Shortest Amtrak Trains

[VentureForth]

I'm not a big huge fan of Colorado Railcar pretty much because they haven't shown the ability to deliver mass quantities and yet they keep coming up with new products (up until about two years ago or so).

THAT being said, I wonder how many trainsets on local services are so short (like an engine and two coaches) that would benefit from a DMU?

 

[AlanB]

Well Amtrak under David Gunn had considered CRC DMU's for use on both the Hiawatha's and the Sprinfield Shuttles. David however got blown out of the water before he could find the money to do that. That's when Amtrak tried to talk Vermont into buying DMU's for them to use on the Vermonter, something that I still consider a horrible idea.

But DMU's on the Springfield shuttles probably wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm less convinced now about putting them on the Hiawatha's simply because they are getting too popular. There is a point where one engine pulling a bunch of cars is more efficient than a string of DMU's.

 

[battalion51]

Basically any route that operates with three cars max is ideal for DMU service, and AFAIK the only service that operates like that today is the Shuttles. The DMUs work on a direct transmission (not traction motors), which make acceleration difficult to say the least, especially at high speeds. The only other place they may be feasible would be SLE, but that's just an Amtrak operated service, not Amtrak owned or funded.

 

[VentureForth]

That's what I was thinking. The beauty of the CRC (and I'm NOT loving them) is that one powered car can pull up to two trailered. They're bi-directional so they don't have to be turned around.

Like Alan said, for more than two or three coaches, a loco and coaches is definitely more efficient. This would be a way to get trains out into less populated areas without having to pay for switching and turning.

 

[VentureForth]

Basically any route that operates with three cars max is ideal for DMU service, and AFAIK the only service that operates like that today is the Shuttles. The DMUs work on a direct transmission (not traction motors), which make acceleration difficult to say the least, especially at high speeds. The only other place they may be feasible would be SLE, but that's just an Amtrak operated service, not Amtrak owned or funded.

Well, transmission being the key word. According to wikipedia, the two Voith T212 BREs with K190 retarders are probably the next best thing to a traction motor.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Basically any route that operates with three cars max is ideal for DMU service, and AFAIK the only service that operates like that today is the Shuttles. The DMUs work on a direct transmission (not traction motors), which make acceleration difficult to say the least, especially at high speeds. The only other place they may be feasible would be SLE, but that's just an Amtrak operated service, not Amtrak owned or funded.

It's not clear to me that it's worth the trouble to use DMUs at all if the point is to have five entire trainsets in the country using DMUs. There are some advantages to using standardized, interchangeable equipment. And the total fraction of national fuel consumption that will be saved by making five trainsets a little more efficient is so tiny that it's pretty much irrelevant.

And you've got to wonder if rebuilding the Connecticut River bridge and increasing SLE frequency would increase ridership on each train to a point where DMUs wouldn't make so much sense anymore. And with Connecticut contemplating commuter rail on the shuttle corridor, maybe the most sensible thing is for the shuttle to just go away when commuter rail happens.

On the other hand, another thing DMU/EMU trainsets are potentially good for is better headways at off peak times on commuter railroads.

 

[VentureForth]

My thought was that there will be new equipment needed. Period. If you could build DMUs for about the same price as a trailered train, then why not? Then the current stock could be used to enhance equipment readiness on existing routes. The advantage of using a DMU would be a shorter trainset, meaning shorter platform requirements as well as the other advantages mentioned (ie: No turn around on trains that don't have cab cars, manufacturered in the USA if CRC does them, etc).

