or something, since it's really just about the Harvard Square trolleybuses; its title was more accurate for the pre-SL1/SL2/SL3 days.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

WhoozOn1st said:


> At the L.A. Gathering me and chuljin were talking about trolley buses in San Francisco. He hadn't understood at first why trolley buses, but had come to understand that the torque of electric motors is very effective in a hilly environment. Vancouver, BC, also has trolley buses in a hilly environment, and Seattle - hilly as well - has dual-use buses. But Boston's pretty flat, isn't it? So what's the trolley bus rationale?


Didn't you say something somewhere about Boston allegedly having the first subway system? Trolleybuses don't need nearly as much ventilation as diesel buses when they run through tunnels. That was the historical rationale for keeping the trolleybuses running after the streetcar tracks feeding what is now the Harvard Square busway went away, though these days the MBTA runs quite a few diesel buses through the Harvard Square busway, too.

The Silver Line tunnels are somewhat longer than the Harvard Square bus tunnels, and I expect ventilation adequate for diesel buses would require substantial investment.



WhoozOn1st said:


> EDIT: As a railfain it may seem like apostasy, but I like trolley buses. Electrics!


One of the Harvard Square trolleybus routes goes to Waverly Square, which is a stop on the MBTA Fitchburg Line. The Gathering could include an official or unofficial trip out on the Fitchburg Line and back on a trolleybus if I'm understanding that trolleybus route correctly. Though Wikipedia claims that the trolleybuses don't run on Sunday.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Whatever the rationale, I like trolley buses. Smooth, quick piclup, and virtually silent. If you can't have a streetcar, a trolley bus is the next best bet. Sounds like the Boston system, like Seattle, doesn't have pure electric buses.

A pure electric bus:







Vancouver, BC


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

WhoozOn1st said:


> Whatever the rationale, I like trolley buses. Smooth, quick piclup, and virtually silent. If you can't have a streetcar, a trolley bus is the next best bet. Sounds like the Boston system, like Seattle, doesn't have pure electric buses.


But Cambridge / Belmont, a part of the greater Boston area, does have pure electric buses, though it's true that there are no pure electric buses within the city limits of Boston proper. And they aren't silent. The purely electric buses make a rather distinctive sound.

The MBTA route 77A bus goes up Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge past Porter Square, and I sometimes see the trolleybuses there. (77A is apparently scheduled for the convenience of moving trolleybuses to the carhouse, and not for the convenience of the riding public, though if they happen to be moving a bus to the carhouse, they are generally happy to collect your fare and give you a ride.)


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> And in practice I think the outbound trolleybuses from South Station all continue beyond the trolley wire these days.


On a weekend that is true, but not during the week. The SL3 line just runs from South Station to Silver Line Way and then loops right back to South Station.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Joel N. Weber II said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the rationale, I like trolley buses. Smooth, quick piclup, and virtually silent. If you can't have a streetcar, a trolley bus is the next best bet. Sounds like the Boston system, like Seattle, doesn't have pure electric buses.
> 
> 
> 
> The purely electric buses make a rather distinctive sound.
Click to expand...

Very true. Electric buses have a distinctive whine, kinda like Joel.  But far less noisy than the diesel variety.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> The SL3 line just runs from South Station to Silver Line Way and then loops right back to South Station.


Last I checked, the SL3 went to City Point, near Conley Terminal, which definitely involved some diesel running beyond trolley wire territory.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SL3 line just runs from South Station to Silver Line Way and then loops right back to South Station.
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked, the SL3 went to City Point, near Conley Terminal, which definitely involved some diesel running beyond trolley wire territory.
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe I'm wrong about what route it was, I'll admit that I didn't really pay much attention as I boarded the bus since I didn't care. But when I was up to Boston earlier this month for the OTOL fest, I was staying at the Renaissance Waterfront which is right opposite the Silver Line Way station. I boarded the first bus that came at South, and in fact an employee stuck his head in the door to tell me that I was on the wrong bus for the airport (guess he saw my suitcase) and I told him I wasn't going to the airport.

