History's verdict: the Budd RDC
866013149e
rails, I gather that the concept of a self-propelled diesel rail car has
been a failure.
Here in greater Boston, I routinely see six car commuter trains being
shoved by GP-40's where only one or two cars are occupied and the others
are just dead weight. One would think something like the RDC could give
the local commuter railroad the flexibility to run smaller trains,
perhaps with greater frequency. Yet as far as I can see the trend across
the country has all been toward locomotive-hauled trains. Why, I wonder?
umar
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Since nothing like the Budd RDC is in widespread use today on American
> rails, I gather that the concept of a self-propelled diesel rail car has
> been a failure.
You guess wrong.
The Budd RDC was a tremendous success.
The problem was that its successor, the SPV, had many mechanical
problems. Had the SPV been designed correctly, it would've been
popular for light duty service.
Miles Bader
> Since nothing like the Budd RDC is in widespread use today on American
> rails, I gather that the concept of a self-propelled diesel rail car has
> been a failure.
How is that different from a "DMU" (which seem widely used all over the world)?
-Miles
--
Laughter, n. An interior convulsion, producing a distortion of the features
and accompanied by inarticulate noises. It is infectious and, though
intermittent, incurable.
gl4...@yahoo.com
> 866013149e <86601...@hippogryph.com> writes:
> > Since nothing like the Budd RDC is in widespread use today on American
> > rails, I gather that the concept of a self-propelled diesel rail car has
> > been a failure.
>
> How is that different from a "DMU" (which seem widely used all over the
world)?
>
> -Miles
RDC was just Budd's name for their specific type of DMU.
Based on Austin purchasing DMUs and then not being able to operate them
the way they wanted to due to regulations, I would say that the problem is
trying to get a DMU that meets all of the requirements.
There are now a few operations that are using light weight DMUs as "diesel
light rail" including New Jersy Transit.
There is a group in Ohio that has purchased the remains of Colorado
Railcar and is apparently going to try to build and market those. I've
not heard of any problems with the ones operating in Florida, or the one
unit that Alaska Railroad has put into service.
The ones here in Portland have had troubles, but some of that is also due
to the inexperience of TriMet as a commuter rail operator. For example,
according to the newspaper reports their most recent "issue" was that the
engines were overheating, because the cottonwood trees put out their mass
of seeds, and no one thought about cottonwood causing problems with engine
air filters until there started to be engine cooling problems. I know
that Alaska Railroad has had cottonwood issues for many years, so it isn't
as if this is a unique problem to TriMet's railroad. One quote in the
newspaper was "Who would have thought cottonwood would have been such a
problem?" My first thought was something along the lines of: Well, almost
anyone else who has operated railroad equipment on the west coast, based
on what I have heard from some of the troubles Alaska goes through every
year at that time.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
866013149e
>866013149e <86601...@hippogryph.com> writes:
>> Since nothing like the Budd RDC is in widespread use today on American
>> rails, I gather that the concept of a self-propelled diesel rail car has
>> been a failure.
>How is that different from a "DMU" (which seem widely used all over the world)?
It isn't; my question is rather why they are not used in U.S. commuter
service.
umar
Stephen Sprunk
They are not used in US commuter service because nobody makes one that
is FRA compliant. There are still a few Budd RDCs in service, and
there's even a company dedicated to restoring them, but they're
grandfathered; the exact same design manufactured today wouldn't be legal.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Isaac Jaffe
Stephen Sprunk
> In article <87tz198...@catnip.gol.com>, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> 866013149e <86601...@hippogryph.com> writes:
>>> Since nothing like the Budd RDC is in widespread use today on American
>>> rails, I gather that the concept of a self-propelled diesel rail car
>>> has been a failure.
>>
>> How is that different from a "DMU" (which seem widely used all over the
>> world)?
>
>
> Based on Austin purchasing DMUs and then not being able to operate them
> the way they wanted to due to regulations, I would say that the problem is
> trying to get a DMU that meets all of the requirements.
CMTA _was_ on track to open this spring until safety violations by their
contractor, Veolia, forced them to delay the opening. They (eventually)
got all the waivers they wanted, though they can only operate their GTWs
at 60mph instead of 75mph as desired.
> There are now a few operations that are using light weight DMUs as "diesel
> light rail" including New Jersy Transit.
... except they're not FRA compliant, which means temporal separation.
So far, only a handful of operators have gone through all the required
gyrations, and it's not realistic for the vast majority of the US rail
system.
(Also, CMTA is classified as "commuter rail", not "light rail", though
it ended up not making much of a difference in terms of the required
waivers.)
Clark F Morris
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In message <cpudnUVwLYsJ6__X...@speakeasy.net>,
>Apparently the Budd RDCs didn't fare to well in collisions. However,
>there must be more to it than that, as lots of electric cars have a
>similar appearance and are still in use, so clearly the safety
>problems could be solved.
Each RDC is a locomotive which has inspection and maintenance
implications. The trend in North America is to not run single car
trains because they take up as much track space as a much longer train
(if the signaling allows 12 trains an hour, it doesn't matter how long
the train is). Until there is a need or public desire for small
trains in North America, we won't see volume follow-ons to the RDC.
Via is still running at least two services that I know of with RDCs
(Victoria - Courtenay and Sudbury - White River).
James Robinson
It's simply because they cost more. If you want a ten car train, you have
to maintain 20 engines with RDC equipment, but only one with a locomotive.
If you want to run shorter trains, RDCs can be effective, but only if you
always have shorter trains. As soon as a service has a majority of longer
trains, locomotives end up costing less.
There have been some attempts since the 1950s to run DMUs in commuter
service, such as the SPV2000, some Rolls Royce powered DMUs run by GO
Transit in the late 1960s, Boston with their RDCs, and CP Rail's use of
RDCs in the 1970s, and all have given way to locomotives due to cost and
reliability issues. Boston simply stopped maintaining their RDC engines,
and used a locomotive to pull the dead cars.
Stephen Sprunk
> There have been some attempts since the 1950s to run DMUs in commuter
> service, such as the SPV2000, some Rolls Royce powered DMUs run by GO
> Transit in the late 1960s, Boston with their RDCs, and CP Rail's use of
> RDCs in the 1970s, and all have given way to locomotives due to cost and
> reliability issues. Boston simply stopped maintaining their RDC engines,
> and used a locomotive to pull the dead cars.
TRE has a few RDCs in daily use, but they're phasing them out and going
to an all push-pull fleet. In fall 2010, they will be leased to DCTA
for a couple years until Stadler can deliver the GTWs that are on order;
I haven't seen any indication of where they'll go after that.
DMUs in general, though, are growing in popularity for light rail. It's
just that nobody makes an FRA compliant one, so many TAs who _would_ use
DMUs are forced to buy push-pull sets.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
>Boston simply stopped maintaining their RDC engines,
> and used a locomotive to pull the dead cars.
Boston was an early user of RDCs, probably because push-pull hadn't
been perfected as yet. The RDC worked out very well in avoiding
locomotive wyeing or turnaround. With push pull that's not an issue.
I suspect Boston ceased maintaining them because the fleet aged and it
became uneconomical to keep the old engines going.
I also suspect some carriers aren't interested in running small
railroad trains of 1-3 cars because it's an inefficient use of a three-
men conventional crew. However, certain offpeak NJ Transit diesel
trains and the Atlantic City Line would probably be more efficient as
RDCs.
As noted, some carriers are using light rail DMUs, such as the River
Line, which offer the strong advantage of one-man operation and some
freedom from FRA inspections. (Is a River Line Stadler unit
considered a "railroad locomotive" with required inspections or exempt
like a streetcar?)
What puzzles me is that many carriers used MU cars for 100 years,
having very large fleets, and the individual unit "locmotive"
inspection requirements never seemed to be a problem. The Pennsy had
MP-54s in service from Washington DC to Montauk LI, with lots of
branches, then more modern cars. The 'Central and New Haven, and IC
had big MU fleets as do their modern predecessors. SEPTA, which would
do anything to save money, wants an all-MU fleet.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> DMUs in general, though, are growing in popularity for light rail. It's
> just that nobody makes an FRA compliant one, so many TAs who _would_ use
> DMUs are forced to buy push-pull sets.
Some years ago Bombardier was busy building many of its standard
coaches for various carriers, almost all for push-pull service. I
strongly suspect had the SPV been a decent product that would've been
the car of choice for many of the orders. It actually was the car of
choice for some orders initially, but failed in service and was
replaced by push-pull. The MTA runs a number of tail-end shuttle
trains for which an RDC would be ideal.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Florida found that the power car was unable to actually tow the trailer. It
> stalled going up VERY slight grades.. A second power car is required to get
> the thing over the road. Now *that* is underpowered!
>
> So the idea of using one and the trailer failed .. use 2 plus the trailer, and
> you have a slow train that can at least handle a minor grade. (Like there are
> any really BIG ones in Florida, which is about as flat as a pancake...)
RDCs were not designed to handle trailers. There was a special half
powered RDC-9 for long trains.
But a rail car certainly can be so designed. The MUs of the DL&W were
set up as motor-trailer married pairs. Today they could likely have
trailer-motor-trailer set ups which would give some flexibility.
Using trailers would ease up on the locomotive inspection business.
Stephen Sprunk
> As noted, some carriers are using light rail DMUs, such as the River
> Line, which offer the strong advantage of one-man operation and some
> freedom from FRA inspections. (Is a River Line Stadler unit
> considered a "railroad locomotive" with required inspections or exempt
> like a streetcar?)
NJT's GTWs are "light rail" and thus most locomotive rules, such as
inspections, don't apply.
However, the FRA designated CMTA's service "commuter rail" despite it
using (a newer generation of) the same GTWs as NJT. CMTA is bound by
most of the locomotive rules, including inspections, but they did
receive waivers for a number of them based on Stadler's recommendations
(which the FRA adopted almost verbatim) or obvious inapplicability (you
can't inspect something that doesn't exist...).
Alan McKenney
...
> What puzzles me is that many carriers used MU cars for 100 years,
> having very large fleets, and the individual unit "locmotive"
> inspection requirements never seemed to be a problem.
I'm not an engineer (either kind), but I suspect that
there is some critical difference between electric
MU's and DMU's, or where they're used, that
makes EMU's better than locomotive-hauled trains
but DMU's worse (by whatever criteria the railroads use.)
