# Tri-Rail DMUs



## Guest_Shotgun7_*

Does anybody know if Tri-Rail's two DMU sets run on one set schedule? I'd like to try and avoid the old, dirty bi-level coaches if I can.

Also, are there any plans for Tri-Rail to buy any more of these sets and possibly sell their existing equipment?? Because their commuter coaches may only be about 20 years old, but they look and run like they're 40.

Thanks,

Paul


----------



## battalion51

AFAIK there's no set schedule to which trains the DMU's run on.

As far as buying more is concerned, I don't believe there are plans at this time. The DMU's do not have the giddy up and go that a traditional locomotive hauled train has. The giddy up is particularly important when it comes to commuter service. I also don't believe Tri-Rail has the money at this point to be purchasing any more equipment. I'd guess it'll be another 5-10 years before you see a wholesale replacement of the UTDC cars that have been running since Day 1. The Bombardier cars bought in 96 are still doing ok.


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED02

Those DMUs from the Colorado Railcar company are very intresting. Down here in Orlando, Florida we are going to get those for our commuter rail, which will be opening in 2010 if everything goes well.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

SUNSETLIMITED02 said:


> Those DMUs from the Colorado Railcar company are very intresting. Down here in Orlando, Florida we are going to get those for our commuter rail, which will be opening in 2010 if everything goes well.



You may actually see Tri-rail DMU's bumped to Orlando, The CRC is not doing to well, so its doubtfull new cars will be build for Orlando.

CRC is way over schedule delivering the Portland Oregon cars.


----------



## battalion51

I'm personally hoping that the State goes with Bombardier Bi-Levels for the Orlando service, and buy some old power and refurb it or get MP36's. But this is Florida and our friends at the Capitol aren't exactly bright...


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I think they should buy a bunch of Budd RDCs and refurbish them, which is what VT should have done, too. I don't know how well CRCs product is built- but they sure seem poorly designed.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

What's the ridership level on the Vermonter? Is the argument that running trains consisting of just a single Budd RDC multiple times a day would make sense there?

www.ccmpo.org/freight/200701_RDC_testimony_presentation.pdf is fascinating but didn't really explain to me why DMUs are even being discussed for the Vermonter in the first place.


----------



## AlanB

Ridership last year on the Vermonter was 63,299 passengers, but keep in mind that's total ridership for the train across the length of its run. How many people rode within the State of Vermont we don't have the data for. Amtrak may, but we don't have access to it.

As for the rason why they are being discussed for Vermont, it's largely an accident. Under Daivd Gunn a plan was advanced to buy some CRC DMU's for Amtrak. The plan would have seen them running on the Springfield shuttles and possibly in service on the Hiawatha line also.

When that plan failed due to lack of funding, someone at Amtrak had the bright idea to get Vermont to buy what they couldn't buy and they lured Vt in with the idea that this would help to decrease the amount of subsidy that Vermont needs to pay to run the Vermonter and the Ethan Allen.

The problem that no one seems to be considering though, is that people like a one seat ride. Especially when they've got lots of luggage to move around. Ridership will plummet on the Vermonter if people are forced to get off the electric train in New Haven and switch to the DMU's and vice versa.

I've said it before in many places and I'll say it again. DMU's make sense for the Sprinfield shuttles, probably the Hiawathas, and maybe on a few other trains that Amtrak should be running. They don't make sense for Vermont!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

That's an average of about 173 passengers per day, but that 173 is the total of the northbound and southbound train. So the average is 87 passengers per train. If the passengers distributed themselves evenly across all the trains, one 90 passenger Budd RDC in each direction each day would be sufficient, except that the passengers aren't going to distribute themselves evenly like that. Then again, I'm also assuming that all the passengers get on the train before anyone disembarks, which has to be a wrong assumption, too.

Isn't it possible to couple a Budd RDC to a Regional and let the electric lomotive haul the whole train?

Is Amtrak going to keep running the Springfield Shuttle if commuter rail materializes along that route? I'm not convinced there's much point in Amtrak providing service there if there were commuter rail, unless passenger railroad(s) buy the Springfield to Framingham ROW from CSX, double track it, and Amtrak starts running some trains from NYP to BOS via Springfield again.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Well, you see, RDCs are capable of MUing. So running them when train length is short (say, 2 coaches, and a baggage-cafe) makes sense. Because it makes more sense than using a whole P42 to haul 2 Amcoaches and an Amcafe. And I'm sure an electric switcher could push the train out of the tunnels, at which point it could run diesel the rest of the way, I'd think. Or simply equip one of the cars for third rail operation to limp out of Penn.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is Amtrak going to keep running the Springfield Shuttle if commuter rail materializes along that route? I'm not convinced there's much point in Amtrak providing service there if there were commuter rail, unless passenger railroad(s) buy the Springfield to Framingham ROW from CSX, double track it, and Amtrak starts running some trains from NYP to BOS via Springfield again.


Any commuter op, if one ever does get started, is unlikely to go much past Hartford and certainly not to Springfield. So while Amtrak might cut back on the number of runs each day, thanks to the loss of the CT commuters, they are unlikely to cut the line entirely.

And it's unlikely that Amtrak will ever use the inland route again to/from Boston, especially for as long as CSX owns the line to Boston. If Mass and the MBTA manage to buy that line, then maybe there'd be a slight chance. But I still rather doubt that they'll run that way ever again. The higher speeds on the NEC make it unattractive to run trains via the inland route.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

I think if there's substantial investment in rail in this country, we're going to need to upgrade the inland route at some point to comfortably run Acela trains in order to have enough capacity to run all the trains.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/olr/htm/2001-r-0021.htm indicates that Connecticut has done some investigation of the possibility of commuter service to Springfield. Given that, it's hard for me to believe that we can be certain that it won't happen in the next 20 years.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Green Maned Lion said:


> Well, you see, RDCs are capable of MUing. So running them when train length is short (say, 2 coaches, and a baggage-cafe) makes sense. Because it makes more sense than using a whole P42 to haul 2 Amcoaches and an Amcafe. And I'm sure an electric switcher could push the train out of the tunnels, at which point it could run diesel the rest of the way, I'd think. Or simply equip one of the cars for third rail operation to limp out of Penn.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car mentions that the Roger Williams trainset did have third rail capability.

Is two coaches + cafe the standard Vermonter consist currently? If so, I'd think running multiple trips in each direction each day with a single DMU consist in Vermont might provide more convenient service frequencies.

www.ccmpo.org/freight/200701_RDC_testimony_presentation.pdf also mentions the possibility at the top of page 4 of uncoupling RDCs to have multiple endpoints at the north end of the route, and goes into detail about the possibility of towing RDCs as part of a Regional in the last paragraph on page 9.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I think if there's substantial investment in rail in this country, we're going to need to upgrade the inland route at some point to comfortably run Acela trains in order to have enough capacity to run all the trains.


Well if we'd stop allowing rich CT pleasure boaters to exploit the shipping laws in this country, we could easily increase capacity on the NEC. Or for that matter, given some serious funding that would allow for the current bridges to be replaced with higher clearance bridges, we could get enough capacity out of the NEC for the future demmand of say the next 10 to 20 years. After that it might be more debatable.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/olr/htm/2001-r-0021.htm indicates that Connecticut has done some investigation of the possibility of commuter service to Springfield. Given that, it's hard for me to believe that we can be certain that it won't happen in the next 20 years.


No we can't, but at least until CT's current transit wise Governor Jody Rell took over, CT couldn't even find the money to replace the horribly run down 40+ year old M2 cars running on Metro North's New Haven division. And at least for the next few years, most of CT's transit monies will be going to buy the new M8 railcars.

And unless CT keeps reelecting Jody Rell, or similar visionary governor whose not afraid to invest in rail, we may never see the above plan realized.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> www.ccmpo.org/freight/200701_RDC_testimony_presentation.pdf also mentions the possibility at the top of page 4 of uncoupling RDCs to have multiple endpoints at the north end of the route, and goes into detail about the possibility of towing RDCs as part of a Regional in the last paragraph on page 9.


Amtrak worked hard to eliminate the need for switching to take place at the New Haven station, in part because of the costs associated with it, in part because MN doesn't want Amtrak tying up a platform in New Haven to do so.

They aren't about to start doing this once again.

If DMU's somehow make it onto the Vermonter, you can bet that people will be forced to drag their luggage through the heat, cold, rain, snow, or sunshine from a Regional across the plat to the shuttle and vice-versa. And ridership will fall because of this.


