From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 10-Jun-14 01:19, Glen Labah wrote:   
   > In article , Stephen Sprunk   
   >  wrote:   
   >> Even ignoring the volume issue, though, would there be enough   
   >> savings in cost/weight to make it a better option than a 2240kW   
   >> (3000hp) loco at one end and an unpowered unit at the other?  That   
   >> cuts maintenance costs nearly in half, though possibly at the   
   >> expense of reliability.   
   >   
   > It does increase maintenance, but then there are quite a large number   
   > of operations out there worldwide that use DMUs, where multiple   
   > engines per train are quite common.   
      
   OTOH, nobody has ever managed to make that model work in the US since   
   the advent of the FRA weight penalty.  The only DMU operations here use   
   grandfathered Budd RDCs--until the weight penalty was lifted by the   
   recent "modified Tier I" rules that allowed the Stadler GTW.   
      
   > However, if it is not desirable, then at the very least a proper cab   
   > car could be used.  Even a Bombardier multi-level weighs less than a   
   > concrete-filled F40.  There should be a better option out there than   
   > that.   
      
   I agree, but since the Talgo coaches didn't comply with the FRA weight   
   penalty, the weight had to be added somewhere else in the consist, and   
   that meant the locos.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)