I notice that Metro-North uses push-pull trains on the
non-electrified lines and EMU's (almost exclusively)
on its electrified lines. Metro-North is buying both,
so it's not a matter of using legacy equipment.
I'm guessing that one reason for preferring EMUs
is acceleration. My station is served by both
push-pull (diesel) trains and EMU's, and the
push-pull trains are noticeably slower starting up.
The schedules seem to allow more time for
push-pull trains to make the same stops, too.
On Metro-North, the stations tend to be closer
together on the electrified lines (1-2 miles apart),
so this makes a difference.
FWIW, do DMU's have better acceleration than
push-pulls?
Another possible reason (I'm speculating here)
might be that DMUs are more complicated
than EMUs, so you have more maintenance,
and they're probably harder to service than
locomotives, because the diesel engine is
tucked away in some out-of-the-way spot.
Finally (speculating again), electric lines tend
to have lots of trains, which justifies having
equipment optimized for your lines and setting
up whole mainenance yards just for them.
Non-electrified lines generally have fewer trains,
so you're more likely to want generic equipment,
especially for the higher-mainenance motive
power. Metro-North's locomotives are (mostly?)
dual-power, which means special engineering,
and I don't think it's a coincidence that they've
had a lot of trouble running them on 3rd-rail
power.
> SEPTA, which would do anything to save money,
> wants an all-MU fleet.
SEPTA commuter rail is 100% electrified. The
same cars can be run on every line. I also
notice they run a lot of short trains (2-4 cars),
and, on many lines, stations are very closely
spaced, almost like a subway. FWIW, I didn't
know that they _had_ any loc-hauled trains.
Nick Fotis
>
> For an illustration of what I mean, see the first part of the following video:
> http://www.bahntv-online.de/btvo/site/index.php?s=4700&ids=142675
> (or for downloading with MMS-capable tools like mplayer:)
> mms://atkon.wmod.llnwd.net/a648/o1/bahntv/20090307_LudwigshafenUlm_700K.wmv
Nice one - is it done with a tilting DMU?
N.F.
Joseph D. Korman
http://www.thejoekorner.com/photos/nynhh/3130055.jpg
It's the Roger Williams set in New London in 1970.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
James Robinson
> RDCs were not designed to handle trailers. There was a special half
> powered RDC-9 for long trains.
While Budd didn't recommend it, a number of railroads regularly hauled both
heavyweight and lightweight passenger cars behind RDCs. Examples include
the C&O and the M&StL. So it wasn't as though it was impossible.
> But a rail car certainly can be so designed. The MUs of the DL&W were
> set up as motor-trailer married pairs. Today they could likely have
> trailer-motor-trailer set ups which would give some flexibility.
>
> Using trailers would ease up on the locomotive inspection business.
Much depends on the transmission used, and the ability to fit an engine of
appropriate size under the cars. However, given the lack of interest in
the idea, commuter railroads in North America seem generally happy with the
current arrangement.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson <wasc...@212.com> wrote:
>>
>> Boston simply stopped maintaining their RDC engines, and used a
>> locomotive to pull the dead cars.
>
> Boston was an early user of RDCs, probably because push-pull hadn't
> been perfected as yet. The RDC worked out very well in avoiding
> locomotive wyeing or turnaround. With push pull that's not an issue.
More likely because B&M bought RDCs for their longer distance passenger
service, and wanted to standardize. As the long distance services were
discontinued, the surplus RDCs were available to fill in the commuter
service.
> I suspect Boston ceased maintaining them because the fleet aged and it
> became uneconomical to keep the old engines going.
Isn't that the whole question? Why did railroads that had RDCs avoid
using them in commuter service, or deengine them and haul them with
locomotives instead? If DMUs are supposedly such a great idea, wouldn't
you think they would want them in commuter service, if the ecnomics were
right? It isn't as though a number or railroads didn't try the idea.
Those that did, gave up the operation very quickly.
> I also suspect some carriers aren't interested in running small
> railroad trains of 1-3 cars because it's an inefficient use of a
> three- men conventional crew.
Even in the 1950s, railroad crew agreements allowed a two man crew on 1
or 2 car RDC trains. That was an incentive to operate them instead of
locomotive-hauled trains, if the trains were that short. A third RDC
brought on a brakeman in addition to the other two.
> However, certain offpeak NJ Transit diesel trains and the Atlantic
> City Line would probably be more efficient as RDCs.
Could be, as long as the RDCs didn't sit all day waiting for the off-peak
service. Could they be used effectively in the peak periods? Maybe if
more frequent service was offered, but that isn't the case today.
James Robinson
>
> Clark F Morris schrieb:
>
>> Each RDC is a locomotive which has inspection and maintenance
>> implications. The trend in North America is to not run single car
>> trains because they take up as much track space as a much longer train
>> (if the signaling allows 12 trains an hour, it doesn't matter how long
>> the train is).
>
> of track sees about 10 trains per day. Switzerland: 90, Japan: 80,
> Germany: 45.
And they don't run 12,000 foot trains or the total tonnage that trains
handle in the US. It's a different style of operation, aimed at a
different market.
Stephen Sprunk
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> But a rail car certainly can be so designed. The MUs of the DL&W were
>> set up as motor-trailer married pairs. Today they could likely have
>> trailer-motor-trailer set ups which would give some flexibility.
>>
>> Using trailers would ease up on the locomotive inspection business.
>
> Much depends on the transmission used, and the ability to fit an engine of
> appropriate size under the cars. However, given the lack of interest in
> the idea, commuter railroads in North America seem generally happy with the
> current arrangement.
Many commuter RRs are unhappy with the status quo; there was _a lot_ of
interest in CRC's DMUs. However, it's very difficult for a new player
to enter the market. If they had started by building coaches and gotten
established as a viable company that TAs felt comfortable buying
products from, then introduced the DMU, things might have turned out
quite differently.
John Albert
"http://www.thejoekorner.com/photos/nynhh/3130055.jpg
It's the Roger Williams set in New London in 1970."
I actually got to work on those a little bit, hostling them
around New Haven Motor Storage.
I believe at least one of them is over at the Danbury
Railway Museum these days.
- John
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> NJT's GTWs are "light rail" and thus most locomotive rules, such as
> inspections, don't apply.
>
> However, the FRA designated CMTA's service "commuter rail" . . .
Go figure the FRA.
PATH and PATCO are extremely similar rapid transit lines, but PATH was
regulated while PATCO was not. (PATCO made sure it was registered as
an Interurban; though the railroad unions sought to classify it as a
railroad.)
Is PATH still regulated? In its very early days it shared track with
the PRR, but PATH soon segregated all its track.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I'm not an engineer (either kind), but I suspect that
> there is some critical difference between electric
> MU's and DMU's, or where they're used, that
> makes EMU's better than locomotive-hauled trains
> but DMU's worse (by whatever criteria the railroads use.)
Not really. DMUs tend to be used in ligher-service tracks which don't
have the volume to be electrified.
> I notice that Metro-North uses push-pull trains on the
> non-electrified lines and EMU's (almost exclusively)
> on its electrified lines. Metro-North is buying both,
> so it's not a matter of using legacy equipment.
MNRR bought DMUs (the SPVs) for its 'tail end' services but they had
mechanical troubles.
> FWIW, do DMU's have better acceleration than
> push-pulls?
The Budd RDCs were not especially sprightly though I'm sure they
could've been adjusted to do better, at the expense of a top speed
that is rarely achieved. The Stadler cars are pretty nimble.
> Another possible reason (I'm speculating here)
> might be that DMUs are more complicated
> than EMUs, so you have more maintenance,
> and they're probably harder to service than
> locomotives, because the diesel engine is
> tucked away in some out-of-the-way spot.
Actually, the Budd RDC had the engine and transmission mounted in such
a way making repairs relatively easy; sort of a pull out arrangement.
But yes, DMUs have an engine generator (or engine transmission).
Howeve, lines served don't have electrification and their maintenance.
> > SEPTA, which would do anything to save money,
> > wants an all-MU fleet.
>
> SEPTA commuter rail is 100% electrified. The
> same cars can be run on every line. I also
> notice they run a lot of short trains (2-4 cars),
> and, on many lines, stations are very closely
> spaced, almost like a subway. FWIW, I didn't
> know that they _had_ any loc-hauled trains.
SEPTA has several push pull train sets which they don't like because
they accelerate slow. They're used only in rush hour express trains.
They're up for sale. To me, they're an incredible waste of power
since the locomotives are so powerful but still can't accelerate that
well.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> More likely because B&M bought RDCs for their longer distance passenger
> service, and wanted to standardize. As the long distance services were
> discontinued, the surplus RDCs were available to fill in the commuter
> service.
But didn't the B&M buy a big fleet, including the RDC-9, for commuter
service?
> > I suspect Boston ceased maintaining them because the fleet aged and it
> > became uneconomical to keep the old engines going.
>
> Isn't that the whole question?
No. Diesel equipment ages and either the prime mover is replaced, as
often the case, or the unit is retired.
But, I'm not sure why new diesel engines weren't fitted to RDCs when
the old ones aged.
>Why did railroads that had RDCs avoid
> using them in commuter service, or deengine them and haul them with
> locomotives instead? If DMUs are supposedly such a great idea, wouldn't
> you think they would want them in commuter service, if the ecnomics were
> right? It isn't as though a number or railroads didn't try the idea.
> Those that did, gave up the operation very quickly.
The B&O, Reading, CNJ, B&M, PRSL, NYC, NH, E-L all used RDCs
successfully in commuter service for years. It would appear to be a
more eastern thing, but perhaps in the RDC's heydey there wasn't much
commuter rail elsewhere except for Chicago.
One question is the RDC in accidents, which scared some railroads
off. I'm not sure why the LIRR dumped its RDC set, I believe after an
accident, when it runs MUs all over the place.
> > I also suspect some carriers aren't interested in running small
> > railroad trains of 1-3 cars because it's an inefficient use of a
> > three- men conventional crew.
>
> Even in the 1950s, railroad crew agreements allowed a two man crew on 1
> or 2 car RDC trains. That was an incentive to operate them instead of
> locomotive-hauled trains, if the trains were that short. A third RDC
> brought on a brakeman in addition to the other two.
Interesting. The Reading and MTA lines had bigger crews. Reading two-
car trains ran with a fireman, I don't recall if they had a brakeman,
too, but at least a three-person crew.
> > However, certain offpeak NJ Transit diesel trains and the Atlantic
> > City Line would probably be more efficient as RDCs.
