by west point
A lot of this talk about DMUs reminds me what was the reasons for getting SPVs. Prediction ==== If DMUs are purchased within 10 - 15 years will be replaced with EMUs.
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith
west point wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 8:22 pmA lot of this talk about DMUs reminds me what was the reasons for getting SPVs. Prediction ==== If DMUs are purchased within 10 - 15 years will be replaced with EMUs.It's going to be really tough to make an argument for electrifying Waterbury, Wassaic, Greenport, or Patchogue to Montauk. There's a role for DMUs and eventually HMUs.
west point wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 8:22 pm A lot of this talk about DMUs reminds me what was the reasons for getting SPVs. Prediction ==== If DMUs are purchased within 10 - 15 years will be replaced with EMUs.The thing is - the concept behind SPV's was relatively sound and true; and the idea of a modern-day RDC would have been a good one.
ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 3:41 pmThe thing is - the concept behind SPV's was relatively sound and true; and the idea of a modern-day RDC would have been a good one.The Nippon-Sharyo DMUs are really nice, their current design can't clear the third rail though. The Colorado Railcar DMUs were arguably the first modern FRA-compliant DMUs, they were nice until CRC went out of business.
HARTFORD, Conn. — Funding for new locomotives and two new stations is included in $839 million in transportation projects approved Tuesday by Connecticut’s State Bond Commission, the Hartford Courant reports.
The commission unanimously approved the set of 58 transportation projects. Included are $280 million for new dual-power locomotives to replace aging diesels used on some Metro-North Railroad branch lines, which will enable new express service to New York City. A release from the office of Gov. Ned Lamont and the bond commission agenda do not indicate the number of locomotives involved or other details of the planned purchase.
Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 5:32 pm Quick update on progress for these engines.Ugh, we're involved in this stupid boondoggle too. Our only interest in it is Danbury. We should just throw the wire back up to Danbury/New Milford and get out of this dual-mode stupidity.
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... -stations/
This investment also includes the procurement of new dual-mode locomotives to support one-seat ride service for non-electrified segments of the Connecticut rail network (Waterbury Branch Line, Danbury Branch Line, Hartford Line). CTDOT also plans to replace the Metro-North Railroad fleet (push-pull rail cars and dual-mode locomotives) operating on the Waterbury Branch and Danbury Branch Lines.
Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:27 amI think an ALP-45DP solves the Danbury issue, provided it's utilized to Penn as part of PSA. I don't object to wire, but its expensive.If we would not do this stupid dual-mode boondoggle, the wire wouldn't cost much in comparison. In the very long term, the wire ends up being cheaper, as the same equipment that works on the New Haven Line would work up to Danbury/New Milford.
west point wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:22 amThis is not the correct thread but more about these dual modes. I cannot see Amtrak ordering Battery - Diesel locos to power the west side trains. The ALC-42E has a better chance of proving reliability.Amtrak's needs are very different. They need overhead wire diesel dual modes that can run a few hundred mile runs economically on diesel power to offer offshoot services from the NEC. There are a whole bunch of service possibilities that could branch off of the NEC if dual-modes were available.