trainhq wrote:There has been a lot of discussion of DMUs on this line before. Basically, the way things are, is that there are currently
no actual FRA compliant DMUs being manufactured now. U.S. Railcar is looking into reviving the Colorado railcar DMU,
but hasn't succeeded yet. And, the CRC DMU had some issues when it was actually tested in service. We'll see if U.S.
Railcar does any better.
Davey was on the record saying that CR needs less different makes of vehicles to maintain, not more. The new loco order has the escalator clause for another 20 units if they like how the first order is performing specifically because it'll allow them to expedite dumping the GP40's and their largely incompatible systems and standardize on just the 1988-93 era FP40's and new MSI46's that have a lot more parts-and-service overlap than the Geeps. I think it would be a bad idea to go DMU unless it was widespread on an "Indigo Division" where Needham, Fairmount, Stoughton, Riverside/Framingham, Peabody/Danvers, Reading, Anderson RTC, Waltham/128 all got high frequency short-turn shuttles. 1 line is just not nearly enough scale, and the T would be better off electrifying the branch, pooling its maint resources with Amtrak at a larger shared facility, and getting the better emissions and start/stop performance using their existing coaches. It would be halfway or better as good on the Fairmount as pure DMU's and would also net them a windfall of diesels freed up from loco-hungry Providence Line duty to beef everything else up. Plus they can pool that loco order with RIDOT when they initiate South County CR (and probably subcontract the T on 100% subsidy to operate it for them). That is probably what Davey was referring to with his preference about locomotive makes: if you're going to introduce a new make, electric push-pull is way way way better utilization, maintenance-friendliness, and overall bang-for-buck than a situation-limited DMU configuration.