----------



## battalion51

The other thing that people forget about is that these DMUs will get BEAT TO HECK on the NECR jointed rail. Engines that stay up in Vermont for extended periods of time get so rough it really isn't even funny. Imagine what will happen if there's dedicated equipment that isn't swapped out on a regular basis that goes back and forth. The DMUs work well (in theory) for short haul/commuter service like Tri-Rail and the Springfield Shuttles. Anything with a run time more than two hours really isn't suited for DMU's IMHO. I'd rather see Superliners running in Vermont before DMUs.

For the record the Vermonter typically carries four coaches (north of NHV) and an ex-Metroliner Club Cafe. At NHV they have been (AFAIK) adding two coaches for on corridor ridership demand.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Even if the equipment is swapped out, doesn't that shorten the life of the equipment used by the whole Amtrak system? Is it actually cheaper to absorb that wear and tear on the equipment than to upgrade the track? (And does the track quality have a negative effect on ridership, both because of passenger comfort and perhaps length of trip?)

What's stopping them from adding a second daily run of the Vermonter in each direction? It seems like a very basic approach to doing that would be to move two of the coaches from the existing north of New Haven runs to the new timeslot, and find an extra club car or two and the extra locomotives. Do they currently need two conductors for the four coaches anyway that might be reduced to one conductor per train if they only had two coaches and the club car? (I assume they'd need an additional engineer for each new train, and probably an additional person to staff the extra club car?)

(I'm assuming south of New Haven it wouldn't add any expense if they could find a Regional that is in an appropriate timeslot to convert to a Vermonter, but I guess they probably won't find a train in the right timeslot that actually goes to Springfield without having the main portion of that train continuing to New London, Providence, and Boston, which would mean they'd either need to subtract a Regional from Boston, or get another timeslot through the Metro-North Railroad to continue a train that currently only runs New York to DC, and then the New York to New Haven segment adds to the increased equipment demand.)


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I like the ride on jointed rail, to be honest with you.


----------



## battalion51

Well the State and Amtrak would have to sink tens of millions of dollars into the NECR, money which neither agency has. The only way significant upgrades will be made is if it becomes a high speed corridor, which is unlikely given its location, grades, and curves. The reason another frequency is run is the costs associated with it. It's not just having the equipment to do it, but it's the crew, trackage, and fuel costs. A train operating on the NECR essentially has to have two engineers due to the fact it's operated almost entirely in dark territory. (Granted there's only one south of BRA, but you usually get a warrant from West River in to Palmer, the north end is another story.) I'm also not aware of ANY road train in the Amtrak system that operates without an Assistant Conductor. If there is an emergency situation there needs to be at least two Conductors to evacuate the train, especially on one with no TA's. So that's the answer in a nut shell.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

http://www.aot.state.vt.us/planning/BostonRail.htm discusses the possibility of a high speed rail corridor from Boston to Montreal, and from comparing the proposed route in chapter 3 with the Vermonter timetable, it looks like more than 1/3 but probably less than half of the north of Springfield Vermonter mileage is in that potential high speed corridor.

Part of that proposed corridor does not currently have any track at all, and if the goal were to get some Boston to Montreal service running at all without track upgrades, I believe the tracks continue from the MBTA Fitchburg Line to meet the Vermonter's route; but then you lose the opportunity to take residents of Nashua, Manchester, and Concord NH to Montreal efficiently.


----------



## George Harris

battalion51 said:


> The DMUs work well (in theory) for short haul/commuter service like Tri-Rail and the Springfield Shuttles. Anything with a run time more than two hours really isn't suited for DMU's IMHO.


Probably true for the Colorado Rail Cars and most of the European versions, but the old Budd RDC's had some really long runs. There are others, but two in particular come to mind:

Western Pacific: Oakland - Salt Lake City - about 900 miles

Rock Island: Memphis - Amarillo TX. - about 750 miles

All on jointed rail at that time. The CRI&P run was about 20 hours each way.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Wouldn't that rate sleepers/meal service/etc?


----------



## VentureForth

The _Malahat_ which runs from Victoria, BC to Courtenay, BC on Vancouver Island has a daily 4-hour run. Rode that with my wife on our honeymoon. The RDCs were purposebuilt to compete with Doodlebugs and were really designed for long trips.

The Dallas/Ft. Worth TRE has a stock of 12 or 13 RDCs that were retrofitted with bus engines (for commonality with DART maintenance and increased reliability), but only a couple are used at any given time, usually MU'd in groups of three. So I would say 6 total units run in a day and the rest are used for parts and/or rotated in and out of service.

RDCs weren't built to pull trailers, so coupling them to a non-powered car isn't their intended use. Some have said it would void the warranty, but I don't think that's really much of an issue with a 50-year old railcar.

