Talk:Budd Rail Diesel Car

Redirect destination

I think that RDC should got to the disambig page rather than here, since this doesn't seem to be the most common usage. I was looking for Remote Desktop Connection. Spalding 16:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a strong opinion on this suggestion. Looking at Whatlinkshere/RDC, there are currently five incoming links, two of them from acronym pages, the others using the meaning from this page. But, a quick Google shows several other meanings and does not include any mention of the Budd cars on the first page of results (which is not too surprising considering that the Budd cars aren't being made any more and are only used in excursion and tourist line service any more). So I'd say, sure, make the change. Slambo (Speak) 14:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse RDCs

I know these carry NYS&W livery, but are they the actual units the NYS&W used or are they just restored to look like them? Kether83 10:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Diesel Hydraulic?

I thought that a true diesel-hydraulic had hydraulic motors driving the wheels. Don't RDCs have a diesel-mechanical drive incorporating a hydraulic torque converter coupling the prime mover to the drive train? 75.82.208.152 08:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Oops, I was auto logged out.LorenzoB 08:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Both types are diesel-hydraulic. If it uses hydraulic motors it has hydrostatic transmission. If it uses a torque converter it has hydrokinetic transmission. Biscuittin (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag stops

This article currently says "The Hurricane Turn is the last remaining flag stop service in the U.S. [...]", yet many MBTA commuter rail branches have timetables that list an "f" next to the time, and I believe context implies that the f stands for flag stop. JNW2 09:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Two different interpretations. A true flag stop train is one that will stop anywhere you flag it down in a remote area. They still exist in Northern Ontario on three railways, AC, CP, and ONR. Also, I believe in Alaska.

R.L.Kennedy 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

*Budd* RDC

I think some clarification is in order, too; Is Budd the only manufacturer that the RDC acronym applies to, or is it a label that applies to a broader class of vehicles (basically, any diesel-powered railcar?) Worldwide, there are numerous examples of these kinds of vehicles, few of which may have been made by Budd. (void*) (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, RDC is really a Budd only acronym as is Budd Car. R.L.Kennedy (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SPV split-out?

The SPV-2000 currently redirects here, where it is covered by a single, short paragraph. But it really is a different model sharing as much, if not more, in common with the Amfleet and Budd Metroliner development that with the RDC. Indeed, except for both being DMUs, and both being built by Budd, the RDC line and the SPV have almost nothing in common. I believe the SPV should be split out to it's own article. While it would be stubby at first, it could easily be grown in size, something that will not happen if the model is relegated to a footnote in this article. oknazevad (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you have the material to make an SPV-2000 article then do it, but that should at least a well populated Infobox. Sturmovik (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, it definitely warrants a separate article. There must be webpages about it somewhere.Khan_singh (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Closing the loop here: I wasn't aware of this discussion but it's been done: Budd SPV-2000. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Conrail??

I used to ride what's now called the Harlem Line of Metro North out of Grand Central, through the original Brewster station, and up north to Paterson, Pawling, State Hospital...

The "Budd Cars" typically handled the run north of Brewster with us getting off one train and onto the other.

However.. I _think_, and may be misremembering, that some of the Budd Car trains actually made the whole trip to NYC.

Anyone have any info?

The other point I'm a bit vague on is that, once again, I think.. that during the whole transitional mess from NYC -> Penn Central -> MTA, there was a period where Conrail operated that division, and accordingly Conrail had possession of those Budd Cars.

Or is my mind gone?

Thanks. wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To the first question, I can't say for certain, but ideally no, as not running exhaust generating equipment through the Park Avenue Tunnel was the point of electrification. But that was an era where just keeping things rolling was a bit of a mantra, so they very well may have.

To the second, I can say for certain that Conrail, indeed, did operate RDCs between its 1976 formation and 1983, when Metro-North took over operating the trains themselves (as did NJT and SEPTA), but the cars, and the line for that matter, were already owned by the MTA by that point. The state(s) acquired the lines in 67 or 69, at which point PC, then Conrail, became a contract operator. But since Conrail was created to save freight railroading in the Northeast, they were allowed to pawn off the operations onto the states in 1983, which is when Metro-North was fully formed.

