TriMet has delayed the opening of WES until February 2nd, primarily due to problems with the railcar vendor.
From the press release:
TriMet purchased three self-propelled Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) cars and one trailer from Colorado Railcar Manufacturing (CRM). TriMet contracted with CRM, the only U.S. firm that builds DMUs that meets federal safety standards and complies with the Buy America requirement.
CRM has been financially distressed and is six months behind schedule. In January 2008, TriMet stepped in to ensure the cars’ completion, including providing financial and rail engineering expertise and on-site technical assistance to CRM, as well as paying suppliers to get parts delivered and maintain CRM operations. When the third DMU arrived in September, TriMet engineers determined that it would not be ready for service this fall.
See the press release for more details about the opening, the delay, and train testing.
0 responses to “WES: Fall opening falls behind.”
So there are two things in the press release:
1) Colorado railcars isn’t completely solvent. (To be expected, besides the fact that a lot of companies aren’t completely solvent right now, or even in good times, CRM went bankrupt a few years ago under the name Rader Railcars, and then changed their name to avoid the publicity issues.)
2) Something to do with cab signals? Are they changing them, do the ones in the DMUs not work right in the first place? (In LA it looks like they don’t work right if the operator isn’t paying attention to them, but, duh.)
And some other things that I saw:
1. Is this the first time an actual date has been nailed down? Does anyone know how far they got in planning a Fall opening? I saw that in the Google Transit data TriMet provides, there was a data set for November 30th that included WES as (internal) route 203.
2. Is the “financial and rail engineering expertise and on-site technical assistance” and the supplier payments coming out of what CR would be getting? Or from somewhere else?
According tho this brief item at the Daily Journal of Commerce, the original date was supposed to be September, but got changed to “fall”, and now that’s no longer operative.
Historically, TriMet has tried to launch a number major new projects in the month of September.
You can push the term “Fall” all the way to around December 21, but February 2 doesn’t quite make the cut. :-)
I know at one point there was a plan to buy 5 “cars” (3 engines, 2 trailers.) That seems to have been cut to 4, (3 engines, 1 trailer.) This is the first time I’ve heard of CRM’s current problems, but the number of cars change was made quietly last spring sometime, so looking back, I suspect that that might have had something to do with this…
My speculation is therefore that TriMet paid more per car (directly, or indirectly) than they originally planned, and made the change in number of cars to keep the project on budget, but I don’t know…
I do know that if WES meets it’s ridership expectations, (and I totally expect it to,) they’ll need another two trailers, and probably a spare engine as well in the not too distant future, and we’ll need a supplier for those, be that CRM or someone else (Oregon Ironworks maybe?)
CRC (Colorado RailCar) should be pulling themselfs out of the red in the next few months. CRC just gave up the Grandluxe Rail Journeys and selling off it’s assets (rail cars)
Florida is going through the same issue right now however with their vehicles. I don’t foresee CRC to stay in the market unless they are able to start building equipment much faster which is their biggest downfall to the company. They make excellent rail cars but the DMU market in this region is slim. The cars also aren’t the most attractive vs. the Siemens Desiro that is being used for the Sprinter.
We’ll see….
I’m not sure if this indicated anything but I recently received our monthly City of Tigard newsletter and it listed “WES Days” as occurring Nov. 14th (I think). Previous communication pieces had stated they were going to have “WES Days” a week before WES began service.
As I Tigard resident, I am sad to hear of the delay. Although it wouldn’t have met my transit needs, it would have allowed my wife to rail (WES and MAX) from Tigard to her office in East County.
$3 million over budget for the DMUs.
$3 million over budget for the DMUs.
$3 million over budget for the DMUs.
[Moderator: And so on… trimmed.]
I heard about colorado railcar months ago through the rumor mill……….
oh BOB…
OH BOB…
OH BOB…
(and so on…comments trimmed by commentator)
I can’t wait for comments by
ERIK
JIM KARLOCK
TERRY, et al,
hehe……….
Here are older news articles that Google turned up which mention Colorado Railcar’s troubles — I couldn’t find any other news articles before this date which indicated that trouble was brewing:
Tampa Bay Online, July 20th, 2008: Railcar Deal Missing Key Component: The Tracks
The Oregonian, July 29th, 2008: TriMet says Westside Express Service faces delay
The Oregonian article, above, mentions pushing the opening date back from Oct 1. to “early November”.
