Amtrak SPV2000

[jamesontheroad]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=94066

During an idle weekend clicking around, I was surprised to discover this short lived class of train (basically a DMU derivation of the Budd Amfleet coach). I thought that the RDC was the only flirtation that Budd and Amtrak ever had with a DMU.

Wikipedia has some info on the RDC, but not the SPV2000. Could anyone fill me in on how they spent their fifteen years or so in service, and what exactly made them so unreliable? I'm presuming that after withdrawal they were de-engined and put back into service as coaching stock?

Also, when I normally read about why Amtrak would never accept European DMUs, the excuse is that their considered too light for North American railroads to be 'safe' (see the Ottawa O-Train for a German regional railcar reduced to the status of light rail train). How were the RDC and SPV2000 considered safe?

Thanks,

*j*

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Despite being in Amtrak colors the 13 SPV's were not Amtraks but owned by Connecticut Dept of transportation, Amtrak never owned SPV's.

The cars were intended for Springfield line , Waterbury branch and Danbury branch.

to learn more about the ill-fated SPV's get copy of Chock Crouses "the RDC Story"

ISBN 0-9612814-2-1

The cars were later converted to push pull cars and are still in service for ConnDot SLE operation as Constitution Liners, their days are numbered however with the VRE mafersa cars replacing them.

The RDC's and SPV's were built to FRA standards, the European stuff is not, the frame strenght can not be made to comply with 800 000 lbs buff strenght and a lot of other stuff does not comply with FRA rules. including coupler height, collision post etc.

 

[George Harris]

Also, when I normally read about why Amtrak would never accept European DMUs, the excuse is that their considered too light for North American railroads to be 'safe' (see the Ottawa O-Train for a German regional railcar reduced to the status of light rail train). How were the RDC and SPV2000 considered safe?

It is not a question of "Amtrak would never accept" but that the European stuff does not comply with the FRA safety requirements. The "considered too light . . . to be safe" is virtually propoganda. It is not weight, but strength that is absent in the European equipment, also many other features of the "straight out of the box" versions that are incompatible with FRA, AAR, AREMA, norms as applicabble to US and Canadian railroading. The manufacturers simply do not want to try to comply with US standards, they want us to accept what they sell. A few things: windows, wheel back to back dimensions, buff strength, car body integrity requirements - a picture of the virtually dissasembleds coaches after the Eschede derailments is scarey, and not possible with coaches that comply with FRA standards. There is more.

It is quite possible to build a DMU to meet FRA standards, and it has been done. Ironically the apparent weakness of the Colorado Rail Car DMU delivered to Florida Tri Rail was the Voith (German made) transmission, which overheats easily.

George

 

[jamesontheroad]

Ironically the apparent weakness of the Colorado Rail Car DMU delivered to Florida Tri Rail was the Voith (German made) transmission, which overheats easily.

...and perhaps also the rather incongruous glazed-wagon look of the thing. Even though they're not strong enough for North American standards, I'm afraid the Euro DMUs do edge it on style

Thanks for the info,

*j*

 

[AmtrakWPK]

They do look nice.

 

[Work C3 O-Train]

I know it's been a year and one day since the last post in this topic but I really do not want to start up a new topic about this but I got a question about the SPV2000.

Does anyone have a interior shot of the Amtrak units and what were exactly their problems?

 

[PRR 60]

I believe the problems with the SPV2000 were multiple but a big one related to the unreliability of the automatic transmissions. These cars were straight diesel, not diesel-electric, so they were powered like a really complex bus.

Another issue related to the difficulty in servicing the car with the design and placement of equipment making even simple maintenance tasks difficult. I think only about 30 units were built by Budd and the car ended up with the nickname "Seldom Powered Vehicle". It was a pretty sad way for a once revered railcar builder to end its existence.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

I believe the problems with the SPV2000 were multiple but a big one related to the unreliability of the automatic transmissions. These cars were straight diesel, not diesel-electric, so they were powered like a really complex bus.
Another issue related to the difficulty in servicing the car with the design and placement of equipment making even simple maintenance tasks difficult. I think only about 30 units were built by Budd and the car ended up with the nickname "Seldom Powered Vehicle". It was a pretty sad way for a once revered railcar builder to end its existence.