I hope that at least partially answers your questions. Unfortunately, I must remind you that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. if you have railroad related questions, I recommend railroad.net's forums, as professional rail workers mingle online with the fans there. oknazevad (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the memory jog. The reason I though the Conrail question was relevant was because of the chart in the main article that described the owners, and thought adding Conrail might make sense. (On re-reading it, though, I see the chart talks about "original" owners...).

Thanks again wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Total production

Crouse gives 404, but this includes the six cars which comprised the Roger Williams. I suspect that's where the 398 figure comes from. I'm hoping to consult Duke soon to see what number he gives. Incidentally, if you add up the table quantities right now it comes to 409. I haven't reviewed yet to see where the discrepancy is. Mackensen (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Duke gives 398 (p. 102) and doesn't count the Roger Williams. Good enough for me. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Railcar or DMU?

In several places, diesel multiple unit is linked. However it's also described as a "two car" set.

If this RDC has one, or two, cars then it's a railcar but it's not a DMU. Many railcars have been arranged like this, from the pre-war German railcars onwards.

Only if it's arranged with some standardised means of control, so that an arbitrary number of powered cars can be coupled and controlled by a single driver, is it a multiple unit.

Can anyone clear this up for the RDC? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's very much a DMU. Though later it was common for single cars to run (as they were always capable of) in areas like Philadelphia, throughout their lives, including to today, multicar trains were common. See the old Boston&Maine commuter operations (the predecessor to the MBTA's modern North Station operations) or even Trinity Railway Express in the Dallas–Fort Worth area, which still use RDCs (in multicar sets) for midday trains. The RDC is very much a DMU, and is oft times held up as the quintessential example of the DMU concept. oknazevad (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Roger Williams

@Sturmovik: I don't think the Roger Williams belongs in this article. It's not a standard RDC. It's not included in any of the counts of RDCs (398 being the accepted figure). Our article Roger Williams (train) (which I haven't edited) says it was "based on" the RDC. I don't see this as any different from the Budd SPV-2000 or the New South Wales 1100 class railcar, and I'd prefer to keep the scope of the article narrow. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a three line blurb that helps connect the articles and informs the reader as to the evolution of the design. The SPV2000 should also be mentioned along with the New South Wales 1100, I just hadn't noticed they had been removed. The RDC is the parent/family and the main article should refer to the children. See Silverliner and Budd Silverliner. Also the page on the Budd Metroliner mentions the Amfleets and the Pioneer III discusses the Budd Silverliner. A small degree of overlap provides the reader with a complete story. If you want to incorporate the information on successor and RDC family vehicles into a single heading then feel free, but when I checked there wasn't even a link to the Rodger Williams page.Sturmovik (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You make good points, but I want to avoid a situation where we confuse the reader about what is and what is not an RDC. I'll try to write something up for the SPV-2000. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Developments. "Developments" is vague, but I couldn't come up with a better noun. Mackensen (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. For the section title I'd go with "derivatives", but that's just a thought. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That works for me--thanks for the suggestion. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for all the hard work. Sturmovik (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Commonwealth Railways CB class railcar

I merged Commonwealth Railways CB class railcar into this article in May 2016 on the grounds that it's not really a separate class; it's just a designation Commonwealth Railways adopted for three RDC-1s which were shipped overseas. This is distinct from the New South Wales 1100 class railcar; which differs in various details, was built under license, and isn't considered a "true" RDC. This merge was reverted in June by Eveninta (talk · contribs), a new user who has no other edits which makes discussion unlikely. I'm going to reinstate the merge for now. Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Publicity stunt? Writings by both the engineer (drawing board sense) and the engineer (choo-choo sense) suggest otherwise

Wetzel, Walsh, and (less directly involved) Engle have all written otherwise; it was a serious attempt to evaluate how fast you could push semi-standard stock on standard track. It may have gone someplace -although, obviously, not with giant surplus turbines - but for the merger. Anmccaff (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Are these sources available somewhere for inspection? I didn't write the section in question and haven't seen Staufer, but he's otherwise reputable. Mackensen (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I was gonna say "no, nothing handy," since this was off memory, but I ran into a couple of accesible pieces from an internet search.