>
> Could be, as long as the RDCs didn't sit all day waiting for the off-peak
> service. Could they be used effectively in the peak periods? Maybe if
> more frequent service was offered, but that isn't the case today.
They'd be perfect for the Atlantic City line.
For other lines they'd be best in offpeak service. During peak
periods they could be coupled together to make a long train. This
would be preferable instead of the fuel-eating locomotive trains used
in off peak service.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> James Robinson wrote:
> > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >> But a rail car certainly can be so designed. The MUs of the DL&W were
> >> set up as motor-trailer married pairs. Today they could likely have
> >> trailer-motor-trailer set ups which would give some flexibility.
>
> >> Using trailers would ease up on the locomotive inspection business.
>
> > Much depends on the transmission used, and the ability to fit an engine of
> > appropriate size under the cars. However, given the lack of interest in
> > the idea, commuter railroads in North America seem generally happy with the
> > current arrangement.
>
> Many commuter RRs are unhappy with the status quo; there was _a lot_ of
> interest in CRC's DMUs. However, it's very difficult for a new player
> to enter the market. If they had started by building coaches and gotten
> established as a viable company that TAs felt comfortable buying
> products from, then introduced the DMU, things might have turned out
> quite differently.
There was a great deal of interest in the Budd SPV, and some carriers
bought them. But they had problems. Had they been successful the
story would've been different.
James Robinson
> Alan McKenney <alan_mckenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> � � FWIW, do DMU's have better acceleration than
>> � � push-pulls?
>
> The Budd RDCs were not especially sprightly though I'm sure they
> could've been adjusted to do better, at the expense of a top speed
> that is rarely achieved. The Stadler cars are pretty nimble.
RDCs pretty well applied all the horsepower available to the rails.
Since it is a fluid coupling in the transmission, it wouldn't matter what
their top speed was. They originally had about 550 hp per car, but some
roads derated them slightly after they were delivered to reduce fuel
consumption and visible exhaust smoke. Thus, a set of five RDCs would
accelerate at about the same rate as a five car conventional train pulled
by a 4,000 hp locomotive.
> SEPTA has several push pull train sets which they don't like because
> they accelerate slow. They're used only in rush hour express trains.
> They're up for sale. To me, they're an incredible waste of power
> since the locomotives are so powerful but still can't accelerate that
> well.
Power is what mainly provides acceleration. At start, the number of
powered axles is important, but that ends as the train accelerates and
the motors become horsepower limited at quite low speed. Push/pull trains
don't have as high a horsepower per car as an EMU, which is where the
difference in acceleration comes from. Thus, the push/pull is not a waste
of power, but inadequate power for what you feel is necessary.
Philip Nasadowski
<b2c9d9eb-f1c3-41ce...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Is PATH still regulated? In its very early days it shared track with
> the PRR, but PATH soon segregated all its track.
Probbably. Government regulators don't give up easily.
An extreme example is the NS Savannah. Despite having been out of use
since the 70's, and having no nuclear fuel or materials onboard, the NRC
still lists license NS-1 as active (possesion only), and the current
owners (The DOT) are required to do all the paperwork and inspections
involved.
Last I heard they were rethinking plans to rip out the nuke parts before
making it a museum, but that was a few months ago and they flip flop on
the issue. I'm not exactly sure what the attraction of the ship as a
museum is, if the main point of it is removed...
gl4...@yahoo.com
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> James Robinson wrote:
> > hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >> But a rail car certainly can be so designed. The MUs of the DL&W were
> >> set up as motor-trailer married pairs. Today they could likely have
> >> trailer-motor-trailer set ups which would give some flexibility.
> >>
> >> Using trailers would ease up on the locomotive inspection business.
> >
> > Much depends on the transmission used, and the ability to fit an engine of
> > appropriate size under the cars. However, given the lack of interest in
> > the idea, commuter railroads in North America seem generally happy with the
> > current arrangement.
>
> Many commuter RRs are unhappy with the status quo; there was _a lot_ of
> interest in CRC's DMUs. However, it's very difficult for a new player
> to enter the market. If they had started by building coaches and gotten
> established as a viable company that TAs felt comfortable buying
> products from, then introduced the DMU, things might have turned out
> quite differently.
No it wouldn't have.
Colorado Railcar was a successful maker of passenger cars, including the
Ultradome cars used in Alaska and Canada. Making commuter coaches isn't
something they would have done well with, due to Bombardier and a few
others already being well established in that market.
However, they did well at making small production runs of cars, and their
DMU would have fit well within that area because there really aren't a
huge number of agencies looking at ordering hundreds of cars - otherwise
Bombardier would already be making one. Bombardier, however, doesn't make
stuff for the small markets, though.
What killed the company was financial mismanagement. According to the
newspapers here, money from Colorado Railcar was, among other things,
shuffled off by the company owners to purchase the American Orient Express
train set (which also ultimately got sucked into the same financial
tangle).
Therefore, the result would have been the same no matter what the rest of
the history of the company was. That sort of financial tangle just can't
be compensated for.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
gl4...@yahoo.com
billbl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:54:02 -0700, gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> >In article <87tz198...@catnip.gol.com>, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org>
wrote:
> > I've not heard of any problems with the ones operating in Florida, or
the one
> > unit that Alaska Railroad has put into service.
>
> Florida found that the power car was unable to actually tow the trailer. It
> stalled going up VERY slight grades.. A second power car is required to get
> the thing over the road. Now *that* is underpowered!
>
> So the idea of using one and the trailer failed .. use 2 plus the trailer, and
> you have a slow train that can at least handle a minor grade. (Like there are
> any really BIG ones in Florida, which is about as flat as a pancake...)
The prototype car was tested in Alaska on 3% grades towing a short train,
and it seemed to work OK.
The trains on WES in the Portland area are power car + trailer
combinations, and there is one section where the grades are fairly steep,
and they seem to be working OK here.
Bernhard Agthe
866013149e wrote:
> Since nothing like the Budd RDC is in widespread use today on American
> rails, I gather that the concept of a self-propelled diesel rail car has
> been a failure.
What annoyes me about this discussion is an experience made in Italy a
few years ago. The italian operator is running *long* local trains
(engine plus ten wagons or so) in push-pull. The trains are not crowded,
but mostly well-used, sometimes full.
In Germany, however, local trains are running less cars all the time and
are being replaced by small DMU-trains increasingly. But then, fare is
*much* more expensive in Germany (if you can get a ticket: many small
stations only have vending machines which are too complicated for
children and elderly passengers).
So my question is: why is everyone (in Germany but also elsewhere) so
interested in DMUs when push-pull trains are a good solution (and the
question is rather how to get ridership up)?
Ciao...
.
Valentin Brückel
> Bernhard Agthe schrieb:
>
>
>> In Germany, however, local trains are running less cars all the time and
>> are being replaced by small DMU-trains increasingly. But then, fare is
>> *much* more expensive in Germany (if you can get a ticket: many small
>> stations only have vending machines which are too complicated for
>> children and elderly passengers).
>
> elderly passengers. (Plus the kids usually have a school ticket anyway.)
>
> Simple truth is: There isn't the money, to pay for more train kilometers
> (including more engineer's hours) /and/ for staff at small stations. So
> there has to be a decision. With the last semaphores, more station staff
> will disappear.
I think the two of you are talking about different things: Branch lines and
main lines. For branch lines, DMUs are perfect. For main lines, the increased
capacity of push-pull trains (especially double-deck cars, especially when
talking about RE services) is the decisive factor.
Unfortunately, some states (NRW comes to mind) consistently order services
with insufficient capacity and DB StuS has shortened several platforms
accordingly.
> Replacing a diesel push-pull by a tilting DMU (including the necessary
> track improvements) in RE service usually gains about 20 - 30%
> passengers. It could have been more, if the industry had been able, to
> deliver tilting trains without axle problems.
As long as you're talking about winding secondary lines. On double-tracked
100-mph-lines, 146-pulled double-deck cars are superior.
F'up debx?
Val
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > SEPTA has several push pull train sets which they don't like because
> > they accelerate slow. They're used only in rush hour express trains.
> > They're up for sale. To me, they're an incredible waste of power
> > since the locomotives are so powerful but still can't accelerate that
> > well.
>
> Power is what mainly provides acceleration. At start, the number of
> powered axles is important, but that ends as the train accelerates and
> the motors become horsepower limited at quite low speed. Push/pull trains
> don't have as high a horsepower per car as an EMU, which is where the
> difference in acceleration comes from. Thus, the push/pull is not a waste
> of power, but inadequate power for what you feel is necessary.
Doesn't an AEM-7, which SEPTA uses, develop about 7,000 HP? On a six
car train, that should be pretty sprightly acceleration.
In past discussions, many suggested the number of powered axles have a
more import role in acceleration.
Would anyone know the horsepower of the 1963 Budd Silverliners? I
thought they had four 100 or 125 HP motors. Yet, an RDC at 600 HP
(the later models had more) accelerated much slower. Both had a top
speed of about 85 mph.
Philip Nasadowski
<d058356b-0d92-4fda...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Doesn't an AEM-7, which SEPTA uses, develop about 7,000 HP?
5300 or so. 7,000 HP is the 'diesel equivalent' HP. It's listed that
way in the manual.
> On a six car train, that should be pretty sprightly acceleration.
Not really, the short time on the Arrows is higher.
> Would anyone know the horsepower of the 1963 Budd Silverliners? I
> thought they had four 100 or 125 HP motors.
156hp, per Budd's documents of the era. The Pioneer IIIs had 100HP
motors.
Thus, the SL II is around 600 HP. But they likely had an ability to do
a bit more while accelerating. I don't know how the
PRR/PC/Conrail/Septa set the acceleration on those cars - it likely
could be adjusted a bit.
> Yet, an RDC at 600 HP
> (the later models had more) accelerated much slower. Both had a top
> speed of about 85 mph.
The RDC had more weight. I don't know if the diesels had turbos - that
would also mean a good lag in getting to power. And the HP curve of a
diesel engine isn't as flat as an electric motor - that's partly why
locomotives are diesel-electric or diesel-hydrualic.
Nobody
>Valentin Br�ckel schrieb:
>
>
>> Unfortunately, some states (NRW comes to mind) consistently order services
>> with insufficient capacity and DB StuS has shortened several platforms
>> accordingly.