Here’s some of today’s local media coverage:
Beaverton Valley Times, October 1, 2008: Commuter rail line sidetracked by financial woes
The Oregonian, October 2, 2008: Wilsonville-Beaverton commuter rail line delayed
I wouldn’t care, if they hadn’t just blown $3 million more on this.
It’s just proof positive that rail gets top priority in the Portland Metro region.
Bus is definitely out!
Just remember that WES was NOT TriMet’s idea, but was born and carried by the elected leaders of Washington county.
al m Says:
$3 million over budget for the DMUs.
Where did you see this, al?
According to the Beaverton Valley Times (Portland Tribune sister paper) article:
Thanks, Bob. I hadn’t seen that and thought that TriMet had only accelerated payment to get the DMUs completed.
I’m guessing the DMUs are having their cab signaling augmented with ATC. this makes sense given the tragedy in Los Angeles.
I wonder if TriMet was given some shares in CRC as part of that $3m?
I wonder if TriMet was given some shares in CRC as part of that $3m?
It’s amazing how often that kind of question is being asked nationally these days. :-)
Lenny Anderson wrote: Just remember that WES was NOT TriMet’s idea, but was born and carried by the elected leaders of Washington county.
So what? TriMet could have perfectly stated “NO!” and Washington County could have continued the project on their own. TriMet got involved and now it’s a TriMet problem.
TriMet is, as the old saying goes, “a big boy”. It is a sovereign body to Washington County. It is a political subdivision of the state of Oregon, so the only way it would have been mandated to build WES is if the Legislature passed a law requiring TriMet to do it.
Please, show me the ORS that did that. Wait – it doesn’t exist, so it IS TriMet’s problem.
Bob R. wrote: Here are older news articles that Google turned up which mention Colorado Railcar’s troubles — I couldn’t find any other news articles before this date which indicated that trouble was brewing:
What’s interesting is that due to my involvement at another (non-Portland specific) forum that I was actually contacted by the writer of the Tampa Tribune article and provided her with some sources which ended up in the article.
CRC’s issues have been VERY well known to anyone that can fog a mirror, to be quite frank. TriMet’s contracting with this matter violated every principle of government procurement; TriMet even proudly announced back in the preliminary stages that it was working with CRC to design a car so they two bodies were in bed together before the bid was finally let – it came as certainly no surprise that there was only one company (CRC!) that could meet the bid requirements, and thus they won virtually by default.
Meanwhile, CRC toured this newfandangled car around the United States and Canada to rack up orders. It received two – one from the South Florida RTA (which was aided by a U.S. Government grant to help jumpstart DMU production in the U.S. – can you say “earmark”?), and one from TriMet. Every other transit agency that expressed an interest in the DMU backed out. Even Amtrak was interested only to the extent that Vermont would have paid for an Amtrak train to use these cars (and even Vermont saw the light and terminated the discussion.) TriMet was said to have worked with an agency in North Carolina to order a joint procurement of cars; except that the Triangle Transit Authority went a completely different direction with their project leaving TriMet by themselves.
In one instance where I’ll actually agree with Matthew, he wrote: CRM went bankrupt a few years ago under the name Rader Railcars. Not only that, but Rader Railcar even had an involvement with a local company, Tillamook Railcar, which was contracted to build some of the cars for Rader using a similar design. They had been based out of one of the blimp hangars, and then out of Forest Grove, before being liquidated. The Raders have a history of failed ventures; their latest attempt was resurrecting the American Orient Express as GrandLuxe Journeys, which immediately cut from two trains to one, attempted to resurrect its cars on the back of scheduled Amtrak trains (which was still-born), and then shut down altogether. Rader was removed from CRC’s leadership by “an investment group” and saw GrandLuxe shut down and its assets moved to California to be put up on the auction block (where the cars will likely not bring a profit – there is just not a market for those kinds of railcars.)
So, TriMet’s insistence on one supplier with a shaky record developed a commuter rail system where equipment is completely uninterchangable. The WES schedule requires THREE powered vehicles to be in service – if one vehicle is out of service (i.e. grade crossing collision) then TriMet immediately is forced to cut 33% of its service. If there is a problem that takes these cars out of service (witness Amtrak taking the Talgo consists out of service due to frame cracks), there is NO replacement equipment that can be obtained on short notice to replace WES service – no commuter rail equipment obtainable within 1500 miles will function with WES’ platforms, WES’ signal system, and the Beaverton Transit Center.