There was nothing wrong with automatic transmissions, even the RDC had Hydraulic drives and their still operating.

The SPV was overdesigned by automotive engineers, not railroad engineers and all sub systems like cooling were under designed and depended on the APU for everything.

once the APU shut down the car came to a stop.

The main engines had to many electronic gadgets and not enough capacity to puss cooling water.

The cooling water overflow only had a 1 1/2 gallon capacity for spare anti-freeze.

Meanwhile a RDC could run 80% of year with just water as coolant.

As for Colorado Rail car same thing, they may work when new but they have the same flaws as the SPV in long run.

as for SPV interior the CDOT version(not Amtrak) had Amfleet style cloth seats in them , they got dirty ral fast in commuter service, making Commuters ask rail personal is the smell of the car why they call them butt cars ???, only difference with a amfleet is it had who casings in middle of car splitting the car in two halfs , the casings contained the piping airduct and muffler

 

[Work C3 O-Train]

I believe the problems with the SPV2000 were multiple but a big one related to the unreliability of the automatic transmissions. These cars were straight diesel, not diesel-electric, so they were powered like a really complex bus.
Another issue related to the difficulty in servicing the car with the design and placement of equipment making even simple maintenance tasks difficult. I think only about 30 units were built by Budd and the car ended up with the nickname "Seldom Powered Vehicle". It was a pretty sad way for a once revered railcar builder to end its existence.

Yes it is pretty sad. So what was different in it from the RDC as if I remember correctly the RDC was also a straight diesel. Was it a unreliable transmission?

Our buses in Ottawa that were built after the year 2000 are pretty unreliable also so it might be that.

 

[printman2000]

Budd seems to have had very successful RDC's before this one, as proof the TRE still uses many of them in service today.

Why did they not use this successful design?

 

[Work C3 O-Train]

Budd seems to have had very successful RDC's before this one, as proof the TRE still uses many of them in service today.
Why did they not use this successful design?

Yeah that's what I'm wondering, if they wanted to make it look modern they could of just taken a RDC and remove the body shell and put on a SPV2000 body shell and viola! You got yourself a RDC2000.

It sure would of ran into 2000 like they planned on it doing.

P.S. VIA Rail still runs RDCs year round on Vancouver Island in BC.

 

[George Harris]

See Dutchrailnut's post. Excessive (and unnecessary) complexity. It is known as outsmarting yourself. Also, forgetting the basic principle of all successful mechanical systems: First and foremost, KISS: that is, Keep It Simple, Stupid. The 1950's Budd cars had it, the 1970's Budd cars did not.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

See Dutchrailnut's post. Excessive (and unnecessary) complexity. It is known as outsmarting yourself. Also, forgetting the basic principle of all successful mechanical systems: First and foremost, KISS: that is, Keep It Simple, Stupid. The 1950's Budd cars had it, the 1970's Budd cars did not.

The RDC was simple a 65 volt battery system with everything on car 65 volt.

The drive was basicly a DC Generator at front end of each Detroit engine and A twin disk torq converter at drive end, driving a spicer drive via a driveshaft.

only 3 throttle settings Idle and Transmission clutch up were same RPM, basicly Idle and then you had speed 1 2 and 3.

Every thing on the car ran off batteries , the air compressor and AC and lights, radiator fans etc .

If one engine failed the speed on air compressor and AC was put to low to conserve energy.

As for cooling it had a 55 gallon tank(for each engine) where hot water was circulated, a small pump pumped this water to overhead head on A engine and to Baseboard heat on B engine.

If the tank got to hot a thermostat opened and the Detroit engine would pump the cooling water through the radiators before dumping it in the tank.

 

[Work C3 O-Train]

See Dutchrailnut's post. Excessive (and unnecessary) complexity. It is known as outsmarting yourself. Also, forgetting the basic principle of all successful mechanical systems: First and foremost, KISS: that is, Keep It Simple, Stupid. The 1950's Budd cars had it, the 1970's Budd cars did not.

The RDC was simple a 65 volt battery system with everything on car 65 volt.