>
>More precisely: He's living in a part of NRW, where transit compounds
>haven't put up rail service up for bidding in the past, but instead, handed
>out gobs of the taxpayer's money to Deutsche Bahn Regio in lump sum
>contracts, which are at least 20 or 30% overpaid.
>
>And now, these transit compounds are whining, because they can't find the
>money for more or longer trains, and the contracts go to 2015 or so.
>
>Somebody should go in jail for that, but will have got a promotion instead...
>
>
>
>
>> As long as you're talking about winding secondary lines. On double-tracked
>> 100-mph-lines, 146-pulled double-deck cars are superior.
>
>provide a fully acceptable service.
>
>Valentin forgets to mention something, and that's the fact, that
>understanding railroads has proven to be intellectually challenging for
>certain local and regional administrations.
>
>"Deutsche Bahn AG StuS" has rebuilt stations, partly using taxpayer money,
>handed to them by municipalities or the state. In the process, they "saved
>money" by not improving the platforms on their existing length, but
>instead, shortening them to the length of a "Deutsche Bahn AG Regio"
>doubledeck train.
>
>In some years, when they finally put up these lines for bidding, these
>administrations will learn, that there aren't many bidders. Only the
>biggest companies (like Deutsche Bahn AG Regio) can afford to have
>doubledeck push-pull sets especially for mainlines, while small operators
>need to use a more flexible solution.
>
>And thus, it's my prediction, that the German taxpayer will pay dearly
>for these dummies not able to understand, that they got pulled over the
>table.
>
>
>
>Hans-Joachim
Well, at least it's interesting to see the "rail-oriented" Europeans
are arguing over much the same cost/privatization issues that be-devil
North American commuter attempts.
bob
> Since nothing like the Budd RDC is in widespread use today on American
> rails, I gather that the concept of a self-propelled diesel rail car has
> been a failure.
>
> shoved by GP-40's where only one or two cars are occupied and the others
> are just dead weight. One would think something like the RDC could give
> the local commuter railroad the flexibility to run smaller trains,
> perhaps with greater frequency. Yet as far as I can see the trend across
> the country has all been toward locomotive-hauled trains. Why, I wonder?
There are several reasons why a DMU might be prefered over a push-pull
set option. First, your power and fuel requirements scale with the
length of train, so you will always get the same performance
regardless of length, and you can run short trains economically.
Second, in a longer train, you have redundancy that helps with
reliability. In a 6 car train, with a DMU you will have 6 engines.
If one fails, you can probably carry on with 5 and keep the service
running. With a push pull set, if your locomotive fails, that's it.
Third, with more powered axles, DMUs will tend to have better
acceleration than push pull sets, at least at low speeds. Fourth, the
track wear tends to be related quite strongly to axle load. Push pull
sets tend to have a heavy locomotive and relatively light cars, while
a DMU spreads the weight so that the maximum axle load is less, so
they are easier on the track.
There are also reasons why a push pull set might be prefered. First,
if your locomotive needs maintenance, you can still use the passenger
cars with a different locomotive for flexibility. Second, unpowered
carriages require significantly less maintenance than a DMU vehicle.
Third, the vibrations from the diesel engines tend to cause DMU
vehicles to have a shorter service life than similar unpowered
carriages. Fourth, underfloor engines can lead to a less pleasant
travelling environment for the passengers, and a less pleasant
environment on stations where trains wait for any length of time.
I recall reading that British Rail did a study into the costs, and
found that (at the time, perhaps around 1990), DMUs were cheaper up to
about 5 cars, and locomotives and carriages were cheaper for longer
trains. Of course the different inspection, maintenance and manning
routines in the US and Canada will make the ballance different for the
North American market.
A further factor for the North American market is the existance of
proven and certified designs for locomotives and hauled stock, and
where the locomotives can benefit from developments in frieght
locomotive design, while no design for DMUs are proven in service, so
any potential customer will have to shoulder the development cost.
Robin
James Robinson
> James Robinson wrote:
>
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> But a rail car certainly can be so designed. The MUs of the DL&W
>>> were set up as motor-trailer married pairs. Today they could likely
>>> have trailer-motor-trailer set ups which would give some
>>> flexibility.
>>>
>>> Using trailers would ease up on the locomotive inspection business.
>>
>> Much depends on the transmission used, and the ability to fit an
>> engine of appropriate size under the cars. However, given the lack
>> of interest in the idea, commuter railroads in North America seem
>> generally happy with the current arrangement.
>
> Many commuter RRs are unhappy with the status quo; there was _a lot_
> of interest in CRC's DMUs.
There was interest in what appeared to be a new idea, but it was quickly
lost when the price was mentioned, and they couldn't figure out how to
justify it.
> However, it's very difficult for a new player to enter the market. If
> they had started by building coaches and gotten established as a
> viable company that TAs felt comfortable buying products from, then
> introduced the DMU, things might have turned out quite differently.
Yes, it's difficult, and it's also a problem for the new entrant in that
once they sell the product, they don't get any follow-up purchases for
parts. EMD and GE own the designs of their engines, so they continue to
collect money from engine part sales as their locomotives age. CRC would
have no income stream after the sales to ensure their longevity.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson <wasc...@212.com> wrote:
>>
>> More likely because B&M bought RDCs for their longer distance
>> passenger service, and wanted to standardize. �As the long distance
>> services were discontinued, the surplus RDCs were available to fill
>> in the commuter service.
>
> But didn't the B&M buy a big fleet, including the RDC-9, for commuter
> service?
Yes, they did, and they had lots of surplus RDCs as time went on to
support the commuter operation. In the end, with all the experience
they had with RDC operations, they still chose to stop maintaining their
engines, and instead started to pull them with locomotives. Doesn't say
much for the whole DMU idea, does it?
>> > I suspect Boston ceased maintaining them because the fleet aged and
>> > it became uneconomical to keep the old engines going.
>>
>> Isn't that the whole question? �
>
> No. Diesel equipment ages and either the prime mover is replaced, as
> often the case, or the unit is retired.
They don't replace the prime mover, they rebuild it. B&M didn't even
choose to do that.
> But, I'm not sure why new diesel engines weren't fitted to RDCs when
> the old ones aged.
They simply decided that it was cheaper to convert them into unpowered
coaches, and pull them with locomotives. It was a simple economic
decision when the railroad was tight on cash, and low cost was
essential.
>> Why did railroads that had RDCs avoid
>> using them in commuter service, or deengine them and haul them with
>> locomotives instead? �If DMUs are supposedly such a great idea,
>> wouldn't you think they would want them in commuter service, if the
>> ecnomics were right? �It isn't as though a number or railroads didn't
>> try the idea. Those that did, gave up the operation very quickly.
>
> The B&O, Reading, CNJ, B&M, PRSL, NYC, NH, E-L all used RDCs
> successfully in commuter service for years. It would appear to be a
> more eastern thing, but perhaps in the RDC's heydey there wasn't much
> commuter rail elsewhere except for Chicago.
Some continued to use them because they were already in their fleets,
and therefore a sunk cost. The interesting thing is that two major RDC
operators - CP and B&M both stopped using them in commuter service, and
moved to conventional trains instead. That says a lot about their
feelings on what is best for commuter service.
> During peak periods they could be coupled together to make a long
> train. This would be preferable instead of the fuel-eating locomotive
> trains used in off peak service.
That isn't the case. Long trains pulled by locomotives use substantially
less fuel than RDCs, and short trains use only slight more. Overall,
conventional trains use less fuel.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<was...@212.com> wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson <wasc...@212.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> More likely because B&M bought RDCs for their longer distance
> >> passenger service, and wanted to standardize. �As the long distance
> >> services were discontinued, the surplus RDCs were available to fill
> >> in the commuter service.
> >
> > But didn't the B&M buy a big fleet, including the RDC-9, for commuter
> > service?
>
> Yes, they did, and they had lots of surplus RDCs as time went on to
> support the commuter operation. In the end, with all the experience
> they had with RDC operations, they still chose to stop maintaining their
> engines, and instead started to pull them with locomotives. Doesn't say
> much for the whole DMU idea, does it?
Even though they were pulling them with locomotives, they did not
de-engine them. They simply pulled the drive shaft, and the engine
continued to generate power to run the HVAC and lights. They never got
HEPed.
Our group owns two RDC-9s from B&M. That's how those are set up, anyway.
Therefore, they still had all the maintenance headaches of maintaining all
the engines, but without any of the benefits that arise from DMU
operation.
Therefore, I'm not convinced that B&M really should be used as an example
of one way or the other. It either doesn't say much about the ability of
the organization to come up with money saving ides, or it doesn't say much
for the whole idea of trying to maintain multiple control cabs.
There's also the little issue that some of those RDCs were well past their
prime, after having the snot run out of them in daily commuter service.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson schrieb:
>> That isn't the case. Long trains pulled by locomotives use
>> substantially less fuel than RDCs, and short trains use only slight
>> more. Overall, conventional trains use less fuel.
>
> don't use more fuel than a transit bus, at the speed of a common
> commuter train.
Do you think that locomotive technology has stood still in the meantime?
Any difference will be because of the total train weight.
Stephen Sprunk
> Bill Blomgren schrieb:
>> At this point, the state of Florida isn't interested in what the problem is..
>> they just know that they have it.
>
> For solving a problem, it often helps to know, what the problem is.
That's not how American politics work.
"We must to do something. This is something. Therefore we must do
this." --Politician's Fallacy
>> Colorado made a strange looking power car.. and perhaps the new owners will
>> figure out how to make the ones already in the field work right.
>>
>> Or it just may be too feeble to carry that coach with the AC requirements
>> found in Florida. (Lots of windows, many many KW of AC needed..)
>
> ???
>
> I thought that the CRCs got a Voith transmission?
The air conditioning is going to sap power from the engines whether it's
done mechanically or electrically.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Isaac Jaffe
gl4...@yahoo.com
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
> > I thought that the CRCs got a Voith transmission?
>
> The air conditioning is going to sap power from the engines whether it's
> done mechanically or electrically.
No it isn't.
The CRC DMU has a separate HEP generator for powering the 480 volt 3 phase
systems. It is really set up to act like such creatures as the Danish
Flexliner (which does the same thing). The Flexliner, however, is an
articulated set while the DMU made by CRC has multiple passenger cars.
They didn't think the market in the USA was ready for multiple articulated
cars just yet.
In any event, the traction engines can run at any RPM required to keep the
power up, or be completely shut down, and the 480 volt 3 phase power will
still be there. Likewise, no matter what HVAC load is present, or how
many cars are being powered from the HEP system, there isn't going to be a
drain on the traction engines.
