Budd RDC Video

Dan Padova posted:

I came across this film about the RDC this evening.  

I don't see any video, link or otherwise.

I found it interesting.  I can't help but wonder, if the railroads were able to convert most of their passenger trains to RDCs, would they have fared better, financially.

Good idea, however the RDC cars required a LOT of maintenance, and turned out to be very problematic. 

As you can see in the film, they were and are very versatile.

What film?

 A single train can be split in two at a point where two final destinations were required.  There would not be a need for locomotive changes as each unit is self propelled.  

Along with baggage/mail RDCs, I am sure diners, sleepers, lounge cars and every other type of passenger car could have been made using RDCs.  

Maybe just wishful thinking on my part, but wouldn't it have been good for the railroads to have survived on an individual basis.  

Water over the dam, and it was obviously much more involved than just passenger service for the individual railroads to survive.

Hot Water posted:

Dan Padova posted:

I came across this film about the RDC this evening.  

I don't see any video, link or otherwise.

I found it interesting.  I can't help but wonder, if the railroads were able to convert most of their passenger trains to RDCs, would they have fared better, financially.

Good idea, however the RDC cars required a LOT of maintenance, and turned out to be very problematic. 

As you can see in the film, they were and are very versatile.

What film?

 A single train can be split in two at a point where two final destinations were required.  There would not be a need for locomotive changes as each unit is self propelled.  

Along with baggage/mail RDCs, I am sure diners, sleepers, lounge cars and every other type of passenger car could have been made using RDCs.  

Maybe just wishful thinking on my part, but wouldn't it have been good for the railroads to have survived on an individual basis.  

Water over the dam, and it was obviously much more involved than just passenger service for the individual railroads to survive.

 

The PRR Keystone had an article last year that discussed the entire PRR "Doodlebug" fleet of self propelled cars.   It was well written and went deeply into all of the  motor car types ever used by the PRR as well as the routes and the intended service.

There was a paragraph or so discussing a study done by the Pennsy for the possible use of RDCs to replace locomotive hauled passenger service for one service area.   In the example in the article the acquisition cost was staggering and the return on investment negligible. 

Nevertheless, the use of DMUs for several light rail operations does indicate that self propelled passenger cars have some "modern" application, if  not in heavy rail as the Budd cars were built for.

Interesting thoughts but where is the video?

Some Budd RDC reading:

RDC Master Class  by Rapido trains.

Rusty

Sorry about the missing video.  Here it is.

https://youtu.be/qfANNpAPI5k

I'll have to do more reading on the issues that HOT WATER pointed out.  

Also, Rob M. points out the cost of acquiring RDCs was staggering for the Pennsy.  That is opposite of what the Budd Company was professing.  More reading to be done then.   

The Reading and Northern RR runs passenger service from Reading PA, through Port Clinton to Jim Thorpe during summer and early fall.  They run Budd RDC cars and we have traveled in them. RDC cars were a very compact design and its easy to see how reliability may have been sacrificed in order to package the engine, A/C /Temperature system, generation system (for lighting) and all the necessary controls into one car. It was a novel idea to get the functions of two cars into one. When passenger loads declined, it did save the operation of many branch lines for a while.

Thanks for the interesting video.  I wonder if the RDC's had issues with signal activation and detection in CTC or ABS territory as well as with grade crossings, especially when operated as a single unit with only four axles to shunt the rails.  Perhaps some of the experienced enginemen or signal maintainers here on the forum can comment...

Dan Padova posted:

Sorry about the missing video.  Here it is.

https://youtu.be/qfANNpAPI5k

I'll have to do more reading on the issues that HOT WATER pointed out.  

Also, Rob M. points out the cost of acquiring RDCs was staggering for the Pennsy.  That is opposite of what the Budd Company was professing.  More reading to be done then.   

Dan the PRR Keystone article on motor cars on the Pennsy is really well written and very complete.   The RDC part is just a fraction of the article.    

If I recall (don't have the article handy here at my other house) the issue for the PRR at the time was that they had a glut of passenger equipment so investment in any new passenger equipment wasn't fiscally prudent. 

The GN Man posted:

Thanks for the interesting video.  I wonder if the RDC's had issues with signal activation and detection in CTC or ABS territory as well as with grade crossings, especially when operated as a single unit with only four axles to shunt the rails.  Perhaps some of the experienced enginemen or signal maintainers here on the forum can comment...