Aaron Grier wrote: I’m guessing the DMUs are having their cab signaling augmented with ATC.
This was the plan even before Chatsworth. I saw the equipment with my own eyes at least a month ago. If anyone thinks “it can’t happen in Portland”, remember that no part of the Streetcar system has ATC, and MAX does not have ATC in downtown Portland nor in Hillsboro, or on most of the Yellow Line. Two of the three rail collisions that have occurred in the last several months were on light rail systems in San Francisco and in Sacramento; and both were confirmed to be caused by operator inattention due to the use of a cell phone in the cab. What is TriMet doing to make sure that doesn’t happen on MAX?
“Two of the three rail collisions that have occurred in the last several months were on light rail systems in San Francisco and in Sacramento; and both were confirmed to be caused by operator inattention due to the use of a cell phone in the cab. What is TriMet doing to make sure that doesn’t happen on MAX?”
I shouldn’t have to bring this up to Erik, but what about buses? I’ve had bus drivers talking on their cell phones, for what were obviously not work/bus/etc related calls before. Surely something should be done about that as well?
remember that no part of the Streetcar system has ATC
Given that the streetcar operates almost entirely in mixed traffic, how would ATC be implemented? Is there a comparable system for urban streetcars utilized elsewhere in mixed traffic which we should be considering? This is not meant to be snarky — it seems to be a difficult engineering problem to overcome — what is the track record in other cities with urban trams operating with traffic?
I’ve had bus drivers talking on their cell phones, for what were obviously not work/bus/etc related calls before. Surely something should be done about that as well?
OH MATHEW-
You can be so stultifying, just like Jason.
Matthew wrote: I shouldn’t have to bring this up to Erik, but what about buses? I’ve had bus drivers talking on their cell phones, for what were obviously not work/bus/etc related calls before. Surely something should be done about that as well?
You shouldn’t have to bring it up? Did I deny this? I don’t think I mentioned bus drivers. Are you insinuating that I intentionally neglected to mention bus drivers using electronic devices as a way to suggest that somehow this isn’t a problem with busses?
Here, Matthew, I’ll prove you wrong again. I’ve seen TriMet (bus) Operators use their cell phones. I also know it’s against TriMet policy for Operators to use the phones. How much enforcement there is, I don’t know. (Probably as much attention as there was for the 45 minute wait for a 12B bus this afternoon – to the point I gave up and had my wife pick me up instead of waiting for the so-called “frequent service” bus.) But I certainly would not justify the actions of a TriMet Operator who wrecks a bus because he or she was using a cell phone.
So, there, I’ve come clean. Now are you going to do the same, or are you going to hide behind your “light rail is all good/bus is all bad” persona?
Erik –
I don’t see the conflict here… Matthew stated “I shouldn’t have to bring this up to Erik”, which clearly implies he thinks you’re usually aware of such issues.
You then proceeded to demonstrate you are aware of such issues. Problem (if any) solved.
But then you went on to state that Matthew is hiding behind some kind of “light rail is all good/bus is all bad” persona, without offering any evidence that Matthew has ever exhibited such an attitude.
Bob R. wrote: I don’t see the conflict here… Matthew stated “I shouldn’t have to bring this up to Erik”, which clearly implies he thinks you’re usually aware of such issues.
You then proceeded to demonstrate you are aware of such issues. Problem (if any) solved.
Why do you feel the need to point out little comments that you don’t like, but when others make the same style of comments that you let them go, Bob? I seem to recall that Matthew used the “bus fan” phrase in a derogatory manner, “without offering any evidence that (Erik) has ever exhibited such an attitude”, but you seemed to have absolutely no problem with his comment and in fact even went so far as to endorse his comment.
Meanwhile, in another thread you made the personally directed comment that I’m a whiner.
The conflict is that you as a Moderator can’t enforce your own rules as an impartial party. You attempt to call me on rules when you can’t even abide by the rules yourself, and endorse others’ willful violation of the rules you set forth. You then threaten to censor my posts, and then retract it by somehow making it sounds as though you’re doing me a favor by allowing me to break the rules (when in fact you had very little evidence that I broke the rules to begin with, and when I point out that I responded only after someone else violated the rules then you are left with either killing a lot of posts, or giving up on trying to moderate because you let so many rules violations go before I posted that it’s outright censorship.)