In any event, long story short, the bus that I was on looped right at the Silver Line Way station without ever going off the overhead power. It was scheduled to do this, and it was actually good that it did this since it was pouring rain out and by looping around they discharged the passengers on what would normally be the inbound platform instead of the outbound plat. That shortened my walk in the rain from the station to the hotel.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SL3 line just runs from South Station to Silver Line Way and then loops right back to South Station.
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked, the SL3 went to City Point, near Conley Terminal, which definitely involved some diesel running beyond trolley wire territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, maybe I'm wrong about what route it was, I'll admit that I didn't really pay much attention as I boarded the bus since I didn't care. But when I was up to Boston earlier this month for the OTOL fest, I was staying at the Renaissance Waterfront which is right opposite the Silver Line Way station. I boarded the first bus that came at South, and in fact an employee stuck his head in the door to tell me that I was on the wrong bus for the airport (guess he saw my suitcase) and I told him I wasn't going to the airport.
> 
> In any event, long story short, the bus that I was on looped right at the Silver Line Way station without ever going off the overhead power. It was scheduled to do this, and it was actually good that it did this since it was pouring rain out and by looping around they discharged the passengers on what would normally be the inbound platform instead of the outbound plat. That shortened my walk in the rain from the station to the hotel.
Click to expand...

Looks like that short turn is the SL WATER route


----------



## transit54

Not to get off topic, but how different is the Sprinter from the DMUs that were proposed for Vermont? I believe they were also a direct drive system also, which does not bode well. While I was hoping they were dead I recently saw something that said that VT is trying to get economic stimulus funding to purchase them (if anyone is interested in the specifics, I'll try to look it up, I think it was something that was forwarded to me at work). If they are basically beefed up Sprinters, that sounds like a very bad idea.


----------



## AlanB

Very different, as your mixing light rail vehicles with with commuter/long distance vehicles.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

rnizlek said:


> Not to get off topic, but how different is the Sprinter from the DMUs that were proposed for Vermont? I believe they were also a direct drive system also, which does not bode well. While I was hoping they were dead I recently saw something that said that VT is trying to get economic stimulus funding to purchase them (if anyone is interested in the specifics, I'll try to look it up, I think it was something that was forwarded to me at work). If they are basically beefed up Sprinters, that sounds like a very bad idea.


Going to news.google.com and telling it you are looking for

vermont amtrak

gives this article, which claims:



> DMUs better than double fuel efficiency, provide a more comfortable ride and can run faster schedules.


The more comfortable ride and faster schedule points in that article don't seem terribly consistent with Patrick's trip report. If anything, I'd expect acceleration may be even worse with a CRC DMU, since they will probably be heavier than the Sprinter cars (though the CRC DMUs may have bigger engines and transmissions than Sprinter to make up for that for all I know). Then again, I think Vermont was also looking at running unpowered cars towed by DMUs, which is probably a very bad idea if you care about acceleration.


----------



## Shotgun7

Joel N. Weber II said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to get off topic, but how different is the Sprinter from the DMUs that were proposed for Vermont? I believe they were also a direct drive system also, which does not bode well. While I was hoping they were dead I recently saw something that said that VT is trying to get economic stimulus funding to purchase them (if anyone is interested in the specifics, I'll try to look it up, I think it was something that was forwarded to me at work). If they are basically beefed up Sprinters, that sounds like a very bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Going to news.google.com and telling it you are looking for
> 
> vermont amtrak
> 
> gives this article, which claims:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMUs better than double fuel efficiency, provide a more comfortable ride and can run faster schedules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The more comfortable ride and faster schedule points in that article don't seem terribly consistent with Patrick's trip report. If anything, I'd expect acceleration may be even worse with a CRC DMU, since they will probably be heavier than the Sprinter cars (though the CRC DMUs may have bigger engines and transmissions than Sprinter to make up for that for all I know). Then again, I think Vermont was also looking at running unpowered cars towed by DMUs, which is probably a very bad idea if you care about acceleration.
Click to expand...

