by BandA
Pretty much what F-line said. You wouldn't want the "T" maintaining your locomotives, just like you wouldn't want Lando Calrissian fixing your Droids.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
electricron wrote:I didn't write MBTA should maintain DMUs, I only suggested they could. AllEarth Rail, hoping to introduce RDC (DMU) commuter rail service in northern Vermont hasn't found it impossible to find someone to maintain their 12 RDCs. This idea that there isn't anyone in the New England states qualified to do so is completely false.DMU's should be cheaper and more fuel efficient to run than locomotive hauling car trains. That is why the locomotive hauled car trains have been phased out on similar runs in Europe. I can't see why the cost structure should be so different in Maine.
Likewise, I haven't suggest Maine must buy DMUs, I've tried to suggest they could do so. With the tracks limited to 79 mph, why buy or lease more expensive trains and locomotives that can go faster?
Most transit agencies are happy buying streetcars that have maximum speeds of less than 45 mph because that's as fast as they can go in city streets. They don't need streetcars that can go 60, 79, 90, 110, or 125 mph. Maine doesn't need trains that can go 90,110, or 125 mph either.
David Benton wrote: DMU's should be cheaper and more fuel efficient to run than locomotive hauling car trains. That is why the locomotive hauled car trains have been phased out on similar runs in Europe. I can't see why the cost structure should be so different in Maine.I'll agree. The only point where DMUs might be more expensive is that they will be treated as a locomotive when it comes to FRA required testing. But when you only have three trains and three train sets, what's the difference? You'll be testing three locomotives anyways.
electricron wrote:DMUs are very expensive - SMART in California paid big bucks for what will likely be unicorns. It would be cheaper to buy locomotives and coaches; The locomotives could be smaller or de-rated older units.David Benton wrote: DMU's should be cheaper and more fuel efficient to run than locomotive hauling car trains. That is why the locomotive hauled car trains have been phased out on similar runs in Europe. I can't see why the cost structure should be so different in Maine.I'll agree. The only point where DMUs might be more expensive is that they will be treated as a locomotive when it comes to FRA required testing. But when you only have three trains and three train sets, what's the difference? You'll be testing three locomotives anyways.
Dick H wrote:Perhaps some MBTA riders can confirm this. I have seen comments thatThis is correct, but it's less to do with safety and more to do with operations. Cars are opened as needed starting at the locomotive end - because that's the end of the train where the mini-high platforms are at all stations. If there's enough ridership to warrant all cars open, then they'll open the cab car.
the MBTA does not put passengers in cab cars leading, except during rush
hour passenger loads.
Dick H wrote:When a trash truck ran into the path of a Portland bound Downeaster, the P42 leading looked like it might be scrapped from the damage. However, it was more fire damage and front end cosmetic damage and the unit was rebuilt at Beech Grove. There were a number of injuries aboard the train, which I do not recall as "life threatening". A DMU or even a cab car would have likely not have fared so well and life threatening injuries and worse would have been likely. Locomotives and cabbages on both ends of the Downeasters cannot be beat for crew and passenger safety, IMO."Can't be beat" - well, sure. But the degree to which the railway is gerrymandered to accommodate rogue road users is truly depressing. The best safety is to not have the accident - or hell, let's not run the train at all. Imagine if we said every bus had to have a section fore and aft for collision survivability.