posted
I don't know how NJ Transit may be warming to the DMU ideas being put forth by the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers, but since a recent NJ-ARP publication mentioned Colorado Railcar, I had a looksee on their single-level DMU page ( http://www.coloradorailcar.com/dmupages/dmusing.html ) because I was curious as to what the vehicle in question may look like.
Well...as you can see on the pic I'll try to post, the cab end does resemble the Comet cab-car type; it's also worth a mention that these DMUs are FRA-compliant, they accelerate within the range of your average EMU, they're cheaper to acquire than a bunch of new locomotives for hauling trailers, plus they're fully ADA-accessible which negates the need to build a bunch of mini-high platforms all around the low-platform territories.
Now, of course, for the problems: NJ Transit's averse to buying any kind of new MU, thanks to the FRA inspection requirements Getting new DMUs may seem to be a throwback to RDC days (and indeed, Colorado Railcar refers to these as "RDCs" on their web pages) These DMUs in particular seem to have no high-platform access, and, indeed, the large center door would increase dwell times (and is reminiscent of Metra gallery cars)
However, on the plus side (should NJT embrace them): Startup costs are much lower, especially on new routes Costs of electrification would not enter the equation Since they are FRA-compliant, they could be put on routes currently earmarked as potential LRT routes, without the need for that ridiculous FRA "time-sharing" waiver between passenger and freight service (perhaps, if any DMU is accepted by NJT, they should drop using LRT for the HBLRT northern route altogether)
Well, we'll see...here's hoping that pleasant surprises don't continue to be followed by disappointments...
[This message has been edited by irishchieftain (edited 04-27-2002).]
posted
Have any of these cars been built yet (prototype)? Have any agencies expressed interest in them?
I'm sure that there would different variations of this RDC (i.e. high level compatible). The Budd RDCs were high level compatible, these should be too.
Like you say, these would be perfect for light rail routes (ideal for the SNJLRT). However, it doesn't appear that this RDC would be able to navigate the tight curves of the HBLRT.
As for the 90 day inspections, no one is asking NJT to buy large quantities of these cars (thus requiring more inspections). A dozen or so of these would suit NJT's needs.
A few routes they could be used on now: Boonton Line: Walnut Street to Hoboken (post connection) Pascack Valley Line: midday service Northeast Corridor: Princeton Dinky
They show more potential for the future: West Trenton Line Susquehanna Line South Jersey Light Rail
Maybe the CMSL can look into purchasing some too, if they ever connect to Hammonton...
posted
Can't work on the SNJLRT; street-running with sharp curves in Camden
Yup...and that's what NJT gets for jumping the gun, even creating a ridiculous street-running segment for the light rail. However, were the route to be switched off the light-rail alignment onto its original one, then that point would be moot.
As for the HBLRT, I didn't imply that these heavy-rail vehicles should run on that extremely slow and tortuous (that means twisting-and-turning) route that the electric light rail currently uses in Jersey City. Instead, it could have used existing heavy-rail routes to get to the old CNJ lines, departing from Hoboken Terminal. As it stands, the current northern route of the HBLRT is still built to heavy-rail standards, with curves that are not a problem for these DMUs; switching from LRT to these DMUs for the currently-planned HBLRT northern leg would save quite a few million or billion, even with the inspection requirements. Of course, it appears that NJT planners are not that adept at reading bulletin boards for good ideas...
posted
I actually like the Camden street-running. It is designed to take people to the locations that they would likely use: the Aquarium, the New Jersey, the Riversharks, etc.
I think this is really an FRA issue with the requirement of time-separated running of freight and LRT.
posted
The separation of freight and light rail operations is necessary. These rules, unfortunatly, are written in the blood of those who have died and been injured in rail accidents over the last hundred years. The occurance of heavy vs. light rail accidents are very few, thankfully.
The entire SJLRT project was ill-conceived, and destined to failure (although it will continue to operate). The system serves no existing need, and doesn't have the potential to develop new traffic, or even remove existing traffic from the area's highways. Although it directly serves the Tweeter Center, who would ride it to a concert, knowing that the system won't run after 10:00pm, leaving you with no way home?
In the most heavily taxed stste in the USA, the powers to be continue to pour needed dollars into projects that serve no need. NJT, of course, dances to the tune, and operates the projects in a losing manner. The best example of this is the Atlantic City rail line. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the operations people, who steadfastly refuse to run the line in a manner that would actually serve the largest number of riders. No one in operations is willing to admit that the line is commuter based, and never will serve as the "gambler's express" that it was touted to be. Instead of adapting to a commuter schedule, NJT continues to run empty trains at odd hours, ignoring the shift changes at the casinos and hotels. Removing the NJT shuttle buses and substituting a half-baked jitney operation has certainly encouraged many riders to drive to work.
As far as the CMSL operating to Hammonton, forget it. It will simply be another case of tax dollars supporting empty trains. It's not a needed nor practical service option.
Posts: 12 | From: Hammonton, NJ, USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The separation of freight and light rail operations is necessary
Yup, just like the separation of trucks and automobiles on the interstate highways would be equally necessary by comparison...but no such separation is federally enforced. The FRA just blows everything out of proportion while continuing to stymie passenger rail operations of any kind. I'm not fond of street-running of rail, even light-rail, and would have rather seen this Camden-Trenton project come to fruition as a heavy-rail operation, with optional service to/from Philadelphia (but that would put SEPTA up in arms, seeing the competition to its R7 train).
As for CMSL...it's a tourist train, it's a tourist train, it's a tourist train and I don't see it going beyond that. If no call for service is there, then I don't see it materializing. Otherwise, we'd have connecting Black River & Western service between Bound Brook and Lambertville, for example (on this same note, there was a short-lived New Hope and Ivyland connecting service between New Hope and Warminster, connecting with SEPTA's R2 train, but operating speeds were quite low and service was unpopular due to primitive railcars of the type used on the steam fantrips). Although...I myself would ride a train to/from Cape May, if only to visit the seashore (but it would have to originate in the NY metro area, which is impossible since no-one's rebuilding the CNJ southern division between Lakehurst and Winslow Junction...)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
(but it would have to originate in the NY metro area, which is impossible since no-one's rebuilding the CNJ southern division between Lakehurst and Winslow Junction...) 