I don't know if there are enough RDCs out there available for refurbishing and putting into commuter service. I think there are several groups that could benefit from leasing a few TRE units, but the TRE hasn't ever leased their units out, so I wonder if there is a contractual reason for that.

I've also heard that the RDCs were really good at running 50 MPH+ on tracks that today would only be allowed for 20 MPH ops. Don't know how true that is, but I like to pass on rumors that I hear.

All that being said, the Bombardier Bi-Levels are quickly becoming the standard in commuter fleets. On level terrain, up to 10 can be pulled with a single 3,000 HP locomotive with HEP. They ride very smooth, the seats are comfortable, and have great viewing windows. In fact, a couple of times riding the TRE, we lost HEP, and the cabin was so quiet with the A/C shut off and the lights out that it felt like we were just gliding through the woods. It was phenomenal.

Colorado Rail Car still has a lot to prove. They've shown that they can produce beautiful, functional bi-level panoramic dome vista viewing cars, but add power to them and the company seems to just fall apart. Their prototype burned up and the one unit that they have in Florida fails to make any news (maybe that's their best news). The company is probably strapped running Grand Luxe and really bit off more than they can chew, thus neglecting rail car production. Their website shows no 'new news' since May of 2006.


----------



## jackal

VentureForth said:


> Colorado Rail Car still has a lot to prove. They've shown that they can produce beautiful, functional bi-level panoramic dome vista viewing cars, but add power to them and the company seems to just fall apart. Their prototype burned up and the one unit that they have in Florida fails to make any news (maybe that's their best news). The company is probably strapped running Grand Luxe and really bit off more than they can chew, thus neglecting rail car production. Their website shows no 'new news' since May of 2006.


I've spent a good bit of time on CRC rail cars in Alaska, both the ARR's new Gold Star first class ultradome and Princess's domes. They're beautiful, functional, and--from what I've heard from the carmen and other train service employees--work just fine. (I never heard any complaints about them.) In fact, while I don't work there anymore, one of the friends I keep in contact with often bids the Princess charter train from Fairbanks to Anchorage, so she spends 50 hours per week on the Princess equipment. I'll ask her what she knows about the CRC-manufactured equipments' reliability history.

All of the problems I've heard of have been related to their DMU product (and primarily with the engines). I haven't heard of the car itself falling apart or anything.

Also, the ARR is supposedly procuring a CRC DMU for a partnership with Chugach National Forest for a backcountry hiking rail service (the ARR's line goes into a part of the forest not served by roads). We'll see what happens with that. (It was supposed to be here for this summer season, I believe, but I haven't heard anything about it lately. Another benefit of this was that supposedly in the off-season they were going to test commuter rail service between Anchorage and the fast-growing Mat-Su Valley with it.)


----------



## AlanB

jackal said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado Rail Car still has a lot to prove. They've shown that they can produce beautiful, functional bi-level panoramic dome vista viewing cars, but add power to them and the company seems to just fall apart. Their prototype burned up and the one unit that they have in Florida fails to make any news (maybe that's their best news). The company is probably strapped running Grand Luxe and really bit off more than they can chew, thus neglecting rail car production. Their website shows no 'new news' since May of 2006.
> 
> 
> 
> I've spent a good bit of time on CRC rail cars in Alaska, both the ARR's new Gold Star first class ultradome and Princess's domes. They're beautiful, functional, and--from what I've heard from the carmen and other train service employees--work just fine. (I never heard any complaints about them.) In fact, while I don't work there anymore, one of the friends I keep in contact with often bids the Princess charter train from Fairbanks to Anchorage, so she spends 50 hours per week on the Princess equipment. I'll ask her what she knows about the CRC-manufactured equipments' reliability history.
> 
> All of the problems I've heard of have been related to their DMU product (and primarily with the engines). I haven't heard of the car itself falling apart or anything.
Click to expand...

Just keep in mind that many of the cars that CRC built for use in Alaska, weren't built from the ground up. CRC brought dozens of old cars, stripped them down and rebuilt them to the specs required for their intended purposes in Alaska. Yes, they have built some of the cars from scratch, but those I believe are the newest cars, which have yet to see years of heavy use.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

VentureForth said:


> The company is probably strapped running Grand Luxe and really bit off more than they can chew, thus neglecting rail car production. Their website shows no 'new news' since May of 2006.


