Whatever happened to the Budd RDCs and why hasn’t anyone thought of something similar to run on americas railroads?
A number of factors were at work.
Their original role was often to replace a conventional passenger train with a single, occasionally a pair, of cars that were a lot cheaper to run. One RDC-2 or RDC-3 could take the place of a locomotive, baggage car and coach, need less crew to operate, and consume a lot less fuel. Where traffic was light it was a way to reduce (not eliminate) the operating losses. But the same reasons why an RDC could replace a conventional train also mean that the justification for the train was questionable and they were discontinued as fast as the railroads could get permission.
If business required several cars the RDCs could be coupled up to make a longer train but at some point it becomes cheaper to run a conventional locomotive and coaches. It’s easier to maintain one engine than four or five, and fuel economy may be negative. Most passenger trains today carry enough passengers to require several coaches.
And of course, remember that the RDCs would be over 50 years old now, and mechanical parts do wear out. The basic carbody shells no doubt were still good, if perhaps battered at the ends from grade crossing accidents. Motors, transmissions, wiring, seats, etc. would be getting tired and need heavy overhaul or replacement. Some RDCs have seen a career extension as de-motored coaches. VIA here in Canada has two routes that still use one or two RDCs, and I believe the small group has been re-engined to restore reliability.
And as far as something similar, it has been promoted and even demonstrated. But the reality is that in most cases if volume is low enough that a single car can fill the need, there is not enough need to support spending the money to buy the cars, and then operate the service.
John
There was a latter-day RDC by Budd called the SPV-2000 – it looked like an Amcoach turned into an RDC. It may have been that someone forgot how to build an RDC, or it could have been deployed out East where they have particularly fine snow in winter that got into the works, but the knock on that one was the “Seldom Powered Vehicle.”
More recently Colorado Railcar tried to market an improved RDC-like rail car, but there were no takers, perhaps for the reasons just mentioned.
The overall concept known as a “DMU” (Diesel multiple unit train) has had some success overseas.
On the other hand, there probably still is merit to the idea of powered axles throughout the train, keeping axle loadings low, using a propshaft drive to keep unsprung mass low, and saving on the weight of a separate locomotive – especially if you want high speeds or high levels of acceleration. There was also some discussion of EMU (electric multiple unit) and DMU (Diesel multiple unit) trains vs locomotives and how back in the day, some interurban operators thought the optimum balance was to alternated powered coaches with trailers in a consist.
As of a few weeks ago, you could still ride Budd RDC cars for some runs on the Trinity River Express between Dallas and Ft. Worth TX, but their days in this service are numbered. However, I believe they are to be used in some other Texas passenger service, so they may be around a few more years.
There is a small number of Colorado Railcar DMUs in use. There is a set in use at Portland on their Westside Extension, and a couple of cars in Alaska where they replaced Budd RDCs. For a look at a Modern European style RDC the Sprinter service in Oceanside, California. This service uses a modified Siemens Desiro DMU.
It is because we think too big. Big business has not been interested in passenger rail, the railroad industry has not been intererested in passenger rail, Amtrak is not interested in low volume, short trips. The SPV2000 was a disaster because it applied space age technology to rail but the electronics failed. But the need at that time was not what the unit did. Short, commuter type operations especially, were not conducive to electic doors and motorized traps, all of which got in the way of operations when they malfunctioned. at low platform stations. After that, the rail passenger industry did not feel it had a marketable need for such a unit. Only recently has the need re-arisin. Yet the costs are high, too high many feel to be useful. Some prototypes have been built and demonstrated but no one seems to be able to wrap themselve around them. Remember in rail passenger service in this country we are having to reinvent the wheel in many ways, and this type of self-propelled vehicle is one of the pieces of hardware that has to be accepted along with the philosophy of its use.
And, yes, there are a few still going strong long after their 50th birthdays and several stored in Canada I believe awaiting disposition.
While the DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit -the generic term, RDC being a Budd trade name) may be in decline in the United States, the concept was raised to a high art in Japan - including long-haul limited express service with ‘green’ cars and diners. Other configurations include commuter (multiple sliding doors, like American rapid transit cars) and short-hau/local designs, in trains of up to ten cars. Since Japanese stations all have high platforms, the car to platform geometry is a lot simpler than that in the US.
One advantage cited for DMU over locomotive-hauled trains was reliability. If a diesel loco had a road failure, the train was stranded until a replacement locomotive could be provided. If a ten car DMU set had one engine fail, there were fifteen to nineteen other engines available to keep the train on schedule. Quick-change engine packages make repair simple - just slide out the failed unit and replace it with a like serviceable item - and also make it simple to upgrade to more efficient/modern/powerful engines without having to rebuild the entire car.