Commonality is always a preferred route to go, but we're already way beyond that. Not like every train is a Boeing 737 like Southwest does. That's a great business model, but to be effective, there would have to be a 10 year plan to replace EVERYTHING (including the Talgos and Acelas) with common - or at least interchangeable - equipment.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The ideal solution would be to work with CONNDoT and Metro-North to re-electrify the line and kill off the Springfield Shuttle once and for all.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

My thought was that there will be new equipment needed. Period. If you could build DMUs for about the same price as a trailered train, then why not? Then the current stock could be used to enhance equipment readiness on existing routes. The advantage of using a DMU would be a shorter trainset, meaning shorter platform requirements as well as the other advantages mentioned (ie: No turn around on trains that don't have cab cars, manufacturered in the USA if CRC does them, etc).
Commonality is always a preferred route to go, but we're already way beyond that. Not like every train is a Boeing 737 like Southwest does. That's a great business model, but to be effective, there would have to be a 10 year plan to replace EVERYTHING (including the Talgos and Acelas) with common - or at least interchangeable - equipment.

You can at least reduce the number of kinds of things you have to deal with in the future by not buying DMUs. I don't think buying DMUs is going to cause a reduction in the number of types of locomotives and/or unpowered coaches out there.

I don't think the DMU offers any meaningful platform length advantages. I don't think the locomotive actually needs to fit along the platform with a locomotive hauled train, and the trains where DMUs are likely to be used are likely to be much, much shorter than most of the existing platforms anyway.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The ideal solution would be to work with CONNDoT and Metro-North to re-electrify the line and kill off the Springfield Shuttle once and for all.

Maybe. In many ways, that's a great idea, but if you're going to implement this by taking one WAS to NYP train and extending it to Springfield for each Shuttle you kill, any Metro-North territory congestion might get a bit worse than it is now.

 

[Neil_M]

Basically any route that operates with three cars max is ideal for DMU service, and AFAIK the only service that operates like that today is the Shuttles. The DMUs work on a direct transmission (not traction motors), which make acceleration difficult to say the least, especially at high speeds. The only other place they may be feasible would be SLE, but that's just an Amtrak operated service, not Amtrak owned or funded.

Well, transmission being the key word. According to wikipedia, the two Voith T212 BREs with K190 retarders are probably the next best thing to a traction motor.

Maybe even better.....

I work with Voith gear, it's very good.

The retarders cut down on brake pad wear a great deal.

 

[battalion51]

I don't think you'll see the Springfield Shuttles going away anytime soon. Even if CDOT does get Commuter Service going on the Springfield line in a few years, it isn't likely to affect Amtrak's market too much. The Shuttles are designed for the connection to the Regionals to points south, not for short commuter trips. Do they do a few commuter trips, sure. But their purpose in life is the mainline connection, and that market isn't likely to evaporate with the introduction of commuter service.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I don't think you'll see the Springfield Shuttles going away anytime soon. Even if CDOT does get Commuter Service going on the Springfield line in a few years, it isn't likely to affect Amtrak's market too much. The Shuttles are designed for the connection to the Regionals to points south, not for short commuter trips. Do they do a few commuter trips, sure. But their purpose in life is the mainline connection, and that market isn't likely to evaporate with the introduction of commuter service.

Sure, but there is no reason why a Metro-North Express can't handle the people connecting to Amtrak at New Haven instead of the Shuttle. Amtrak's turned operations over to commuter agencies before, most notably the Clocker service.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Sure, but there is no reason why a Metro-North Express can't handle the people connecting to Amtrak at New Haven instead of the Shuttle. Amtrak's turned operations over to commuter agencies before, most notably the Clocker service.

For people only going as far as New York City, there might not even be much point in involving Amtrak at all if there's an express going from north of New Haven into Grand Central Terminal.

 

[AlanB]

My thought was that there will be new equipment needed. Period. If you could build DMUs for about the same price as a trailered train, then why not? Then the current stock could be used to enhance equipment readiness on existing routes. The advantage of using a DMU would be a shorter trainset, meaning shorter platform requirements as well as the other advantages mentioned (ie: No turn around on trains that don't have cab cars, manufacturered in the USA if CRC does them, etc).

And the disadvantages are more parts to break, more expensive parts, more FRA required inspections because the car is now considered a locomotive, more PM work. The expenses are greater because you have to follow the FRA guidelines for engines, not cars.