They run GrandLuxe?


----------



## AlanB

Green Maned Lion said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The company is probably strapped running Grand Luxe and really bit off more than they can chew, thus neglecting rail car production. Their website shows no 'new news' since May of 2006.
> 
> 
> 
> They run GrandLuxe?
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what helped to prompt the name change was CRC's aquiring the company.


----------



## battalion51

I hate to bring this topic back, but there's a significant difference in the way the RDCs were built vs. the DMUs. The RDCs were built back in the days when rail cars were built well, and by someone who knew what the heck they were doing. The DMUs are a different story. Given todays modern commuter operation where every second counts, building a car that takes forever to accelerate, and has trouble making grades is an issue. Locomotives provide a great deal of horsepower to get the train up and running, and great blended braking when you need to set the train down, something the DMU can't. There's a reason why nearly every agency (outside the Northeast) uses Bombardier Bi-Levels, they work.


----------



## jackal

battalion51 said:


> I hate to bring this topic back, but there's a significant difference in the way the RDCs were built vs. the DMUs. The RDCs were built back in the days when rail cars were built well, and by someone who knew what the heck they were doing. The DMUs are a different story. Given todays modern commuter operation where every second counts, building a car that takes forever to accelerate, and has trouble making grades is an issue. Locomotives provide a great deal of horsepower to get the train up and running, and great blended braking when you need to set the train down, something the DMU can't. There's a reason why nearly every agency (outside the Northeast) uses Bombardier Bi-Levels, they work.


I'm trying to figure out why this is the case.

The Budd RDCs had two 275hp Detroit Diesels driving the wheels via a hydraulic torque converter.

The CRC DMUs have two 600hp Detroit Diesels driving the wheels via a hydraulic torque converter.

The specs seem to indicate the modern units should be better in nearly every respect.

The only thing I can figure is that the new DMUs are designed to be able to pull up to two unpowered coaches. If a commuter railroad opts for this, then perhaps the performance would suffer. But if a railroad uses only powered coaches, the specs show they should have absolutely no problem getting up to speed.

Maybe there's something I don't know...

(I'm not disputing that acceleration is an issue--Wikipedia details that it actually is an issue in practice--simply that I'm not entirely sure why it would be. That article says it was when Tri-Rail was running one powered coach and one unpowered cab car and that it's less of an issue now with two powered cars and one unpowered car, but it's apparently still an issue...)


----------



## Dutchrailnut

Simply put you can't put the power(2 x 600 minus HEP) to the rail on a railcar, the weight is not there and its after all not a locomotive.

Putting 2400 hp on a 3 car train negates the fuel savings that CRC is so poud of.

todays third generation commuter locomotives save far more fuel than CRC had hoped for.


----------



## battalion51

There's two big differences. The RDCs aren't trying to pull unpowered trailers. The DMUs are also much larger vehicles. The DMUs are bi-level, and probably carry at least twice as many people as an RDC. So if you put them on a level playing field of HP per passenger, with the RDC carrying 90 and DMU carrying 190.

3-Car RDC (all powered) (275*2*3)/(90*3)=~6.1 hp/person

3-Car DMU (2 powered-1 unpowered) (600*2*2)/(190*3)=~4.21 hp/person

Can't argue the math.


----------



## George Harris

battalion51 said:


> 3-Car RDC (all powered) (275*2*3)/(90*3)=~6.1 hp/person3-Car DMU (2 powered-1 unpowered) (600*2*2)/(190*3)=~4.21 hp/person
> 
> Can't argue the math.


But what is the horsepower per ton of loaded vehicle?

More importantly for acceleration: What is the horsepower per ton on powered axles?

At low speeds, it gets to simply what is the weight per powered axle? Either power plant could theoretically spin the wheels at low speeds because the adhesion ratio would be exceeded.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I got the impression that the RDCs were stainless steel, and that the DMUs are not. I'd imagine that the RDCs are lightweight shot-welded vehicles, since they are Budds. IIRC, the DMUs are carbon-steel. Carbon steel rusts, and as a result, to offer long term structural integrity, the steel would have to be much thicker. Also, IIRC, Budd cars are unitary, although I might be thinking simply of the Amfleets. Unitary construction is inherently lighther.

Finally, the CRC cars are ever so proud of their vast amount of glass area. Glass is uber heavy.

Finally, these cars are bi-levels, of the second-story-stacked-on-top variety. These things probably weigh more than a Superliner. They certainly are bigger.