Of course, nobody in Japan has mandated that the end of a passenger train has to be fitted with an armored ram like the bow of a 19th century battleship…
Chuck
You’d think, too, that with today’s crew laws, it would be a lot more cheaper. Instead of 4 or 5 main crews for just one car trains of yore you can get by with a two or three man crew for even three cars! The practicality of the DMU concept really hasn’t sunk in too many commuter organizations simply because they are going for uniformity and compatablity of equipment. NJT, for instance, can put any car on any train, be it diesel or electric locomotion; and except for NYP and MU trains, it can put a diesel on any train. DMU’s would make for another set of rules and practices, parts and labor knowlege that not too many managements want to hassle with. As I often say we are hung up on running trains in this country rather than providing a service. If you can run one one or two car train an hour in each direction with two man, even three man, crews might provide service where a locomotive dragging up to eight cars and a four man crew every two or three hours in each direction doesn’t. Running a service, not running trains.
If an MU set doesnt set well, then how about an engine unit that generates electricity to motored cars that can be used either locomotive hauled or under wire? Engine could cut out going to where diesels are not allowed (NYP, GCT, etc.) but bring a trian in from the hinterlands where there are no wires. Engine unit doesn’t have to be monsterous, no need for full fledge motor on trucks, just large enough to move unit itself in switching and yarding and disengaged in running service, so it would be light.; cars all interchangeable with other trainsets and are actually electric MU. These types are on the drawing boards in Europe if not in fact, but like too many European and Asian pieces of equipment, deemed too light, not able to meet North American heavey guage standards. There are a lot of economies attained overseas which cannot be achieved Stateside.
Henry I would like to expand on your presentation.
[quote user=“henry6”]
. Instead of 4 or 5 main crews for just one car trains of yore you can get by with a two or three man crew for even three cars! . DMU’s would make for another set of rules and practices, parts and labor knowlege that not too many managements want to hassle with.
As a service I will propose a hypothetical example.
1. Start with a new train position called Conductor/ Engineer. At combining points/ separations one could be engineer and one conductor with swap off capabilities.
2. With PTC coming there would ample reason to operate a DMU with a single person (As buses do now).
3. All DMUs would be fully Amfleet compatible including using HEP, train control, & loco control. Also all the features in the latest Amtrak specifications would be included including but not limited to destination signs, door control, PAs etc
4. NC DOT could originate single DMUs at Elizabeth City (or Norfolk in conjunction with VA DOT), Morehead City, Camp Lejeune, Wilmington, North Weldon (or Rocky Mount), Norlina to join up at the various junctions of Goldsboro, Selma, etc all to join at Raleigh to a waiting Piedmont. Locomotive(s) then hauls train to Greensboro. Enroute to Greensboro excess Conductors seat various passengers to proper cars. At Greensboro last DMU car(s) would go to Winston Salem - Barber Jct - CLT.
5. At Salisbury – the train drops DMU cars for Salisbury -Barber - Marion - Asheville (connecting with Greensboro, Barber, CLT) loco hauled train that also acquired car(s) from another northbound Piedmont train from CLT. Souithbound Piedmont continues to CLT (for connections to/from Barber, Hamlet, Fayetteville, Wilmington. DMUs go to Rock Hill - Columbia, Gastonia - Spartanburg, & Bostic
I presented a paper on this subject in 1995 titled, “A SJHORT HISTORY OF THE RAIL DIESL CAR IN NORTH AMERICA” at the CONEG Policy Research Center’s DMU Workshop. It covered the SPV 2000 and Dual Mode Turbine Electric experiments as well as the origonal RDC. If you America want a copy, I can probably E-mail one to you.
The Alaska RR ran RDC’s until fairly recently. In 1995 there were still 113 RDC’s owned and 25 in service in North America.
Jerry Pier
1. Start with a new train position called Conductor/ Engineer. At combining points/ separations one could be engineer and one conductor with swap off capabilities.
2. With PTC coming there would ample reason to operate a DMU wi****th a single person (As buses do now).
1&2 not good idea. Rail passenger service, commuter or LD, is not mass transit and would need one person to contorl the locomotion and at least one other to handle passengers.
3. All DMUs would be fully Amfleet compatible including using HEP, train control, & loco control. Also all the features in the latest Amtrak specifications would be included including but not limited to destination signs, door control, PAs etc
3. Not bad idea
4. NC DOT could originate single DMUs at Elizabeth City (or Norfolk in conjunction with VA DOT), Morehead City, Camp Lejeune, Wilmington, North Weldon (or Rocky Mount), Norlina to join up at the various junctions of Goldsboro, Selma, etc all to join at Raleigh to a waiting Piedmont. Locomotive(s) then hauls train to Greensboro. Enroute to Greensboro excess Conductors seat various passengers to proper cars. At Greensboro last DMU car(s) would go to Winston Salem - Barber Jct - CLT.
5. At Salisbury – the train drops DMU cars for Salisbury -Barber - Marion - Asheville (connecting with Greensboro, Barber, CLT) loco hauled train that also acquired car(s) from anoth
14. Almost all trackage would need to be at least double track on any route that has freight traffic more than one freight.
If you want or need something bad enough…
[/quote]
The more I ride Chicago-area commuter rail, the more I believe passenger services, whether commuter or corridor and certainly anything approaching HSR, need their own tracks, not shared with freight. Why? Even well-maintained track that has only moderate freight use causes some kind of a wear on track that leads to a heavy level of vibration in the passenger equipment. Freight cars are much heavier today than in the golden era of passenger services in the US, even as late as the 1960’s, and much heavier than European freight cars. So in Europe now and here in the past, the rail is/was more compatible with shared services.