The drive was basicly a DC Generator at front end of each Detroit engine and A twin disk torq converter at drive end, driving a spicer drive via a driveshaft.

only 3 throttle settings Idle and Transmission clutch up were same RPM, basicly Idle and then you had speed 1 2 and 3.

Every thing on the car ran off batteries , the air compressor and AC and lights, radiator fans etc .

If one engine failed the speed on air compressor and AC was put to low to conserve energy.

As for cooling it had a 55 gallon tank(for each engine) where hot water was circulated, a small pump pumped this water to overhead head on A engine and to Baseboard heat on B engine.

If the tank got to hot a thermostat opened and the Detroit engine would pump the cooling water through the radiators before dumping it in the tank.

Ah now I get the problems. Also what kind of Detroit did the RDC and SPV have? I was really wondering as I heard the RDC engine was bus engine put into a train car.

Did they have a 6V71N or what? As most buses back in the 50s had the 6V71.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

See Dutchrailnut's post. Excessive (and unnecessary) complexity. It is known as outsmarting yourself. Also, forgetting the basic principle of all successful mechanical systems: First and foremost, KISS: that is, Keep It Simple, Stupid. The 1950's Budd cars had it, the 1970's Budd cars did not.

The RDC was simple a 65 volt battery system with everything on car 65 volt.

The drive was basicly a DC Generator at front end of each Detroit engine and A twin disk torq converter at drive end, driving a spicer drive via a driveshaft.

only 3 throttle settings Idle and Transmission clutch up were same RPM, basicly Idle and then you had speed 1 2 and 3.

Every thing on the car ran off batteries , the air compressor and AC and lights, radiator fans etc .

If one engine failed the speed on air compressor and AC was put to low to conserve energy.

As for cooling it had a 55 gallon tank(for each engine) where hot water was circulated, a small pump pumped this water to overhead head on A engine and to Baseboard heat on B engine.

If the tank got to hot a thermostat opened and the Detroit engine would pump the cooling water through the radiators before dumping it in the tank.

Ah now I get the problems. Also what kind of Detroit did the RDC and SPV have? I was really wondering as I heard the RDC engine was bus engine put into a train car.

Did they have a 6V71N or what? As most buses back in the 50s had the 6V71.

The RDC had the 2 Detroit 6/110 Diesel engines with 250-280 hp

The SPV had one Lister Petter 35 Kw APU and two I believe 8V71's of 360 hp but not 100% sure .

 

[gswager]

Is that a same Bud DMU that runs between Ft. Worth and Dallas, operating by TRE?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

DFW uses the older, more reliable Budd RDC:

 

[Work C3 O-Train]

See Dutchrailnut's post. Excessive (and unnecessary) complexity. It is known as outsmarting yourself. Also, forgetting the basic principle of all successful mechanical systems: First and foremost, KISS: that is, Keep It Simple, Stupid. The 1950's Budd cars had it, the 1970's Budd cars did not.

The RDC was simple a 65 volt battery system with everything on car 65 volt.

The drive was basicly a DC Generator at front end of each Detroit engine and A twin disk torq converter at drive end, driving a spicer drive via a driveshaft.

only 3 throttle settings Idle and Transmission clutch up were same RPM, basicly Idle and then you had speed 1 2 and 3.

Every thing on the car ran off batteries , the air compressor and AC and lights, radiator fans etc .

If one engine failed the speed on air compressor and AC was put to low to conserve energy.

As for cooling it had a 55 gallon tank(for each engine) where hot water was circulated, a small pump pumped this water to overhead head on A engine and to Baseboard heat on B engine.

If the tank got to hot a thermostat opened and the Detroit engine would pump the cooling water through the radiators before dumping it in the tank.

Ah now I get the problems. Also what kind of Detroit did the RDC and SPV have? I was really wondering as I heard the RDC engine was bus engine put into a train car.

Did they have a 6V71N or what? As most buses back in the 50s had the 6V71.

The RDC had the 2 Detroit 6/110 Diesel engines with 250-280 hp

The SPV had one Lister Petter 35 Kw APU and two I believe 8V71's of 360 hp but not 100% sure .

Okay cool! We bought some buses in Ottawa with the 8V71 from Santa Monica in 1995 but we took that out and put in a good ol 6V71 as we disabled the A/C as we were in major financial problems at the time.