The DMUs proposed for use on the Vermonter would probably be very similar, if not the same as the bi-level DMUs being used by Tri-Rail here in S Florida. They're actually surprisingly comfortable inside and offer an extremely smooth ride, contrary to what you would think, looking at the cars' massive height. In fact, I'd venture to say that the upper level seating is as comfortable, if not more so, than an Amfleet I coach. In the center car (the "trailer"), the handicapped bathroom easily doubles the size and cleanliness of that in any Amtrak railcar. The cars themselves are very ADA compliant (assuming you have a center "trailer" car) and rival the ride quality of most Amtrak corridor equipment.

But I still think CRC DMUs are an outrageous and poorly thought out solution for updating the Vermonter... The description of the Sprinter's speed and acceleration especially is eerily familiar to what I've experienced on Tri-Rail. Even when there is NO freight interference, these trains simply can't keep to the time schedule because they don't accelerate fast enought between stations. Their acceleration is similar to that of a bus and seem to take up to three times as long to get up to speed as would an F40PH pulling three coaches. This is why Tri-Rail oftentimes operates at least one of their two sets with a standard diesel engine pulling just the trailer and one power car. They won't even bother running them at all on weekends. And I don't have any proof of this, but word is that they've been a terrible headache to maintain. Most of the time, you can see one or both trainsets sitting in the Hialeah shops.

If Vermont ever gets serious about buying Amtrak some new toys to boost their economy, they ought to wise up and research how their potential equipment will perform instead of picking out the newest, biggest, and shiniest toy on the shelf.


----------



## AlanB

Shotgun7 said:


> The DMUs proposed for use on the Vermonter would probably be very similar, if not the same as the bi-level DMUs being used by Tri-Rail here in S Florida. They're actually surprisingly comfortable inside and offer an extremely smooth ride, contrary to what you would think, looking at the cars' massive height. In fact, I'd venture to say that the upper level seating is as comfortable, if not more so, than an Amfleet I coach. In the center car (the "trailer"), the handicapped bathroom easily doubles the size and cleanliness of that in any Amtrak railcar. The cars themselves are very ADA compliant (assuming you have a center "trailer" car) and rival the ride quality of most Amtrak corridor equipment.
> But I still think CRC DMUs are an outrageous and poorly thought out solution for updating the Vermonter... The description of the Sprinter's speed and acceleration especially is eerily familiar to what I've experienced on Tri-Rail. Even when there is NO freight interference, these trains simply can't keep to the time schedule because they don't accelerate fast enought between stations. Their acceleration is similar to that of a bus and seem to take up to three times as long to get up to speed as would an F40PH pulling three coaches. This is why Tri-Rail oftentimes operates at least one of their two sets with a standard diesel engine pulling just the trailer and one power car. They won't even bother running them at all on weekends. And I don't have any proof of this, but word is that they've been a terrible headache to maintain. Most of the time, you can see one or both trainsets sitting in the Hialeah shops.
> 
> If Vermont ever gets serious about buying Amtrak some new toys to boost their economy, they ought to wise up and research how their potential equipment will perform instead of picking out the newest, biggest, and shiniest toy on the shelf.


The DMU's proposed for Vermont would be just like the ones in use in Florida on Tri-Rail. The only possible difference would have been, was VT thinking of buying the single level version or the double decker version like Florida brought.

However since CRC is basically bankrupt, to the point where the Oregon's Tri-Met had to basically take over the company and kick out it's owner Tom Rader several months ago just to complete the work on the four cars that they had ordered, it's unlikely that the company will survive beyond the completion of that project.

Therefore even if Vermont was to reconsider their decision not to buy the DMU's, it's probably academic now.

By the way, Vermont didn't pick CRC on their own. They were guided and prodded by Amtrak in that direction, after Amtrak failed to obtain the funding under David Gunn to buy DMU's for the Springfield corridor. Thank goodness Amtrak didn't get that funding!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Shotgun7 said:


> In fact, I'd venture to say that the upper level seating is as comfortable, if not more so, than an Amfleet I coach. In the center car (the "trailer"), the handicapped bathroom easily doubles the size and cleanliness of that in any Amtrak railcar.


I suspect the cleanliness has more to do with how well the railroad is cleaning it, and how many passengers are using it (due to the length of the typical Amtrak trip, Amtrak trains really need restrooms, whereas I didn't realize until I was reading through the MBTA Blue Book that the MBTA Commuter Rail system even has cars with restrooms).


----------

