Amtrak Power Point Presentation for RDC

[Amfleet]

Here you will find a Power Point presentation that lays out the entire plan for Amtrak's proposed RDC units. In the presentation you will notice that the design is based off the Colorado Railcar DMU, but takes on many of the features of the origional RDC units built by Budd. If you do not have Power Point on your computer, you can view the document here in HTML format (unfortunately there are no images).

 

[battalion51]

Looks like a very nice design for an RDC. I can definitely see those running throughout the Amtrak system.

 

[Guest]

These would be good for the Hiawatha route between CHicago and Milwaukee. No need for a full engine....

Mountaineer

 

[battalion51]

That is exactly what the RDC will be intended for. It may be used on other midwest routes like Michigan service and maybe even the Ann Rutledge and the Mules. It may be used on the Downeaster, but I'm not 100% on that one.

 

[Amfleet]

I thought it was originally intened for the Springfield Shuttles between SPG and NHV.

 

[AlanB]

I thought it was originally intened for the Springfield Shuttles between SPG and NHV.

All of those lines mentioned above are being considered for possible RDC usage, including the Springfield shuttles.

This of course however all hinges on Amtrak's getting the 1.8B that David has requested for the next 5 years. So far that's a moot point as unless there is a sudden and stunning reversal in committee, the max Amtrak will get this year is around 1.3B. Sadly there is a major risk that they may not even get that amount out of committee. :angry:

We'll have to hope for the best.

 

[tp49]

What is the range for the RDC's, meaning how far can it go on one tank of fuel?

 

[battalion51]

Well according to the presentation 1200 miles or 16 hours (whichever comes first, this includes 10% reserves).

 

[Steve4031]

If the colrado railcar is already built and designed, why are they going through the expense and effort to design another new rail car?

 

[battalion51]

I think a large part of it is parts commonality and the $$$. If Amtrak designs a car that has common parts with its existing fleet, it's that much less that they have to stock. Also, the colorado has a price tag that gives most agencies a look similar to this: h34r: :blink: :huh: Well you get the idea, they're expensive.

 

[tp49]

Maybe Amtrak could even use something that is established already like the flexliner which was tried on the San Diegan (now Surfliner) route in the mid 1990's. Since money is a main concern this could be considerably more cost efficient than designing and building a new set of equipment.

 

[Steve4031]

I think a large part of it is parts commonality and the $$$. If Amtrak designs a car that has common parts with its existing fleet, it's that much less that they have to stock. Also, the colorado has a price tag that gives most agencies a look similar to this: h34r: :blink: :huh: Well you get the idea, they're expensive.

Thanks, Battallion

I never thought about the parts issue. Anyway, I will be happy for any new equipment that comes to the midwest.

 

[Amfleet]

Maybe Amtrak could even use something that is established already like the flexliner which was tried on the San Diegan (now Surfliner) route in the mid 1990's. Since money is a main concern this could be considerably more cost efficient than designing and building a new set of equipment.

Again, the flexliner was an international product and did not meet FRA or Amtrak specifications. On my Amtrak 30 video it was mentioned that out of the ICE, X-2000, and Flexliner. Flexliner was rated the worst. Can't blaim em either and thing is ugly as heck.

 

[tp49]

It may be ugly but I'm just thinking that since Amtrak probably will not receive the level of funding they requested that they might want to look at more established (already available) equipment for these routes instead of building and going through the testing on new equipment.

However, if they do go ahead with the plans for the cars shown in the presentation I would hope they added an additional set of doors per car.

 

[Amfleet]

It may be ugly but I'm just thinking that since Amtrak probably will not receive the level of funding they requested that they might want to look at more established (already available) equipment for these routes instead of building and going through the testing on new equipment.
However, if they do go ahead with the plans for the cars shown in the presentation I would hope they added an additional set of doors per car.

But you can't just look at the cost, but take into consideration everything about the Flexliner. It was already tested and was not well sopported by Amtrak crews. In the long run I think something like the Flexliner would not be good for Amtrak. Putting the ugliness aside.

As for why they need to add another set of doors to the RDC cars I'm not sure why you think that. This type of set up has prooved very well in commuter service as passengers are not pushing each other out of the way through the narrow exit doors at each end of the car. For example NJ Transit, Metro North, and METRA all have that type of set up.

 

[tp49]

Actually, I was moving away from the Flexliner per se but I do believe that if there is an existing proven design even if it needs to be modified to meet FRA standards it would probably be cheaper then a whole new design.

As for the second set of doors, if they went with this type of design (very similar to what you would find on a light rail vehicle) a second set would make for faster loading and unloading instead of forcing everyone into the center of the car. This would be similar to the California Cars and the Bombardier cars now found on CalTrain's Baby Bullet, as well as other transit agencies (LIRR, MN, etc.).

 

[Amfleet]

Actually, I was moving away from the Flexliner per se but I do believe that if there is an existing proven design even if it needs to be modified to meet FRA standards it would probably be cheaper then a whole new design.
As for the second set of doors, if they went with this type of design (very similar to what you would find on a light rail vehicle) a second set would make for faster loading and unloading instead of forcing everyone into the center of the car. This would be similar to the California Cars and the Bombardier cars now found on CalTrain's Baby Bullet, as well as other transit agencies (LIRR, MN, etc.).

Remember though that the Califfornia cars are bi-level, hold more people, and have the floor space for two doors. A single-level RDC doesn't and since it will not be running in high-density commuter service, I think the second doors would be a waste of valuable floor space/passenger seating. However, if this type of car were to run in some sort of high-density, commuter service then a second set of doors would be a possibility.

 

[Viewliner]

Not Only that, but unless you build the cars like a Superliner the center doors wouldn't be practical/useable. On New Jersey Transit and Metro North for example those center doors are only opened at high level platforms since there are no door traps.

 

[battalion51]

If I read the presentation correctly the cars will have automatic traps similar to that of the new Kawasaki coaches used by MARC and VRE.

 

[Viewliner]

Automatic Traps? Never seen 'em, how exactly does the mechanism work?

 

[AlanB]

Automatic Traps? Never seen 'em, how exactly does the mechanism work?

It works, ...... automatically ..... :lol:

 

[battalion51]

Not sure on the exact mechanics, but on the Conductor's door panel he can tell the doors whether to open the trap or not. The trap however has fixed steps, the only moving mechanism is the panel that covers the steps.

 

[tp49]

I've seen Automatic traps on the Breda LRV's in San Francisco. They actually have steps but when the car goes into an area with high level platforms (Market Street subway), a hydraulic mechanism raises the steps to be flush with the vehicle floor and platform level.