A three car DMU set would hold 570 people, and run 2400 horsepower. The RDC, to hold 570 people, would need 6 and 1/3rd, or 7, carriages. This 7 car train would have 3,850 horse power, and, I suspect, weight not all that much more.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

VentureForth said:


> I've also heard that the RDCs were really good at running 50 MPH+ on tracks that today would only be allowed for 20 MPH ops. Don't know how true that is, but I like to pass on rumors that I hear.


Does that mean that there exist locations where the tracks used to be maintained to higher standards than they are now (which would totally not be surprising), or does that mean that an RDC would actually run just fine at 50 MPH on tracks that the FRA would limit to 20 MPH?

Also, how do you ever get any significant amount of 20 MPH track these days? Class 1 only allows 15 MPH for passenger trains, and Class 2 allows 25 MPH for freight and 30 MPH for passenger trains. Dark territory is potentially allowed 59 MPH, so it's not a signaling issue. It is certainly possible to construct a curve whose speed limit is 20 MPH, but there can't be all that much track whose curve puts it right at 20 MPH. I guess railroads are allowed to set more conservative speed limits than the FRA requires.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Of course they are. Its there railroad.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> I like the ride on jointed rail, to be honest with you.


I loved it on the NS's joint rail between Charlottsville and Charlotte. Their jointed rail track is in superb shape. CSX's welded rail track felt like a gravel path in comparison.


----------



## George Harris

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the ride on jointed rail, to be honest with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I loved it on the NS's joint rail between Charlottsville and Charlotte. Their jointed rail track is in superb shape. CSX's welded rail track felt like a gravel path in comparison.
Click to expand...

Thought all the jointed rail on the ex-Southern mainline has been gone for quite a few years.


----------



## jis

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the ride on jointed rail, to be honest with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I loved it on the NS's joint rail between Charlottsville and Charlotte. Their jointed rail track is in superb shape. CSX's welded rail track felt like a gravel path in comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought all the jointed rail on the ex-Southern mainline has been gone for quite a few years.
Click to expand...

They must have installed special "clickety-clackers" for the audio effect on the welded rails then


----------



## GG-1

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the ride on jointed rail, to be honest with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I loved it on the NS's joint rail between Charlottsville and Charlotte. Their jointed rail track is in superb shape. CSX's welded rail track felt like a gravel path in comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought all the jointed rail on the ex-Southern mainline has been gone for quite a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They must have installed special "clickety-clackers" for the audio effect on the welded rails then
Click to expand...

Baseball cards maybe? :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## AmtrakWPK

The whole Central Florida Commuter Rail issue is now in doubt. The State of Florida has lots and lots of sand and right now the Florida Legislature appears to be checking out the depth of that sand with their heads. If they can be equated to horses, with the horses' heads in the sand, the other end of the horse is now very prominent.


----------



## AlanB

Here's a couple of stories on the Orlando commuter rail saga.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJour...03POL050308.htm

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/n...0,3111507.story


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Another case of CSX wanting to remove liability for their notoriously lax safety and maintnence?


----------



## Myrtonos

Green Maned Lion said:


> I got the impression that the RDCs were stainless steel, and that the DMUs are not. I'd imagine that the RDCs are lightweight shot-welded vehicles, since they are Budds. IIRC, the DMUs are carbon-steel. Carbon steel rusts, and as a result, to offer long term structural integrity, the steel would have to be much thicker. Also, IIRC, Budd cars are unitary, although I might be thinking simply of the Amfleets. Unitary construction is inherently lighther.
> 
> Finally, the CRC cars are ever so proud of their vast amount of glass area. Glass is uber heavy.
> 
> Finally, these cars are bi-levels, of the second-story-stacked-on-top variety. These things probably weigh more than a Superliner. They certainly are bigger.
> 
> A three car DMU set would hold 570 people, and run 2400 horsepower. The RDC, to hold 570 people, would need 6 and 1/3rd, or 7, carriages. This 7 car train would have 3,850 horse power, and, I suspect, weight not all that much more.


**************** NOTE - From a 2007/2008 Thread ****************************

But it doesn't seem they could run on electrified tracks, in order to allow that, the overhead wires would need to be higher than usual, demanding custom made gantries, and would require any single decker electric trains (as well as all electric locomotives) to have either pedestals or very tall and thus custom made pantographs. I wonder if non-standard overhead wire maintenance support equipment would also be needed.


----------