When I was promoted to engineer in the late "70's, Chessie System Rules stipulated that single light locomotives and single Budd cars must not exceed 30 mph and must not be stopped on sand for just the reason you mention. It was possible for these single pieces of equipment to fail to shunt the track circuits and not activate signals and/or crossing protection. 

C.J.

The GN Man posted:

Thanks for the interesting video.  I wonder if the RDC's had issues with signal activation and detection in CTC or ABS territory as well as with grade crossings, especially when operated as a single unit with only four axles to shunt the rails.  Perhaps some of the experienced enginemen or signal maintainers here on the forum can comment...

Good question.

Just a thought, but one difference could be that RDC's mostly operated in the era of jointed rail, which has a bond wire jumping each rail joint.  And signals were operated by contractors instead of solid state devices.  I can't say if this made single car detection more reliable.  However, I do not know of any crossing circuit detection problems, nor block signal problems with Santa Fe's Newton to Dodge City round-trip RDC run 1957-1962.  It was a single car on weekdays and two cars on weekends.  Part of the trip was on the signaled main, and part was on the Great Bend District, non-block, but with wigwags and flasher signals on a number of crossings.

GP 40 posted:

The GN Man posted:

Thanks for the interesting video.  I wonder if the RDC's had issues with signal activation and detection in CTC or ABS territory as well as with grade crossings, especially when operated as a single unit with only four axles to shunt the rails.  Perhaps some of the experienced enginemen or signal maintainers here on the forum can comment...

When I was promoted to engineer in the late "70's, Chessie System Rules stipulated that single light locomotives and single Budd cars must not exceed 30 mph and must not be stopped on sand for just the reason you mention. It was possible for these single pieces of equipment to fail to shunt the track circuits and not activate signals and/or crossing protection. 

C.J.

There's always the Lionel contractor.  I wonder if they made a big one for the full size Lionel trains.....LOL

Dan Padova posted:

GP 40 posted:

The GN Man posted:

Thanks for the interesting video.  I wonder if the RDC's had issues with signal activation and detection in CTC or ABS territory as well as with grade crossings, especially when operated as a single unit with only four axles to shunt the rails.  Perhaps some of the experienced enginemen or signal maintainers here on the forum can comment...

When I was promoted to engineer in the late "70's, Chessie System Rules stipulated that single light locomotives and single Budd canars must not exceed 30 mph and must not be stopped on sand for just the reason you mention. It was possible for these single pieces of equipment to fail to shunt the track circuits and not activate signals and/or crossing protection. 

C.J.

There's always the Lionel contractor.  I wonder if they made a big one for the full size Lionel trains.....LOL

Dan do you remember when the Reading used to run "rust trains" with FP7's running push pull on the Bethlehem Branch and to Pottsville?  This was at the end of the non electrified passenger service era when there wasn't much coal or freight traffic on those lines to "polish the rails". 

Rule292 posted:

Dan Padova posted:

Sorry about the missing video.  Here it is.

https://youtu.be/qfANNpAPI5k

I'll have to do more reading on the issues that HOT WATER pointed out.  

Also, Rob M. points out the cost of acquiring RDCs was staggering for the Pennsy.  That is opposite of what the Budd Company was professing.  More reading to be done then.   

Dan the PRR Keystone article on motor cars on the Pennsy is really well written and very complete.   The RDC part is just a fraction of the article.    

If I recall (don't have the article handy here at my other house) the issue for the PRR at the time was that they had a glut of passenger equipment so investment in any new passenger equipment wasn't fiscally prudent. 

I would like to know the keystone number issue if possible. This could aid my doodlebug modeling in O gauge.

prrhorseshoecurve posted:

Rule292 posted:

Dan Padova posted:

Sorry about the missing video.  Here it is.

https://youtu.be/qfANNpAPI5k

I'll have to do more reading on the issues that HOT WATER pointed out.  

Also, Rob M. points out the cost of acquiring RDCs was staggering for the Pennsy.  That is opposite of what the Budd Company was professing.  More reading to be done then.   

Dan the PRR Keystone article on motor cars on the Pennsy is really well written and very complete.   The RDC part is just a fraction of the article.    

If I recall (don't have the article handy here at my other house) the issue for the PRR at the time was that they had a glut of passenger equipment so investment in any new passenger equipment wasn't fiscally prudent. 

I would like to know the keystone number issue if possible. This could aid my doodlebug modeling in O gauge.

It's Autumn 2017, Volume 50 No. 3.  

The Pennsy had a whole slew of different motor cars. The article appears to chronicle them all.