Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

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.

His points could have been made in 100 words (instead of 946 words), and without bullying other members of the site.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

RDCs and, I assume, DMUs, might be a bit tricky in snow. IIRC, B&M had some issues with RDCs back in the day during snowy weather, and eventually they put GP7s and GP9s in the lead.

The obvious solution to that problem is for the host railroads to be more proactive when it comes to plowing snow. Historically, that has not been the case with Pan Am: on many occasions in the past they've chosen to let the Downeaster act as a snow plow, rather than plowing the line themselves. That might not work so well with RDCs or DMUs. Patricia and David would need to have a talk about that, I think.

electricron wrote:

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.

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.

In theory, you could run a one-car DMU/RDC like a "streetcar" or "interurban" with just an engineer and a farebox. Assuming any track circuit bugs could be solved.

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.

Perhaps some MBTA riders can confirm this. I have seen comments that
the MBTA does not put passengers in cab cars leading, except during rush
hour passenger loads.

Does CMQ maintain the old Rail World/MMA shop in Derby, and whoever owns Derby, is that shop competent to repair passenger equipment? I’d be very surprised if NNEPRA moved to self-owned equipment too, but Pan Am and MBTA/Keolis potentially aren’t the only players in town.

Cab cars have earned the nickname "coffin cars" and, frankly, it's not undeserved.

Dick H wrote:Perhaps some MBTA riders can confirm this. I have seen comments that
the MBTA does not put passengers in cab cars leading, except during rush
hour passenger loads.

This 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.

PAR Waterville Shop may be a "decent" contract shop for loco rebuilds,but useless for passenger car repairs,MBTA's BET can barely keep the
commuter rail fleet running.
MMA's Derby shop is remaking itself into a contract loco and freight car shop, not a passenger car shop.
Downeaster is better off staying tied on the NEC car pool for it's needs.

The Pan Am parking lot strikes again.

Was on 695 this past Saturday and it was smooth sailing until we got to Ocean Park. We pulled onto the 2nd track to allow southbound 698 to pass, but PAR had canned a freight further down, so as a result our train had to pull into the siding, wait for 698 to pass, then reverse back onto the main and continue. We ended up getting to Portland over half an hour late. Many passengers didn't seem too happy.

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.

As far as damage goes, that P42 might have come out on the road again but would a PL42 - like NJT 4020 - have? Would a Charger?

I couldn't agree more. Railroad crash worthiness and prevention regulations are written to get votes, not protect people. As the statistics show, train-on-train deaths are a tiny fraction of grade crossing deaths, orders of magnitude different. If we really want to improve safety, let's cut out the grade crossing accidents, which should be 100% preventable given modern tech like red light cameras and stiff fines and sentencing.

But like I said, no congresspersons get reelected for laws that put offenders in jail for going around gates, or terminating licenses. It's much easier to get reelected by "teaching the mean railroads a lesson".

And as such, it becomes harder and harder to run a corridor train.