ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Discussion related to commuter rail and transit operators in California past and present including Los Angeles Metrolink and Metro Subway and Light Rail, San Diego Coaster, Sprinter and MTS Trolley, Altamont Commuter Express (Stockton), Caltrain and MUNI (San Francisco), Sacramento RTD Light Rail, and others...

Moderator: lensovet

ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Postby kaitoku » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:07 pm

From the Transportation Research Board subcommittee meeting agenda:
ACE Considering conversion to DMU for reasons of economics and performance. “ACE hopes to eventually extend services to Sacramento and Merced while replacing the existing diesel locomotive – one locomotive per eight coaches, traveling top speed of 79 mph – to that of the Diesel Multiple Unit. Each DMU train is self propelled with top speeds between 110 to 125 mph and performance not affected by train length.”


http://trbsprc.blogspot.com/2013/12/201 ... genda.html
kaitoku
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: Sapporo, Japan

Re: ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Postby Fan Railer » Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:46 pm

kaitoku wrote:From the Transportation Research Board subcommittee meeting agenda:
ACE Considering conversion to DMU for reasons of economics and performance. “ACE hopes to eventually extend services to Sacramento and Merced while replacing the existing diesel locomotive – one locomotive per eight coaches, traveling top speed of 79 mph – to that of the Diesel Multiple Unit. Each DMU train is self propelled with top speeds between 110 to 125 mph and performance not affected by train length.”


http://trbsprc.blogspot.com/2013/12/201 ... genda.html

Lol, since when does ACE run consists that long? (1 loco + 8 cars).
Fan Railer
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:32 pm

Re: ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Postby Backshophoss » Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:31 pm

ACE tends to run 7-8 car consists from Stockton to San Jose,on a regular basis,but believe UP will never allow DMU's
to run the Tracy - Newark corridor via Niles Jct, it's UP's south east access to SFO metro area.
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 4575
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Postby Fan Railer » Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:55 am

Backshophoss wrote:ACE tends to run 7-8 car consists from Stockton to San Jose,on a regular basis,but believe UP will never allow DMU's
to run the Tracy - Newark corridor via Niles Jct, it's UP's south east access to SFO metro area.

Interesting, last I checked, the norm was 6 car sets, with maybe an occasional 7 car consist. I wasn't aware ridership had risen enough in the last year since I was there to start warranting 8 car trains, nor have I seen any 8 car sets documented on Youtube.
Fan Railer
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:32 pm

Re: ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Postby Tadman » Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:52 am

This is interesting, but there are two important issues: 1. the FRA-compliant DMU marketplace is pretty quiet. We'll see how Sumitomo fares (they have a good track record) in Toronto and Marin County; 2. NJT released a study a few years back that put 7 cars as the over/under for MU efficiency. In other words, trains 8+ cars are optimal as diesel hauled, while 7 and less are optimal as MU's. Obviously they have a far different physical plant and density pattern (as well as electric MU's) so perhaps the math is much different at NJT than ACE. Also, I somewhat question that math when I see endless 10-12 car EMU consists at LIRR, NJT, and MNCR...
Tadman
 
Posts: 8432
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Michigan

Re: ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Postby Fan Railer » Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:20 pm

Tadman wrote:This is interesting, but there are two important issues: 1. the FRA-compliant DMU marketplace is pretty quiet. We'll see how Sumitomo fares (they have a good track record) in Toronto and Marin County; 2. NJT released a study a few years back that put 7 cars as the over/under for MU efficiency. In other words, trains 8+ cars are optimal as diesel hauled, while 7 and less are optimal as MU's. Obviously they have a far different physical plant and density pattern (as well as electric MU's) so perhaps the math is much different at NJT than ACE. Also, I somewhat question that math when I see endless 10-12 car EMU consists at LIRR, NJT, and MNCR...

Idk. Not sure if you interpreted it correctly. In addition, you might be mixing up DMUs with EMUs. For DMUs, yes, over a certain number of cars, it is more economical to run the set with a diesel locomotive. For EMUs, I would think the opposite, since there isn't as much of a power drawback, and you get much better acceleration with a 12 car EMU train than a 12 car locomotive hauled train.
Fan Railer
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:32 pm

Re: ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Postby Patrick Boylan » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:54 am

If the FRA approves them what reasons would there be for UP not to allow them? How much do regulations allow the host railroad to add extra conditions beyond what the government requires already?
User avatar
Patrick Boylan
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:44 pm
Location: Here is a stupid picture, pay attention to me. Burlington Township, NJ 08016

Re: ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Postby jb9152 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:12 am

Patrick Boylan wrote:If the FRA approves them what reasons would there be for UP not to allow them? How much do regulations allow the host railroad to add extra conditions beyond what the government requires already?


Well, they own the facility, so everything is subject to negotiation. Regulatory requirements are the base; host railroads often ask for more than the base. If the host railroad doesn't want DMUs, they can kill the deal if the passenger agency pushes too hard.
jb9152
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:15 pm

Re: ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Postby electricron » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:38 am

jb9152 wrote:
Patrick Boylan wrote:If the FRA approves them what reasons would there be for UP not to allow them? How much do regulations allow the host railroad to add extra conditions beyond what the government requires already?


Well, they own the facility, so everything is subject to negotiation. Regulatory requirements are the base; host railroads often ask for more than the base. If the host railroad doesn't want DMUs, they can kill the deal if the passenger agency pushes too hard.


In Fort Worth, the proposed TexRail commuter project (ex-SW2NE) is planning to use Stadler GTWs DMUs or equivalent. FWWR is demanding a new shared double track line to reduce freight impacts, UP is demanding new segregated tracks for passenger trains 25 feet displaced from existing freight tracks, while DART will allow sharing a new single track in its ex-Cotton Belt corridor. So, it's true whoever owns the corridor has the final say.

What DART will allow depends upon the GTWs getting FRA approval to share tracks (DCTA did so successfully after jumping through hoops). The UP has been demanding the same lately everywhere, just refer to the recent UTA's Frontrunner and Denver RTD's examples. FWWR is demanding about the same BNSF demands everywhere, just refer to the recent Sounder and Northstar examples. NMDOT's Railrunner is the other BNSF demand example, actually selling the corridor to the commuter rail agency, which is what CSX has also done recently in Orlando. ........While there are different examples what each freight railroad will do, they have been fairly consistent recently individually.
electricron
 
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: ACE looking to switch to DMU's in the future?

Postby dowlingm » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:41 pm

One issue freight roads might have raised with DMUs is shunting:
http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/program/Doc ... er-GTW.pdf

But in this case one would assume ACE would be running consists more than long enough to be detected.
dowlingm
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON


Return to California Commuter & Transit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest