As I complete work on my customized Proto 1000 RDC, I have been researching much about them. I know that, as they came onto the scene, many cities were tearing up or covering over their old trolley tracks in the early and mid 1950s, but wasn’t there any view toward the future of mass transit and suburban sprawl, as well as short intercity workaday commuting, that could have made this apparently efficient machine far more commonplace than it was? I have seen the growth of the new rapid transit in my old hometown of MPLS, over the past 15 years, as it pushes north and south out f the metro area to more remote communities, and would have loved to use it to commute to college if I was young again. It seems like some cities are re-inventing the same old thing! Cedarwoodron
The Rio Grande never owned a RDC, but they also didn’t have a standard gauge branch into Durangofrom Moab and onto Grants, either. Rule #1 applies in this case for both on my layout, as I like RDCs and …
In my case, the RDC runs the opposite direction as my local passenger. Given it’s long distance and out West, there are long distances involved, so there is a need for limited sleeper service, along with the usual mail, express, coach, and dining. No problem for the local. For the RDC, my “shop forces” modified an old California Zephyr dome car to add a buffet/bar and a few roomettes. Works for me.
Now is where someone will say this thread is useless without pics. Well, it just looks like a RDC pulling a CZ dome…
[:o)]
Ron,
Budd Companies major target was not mass transit, but to replace old ‘doodlebug’ motor cars on branch lines. That it found a ‘niche’ in the Boston mass transit market was later. RDC’s had some major flaws:
- They did not ‘shunt’ track circuits very well - and many times the operator of the interlocking has to run ‘time’ on the plant to clear the interlocking after a RDC went through it.
- The ‘transmission’ was prone to failure.
- The engineer had no protection at grade crossings - The design could not be built today. Most ‘light rail’ is grade seperated and seperate from ‘real’ trains for safety reasons.
As far as mass transit - the Mpls/St Paul area has the ‘Hiawatha’ line built and running(after about $900 million). The Crosstown University Ave line is under construction. The ‘North Star’ heavy rail line is up and running. The Hiawatha line is great for getting downtown to a Twins or Vikings game(it’s only something like $3.50 one way to ride it and parking is free).
When the large Twin City Rapid Transit streetcar system was dismantled, it was replaced with diesel buses. Through the years ‘Park & Ride’ parking lots have been built in the new outer suburbs and new bus routes have been established to service them. There is talk about a several new commuter lines, but it is just talk. They all need lots of tax payer dollars, and the Federal/State governments are basically broke. A lot of folks do not commute to Downtown - the jobs have followed them to the suburbs. When I live in Eagan(south of the cities), my ‘office’ was in downtown Mpls. It is now out by Southdale Shopping Center in Edina.
Jim
Cedar,
Trinity Rail Express has 13 RDCs in commuter service that came from VIA back in the 1990s. Reportedly they were good performers, clocking 70+ mph speeds, but are now “semi-retired” and are used as “pinch hitters” when needed.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=201015&nseq=29
http://www.dart.org/newsroom/NewsroomMediaKit/TREFacts.pdf
On another note (hopefully someone here will remember this):
Back in the late 70s-early 80s one of the “Heavy Hitters” of model railroading, the late Dean Freytag, had a large layout called The South Ridge LInes. Beautiful industrial layout that included an elevated transit line that used a modified RDC unit for service. It was freelanced into an attractive blue and silver paint scheme.
I had the MRR magazine featuring that layout but within the last 3 years I’ve given away or donated at least 100 of my old Model Railroader issues and I think that particular one was included. I was hoping that perhaps, someone here a photo of Dean’s layout for you to see.
The problem with the TRE’s RDC’s are that they are not easy on wheel chairs. They are quick! The TRE used them for a long time until they got the Bi Levels. I have taken them a number of times to the AAC and Dallas Union Station. It’s always a treat when they are running.
RMax
Well guys, I did say “alternate universe” in my topic title! JR- think of me next time you eat at Q Cumbers off France Ave by Southdale! I guess thats why we have our little worlds in model railroading; in mine, an RDC runs the folks down to the big city from a GN owned subsidiary in western MN, so they can escape cabin fever in winter! Cedarwoodron
The old trolley lines dies because GM and Goodyear and I believe a few others, got together to eliminate them so they could sell more of their product, buses and tires. The government found them guilty of this and fined them a whopping $50,000. Don’t believe me, look it up!!!
Hopefully in your Alternative Universe, the Budd company is much more lenient with it’s warrenty terms, otherwise your railroad just voided its warrenty:
I believe it was due to drive-train issues.
BTW, a simple search on YouTube for Light Rail car crashes will demostrate that quite a few of the new LRT systems are NOT all grade separated - and hopefully the new Stadler GTW’s to be used on DCTA will resolve the issue of “temporal” separation nonsense by allowing DMUs to run concurrently w/ “heavy-rail” trains by using crush energy management as opposed to sheer bulk to protect the passengers and crew.
I avoided that problem by going with the optional P1K drivetrain, which so far seems more robust than the ones Budd used (Detroit Diesel) [;)]
it was actually a conspiracy to get more people to stop using transit and drive cars. And as history has shown, the private automobile won the battle.
Well, old man Budd was more forward-thinking in my alternate universe. He decided to make a variety of RDC chassis, to accommodate different railroads’ needs and applications. In fact, instead of dying on the vine with that “2000” RDC in the 1970s, he worked with metro airport commissions and rural feeder lines, as well as established passenger corridors in the east, to market more effectively. This gave Budd an inside position as urban mass transit became popular again in the late 1980s and Budd ended up buying Bombadier. They also partnered with Siemens to market smaller RDC-like systems in Europe and other foreign high population areas. A congressional effort to reach out to rural communities abandoned by lost air service as route consolidations occurred in the 1990s gave Budd a major slice of that largesse. Then again, we were supposedly landing on Mars by 1985, according to space experts in the 1960s! Dreaming…I’m always dreaming… Cedarwoodron
I’m still waiting for my flying car. [:-^]
Wayne
Not correct. They were fined for requiring the bus transit systems they owned to buy their products instead of competing buses, tires, etc. By the way I thoroughly researched this subject for posts (which included references) I made in a previous threads.
They owned stock (I don’t remember whether or not they has controlling interest between them) in National City Lines which bought and operated transit systems all over the country. Most of the systems they bought were bankrupt or close to bankruptcy. NCL kept many transit systems operating for years after they would otherwise have disappeared. Some now in public ownership would not exist today if it were not for NCL.
They looked at the bottom line ($) and kept street cars where they thought they worked and converted to buses where they didn’t. Some of the systems the bought were already partially bus (a few even 100% bus) . They converted other systerms to bus but also ran many mixed systems of streetcar trunk lines with bus feeders. NCL did have a pro bus bias, but they actually upgraded some lines with newer equipment ( in at least one case bought new streetcars) transfered from other systems where their calculations showed they worked.
The transit systems didn’t need GM to force them to convert to buses. Buses are more flexible in routing than streetcars in case of problems such accidents or if there are ridership pattern changes ang generally cheaper to opera
I never said they were the only reason, a lot of things are still not known and a lot never will be! One fact is clear as it is in the documents that in 1922 the CEO of GM had a special unit established to replace the electric rail lines, a year in which GM lost a lot of money!!! It has often been said there is a difference from what is known and what can be proved! Since Delaware dose not demand disclosure of corporate documents, we may never know!!! Just had a thought, since the US is now a major owner of GM, they could, as a stockholder, get those records.