James Robinson
>
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> Would anyone know the horsepower of the 1963 Budd Silverliners? I
>> thought they had four 100 or 125 HP motors.
>
> 156hp, per Budd's documents of the era. The Pioneer IIIs had 100HP
> motors.
>
> Thus, the SL II is around 600 HP. But they likely had an ability to
> do a bit more while accelerating. I don't know how the
> PRR/PC/Conrail/Septa set the acceleration on those cars - it likely
> could be adjusted a bit.
>
>> Yet, an RDC at 600 HP (the later models had more) accelerated much
>> slower. Both had a top speed of about 85 mph.
>
> The RDC had more weight. I don't know if the diesels had turbos -
> that would also mean a good lag in getting to power. And the HP curve
> of a diesel engine isn't as flat as an electric motor - that's partly
> why locomotives are diesel-electric or diesel-hydrualic.
RDCs weighed 60 to 62 tons, or about the same as Silverliners. Their
Detroit 110 engines were two stroke, so had to have a mechanically-driven
centrifugal turbocharger for charge air, hence no turbo lag. The RDC had
a hydraulic transmission, which kept horsepower pretty well constant
throughout the speed range.
There was no top speed with RDCs, other than that limited by horsepower.
A single car might only get to 80 mph, but when more than one car was run
in a set, the lower air resistance of the trailing cars meant that they
could run to higher speeds with the same power per car.
James Robinson
>> powered axles is important, but that ends as the train accelerates
>> and the motors become horsepower limited at quite low speed.
>> Push/pull trains don't have as high a horsepower per car as an EMU,
>> which is where the difference in acceleration comes from. Thus, the
>> push/pull is not a waste of power, but inadequate power for what you
>> feel is necessary.
>
> Doesn't an AEM-7, which SEPTA uses, develop about 7,000 HP? On a six
> car train, that should be pretty sprightly acceleration.
>
> In past discussions, many suggested the number of powered axles have a
> more import role in acceleration.
At start, there is so much tractive effort available that the wheels will
easily slip. What more powered axles provides is a way to spread out the
available power such that more tractive effort can be applied to the
rails.
A 7,000 HP locomotive pulling 10 cars can only apply that power to its
own four axles. In comparison, a 10 car MU train, with all axles powered,
and 700 hp per car has ten times as many axles and can therefore get 10
times as much tractive effort to the rails for acceleration at the start.
Hence, the MU train can accelerate much more quickly at the start.
Once the MU set gets to about 8 mph, wheel slip no longer limits things,
as tractive effort drops off as speed increases. Horsepower becomes the
more important factor as speed climbs higher.
In the case of the locomotive, wheel slippage will limit the amount of
power it can apply to the rails until about 40 mph. Above that speed, it
can apply full horsepower.
Therefore, in comparison, the MU set will accelerate much more quickly
from the start due to more powered axles, but the difference between the
two types of train will reduce as the speed climbs above 8 mph, until
there is no difference at 40 mph. Above 40 mph, horsepower is the
important factor, and in this example, the acceleration of both types of
trains would be about the same up to the maximum speed.
In looking at overall acceleration, the MU set is often limited at start
to keep from knocking people off their feet, so the 10 to 1 ratio is a
bit exaggerated. The time it takes the conventional train to get to 40
mph is also relatively short, like about 30 seconds, so the difference in
acceleration only applies for the lower speeds, with diminishing effect
as the train accelerates.
The effect on schedules is relatively low where stops are infrequent,
with greater benefit as the distance between stops gets shorter, meaning
more opportunities for low speed acceleration.
Stephen Sprunk
> A 7,000 HP locomotive pulling 10 cars can only apply that power to its
> own four axles. In comparison, a 10 car MU train, with all axles powered,
> and 700 hp per car has ten times as many axles and can therefore get 10
> times as much tractive effort to the rails for acceleration at the start.
> Hence, the MU train can accelerate much more quickly at the start.
>
> Once the MU set gets to about 8 mph, wheel slip no longer limits things,
> as tractive effort drops off as speed increases. Horsepower becomes the
> more important factor as speed climbs higher.
>
> In the case of the locomotive, wheel slippage will limit the amount of
> power it can apply to the rails until about 40 mph. Above that speed, it
> can apply full horsepower.
> with greater benefit as the distance between stops gets shorter, meaning
> more opportunities for low speed acceleration.
That's a good explanation of why one might prefer MU for standard
"commuter" operation (where stops are frequent) but push-pull for
"express" or "intercity" operation (where stops are infrequent). I knew
the former had better acceleration in practice, but I had always thought
it was simply by having more hp/ton, not by having more powered axles to
mitigate wheel slip. Thanks!
James Robinson
> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
>
>> In the end, with all the experience they had with RDC operations,
>> they still chose to stop maintaining their engines, and instead
>> started to pull them with locomotives. Doesn't say much for the
>> whole DMU idea, does it?
>
> Even though they were pulling them with locomotives, they did not
> de-engine them. They simply pulled the drive shaft, and the engine
> continued to generate power to run the HVAC and lights. They never
> got HEPed.
So they could have stopped maintaining one of the two engines under the
cars. (except for the RDC-9s)
> Our group owns two RDC-9s from B&M. That's how those are set up,
> anyway.
>
> Therefore, they still had all the maintenance headaches of maintaining
> all the engines, but without any of the benefits that arise from DMU
> operation.
So what do you supposed prompted them to add the cost of a locomotive,
and start pulling them instead? How about the savings in maintenance of
about 1/2 the RDC engines, substantially extending the life of the
remaining engines since they would only be lightly loaded with the HEP
load, and no traction load? These moves probably meant they didn't have
to spend money to continue overhauls on the engines. There would have
been some savings in maintenance of the Spicer drive.
> Therefore, I'm not convinced that B&M really should be used as an
> example of one way or the other. It either doesn't say much about the
> ability of the organization to come up with money saving ides, or it
> doesn't say much for the whole idea of trying to maintain multiple
> control cabs.
To me it says they were willing to look at other ways of doing things to
reduce cash flow. The B&M was essentially bankrupt, and had little money
to spend on things like overhauling engines, so keeping all expenditures
low was what they were trying to do. They wouldn't have saved much in
cab maintenance, since there isn't very much in an RDC cab that needs
fixing. All the brake equipment would have had to have been maintained
by regulation whether the cab was used or not, unless they stripped it
out and replaced it with non-control equipment, which I doubt they did.
> There's also the little issue that some of those RDCs were well past
> their prime, after having the snot run out of them in daily commuter
> service.
Meaning they were due engine overhauls, the cost of which was saved by
pulling the cars with locomotives.
HankVC
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>James Robinson schrieb:
>
>
>> less fuel than RDCs, and short trains use only slight more. Overall,
>> conventional trains use less fuel.
>
>
>use more fuel than a transit bus, at the speed of a common commuter train.
>
>
WWII-era drivetrain technology, was anything but a major success
story. These machines soldiered on for over 40 years, some going past
50, and a few are still in use today. That's a service life
comparable with the PRR GG-1, and very few other transportation
vehicles.
Yes, the specific fuel consumption of a Detroit Diesel 6-110 engine is
"two-cycle/normally aspirated" high. I don't think any railroad would
consider the specific fuel consumption of an EMD E-9 or F-9, or an
Alco FA "economical." Those were the road locomotives the railroads were
buying while the RDC was in production. In automotive terms, compare
with the flattie Ford or the Citroen Traction Avant.
The hydrodynamic transmission---as I recall, it was a Spicer unit, an
adaptation of designs used in construction equipment. Two speeds:
converter and direct drive, with nothing in between. Larger, but very
similar to the GM automatic introduced on 1938 Yellow Coach city
busses and still in series production into the 1950's. Pretty
comparable to the original Packard Ultramatic (has anybody reading
this ever seen such a car, much less driven one?) Or a 1949 Buick
Dynaflow, which did not have a direct drive upshift.
Now put all that power into A1-1A trucks, with only one of the two
axles powered. That layout compares with the Brill Maximum Traction
trolley car truck of the WWI era, notorious for it slipperiness.
And somebody here wants to say that this machine is
performance-challenged compared to a push-pull trainset using a much
more modern (power, efficiency) turbocharged 4-cycle diesel, an AC
generator, B-B trucks, and that therefore the push-pull set is
preferable to DMU? I don't think that very realistic.
The really sad part of things is not in the shortcomings of the RDC
design, but the ocmplete failure of the SPV-2000. To compare the
cost-benefit and performance of DMU vs. push-pull loco-hauled for
short-stage North American service, we've either got to look at
someplace that has newer DMU's running successfully or do a paper
study. The RDC has the same place in transportation history that the
DC-3 airplane does---both were workhorses in their day, but
technologically obsolete before they ended series production.
Hank
James Robinson
>
> The hydrodynamic transmission---as I recall, it was a Spicer unit, an
> adaptation of designs used in construction equipment. Two speeds:
> converter and direct drive, with nothing in between.
It was an Allison unit, but your description of how it worked is
applicable. From memory, lockup was at something like 50 mph.
> The really sad part of things is not in the shortcomings of the RDC
> design, but the ocmplete failure of the SPV-2000.
The SPV 2000 came out at a time when not much was being spent on rail
passenger service. It really didn't offer much change in the way trains
ran, in terms of schedules or crewing, and its high intial cost meant that
many agencies simply couldn't afford it.
The Danish Flexliner DMU that toured North America offered a view of a
working model, and attracted a lot of attention, but it too didn't provide
enough opportunity for change to make any sales.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson schrieb:
>>
>> have to maintain 20 engines with RDC equipment, but only one with a
>> locomotive.
>
> If it is a high-floor DMU: 10 engines.
>
> Otherwise, it will be truck/bus diesels, and the oil change interval
> of modern truck diesels is between 75000 and 95000 miles. For a USA
> commuter train, this means: Every 18 months, you have to exchange the
> oil, but there isn't much more to do. With the typical commuter train
> mileage, the diesels will reach rebuild mileage after 25 years, but
> you might want to exchange them instead.
>
> In the 1970s, when a truck/bus diesel needed lots of attention, yes,
> this was a problem.
In looking at popular heavy-duty engines like a Cummins ISX, the typical
oil change interval based on oil testing is 15,000 to 20,000 miles. The
company recommends 25,000 miles, but many operations don't get that high
because of idling time or duty cycle. Even still, that's a big gap between
what they recommend, and what you suggest above.