I'm not suggesting that DMU's don't have advantages and there are places that they might well be an ideal choice. But they also do carry more baggage in terms of maintenance.

 

[AlanB]

I don't think you'll see the Springfield Shuttles going away anytime soon. Even if CDOT does get Commuter Service going on the Springfield line in a few years, it isn't likely to affect Amtrak's market too much. The Shuttles are designed for the connection to the Regionals to points south, not for short commuter trips. Do they do a few commuter trips, sure. But their purpose in life is the mainline connection, and that market isn't likely to evaporate with the introduction of commuter service.

Sure, but there is no reason why a Metro-North Express can't handle the people connecting to Amtrak at New Haven instead of the Shuttle. Amtrak's turned operations over to commuter agencies before, most notably the Clocker service.

Amtrak only turned over the Clocker service to NJT because NJT was already paying for it. If NJT hadn't been paying for it, largely because they didn't have the equipment to meet the demmands, the Clockers would have died years ago and no one would be running them.

Besides, technically they are dead anyhow since NJT doesn't run them to Philly anymore.

 

[JAChooChoo]

............But DMU's on the Springfield shuttles probably wouldn't be a bad idea....

How soon we forget! On May 1, 1971 all Springfield (and Hartford) shuttles were DMUs - the 20 year old stainless steel Budd-built Rail Diesel Car.

 

[AlanB]

............But DMU's on the Springfield shuttles probably wouldn't be a bad idea....

How soon we forget! On May 1, 1971 all Springfield (and Hartford) shuttles were DMUs - the 20 year old stainless steel Budd-built Rail Diesel Car.

Well I wasn't thinking of the history of the line when I made my statement, just thinking of the current realities.

Besides, I was 10 & 1/2 when Amtrak was born and I wasn't riding the Springfield shuttles back then, so I have no memory of them.

 

[battalion51]

OK, I'm sorry, but there is a fine line between Budd RDCs and Colorado Railcar DMUs. Budd actually knew what the hell what they were doing, whereas Colorado builds something pretty, and try to sell based on looks, not performance. Anyone can build something that's pretty, but you put a Kia engine in a Porsche body, and it's still a Kia.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Don't insult Kias cars that way. They've come a long way in the past 10 years, ya know.

Now, if you put a Ecotec engine into a Porsche, its still a POS Chevy.

 

[jackal]

OK, I'm sorry, but there is a fine line between Budd RDCs and Colorado Railcar DMUs. Budd actually knew what the hell what they were doing, whereas Colorado builds something pretty, and try to sell based on looks, not performance. Anyone can build something that's pretty, but you put a Kia engine in a Porsche body, and it's still a Kia.

I've heard a lot of slander about the CRC cars, but no one's ever been able to provide concrete evidence that they really do suck.

CRC uses off-the-shelf standard Caterpillar diesels, IIRC (or maybe they're Cummins--regardless, they're a well-known name), so how can those suffer from reliability problems?

And if it's a performance issue (i.e. acceleration), isn't that mostly because of the oft-touted feature of using one powered car to pull one or two non-powered cars? If that results in bad performance, then don't do that--just get all of the cars powered! Every Budd RDC I've ever been on had all of the cars powered, so a train of three powered Budd RDCs and a train of one powered and two unpowered CRC RDCs is not an apples-to-apples comparison...

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

And if it's a performance issue (i.e. acceleration), isn't that mostly because of the oft-touted feature of using one powered car to pull one or two non-powered cars? If that results in bad performance, then don't do that--just get all of the cars powered! Every Budd RDC I've ever been on had all of the cars powered, so a train of three powered Budd RDCs and a train of one powered and two unpowered CRC RDCs is not an apples-to-apples comparison...

I think the issue is that CRC brags about how you can have unpowered trailers with their DMU, whereas from the lack of stories about Budd RDCs ever being used in such a configuration, maybe Budd never made similar claims. Telling buyers of CRC products that CRC products are just fine as long as you don't use a feature CRC has been touting somehow seems a little odd.

