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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

 

[user 1215]

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]

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]

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.

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.