Overhaul intervals have certainly increased with better metallurgy and
engine design. Even locomotives, with lower production runs, have much
longer overhaul intervals than in the 1950s. Engine overhauls are typically
done through engine swaps rather than rebuilding them inside the
locomotive, like they were in the 1950s. However, even if engine overhaul
intervals could be extended, many other components will need some work
because of wear before 20 years, so some shop time will be necessary to
attend to them. I'm thinking of things like trucks, brake rigging, carbody
fatigue damage or rust, and so on.
>> If you want to run shorter trains, RDCs can be effective, but only if
>> you always have shorter trains. As soon as a service has a majority
>> of longer trains, locomotives end up costing less.
>
> May I mention the (theoretical) possibility, that you want to run your
> trains at a speed, which is competitive to car traffic? For doing so
> on curvy tracks, as you have them in many parts of the USA, your
> axleload has to drop into the range of 15 tons. Try that with a
> locomotive!
No question that is something to be considered. However, North Americans
are still a long way from a culture that would embrace that kind of
operation, and spend money to get it.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson schrieb:
>
>> quickly from the start due to more powered axles, but the difference
>> between the two types of train will reduce as the speed climbs above
>> 8 mph, until there is no difference at 40 mph. Above 40 mph,
>> horsepower is the important factor, and in this example, the
>> acceleration of both types of trains would be about the same up to
>> the maximum speed.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBiBSi2gXYs
>
> An F59PHI won't match that with 0 cars to pull. An ALP-46 could match
> it while pulling 2 cars.
>
>> The effect on schedules is relatively low where stops are infrequent,
>> with greater benefit as the distance between stops gets shorter,
>> meaning more opportunities for low speed acceleration.
>
> stop distance and higher speed. It is possible, to upgrade a commuter
> train run to speeds around 100 mph, while even with less station
> stops, the F59PHI would never get to that speed (when pulling a
> train). I think it needs more than 5 minutes (instead of the 1 minute
> in the video).
It's all about power, which is what I said. The reality in North America
is that few commuter lines outside of New York and Philadelphia are
electrified, so diesels are the primary means of power.
If the existing line were to be electrified, there probably wouldn't be
enough noticeable difference in schedule times to make any significant
difference in ridership.
Robert Heller
The locos currently in use by the MBTA are GP40s and F40PHs (the F40PH
has the same 'guts' as a GP40, just a different body design) -- these
are *2-cycle* turbocharged (using EMD's 'trick' of driving the
turbocharger off the crankshaft when idling to keep the intake manifold
presurized).
>
> The really sad part of things is not in the shortcomings of the RDC
> design, but the ocmplete failure of the SPV-2000. To compare the
> cost-benefit and performance of DMU vs. push-pull loco-hauled for
> short-stage North American service, we've either got to look at
> someplace that has newer DMU's running successfully or do a paper
> study. The RDC has the same place in transportation history that the
> DC-3 airplane does---both were workhorses in their day, but
> technologically obsolete before they ended series production.
>
> Hank
>
>
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
HankVC
James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
>gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
>> Even though they were pulling them with locomotives, they did not
>> de-engine them. They simply pulled the drive shaft, and the engine
>> continued to generate power to run the HVAC and lights. They never
>> got HEPed.
>
>So they could have stopped maintaining one of the two engines under the
>cars. (except for the RDC-9s)
>
>and start pulling them instead? How about the savings in maintenance of
>about 1/2 the RDC engines, substantially extending the life of the
>remaining engines since they would only be lightly loaded with the HEP
>load, and no traction load? These moves probably meant they didn't have
>to spend money to continue overhauls on the engines. There would have
>been some savings in maintenance of the Spicer drive.
>
>> Therefore, I'm not convinced that B&M really should be used as an
>> example of one way or the other. It either doesn't say much about the
>> ability of the organization to come up with money saving ides, or it
>> doesn't say much for the whole idea of trying to maintain multiple
>> control cabs.
>
>To me it says they were willing to look at other ways of doing things to
>reduce cash flow. The B&M was essentially bankrupt, and had little money
>to spend on things like overhauling engines, so keeping all expenditures
>low was what they were trying to do. They wouldn't have saved much in
>cab maintenance, since there isn't very much in an RDC cab that needs
>fixing. All the brake equipment would have had to have been maintained
>by regulation whether the cab was used or not, unless they stripped it
>out and replaced it with non-control equipment, which I doubt they did.
>
diligence team evaluating the B&M property for possible purchase by
the people who sent us out there. That was about 1973, as I
recall---it was when the B&M was in receivership and John Barriger was
running things. I'm also trying to remember details of conversations
I had with Dave Gunn when he was at the MBTA. I met with him several
times on various things, and can't remember whether one was part of
the due diligence, or whether we got talking about the B&M's plight
later one.
I do recall spending maybe a day going over "what's the deal with the
RDC's." At the time, they were on the books as B&M assets. As I
recall, they still had the GMC/Detroit Dieel 6-110 engines, which had
been obsolete and out of production for something like 15 years, and
had been overhauled so many times that there wasn't much left to work
with. Also, that spares support was through some third-party outfit,
not the OEM, with some pretty severe problems with things like timely
deliveries, quality, and only partial sparing of items. I've
forgotten what was "unobtainium" or "hideously expensive," but the
summary was that fleet maintenance really wasn't a viable choice.
Repowering with another engine was technically feasible---I've
forgotten what other owners were using. But repowering was a capital
expense, and there was no capital available. I don't really remember
the exact politics or the timing of the MBTA taking over the commuter
rail lines the RDC's were servicing, but I'm pretty sure that there
was a lot of footsie played between the B&M and MBTA. My role on the
due-diligence team was technical----go look at the RDC's and size up
their condition and allegations about spares support, etc., not the
relationship of the company to the MBTA.
I think one of our team summed it up pretty well when he commented
that "I never saw such a garage operation, and it's masquerading as a
major transportation company."
Hank
HankVC
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>HankVC schrieb:
>
>
>> In article <slrnh6gmuc.oto...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>,
>> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>>>Which might be true for RDCs with motors of the 1950s. Modern DMU cars don't
>>>use more fuel than a transit bus, at the speed of a common commuter train.
>>>
>>>
>> It is difficult for me to say that the RDC, which was built with
>> WWII-era drivetrain technology, was anything but a major success
>> story. These machines soldiered on for over 40 years, some going past
>> 50, and a few are still in use today. That's a service life
>> comparable with the PRR GG-1, and very few other transportation
>> vehicles.
>
>
>
>And if you need to run a challenging timetable today, in 2009, your best
>bet is old RDCs with new engines. 50 years later.
>
No, the RDC design would need three things to improve acceleration
performance:
1. All truck axles driiven, not just half of them. The original
design was already pretty close to the tractive force that could be
handled within the available adhesion.
2. More engine torque. It's not "horsepower" that provides tractive
force, it's torque translated to linear motion through the driving
wheels.
3. A transmission that is more even at translating engine torque
(actually, this is a horsepower calculation) from a constant-speed
engine across the operating speed range of the vehicle. One or two
intermediate gearset speeds between the converter and the final drive,
in addition to the 1:1 lockup would probably have benefitted the RDC's
in the 30-50 mph. acceleration range. As it was, those engines were
screaming at redline long before the upshift, and the upshift was a
huge down step----something like a model T Ford.
Hank
James Robinson
> No, the RDC design would need three things to improve acceleration
> performance:
>
> 1. All truck axles driiven, not just half of them. The original
> design was already pretty close to the tractive force that could be
> handled within the available adhesion.
Nice to have, but not essential. With 600 HP, there wouldn't be enough
tractive effort above about 12 mph to cause the wheels to slip under
typical adhesion conditions. Having all axles powered would certainly
help below that speed, slightly shortening schedules. The additional
axles would also prove useful under slippery rail conditions.
> 2. More engine torque. It's not "horsepower" that provides tractive
> force, it's torque translated to linear motion through the driving
> wheels.
Well, the definition of horsepower is torque times engine RPM, so both
horsepower and torque are correct, since they are related. However, you
won't get more torque than the maximum horsepower of the engine will
allow when coupled to a hydraulic transmission. Engine horsepower
becomes the limitation.
In the case of the RDC, once they accelerated above the wheel slip range,
torque, and therefore acceleration, became horsepower limited.
Therefore, to get more acceleration, more horsepower would be required.
When the transmission locked up, there was some loss of horsepower, as
the engine RPM dropped to match the direct drive gearing. The selection
of the gear ratio was meant to achieve peak horsepower close to what they
considered the normal maximum speed to be, that is, around 80 mph. So
there would be a slight opportunity to increase acceleration with say an
electric transmission that allowed the engine to run at full horsepower
all through the speed range. However even that is a compromise given the
extra weight, complexity and cost of a diesel-electric drive.
> 3. A transmission that is more even at translating engine torque
> (actually, this is a horsepower calculation) from a constant-speed
> engine across the operating speed range of the vehicle. One or two
> intermediate gearset speeds between the converter and the final drive,
> in addition to the 1:1 lockup would probably have benefitted the RDC's
> in the 30-50 mph. acceleration range. As it was, those engines were
> screaming at redline long before the upshift, and the upshift was a
> huge down step----something like a model T Ford.
The tractive effort curves I have see for RDCs are pretty well horsepower
limited between 30 and 50 mph, so I wouldn't expect any real change in
acceleration with additional gearing. The hydraulic coupling did a
pretty good job in transmitting the horsepower to the wheels. The
engines were screaming at the redline because they were putting out
maximum HP, which is what the design was all about.
Wayne Hines
> When the transmission locked up, there was some loss of horsepower, as
> the engine RPM dropped to match the direct drive gearing. The selection
> of the gear ratio was meant to achieve peak horsepower close to what
> they considered the normal maximum speed to be, that is, around 80 mph.
James, would various railroads have had different gear ratios for their
RDCs giving different top speeds? I remember being on a 3-unit set in the
mid-1960s in the Montreal area zipping along at 95mph. A retired engineer
who drove the RDCs when they arrived in this area in the mid 1950s told
me all the (passenger) engineers tried them out to see how fast they
would go. He said he wound one up to 85mph and it was still accelerating
but he figured that was fast enough.
gwh
James Robinson
It's essentially based on the horsepower, not gear ratio, since the gear
ratio applied is pretty matched to the highest speed the horsepower can
provide. The drop off in horsepower above 80 mph was not that
significant.