You want me to stop the verbal attacks on others? You need to step up and act like a Moderator and do the same first. You complain that I “whine” about Moderator intervention; it’s only because you keep intervening in my posts without sufficient rationale to do so, AND you justify the violations of others (namely Matthew) to suit your own personal biases. I don’t have the time to go through a site search of prior posts but I’m sure if I really wanted to I could dig up enough dirt. Do you really want to turn yet ANOTHER thread into “Bob R.’s and Matthew’s rants about Erik” or maybe actually discuss the issues at hand, like transit planning and growing ridership in the Portland metro area?
You’ll note that my original post on this thread only mentioned Matthew in that I agreed with a prior post he made, and quoted one of your prior statements, only to be responded by a personally directed comment. But I’m sure you’ll find some arcane justification for Matthew’s posts and complain that I somehow violated some rule and that you’ll threaten to delete my post because, God forbid, I like busses, and how dare I talk about busses in a transportation forum – at least I thought this was a transportation forum.
And then you had to jump in and comment on my post, instead of the numerous points I brought up regarding the topic at hand.
Moderator’s prerogative, Erik… I’m allowed to make observations about people’s behavior on the blog. I’m able to call people out on behavior. I’m also allowed to have opinions. I’m also fully capable of being wrong from time-to-time and putting my foot in it, and letting the audience judge if they want to stick around.
Similarly, on your own blog, you’re fully free to issue whatever missives you wish.
If you spent as much time engaging with people and adding to the dialog, rather than picking contrarian arguments and looking for disagreement where none exists, your considerable knowledge and experience could enlighten and influence many folks on a variety of issues. (Your comment tonight showing Amtrak Talgo speeds in various route segments is a great example of where you can bring your knowledge to bear in a discussion.)
I don’t actually have that much control of what you say or do here. I can remove comments or edit partial comments (and I always leave notices when such has occurred), but I rarely intervene in such a manner. Instead I offer my own comments when I disagree. For some reason this process seems to offend you on a routine basis. I suggest that rather than picking fights and engaging in constant meta-discussions about the rules, you instead focus your energies on talking about transit.
Matthew’s comments, to address your specific complaint, were in quotes and were presented (in my opinion as a moderator) as a brief snark about past arguments, and not as genuine derision as I have inferred from your posts about “railfans” (without quotes) in the past.
ERIKDer Furher is a pretty decent guy,once you get to know him, I have to admit.
Now, how he is behind closed doors is anybody’s guess!
Would you care to answer that for us bob, enquirering minds want to know bob.
Wow, Bob being compared to Der Fuhrer….too funny!
Erik, I think you raise a fair point about the lack of interchangeability of DMUs, but ultimately, this is sort of a problem handed to TriMet by the Feds.
Our fed standards (misguidedly, I think) focus on crashworthiness rather than crash avoidance. I think the LA tragedy speaks pretty clearly to the logic of this. Had a backup system been in place to warn or override the distracted operator, lives would have been saved. Instead, we have these baloney regulations requiring trains to withstand the impacts of a freight train. We know how that turns out.
So TriMet ends up in an intractable position – pick an inefficient, overbuilt and oversized vehicle that meets the standards, and is common….or innovate. They chose to innovate. Risky? Yes. Wrong? I don’t think we’ll know the answer for 5 years or more, but they are doing the best with the hand they’re dealt.
Bob R. wrote: If you spent as much time engaging with people and adding to the dialog, rather than picking contrarian arguments and looking for disagreement where none exists, your considerable knowledge and experience could enlighten and influence many folks on a variety of issues.
Wow, Bob. I highly suggest that you read your own quote, and subscribe to it.
Then, look back at the dozens of posts I’ve contributed to this forum. Note how many times I point out things, and then get attacked for my factual posts. When I respond then you tell me that I am “picking contrarian arguments” when in fact they are presented to me.
Look at my original post here on this particular topic, October 2, 2008 7:22 PM.
Then look at the response I got, from Matthew, October 2, 2008 9:56 PM, in which his post meets your very definition of “picking contrarian arguments” and “looking for disagreement where none exists” (right after I specifically stated I agreed with Matthew!).
I believe I started my post in a very unargumentative and fact-based manner, and both Matthew and you responded in a derogatory manner, and you continue to do so. Maybe if you want my experience and knowledge to be more beneficial to this forum, you need to encourage others to stop “picking contrarian arguments and looking for disagreement where none exists”.
