Metra DMU test

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
MetraUPWest

MetraUPWest

Service Attendant
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
117
Location
Chicago, IL
Over the next 3 days Metra will be testing and evaluating a Nippon Sharyo built DMU set. Upon completion of testing they will be shipped to Canada as they were actually built for Metrolinx's Union Pearson Express.

The rumor is the DMU test is to determine if DMUs would be viable for a completely new Metra service.
 
You take that back!!

The DMU is cool, but I'd rather run my F40 any day. Maybe I'll change my mind by the time testing is done but I doubt it.
 
MetraUPWest said:
You take that back!!

The DMU is cool, but I'd rather run my F40 any day. Maybe I'll change my mind by the time testing is done but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Who cares about how cool something is? An F40 is going to be terrible at acceleration compared to any half-decent DMU and that's all that really matters for a commuter rail system.
 
The DMU can only hold 75 people per car MAX. Our "outdated" push-pull trains hold double that- and nearly every rush hour train is FULL. It'd take twice the fleet of DMUs to replace push-pull on the Metra lines- and we barely have room to store our current fleet. It'd be impossible to store that many DMUs.

DMUs are fantastic for their purpose but I just don't see them working on rush hour trains.

I was the engineer testing these DMUs all weekend, and while I was impressed with acceleration they were barely faster than our F40s. I was only a few mph faster in spots with the DMUs than I'd normally be.

I've never run the Metra Electric trains, but if yoy want an MU setup that's the way to go. They're MUCH faster than the push-pull diesel train AND the DMUs, and Metra's Highliners only hold 15 less per car than their diesel bilevels do.
 
RyanS said:
Another word for "outdated" is "so well engineered, it hasn't been improved upon".

I'll take a relatively simple diesel-electric locomotive over a complex hydraulic drivetrain everyday.
Click to expand...
Diesel-electric multiple units aren't exactly a mind blowing concept.
 
RyanS said:
Another word for "outdated" is "so well engineered, it hasn't been improved upon".

I'll take a relatively simple diesel-electric locomotive over a complex hydraulic drivetrain everyday.
Click to expand...
I was wondering what is the basis of the feeling that a hydraulic drive is more complex than an electric drive, specially for the relatively low power that is involved.
 
Paulus said:
RyanS said:
That's not what these are.
Click to expand...
Thought you were objecting in general rather than specific.
Click to expand...
These specifically, although I'm not enamored with the idea of a DMU. Increasing the number of prime movers you have to maintain seems like a poor plan to me.

But if anyone actually gets around to building a decent one, I'll be glad to give it a fair chance at proving itself.
 
Green Maned Lion said:
jis said:
Green Maned Lion said:
Nobody has tried.
Click to expand...
Well there are the Colorado Rail Car misadventures. :)
Click to expand...
They started with vastly heavier, less durable, corrosion prone Carbon steel. In explica, they didn't try to make a good one. They succeeded spectacularly in making a bad one.
Click to expand...
I agree. Hence my characterization of the whole thing as a "misadventure". For the life of me I could not figure out why they bothered with Carbon Steel in this day and age. What were they thinking?
 
RyanS said:
These specifically, although I'm not enamored with the idea of a DMU. Increasing the number of prime movers you have to maintain seems like a poor plan to me.

But if anyone actually gets around to building a decent one, I'll be glad to give it a fair chance at proving itself.
Click to expand...
Actually DMU's, and very decent ones, both of the hydarulic/Voith transmission variety and also the electrical transmission variety are used very very widely in the rest of the world. As usual since the laws of Physics and Engineering also suffer from American exceptionalism in the US, there is a dearth of usage of such in the US. Although some outfits are breaking out of that mold and starting to use DMU's specially in light traffic areas. An early one was NJT's RiverLINE, and that is generally considered to be a success. RiverLine's Stadlers are electric transmission. With the latest changes in FRA rules it is likely that standard Stadler units with minor changes to conform to external fixtures requirements in the US would be compliant with modified Tier I rules of FRA, thus making them easier to deploy. Even LIRR is seriously looking at DMUs for outer zone service since they realize that a 4 car +DM/DE train in which two cars perpetually run closed is not exactly a wise way to operate a service.
In general the issue is of right-sizing. A honking big mainline diesel engine hauling two or three heavy cars is not exactly energy efficient, and should be avoided on light traffic lines. Also on routes where you want frequent and performant service you might want to choose short, light, performant and frequent trains instead of long, heavy, sluggish and infrequent trains. That is what caused the folks in Toronto to rightly IMHO choose DMUs over loco hauled solution. They basically view this as a step towards eventually EMU service. In that environment a diesel push-pull would perform pretty poorly when compared to a light and quick accelerating/decelerating DMU.
 
Just like our passenger locomotives- the MPXpress is the heaviest 4 axle ever built- all American DMUs are subject to crashworthiness standards that make them much heavier than their European cousins. The hydraulic transmission is far too complicated. The UPE DMUs were impressive when they were working properly, but all 3 days the transmissions were giving us problems- not shifting into gear when moving from a stop, as well as dropping out of gear when moving. It's FAR too complicated of a system if you ask me.

I did find it neat that they were designed so they can easily be converted to EMUs.

I agree with Jis, and this explains EXACTLY why I feel DMUs are wrong for Metra's current services. We have infrequent mid day and weekend service. Trains run every hour or 2. We fill on average 2-4 gallery cars during those mid day trips so you'd have to double that amount for DMUs. Would running 1 F40 really be that much less efficient than 6 DMUs? Probably not.

DMUs on ANY Metra line during rush hour is NOT happening, so you'd have the entire fleet of them you'd need to store somewhere. Maintaining that facility would also cost money. All your cost savings are now gone and then some.
 
Alternatively Chicago can get its head out of its posterior and start running half hourly off peak and every five minutes on peak, like a sane commuter service.
 
Yeah, I am quite certain that Metra will never run a really frequent suburban service. They are too oriented towards generally infrequent and big trains, and any travel pattern that does not fit such, they don't want to have anything to do with. So I tend to agree with what MetraUPWest says. Unless there is a complete change in service philosophy at Metra they will not know what to do with DMUs effectively.

OTOH, and outfit like LIRR may actually be able to make really good use of them for outer zone service, even making more service to Greenport and more frequent Patchogue - Speonk or Montauk turns more feasible. Even Port Jeff could do with some filler service covering huge gaps at various times of the day, though they will probably need to start using those passing tracks in off peak hours, other than the Smithtown one.

NJT could make good use of them on Long Branch - Bay Head, or even on the Boonton Line and beyond Dover during off peak, thus making Mt. Arlington and Rt 23 more useful stations, but I am not holding my breath
 

Latest posts

Back
Top