Canadian Pacific assigned RDCs between Montreal and Quebec City, and
between Calgary and Edmonton, where the maximum allowable speeds were 90
mph. A short consist of one or two cars would have trouble making it,
since the air resistance at the head and tail end was a major part of the
total resistance. They might balance out at 80 or 85 mph on level track,
but of course could hit 90 on slight downgrades. As more cars were added
to a train, they brought with them additional engines, but no additional
head or tail resistance. That gave enough of an advantage that a 3 car
set could get to 90 mph before balancing out.
gl4...@yahoo.com
> So what do you supposed prompted them to add the cost of a locomotive,
> and start pulling them instead? How about the savings in maintenance of
> about 1/2 the RDC engines, substantially extending the life of the
> remaining engines since they would only be lightly loaded with the HEP
> load, and no traction load?
I doubt very much there was that much savings. They did what they had to
do at the time, but at best it was a very short term fix.
The 6-110 in a laid-over package really isn't that common an engine, and
getting parts isn't easy.
As far as savings in maintenance on the engines, the engines on the RDC-9s
we got were in such poor condition that at the time of their arrival,
adding oil to them was a fruitless task - anything added just all ran out
the drive shaft. For them to operate in that condition, they would have
had to add oil after every single run.
> To me it says they were willing to look at other ways of doing things to
> reduce cash flow. The B&M was essentially bankrupt, and had little money
> to spend on things like overhauling engines, so keeping all expenditures
> low was what they were trying to do. They wouldn't have saved much in
> cab maintenance, since there isn't very much in an RDC cab that needs
> fixing. All the brake equipment would have had to have been maintained
> by regulation whether the cab was used or not, unless they stripped it
> out and replaced it with non-control equipment, which I doubt they did.
I think they stripped out the brake equipment too. The compressors, etc,
on the RDC-9s we have were certainly removed. Only the huge tube steel
bracket to hold it is left in place.
> Meaning they were due engine overhauls, the cost of which was saved by
> pulling the cars with locomotives.
Considering the condition of the engines, running them in that condition
probably didn't gain them that much. Trying to keep something that worn
out going is a losing task if parts aren't available.
The equipment required to HEP a train really isn't that expensive. They
probably could have gained the money required for a conversion had they
just sold the parts that were good on the RDCs (compressors, etc.) to an
agency with RDCs to maintain (ie, VIA or BC Rail). If a centralized
diesel engine is good for traction it is also good for providing HEP.
They had to have had some capital available, since they had the money to
purchase locomotives to haul the trains. The conversion to HEP sure seems
like a logical next step if saving maintenance money, by eliminating all
those individual engines completely.
Wayne Hines
The RDC train I rode between Richmond, Quebec, and Montreal that hit 90
and 95 was a three-car train. Closer to home, two-car VIA RDC trains had
no trouble meeting the 85 mph speed limit between Halifax and Truro, NS.
Here in the Annapolis Valley, before event recorders were installed, some
engineers would often push the two-car trains into the 70 to 80 mph range
on straight track to make up time.
I remember a conversation between two local CP employees in the late
1960s or early 1970s. One of them had been in Alberta on vacation and
mentioned that 90 mph speed limit for RDCs between Edmonton and Calgary
on track he said was no better than the track in this area. He thought
Atlantic area officials were being too cautious by setting the limit at
65 mph.
gwh
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson schrieb:
>
>
>> It's all about power, which is what I said. The reality in North
>> America is that few commuter lines outside of New York and
>> Philadelphia are electrified, so diesels are the primary means of
>> power.
>
> Diesel MUs of the 1990s achieve the same or better acceleration as a
> F59PHI with one car.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi5TT3pUmgU
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ho2Aes9CYA
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJABQcXOASA
F59s don't do too badly with 10 cars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uk3wjT1J-4
Or with two locomotives and 10 cars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bQQRyOLKyg
The Regiosprinter has a capacity of something like 180 people, with both
seated and standees, while the 10 car GO train can handle about 3,000
comfortably. So you'd have to run 16 Regiosprinters to match the capacity
of the conventional train.
>> If the existing line were to be electrified, there probably wouldn't
>> be enough noticeable difference in schedule times to make any
>> significant difference in ridership.
>
> The Bay Area in California, BART versus Caltrain, gives you a live
> demonstration, wether you are right or not. Modern EMUs allow the same
> performance as provided by BART on the main railroad network, at less
> than 1/10 the cost.
So the question is whether a heavy rail commuter line that operates DMUs,
but dumps passengers 10 blocks from the major office buildings can match
the ridership performance of BART, which makes several stops along the
major artery through the business district of the city?
HankVC
James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
>hvan...@nyx.net (HankVC) wrote:
>
>> No, the RDC design would need three things to improve acceleration
>> performance:
>>
>> 1. All truck axles driiven, not just half of them. The original
>> design was already pretty close to the tractive force that could be
>> handled within the available adhesion.
>
>Nice to have, but not essential. With 600 HP, there wouldn't be enough
>tractive effort above about 12 mph to cause the wheels to slip under
>typical adhesion conditions. Having all axles powered would certainly
>help below that speed, slightly shortening schedules. The additional
>axles would also prove useful under slippery rail conditions.
Maybe not "essential" in an ideal environment, but day-to-day
environments are not ideal. Cut the actual adhesion in half or throw
in a 1% starting grade, and you're in trouble with a single axle
drive. Let's leave "the wrong kind of [snow/leaves/etc.]" to the
British and build in enough margin so that braking becomes the major
consideration.
At what speed does the torque converter in the RDC transmission decouple?
12 mph at full throttle sounds a bit low to me. I'd have given it
"around 20" simply by observation. I don't have tech specs on the
engine and transmission used in the RDC, and haven't been able to
locate any through online-search, so am going on ancient memories
(riding B&M commuter trains in the late 1950's, and a couple of days
in the B&M shops in the early 1970's),
Han-Joachim was not specific about "repowering," but I think it
realistic to expect more like 400 hp/engine as a new design choice.
>
>> 2. More engine torque. It's not "horsepower" that provides tractive
>> force, it's torque translated to linear motion through the driving
>> wheels.
>
>Well, the definition of horsepower is torque times engine RPM, so both
>horsepower and torque are correct, since they are related. However, you
>won't get more torque than the maximum horsepower of the engine will
>allow when coupled to a hydraulic transmission. Engine horsepower
>becomes the limitation.
>
I should have pointed at "driveshaft torque," not "engine torque."
Presumably, any drivetrain selected for new use will include engines
with as much/more torque than the 6-110 produced and a transmission
that will provide higher driveshaft torque at intermediate speeds
than was available from the original design. If RDC acceleration was
considered "sleepy," then any redesign of the drivetrain is going to
have more driveshaft torque.
>In the case of the RDC, once they accelerated above the wheel slip range,
>torque, and therefore acceleration, became horsepower limited.
>Therefore, to get more acceleration, more horsepower would be required.
>
I think that in any scenario, a new drivetrain design, even if put
under the RDC carbody, would have more horsepower and more driveshaft
torque. Are we getting muddied up here with a low-speed "wheel slip
range" that's really a function of the ability of either and electric
or a hydrodynamic drive to convert input horsepower (force * speed) to
output force with speed (and horsepower) near zero? I'm looking at
F=M*A for acceleration, where the available F(orce) has to decrease in
mid-speed ranges because significant work (expressed as horsepower) is
being done.
>When the transmission locked up, there was some loss of horsepower, as
>the engine RPM dropped to match the direct drive gearing. The selection
>of the gear ratio was meant to achieve peak horsepower close to what they
>considered the normal maximum speed to be, that is, around 80 mph. So
>there would be a slight opportunity to increase acceleration with say an
>electric transmission that allowed the engine to run at full horsepower
>all through the speed range. However even that is a compromise given the
>extra weight, complexity and cost of a diesel-electric drive.
>
I don't think we need consider arguments pro/con use of an electric
drive vs. hydrodynamic. There is considerable off-the-shelf mature
hydrodynamic technology available today, whether you are considering
a Voith-type design or an adaptation of a Detroit automotive
(truck/bus) design with epicyclic gearing. The point I was trying to
make in 3. below is that the RDC automatic had a real grey area in the
35-50 mph range because of the need to wait for sufficient speed to
allow the engine to upshift near/at peak torque.
>> 3. A transmission that is more even at translating engine torque
>> (actually, this is a horsepower calculation) from a constant-speed
>> engine across the operating speed range of the vehicle. One or two
>> intermediate gearset speeds between the converter and the final drive,
>> in addition to the 1:1 lockup would probably have benefitted the RDC's
>> in the 30-50 mph. acceleration range. As it was, those engines were
>> screaming at redline long before the upshift, and the upshift was a
>> huge down step----something like a model T Ford.
>
>The tractive effort curves I have see for RDCs are pretty well horsepower
>limited between 30 and 50 mph, so I wouldn't expect any real change in
>acceleration with additional gearing. The hydraulic coupling did a
>pretty good job in transmitting the horsepower to the wheels. The
>engines were screaming at the redline because they were putting out
>maximum HP, which is what the design was all about.
I haven't seen tractive effort curves for the original RDC, and am
relying on observation where it appeared that the engines were being
throttled back to prevent crankshaft RPM overspeeding at some point
well below the upshift transition. "Redline" is generally above the
RPM for maximum horsepower. I've never examined the actual
high-idle/overspeed governor arrangements on the RDC installation, but
since they are pretty standard on both automotive and industrial
installations, expected to observe (and felt I was observing)
automatic controls between the operator throttle and the injection
rack.
Hank
866013149e
>The Danish Flexliner DMU that toured North America offered a view of a
>working model, and attracted a lot of attention, but it too didn't provide
>enough opportunity for change to make any sales.
I remember seeing it running on the MBTA Fitchburg line when it was
tried out here. But I thought it was Israeli.
umar
866013149e
>James Robinson schrieb:
>> The Danish Flexliner DMU that toured North America offered a view of a
>> working model, and attracted a lot of attention, but it too didn't provide
>> enough opportunity for change to make any sales.
>I don't think, that the principle could work with FRA regulations at all, even
>after adding 15 tons of metal.
It seems to me the regulations should be changed. The Europeans surely
know how to build safe paeenger trains better than the FRA.
umar
866013149e
>They had to have had some capital available, since they had the money to
>purchase locomotives to haul the trains. The conversion to HEP sure seems
>like a logical next step if saving maintenance money, by eliminating all
>those individual engines completely.