Unit wrote: Erik, I think you raise a fair point about the lack of interchangeability of DMUs, but ultimately, this is sort of a problem handed to TriMet by the Feds.
Good point. The problem is that TriMet could have demanded a low floor car (since the DMU is essentially a custom-order vehicle), or designed the platforms so that they could have been used with locomotive/Bombardier bi-levels if needed.
The result is a system that if even just one DMU is out of service, the entire WES system will start to fail.
Look at my original post here on this particular topic, October 2, 2008 7:22 PM.
I reviewed it… I see a number of facts but also the kind of inflammatory rhetoric which is similar to what you complain about in others. You opened up the comment with “So what?”. Combative from the outset.
Then look at the response I got, from Matthew, October 2, 2008 9:56 PM.
I see nothing wrong with Matthew’s 9:56PM response to your comments. You raised the issue of safety in systems other than WES, so you can’t complain about Matthew asking questions about modes you left out.
Is this really the sort of thing you’re going to complain about? (And 4 days after-the-fact, for that matter.)
Okay, for the sake of argument, I’ll admit that I sometimes talk on the phone while I’m riding my bicycle, (my phone perfectly wedges in between my helmet strap and my chin. But the wind noise tends to annoy the people I’m talking to, which tends to result in it being fairly short calls regardless.) However, I don’t have passengers on my bicycle, especially not paying ones, so while it might be stupid, it isn’t putting other people in danger…
Happy now?
Erik, I’m no expert on the topic of train car types. Do low-floor DMUs exist anywhere, and could they meet US standards for crashworthiness? I agree that such a vehicle could be preferrable, particularly if it were shaped like a MAX vehicle, but that might be just wishful thinking.
I imagine the inevitable alternative is TriMet saving up to buy a 4th DMU as a backup….assuming Colorado Railcar survives long enough to produce one.
Previously Unit writes:
Do low-floor DMUs exist
Yes. They are used in San Diego, Austin (soon) and NJ.
… meet US standards for crashworthiness?
Not as such. For use on “mixed” rail lines they require time-separated use from freight traffic. Plus, Austin was required to make modifications to the fuel tanks.
So TriMet ends up in an intractable position – pick an inefficient, overbuilt and oversized vehicle that meets the standards, and is common….or innovate. They chose to innovate
It seems Tri-Met didn’t innovate so much as select an overbuilt (etc) vehicle. I understand the issues with purchasing an european spec DMU, such as done in SD, NJ and Austins case, but to select a company with no long-term experience in DMU production is a poor decision (imho). Yeah it gets you the “Buy American” checkbox filled, but couldn’t all these agencies go together to influence Siemens to assemble them in the US?
On top of that, the lack of backups is beyond belief. For the money they spent on the CRC DMUs, they could purchase many more older Budd RDCs, fixed them up and ran with them to prove the service.
Hopefully it’ll all work out in the end.
Erik: Thanks for the CRC background. Very informative.
On top of that, the lack of backups is beyond belief.
While I agree, could they use a P&W engine to pull/push the trailer? I mean, all it should take is the right plug on trailer, and it should be able to interface with almost any diesel locomotive… Fuel economy wouldn’t be as good as the DMUs, and it tends to result in lousy acceleration/deceleration control, but it would be service.
Unit wrote: Erik, I’m no expert on the topic of train car types. Do low-floor DMUs exist anywhere, and could they meet US standards for crashworthiness?
As Me wrote, San Diego’s Sprinter service uses a Siemens DMU vehicle; the NJ Transit River Line also uses a low floor DMU.
No, neither of them meet FRA Crashworthiness regulations and require time-of-day separation from freight ops.
The Ottawa O-Train uses a Bombardier vehicle that is extremely popular, called the Talent. It’s also used on numerous Deutsche Bahn services (they also use variants of the vehicle used in San Diego County). Frankly, I love the design of the Talent; it is sleek, modern, and Bombardier can customize it in numerous ways; it’s available as diesel (diesel-hydralic or diesel-electric) or electric overhead; two to four units; multiple floor heights; and in regional or commuter service with as many door configurations as you want.
I don’t think it necessarily has to be shaped just like MAX, but certainly low-floor access and platforms will make it easier for people to use. And the design is not too far off from the Type IV LRVs.