Even well-maintained track that has only moderate freight use causes some kind of a wear on track that leads to a heavy level of vibration in the passenger equipment. Freight cars are much heavier today than in the golden era of passenger services in the US, even as late as the 1960’s, and much heavier than European freight cars.
[/quote]
This is a very succient observation and needs much thought and work. Can it be that use of many “WILD” detectors to prevent out of balance cars, flat wheels, &etc can mitigate this problem by not allowing those cars onto MSR and higher routes?. Another solution in conjunction may be to run surfacing equipment much more frequently over such routes such as the Illinois MSR CHI - STL line?Maybe the solution is for AMTRAK to provide the surfacing machine for every 2 of 3 surfacing passes? That seems IMHO to be a less expensive option. I wonder if NC DOT has given this problem a look see?
This is a very succient observation and needs much thought and work. Can it be that use of many “WILD” detectors to prevent out of balance cars, flat wheels, &etc can mitigate this problem by not allowing those cars onto MSR and higher routes?. Another solution in conjunction may be to run surfacing equipment much more frequently over such routes such as the Illinois MSR CHI - STL line?Maybe the solution is for AMTRAK to provide the surfacing machine for every 2 of 3 surfacing passes? That seems IMHO to be a less expensive option. I wonder if NC DOT has given this problem a look see?
[/quote]
The original WILD was used to keep high impact (out of round/flat spot) wheels off of the NEC. It’s still in place doing the same job.
[quote user=“henry6”]
1. Start with a new train position called Conductor/ Engineer. At combining points/ separations one could be engineer and one conductor with swap off capabilities.
2. With PTC coming there would ample reason to operate a DMU wi****th a single person (As buses do now).
1&2 not good idea. Rail passenger service, commuter or LD, is not mass transit and would need one person to contorl the locomotion and at least one other to handle passengers.
3. All DMUs would be fully Amfleet compatible including using HEP, train control, & loco control. Also all the features in the latest Amtrak specifications would be included including but not limited to destination signs, door control, PAs etc
3. Not bad idea
4. NC DOT could originate single DMUs at Elizabeth City (or Norfolk in conjunction with VA DOT), Morehead City, Camp Lejeune, Wilmington, North Weldon (or Rocky Mount), Norlina to join up at the various junctions of Goldsboro, Selma, etc all to join at Raleigh to a waiting Piedmont. Locomotive(s) then hauls train to Greensboro. Enroute to Greensboro excess Conductors seat various passengers to proper cars. At Greensboro last DMU car(s) would go to Winston Salem - Barber Jct - CLT.
5. At Salisbury – the train drops DMU cars for Salisbury -Barber - Marion - Asheville (connecting with Greensboro, Barber, CLT) loco hauled train th
The original WILD was used to keep high impact (out of round/flat spot) wheels off of the NEC. It’s still in place doing the same job.
[/quote]
Re; WILD detectors and increased surfacing frequency revolve around two words.
TRACK TIME
When WILD detector identify major defects, the cars must be set out of the trains…that requires track time and a place to set the car out. Minimum delay is 1 hour under ideal circumstances, a more normal delay is 2 hours and depending on the circumstance, 4 to 8 hours is not ou
Ten hour windows for trackwork are relatively new. Used to be that all work was done under traffic. But in the late 80’s work windows started being used which proved quite effective in many applications. Even transit agencies learned to utilize them as often the work leads to worthwhile operating improvements. A lot more work can be done, and more easily, when the crews are not working under the pressure of minutes per task instead of hours; the stop, clean, clear, return, start, stop cycle is time consuming and not very fruitful either. Of course there are particular instance where 10 hour windows are totally impractical and others where they are absolutely essential. As with all of railroading
Possibly traditional track construction is obsolete. What is needed is a structure that gives continuous support to the rail and has a wide base of support from the balast below. One posibility is use the recycled stuff used to make the most succesful plastic ties that apparently have advantages over both concrete and wood, poured over a continuous form that is placed on top of ballast and checked to be level and true, with inserts to accept Pandroil clips positioned accurately before pouring. The continuous welded rail is coated on all but the rail-head with a layer of high-durimeter neoprene or similar material for good noise and vibration control, and after installation, an additional layer of the fibrous plastic fills to a depth just below flange-tip level. At grade crossings, a continuous metal angle bar is screwed to that top coat to form a flangeway, and a third coat is applied to bring the material up to the level of the top of the rail to form the roadway. The idea is possibly to invest in a somewhat higher first cost and reduce maintenance requirements (including wheel wear with elimination of corregations).
Jerry, please email your railcar paper to me at daveklepper@yahoo.com. I have friends in the industry who will appreciate receiving it.
Henry is this why the SPV’s were nicknamed Seldom Powered Vehicles? 
Thx IGN
Think about it. A bi-level gallery DMU that could pull gallery coaches like the ones we se today. no more MP36s or F40s