The MBTA did eventually hire Morrison-Knudsen to turn a number of RDC's
into unpowered HEP-compatible coaches. They ran for a while and then
disappeared.
umar
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> >> passenger service, and wanted to standardize. As the long distance
> >> services were discontinued, the surplus RDCs were available to fill
> >> in the commuter service.
>
> > But didn't the B&M buy a big fleet, including the RDC-9, for commuter
> > service?
>
> Yes, they did, and they had lots of surplus RDCs as time went on to
> support the commuter operation. In the end, with all the experience
> they had with RDC operations, they still chose to stop maintaining their
> much for the whole DMU idea, does it?
>
> >> > I suspect Boston ceased maintaining them because the fleet aged and
> >> > it became uneconomical to keep the old engines going.
>
> >> Isn't that the whole question?
>
> > No. Diesel equipment ages and either the prime mover is replaced, as
> > often the case, or the unit is retired.
>
> They don't replace the prime mover, they rebuild it. B&M didn't even
> choose to do that.
>
> > But, I'm not sure why new diesel engines weren't fitted to RDCs when
> > the old ones aged.
>
> They simply decided that it was cheaper to convert them into unpowered
> coaches, and pull them with locomotives. It was a simple economic
> decision when the railroad was tight on cash, and low cost was
> essential.
>
> >> Why did railroads that had RDCs avoid
> >> using them in commuter service, or deengine them and haul them with
> >> locomotives instead? If DMUs are supposedly such a great idea,
> >> wouldn't you think they would want them in commuter service, if the
> >> ecnomics were right? It isn't as though a number or railroads didn't
> >> try the idea. Those that did, gave up the operation very quickly.
>
> > The B&O, Reading, CNJ, B&M, PRSL, NYC, NH, E-L all used RDCs
> > successfully in commuter service for years. It would appear to be a
> > more eastern thing, but perhaps in the RDC's heydey there wasn't much
> > commuter rail elsewhere except for Chicago.
>
> Some continued to use them because they were already in their fleets,
> and therefore a sunk cost. The interesting thing is that two major RDC
> operators - CP and B&M both stopped using them in commuter service, and
> moved to conventional trains instead. That says a lot about their
> feelings on what is best for commuter service.
As you pointed out, it was an economic decision. Such decisions are
based on what is available in the marketplace at the time. It's
entirely possible that an RDC rebuild approach may have been more
expensive simply because that style was so rare, while push-pull
trains were more common. Economies-of-scale in themselves do not
determine whether a particular principle is good or not.
The demise of streetcars in the 1950s was partly due to a viscious
cycle. Spare parts were hard to come by so maintenance got too
expensive, resulting in fewer cars in service, making spare parts even
harder to find, and so on, for operators who liked streetcars. A
small order for replacement cars would've been extremely expensive
given the small size, while mass produced buses were cheaper.
> > During peak periods they could be coupled together to make a long
> > train. This would be preferable instead of the fuel-eating locomotive
> > trains used in off peak service.
>
> That isn't the case. Long trains pulled by locomotives use substantially
> less fuel than RDCs, and short trains use only slight more. Overall,
> conventional trains use less fuel.
But rush hours represent only a small part of the total operating
period. There are far more hours of offpeak time where only short
trains are required.
It appears that the desire to go for Riverline style DMUs indicates a
like for hte technology. The problem is that such cars can't be mixed
with regular trains. I can't help but suspect if no such restriction
existed a number of carriers would be using DMUs for shuttle and off
peak services, such as the outer ends of MTA and NJT routes (where
RDCs used to serve).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The effect on schedules is relatively low where stops are infrequent,
> with greater benefit as the distance between stops gets shorter, meaning
> more opportunities for low speed acceleration.
Well, on SEPTA, which has close station spacing, an AEM-7 pulling a
six car train significantly took longer than a six car Silverliner
train; indeed, I believe it was even slower than the 1931 MU
("Blueliner") train. As a result, SEPTA assigns its push-pulls to
express service only in rush hours and the units are for sale.
Apparently the savings in "locomotive inspections" aren't enough to
justify using locomotives.
NJT discovered that it needed higher-powered electric locomotives to
pull a nine car train of its new multi-level cars. These are on order
and will be extremely costly. The new trains significantly slow down
locals. For some reason, NJT often deploys an MU set on an express
and a push-pull set on a local; I would think they'd want to do the
opposite.
Anyway, for commuter service, this suggests to me that an RDC train
would perform better. Some commuter routes do not reach very high
speeds so acceleration is very significant in run times.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> So what do you supposed prompted them to add the cost of a locomotive,
> and start pulling them instead?
Perhaps the locomotives could've been obtained via a lease deal
spreading out the costs.
Perhaps the govt funding agency would pay a capital cost for a
locomotive purchase but not an operating cost for maintenance.
Perhaps if there was mass production of RDC units, and, if they had
adequate funding, they would've bought new ones.
> Meaning they were due engine overhauls, the cost of which was saved by
> pulling the cars with locomotives.
This include the RDC engines, which as someone noted, became specialty
units. (I think originally Budd used an "off the shelf design", but
what was available in 1950 and what was available and would fit in
1970 might not have been the same.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The SPV 2000 came out at a time when not much was being spent on rail
> passenger service. It really didn't offer much change in the way trains
> ran, in terms of schedules or crewing, and its high intial cost meant that
> many agencies simply couldn't afford it.
At the time the SPV 2000 came out there was renewed interest in
commuter rail and money available for redevelopment. The SPV 2000
generated a great deal of interest and prospective buyers and some
actual buyers. But it was doomed by a lousy design (issues were
discussed in this group some time ago).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> If the existing line were to be electrified, there probably wouldn't be
> enough noticeable difference in schedule times to make any significant
> difference in ridership.
Commuters are very time sensitive. Reductions in run time (and
improvements in frequency) often do result in new patronage.
Unfortunately, many commuter carriers today aren't that concerned
about run time and today's trains, with brand new equipment, run
slower than trains of the past and carrier management seems to be
perfectly content about that.
Nobody
>> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> > James Robinson <wasc...@212.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> More likely because B&M bought RDCs for their longer distance
>> >> services were discontinued, the surplus RDCs were available to fill
>> >> in the commuter service.
>>
>> > But didn't the B&M buy a big fleet, including the RDC-9, for commuter
>> > service?
>>
>> Yes, they did, and they had lots of surplus RDCs as time went on to
>> they had with RDC operations, they still chose to stop maintaining their
>> much for the whole DMU idea, does it?
>>
>> >> > I suspect Boston ceased maintaining them because the fleet aged and
>> >> > it became uneconomical to keep the old engines going.
>>
>> > No. 嚙瘩iesel equipment ages and either the prime mover is replaced, as
>> > often the case, or the unit is retired.
>>
>> choose to do that.
>>
>> > But, I'm not sure why new diesel engines weren't fitted to RDCs when
>> > the old ones aged.
>>
>> They simply decided that it was cheaper to convert them into unpowered
>> decision when the railroad was tight on cash, and low cost was
>> essential.
>>
>> >> Why did railroads that had RDCs avoid
>> >> using them in commuter service, or deengine them and haul them with
>> >> wouldn't you think they would want them in commuter service, if the
>> >> try the idea. Those that did, gave up the operation very quickly.
>>
>> > The B&O, Reading, CNJ, B&M, PRSL, NYC, NH, E-L all used RDCs
>> > more eastern thing, but perhaps in the RDC's heydey there wasn't much
>> > commuter rail elsewhere except for Chicago.
>>
>> Some continued to use them because they were already in their fleets,
>> operators - CP and B&M both stopped using them in commuter service, and
>> feelings on what is best for commuter service.
>
>As you pointed out, it was an economic decision. Such decisions are
>based on what is available in the marketplace at the time. It's
>entirely possible that an RDC rebuild approach may have been more
>expensive simply because that style was so rare, while push-pull
>trains were more common. Economies-of-scale in themselves do not
>determine whether a particular principle is good or not.
>
>The demise of streetcars in the 1950s was partly due to a viscious
>cycle. Spare parts were hard to come by so maintenance got too
>expensive, resulting in fewer cars in service, making spare parts even
>harder to find, and so on, for operators who liked streetcars. A
>small order for replacement cars would've been extremely expensive
>given the small size, while mass produced buses were cheaper.
>
Off-topic, but still transportation: isn't that the same Catch-22
nowadays for the few cities that run trackless trolleys/trolley buses?
Vancouver, BC renewed its fleet a year or so back, though the route
system hasn't expanded, unless you count the relatively minor
extensions to UBC and Metrotown/Burnaby.
Edmonton, AB recently killed its whole wired network.
And Wellington, NZ went through a lengthy decision-making process a
couple of years ago as well AFAIK before deciding on a new fleet,
though I believe they operate them Monday-Friday only, as it's too
costly to have standby staff around in case problems arise with the
overhead wires Saturdays and Sundays.
James Robinson
The train was a Danish design, and the set that toured North America was
delivered to Israel after the tour was completed.
James Robinson
>
> At what speed does the torque converter in the RDC transmission
> decouple? 12 mph at full throttle sounds a bit low to me. I'd have
> given it "around 20" simply by observation.
The lockup was closer to 50 mph.
> Han-Joachim was not specific about "repowering," but I think it
> realistic to expect more like 400 hp/engine as a new design choice.
VIA repowered their RDCs with Cummins engines coupled to Twin Disk
transmissions. As I recall, they boosted the horsepower from a total of
550 to 750 or 800, which is in the range you suggest.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<e26dd910-1853-433d...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> This include the RDC engines, which as someone noted, became specialty
> units. (I think originally Budd used an "off the shelf design", but
> what was available in 1950 and what was available and would fit in
> 1970 might not have been the same.)
Sorta-kinda. The 6-110 in a "laid over" package was supposed to become a
fairly common engine design. However, I think I read somewhere that it
was originally designed for use in military equipment.
James Robinson
> han...@julie.lostwells.net (HankVC) wrote:
>>
>> At what speed does the torque converter in the RDC transmission
>> decouple? 12 mph at full throttle sounds a bit low to me. I'd have
>> given it "around 20" simply by observation.
>
> The lockup was closer to 50 mph.
I should have added that 12 mph is the speed where the wheels would stop
slipping at full throttle when rail conditions were dry. Wet rail could
increase that speed to perhaps 20 mph in very poor conditions.