It looks as if the designers took inspiration from a number of sources -- old RDCs, heavyweight subway/rapid transit cars, newer light rail cars, and even early 20th century Interurban cars.
Don't know about those wraparound windows, though. I've traveled on buses that were similarly equipped; on a hot, sunny day it's like riding in a greenhouse.
posted
Nice pictorial of the DMU; I suspect that even in commuter service, it would need some seating similar to the first-class type, or the reversible type that is found on NJ Transit. There would be others that may argue that two doors per side would be necessary to reduce dwell-times at commuter stops, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, I suspect.
As for the center door vestibule: Are those doors set up for low platforms only, or can a trapdoor be installed to permit entry-exit at a high platform such as are used in the Northeast (the typical 53-inch tall type)? (Not too much focus was placed on those vestibules in the pictorial, but I did notice the steps.) I noted that you mentioned that wheelchair lifts are optional for the vestibule, but now I am wondering if the wheelchair lift could serve in place of the trapdoor, i.e. if it could indeed stay in the "up" position in regular service to permit continuous high-platform operation, in a somewhat similar manner to how San Francisco MUNI streetcars raise their steps when going underground for high-platform operation. (Of course, this DMU isn't in production yet, but these are yet hurdles to be crossed. One good thing about having such a wheelchair lift is that you can both eliminate a manual trapdoor, saving conductors an inconvenience, plus also eliminate the extra cost of installing "mini-high" platforms at ADA-designated "key" stations for disabled access on lines that have both low and high platforms.)
There are also competing DMU manufacturers, most notably Bombardier and Alstom, plus several others. If CRC succeeds in getting orders, it would have a rough time fending off low-ball bids by larger corporations. Its product would have to be top-of-the-line and virtually flawless, as well as price-competitive. One thing that CRC has got going for it is the fact that they are far more active than the aforementioned consortia, and that's a good way to arouse interest, especially while the competition sleeps...
[This message has been edited by irishchieftain (edited 06-17-2003).]
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: There are also competing DMU manufacturers, most notably Bombardier and Alstom, plus several others. If CRC succeeds in getting orders, it would have a rough time fending off low-ball bids by larger corporations. Its product would have to be top-of-the-line and virtually flawless, as well as price-competitive. One thing that CRC has got going for it is the fact that they are far more active than the aforementioned consortia, and that's a good way to arouse interest, especially while the competition sleeps...
CRC seems to be doing a great job of promoting their DMU, which puts them ahead of any competition. Product awareness is a prime factor in marketing.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
1947-50 was probably the last time a passenger equipment manufacturer so enthusiastically showcased its product.
There's good reason for the scarcity of such publicity campaigns. Product launches like the Colorado DMU's are only useful at seducing consumers. Railcar manufacturing is not a consumer industry. With the historical exception of Pullman's pool cars, passenger car manufacturers are, and always have been, responsive only to railroads, not the general public. Railroads are, after all, the manufacturers’ only customers. Consumers don’t buy 92-seat vehicles.
Though railroads have always recognized that creature comforts, and even novelty, are important in wooing passengers, the onus for ensuring that passenger cars are popular is theirs, not the manufacturers'. That's why new-equipment publicity campaigns have almost always been railroad endeavors, with little or no mention of, or participation from, the trains' builders. Today, the builders' customers are operating-authorities for which a train's "coolness" factor is a low priority. The dearth of competition among railroads and, until recently, manufacturers makes for a condition in which no one need care what the public thinks of the trains it rides.
Things are a little different among manufacturers now, with two major companies and one up-and-comer competing for the same markets. But the dynamic is still the same: Colorado Railcar could build an ugly clunker that runs well, promote it only to operating agencies, and they would probably do just fine--or at least no worse than they’re doing now. Instead, Colorado creates an attractive train with comforts unseen since Pullman left the business, and trots it out for all to see.
Why? A bit of vision, perhaps, but mostly because they’re clever. Just as GM did in 1947 with its Train of Tomorrow, Colorado Railcar wants to impress the public so much with their DMU that people will think less of their rail agencies if they don’t buy them. Public perception is important to those agencies, and especially to politicians who authorize the money for them.
This campaign is a good move on Colorado Railcar’s part, and a pre-emptive strike against two behemoth competitors who still seem to follow the rule, “you get what you get.”
Posts: 60 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Colorado Car DMU will be on display at the Fullerton, CA. Station the Weekend of June 28 & 29. On Friday the 27th. it will leave Union Station (Los Angeles) with members of the METROLINK Board of Directors and stop at Fullerton to pick up members of the Orange County Transportion Board. They will ride to Irvine station and after a short layover for passing traffic they will return to Fullerton where the DMU will be on display Sat/Sun.
OCTA has talked about hourly service between San Juan Capistrano and Fullerton or Buena Park in 04 or 05 depending on budget and the DMU would be cheaper to operate than a full METROLINK Train.
Posts: 1 | From: Buena Park, CA, USA | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Today, the builders' customers are operating-authorities for which a train's "coolness" factor is a low priority.
At least one operating authority was definitely interested in coolness. The state of Washington hired a designer, Cesar Vergara, to make the Cascades Talgos look cool. There was an article in the October 2002 issue of Trains magazine about him. In fact Vergara himself said "Make it look cool and people wil want to ride trains."
He also said "Technology is 99% of the train.... What I do is 1%, the look of it. But that's everything the customer sees."
And he was well aware that the customer is not the buyer/operator, but the passenger.
Its interesting that I mentioned similar ideas to the Executive Director of TAMC at the DMU display and he agreed wholeheartedly. Appearance counts, and at least some public transportation officials understand this.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
Barring outright performance, it is sad when you have to rely on pure "cool" to sell train service. Especially now that the Cascade Talgo TPUs have been brought up--these trains were meant to be high-speed performers up there with the fastest on the rails, not to be trundling along at a mere 79 mph on "optimized-for-freight" US track. Certainly, the new Talgo 350 will be traveling at a top speed of 220 mph in Spain. The FRA Tier I-compliant Talgo XXI (one of the candidates for MWRRI) has enough going for it to be permitted to operate at 125 mph in the USA, but in tests this train achieved 152 mph easily. (And IMHO, the Siemens diesels which match the profile of the Talgo cars, some 11 feet tall which matches the profile of the rest of the train, and having a similar profile to the TPUs on the Cascades, produce a far cooler look than having the too-tall F59PHI on one and and F40PH "Cabbage" on the other.)
I daresay that even with commuter heavy-rail (the chief target of Colorado Railcar's DMU), the "cool" factor would not hurt, but novelty does wear off after a while. Notwithstanding, other manufacturers also have cool-looking DMUs, but these would not pass FRA Tier I as designed. CRC will be going into production later this year; best of luck to them...
[This message has been edited by irishchieftain (edited 06-20-2003).]
posted
I don't think coolness is the only factor in attracting passengers, but it does make good marketing sense. People will be more likely to use a clean, attractive, comfortable train than an ugly one with few amenities. Remember, trains are competing with the private automobile, so they need to be more comfortable than people's own vehicles to entice them out of their cars.
Perhaps we have overused the term "cool," however.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
Printer-friendly view of this topic