I also wonder, though, if a train of three cars which each have two diesels is really all that efficient from a perspective of maintenance complexity and even just fuel efficiency of distributing the load across that many diesels.

And if the problem is that a P42 is too big to be efficient, maybe a smaller locomotive could be used? There's a tourist railroad in Newport, RI and the two adjacent towns which uses a 45 ton switcher which uses a pair of truck diesels; that switcher pulls a pair of passenger cars. Then again, they're probably not too concerned about acceleration, either. (And from what I can see on the web, it appears that they have neither HEP nor steam heat.)

 

[battalion51]

It still comes back to traction. The CRC cars are built with a transmission, not traction motors. With a diesel/electric that uses traction motors you can put the thing in full throttle and it regulates itself to get the power there without Grounding out (failing). With the transmission CRC uses you can't apply full power right away, you have to let the transmission catch up. So if you go down to your local commuter rail station or freight yard you can hear (and sometimes see) exactly what I'm talking about. Almost every Engineer on the face of the earth will kick the brakes off, apply a little bit of power in the first or second notch to get the train rolling for a couple of seconds, and then open up to the 8th notch. With the CRC cars you have to click through all the notches and wait for it to load in that position before moving to the next. So you kick off the brakes. First. Wait. Second. Wait. Third. Wait. Etc. Put the two trains side by side and the locomotive hauled train will win a "drag race" every time.

 

[Neil_M]

It still comes back to traction. The CRC cars are built with a transmission, not traction motors. With a diesel/electric that uses traction motors you can put the thing in full throttle and it regulates itself to get the power there without Grounding out (failing). With the transmission CRC uses you can't apply full power right away, you have to let the transmission catch up. So if you go down to your local commuter rail station or freight yard you can hear (and sometimes see) exactly what I'm talking about. Almost every Engineer on the face of the earth will kick the brakes off, apply a little bit of power in the first or second notch to get the train rolling for a couple of seconds, and then open up to the 8th notch. With the CRC cars you have to click through all the notches and wait for it to load in that position before moving to the next. So you kick off the brakes. First. Wait. Second. Wait. Third. Wait. Etc. Put the two trains side by side and the locomotive hauled train will win a "drag race" every time.

Not sure why they drive them like that. The CRC cars are fitted with Voith T212 transmissions and the trains I work with are fitted with the slightly bigger T312 boxes, and trust me, you can go straight to full power from a standstill and the train will just take off.

Thats what hydraulic transmission is designed to do.

With 750hp per car you can sit in your loco cab and watch my tail lights vanish......

 

[PeterKsfo]

I was going to comment on this old thread if no one had mentioned the CT Budd cars. I used to ride those frequently. Usually the operated with two cars (one smoking, and one non-smoking). But sometimes would operate with only a single car.

They were CTDOT subsidized, but operated as Amtrak, rather than the other commuter rail service (then Conrail - prior to MetroNorth existence). Some of the shuttles operated as direct connections to the Southbound northeast corridor service, but many of them did not, and operated as connections to Conrail. The early Amtrak schedules printed the times for the Conrail connections in the schedule, with an asterisk next to the arrival time for NYP to indicate that the train actually arrived at NYG

The cars were also operated on the Waterbury-Bridgeport branch and Danbury-Norwalk branches of Conrail. They operated with Amtrak paint schemes and interior seating, but tickets were sold as Conrail and not Amtrak. I can't remember if they were operated by Amtrak crews or Conrail. I remember the fist time seeing he bud car on the main line, as the Waterbury branch joins the main line from Stratford to Bridgeport.

After a period of time being parked, CTDOT used them initially at the startup of the shoreline east route - reconfigured to 3x2 seating, looking more like a MetroNorth interior than the former Amtrak interior. sLE pulled them with a locomotive, rather than self propelled.