Matthew wrote: could they use a P&W engine to pull/push the trailer? I mean, all it should take is the right plug on trailer, and it should be able to interface with almost any diesel locomotive… Fuel economy wouldn’t be as good as the DMUs, and it tends to result in lousy acceleration/deceleration control, but it would be service.
It requires dropping the driveshafts of the DMU (two per car). What is the “right plug on trailer”? The DMUs have freight-style couplers.
The fuel economy would suck. (There’s no better way to put it.) CRC made a huge deal about selling these DMUs based upon the fuel economy of a locomotive hauling around the car (although in “real” commuter rail service a single 3,200 horsepower engine could haul 6, 7, 8, even 9 bi-level commuter cars, so the DMU is only beneficial at lower capacities; in fact the DMU is comparable to two busses in every regard. The DMU even has two diesel engines, one per truck; requires a crew of two, carries the capacity of two busses. A service like Sounder, where a single train can carry 500 people or more, is where you get a real benefit from commuter rail.)
The biggest problem with a P&W locomotive hauling around a coach is going to be the signalling system. The signalling system (which employs ATC) is very specific with regards towards the length of a train at a passenger station.
My understanding is that while the signal system will have no problem with a moving freight train passing through non-stop, a freight locomotive hauling around a passenger car and running as a passenger train will cause problems with ATC signals as well as maintaining blocks. Which means the signal system will have to be largely overridden.
The other problem is whether the Beaverton Creek trestle will support the weight of a locomotive. a EMD GP39-2 locomotive weighs 125 tons compared to 74 tons for a single DMU. Since it was never intended for a locomotive to travel to Beaverton TC, I would find it questionable that the design of the trestle would be to support a locomotive. Thus, trains to Beaverton would have to terminate south of the bridge – likely along Lombard Avenue, if not south of Beaverton-Hillsdale behind City Hall (or simply at Hall Boulevard and not serve Beaverton proper.)
In an emergency situation – yes, a GP39-2 could rescue a DMU and pull it to a station and then off the main. But to provide a semblence of regular service? It’s akin to using a semi-truck tow truck to tow around a passenger car instead of just driving the car by itself. Yes – in an emergency, the big tow truck will do, but you wouldn’t use the tow truck for the heck of it.
“It requires dropping the driveshafts of the DMU (two per car). What is the “right plug on trailer”? The DMUs have freight-style couplers.”
The trailer doesn’t have driveshafts. And the right plug is there, see page 22:
http://www.coloradorailcar.com/dmu-brochure-2005.pdf
Next question, since P&W locomotives probably don’t have head in power, is, does the Trimet trailer have a generator?
Matthew wrote: “It requires dropping the driveshafts of the DMU (two per car). What is the “right plug on trailer”? The DMUs have freight-style couplers.”
The trailer doesn’t have driveshafts. And the right plug is there, see page 22:
TriMet only owns one trailer. If a train breaks down in, oh, Beaverton, the trailer (if not in use) is in Wilsonville. P&W’s yard is in Tigard. By the time you round up a crew, get down to Wilsonville, pick up the trailer, run back to Beaverton, deal with the disabled car, your service day is already over, and passengers would have been better off riding the 76, or taking MAX downtown and jumping on a 94 or 96.
And what “plug” are you talking about, an HEP receptacle? Or a MU receptacle? HEP does no good because no P&W locomotive is HEP equipped, and no the trailer does not have an onboard generator. I have no idea if a CRC DMU can be MUed to a diesel locomotive (why would it need to be?) I do know that SFRTA for awhile had to use a locomotive on one of its DMU trains because the DMU couldn’t run on a particular grade – the engineer ran the train from the locomotive and the DMUs were essentially trailers with the engines running solely for on-board power; but it was a two-car bi-level DMU train and the locomotive simply idled in the opposite direction dead-in-consist while the crew operated the DMU controls without locomotive power.
The DMU power units get their HEP off the two drivetrain engines, by siphoning off 100 hp off each 600 hp engine.
I have no idea if a CRC DMU can be MUed to a diesel locomotive
That was my original question, and I looked it up and told you it could be. And why are you writing 3 paragraphs about it then?
no the trailer does not have an onboard generator.
Yes it does.
http://www.trainweb.org/ultradomes/trimet/2001.html
The DMU power units get their HEP off the two drivetrain engines, by siphoning off 100 hp off each 600 hp engine.
No it doesn’t, it has a generator too.
The other problem is whether the Beaverton Creek trestle will support the weight of a locomotive. a EMD GP39-2 locomotive weighs 125 tons compared to 74 tons for a single DMU.
A DMU with passengers is 99 tons. So I’d be very surprised if the bridge couldn’t support 25% more than that.
And I’m not asking why for the sake of, if a train breaks down in the middle of the day, because even if TriMet had a spare DMU engine, it wouldn’t be in the right place, with a crew, in the case of a breakdown either. But if a train isn’t able to pull out in the morning, and they knew a couple hours beforehand, could they do it’s run with the trailer and a diesel locomotive? (I’m leaning towards yes, although there are probably some questions about door controls and the like when running from the GP38 end.) And I suspect that P&W engineers&conductors (who will actually be driving the train,) will not be cross trained to drive the back up buses when that happens, so borrowing a P&W locomotive might actually be easier then running shuttle buses.
Matthew wrote: That was my original question, and I looked it up and told you it could be. And why are you writing 3 paragraphs about it then?
No, your original question was:
I mean, all it should take is the right plug on trailer
Of which I asked for clarification and you responded:
And the right plug is there
And again, I asked which “plug” are you referring to? Why are you getting offensive because you are using a word that means nothing – a “plug” could mean a half different things and thus I had to press you for a response.
But I’m sure that now I’ll get chewed out by Bob R. because I’m asking a perfectly legitimate question and somehow I have an attitude.
No it doesn’t, it has a generator too.
Not according to other information that I have seen from Colorado Railcar – BUT – assuming you are right and I am wrong, now we have a vehicle that gets negative fuel mileage??? (Because it burns diesel yet cannot move on its own, so its mileage is always 0.)
A DMU with passengers is 99 tons. So I’d be very surprised if the bridge couldn’t support 25% more than that.
I don’t want to find out the hard way. Do you have TriMet engineering documents showing what the weight limit of the bridge is?
But if a train isn’t able to pull out in the morning, and they knew a couple hours beforehand, could they do it’s run with the trailer and a diesel locomotive?
Yes but the train wouldn’t maintain schedule; the problems with the signal system is still there; the question of whether the train can run into Beaverton is still there…
And I suspect that P&W engineers&conductors will not be cross trained to drive the back up buses
No, because P&W Engineers/Conductors are not TriMet employees. They would not be driving a TriMet bus. Just as TriMet LRV/Streetcar operators will not be driving WES.
so borrowing a P&W locomotive might actually be easier then running shuttle buses.
By the time you get the engine, run it to Wilsonville to get the car, and then rescue the disabled train, you have lost a significant amount of time. P&W is not going to waste $250,000 in assets to station a locomotive in Wilsonville just for the heck of it; in fact it’s known that P&W is power short for its own freight operations. What if P&W doesn’t have a spare engine at Tigard because they are on trains headed to Forest Grove and to Salem/Albany? Do you expect P&W to delay shippers’ freight to pull a locomotive out of service?
I agree that TriMet can’t get a relief bus on the road in time. I think SMART might be better capable of providing replacement service if necessary.
But I’m sure that now I’ll get chewed out by Bob R. because I’m asking a perfectly legitimate question and somehow I have an attitude.
I didn’t say anything about it… why are you trying to stir up a new dispute with/about me? Yes, you do have an attitude, your comment, above, makes that clear, doesn’t it? But please do continue in this otherwise-interesting discussion without the attitude.
Meanwhile, I have asked TriMet if they can tell us more about any formal plans for operational redundancy/back-up in light of the current trouble. I’ll let you know when I hear back.
Hello from Vermont . . .
Just to clarify, Vermont is still in discussions with Colorado Railcar. The news reports tell only one moment in what has been quite a saga – due to the state of Vermont, not Colorado Railcar. Also Amtrak did not order it’s own DMU’s because it’s request to congress to do so was not approved. I have not heard anything to contradict what I last heard, which is that the plan remains a hope if funds become available.
I received a response this afternoon from TriMet regarding operational issues should a problem occur with one of the DMUs.
Right now they are still working out plans for how to handle equipment failure. They expect to have a plan in place soon, probably sometime in December.
There are few specifics at this time, but it was confirmed that using a conventional locomotive is not possible because of weight limitations on the bridge just south of Beaverton TC.
On possible idea (but just an idea at this point) is to use shuttle buses to augment the system while the remaining DMUs continue service as well.
When more clearly-defined plans are available, I’ll post a follow-up.