[[1]]is a slide presentation the Wetzels gave. (Ruth Wetzel designed the streamlined snout, inter alia.)

[[2]] GE interview, which not only discusses the M497, but the use of turbines as snowblowers.

[[3]] a Hemmings piece.

"Morris & Wetzel's "The flight of the m497" is available online, and is referenced in the Wiki M497 article.

A copy J J Wright's -who I misremembered as "Walsh" somehow - report was at the IRM, IMS, and Morris & Wetzel mentioned publishing it when their book came out. Dunno if that happened. Anmccaff (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't found another good source discussing it one way or the other, so I've removed what I assume is Staufer's opinion. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Under "Derivatives" - a detail for Taiwan cars: track gauge error, probably

The article currently says:
Tokyu Car built 45 of a heavily-specialized, meter-gauge RDC design for the Taiwan Railway Administration under license from Budd.
The question concerns the gauge of track. Per the page for Taiwan Railway Administration, their gauge is 1067 mm or 42 inches. This is 6.7 cm or about 2.4 inches wider than meter gauge. I'm not quite brave enough to edit the article on this point. The authors may have relied on a source that said meter-gauge but if so, I think the source was in error. Also, maybe, Budd's designers developed a design which, with relatively easy modifications, could be built either for meter gauge or for the gauge of the Taiwan system. Oaklandguy (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't write that section and I'm not familiar with railways in Taiwan; an IP added it in June. The only meter gauge RDCs I know of were the 19 modified RDC-1s for RFFSA. The standard American works on the RDC don't cover foreign derivatives. If it strikes you as fundamentally wrong I've no objection to it coming out. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Budd Rail Diesel Car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140930031553/http://alaskarailroad.com/Portals/6/pdf/pr/2011_06_14_Appx_10_Loco_Emissions_PR.pdf to http://www.alaskarailroad.com/Portals/6/pdf/pr/2011_06_14_Appx_10_Loco_Emissions_PR.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.danbury.org/drm/nhrdc32.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407082800/http://www.hoborr.com/equipnew.html to http://www.hoborr.com/equipnew.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent removal

... but I think you just removed my addition to the Budd Railroad Car page? I can see how it may sound like a press release, but I think it is actually pretty interesting information. The idea that Budd cars are being put into use, rather than retired, seems pretty significant. Perhaps you would like to write it so it sounds more appropriate for Wikipedia?

RDCs remain in service widely, and are regularly being refurbished to be put back in service. The fact that a particular owner is thinking of doing this isn't necessarily noteworthy, but if enough reasonably (i.e. "more so than me) expert writers here disagree, I'm not going to make a big deal of it. Anmccaff (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. From my quick reading of the page, it didn’t sound like any were still in service in the US, and I didn’t see anyting about them being refurbished or returned to service either. Perhaps a more general rewrite is in need to point out those facts?

P.S. If I am writing this in the worng place, please correct me or redirect it. I’m not finding the Wikipedia discussion system too user friendly. Graycenphil (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem - just put a response below the part responded to, indented...but use a colon at the beginning of each paragraph to indent it, or extra to indent it more. (Done.) Anmccaff (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll see if this works better. Do you care to rewrite part of the article to update it? I’m not sure that’s something I should do, but it is kind of important and interesting that many cars are still in use, and being refurbished, don’t you think? Graycenphil (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi,Graycenphil. Give me 15 minutes -- I'm writing a suggested form of text and making some constructive comments.  :-) I have also removed the 2nd "Recent removal" heading -- I sympathise with your confusion! SCHolar44 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Graycenphil. Yes, you're discussing in the right place. I sympathise with any bewilderment you might be experiencing at present!

My 2c worth: I think your item was very interesting, mainly because it shows that a company has been interested in buying as many as a dozen RDCs – plus that the penultimate owner wanted to buy them back!

I didn’t think it crossed the boundaries of neutral point of view, personally. My only preference would be to avoid the term "recently" (things don't stay "recent" for long) and to cite the website correctly. Here is my suggestion, including some minor typo corrections -- I'll cover the referencing later.  ;-)

In 2017 a Vermont company, All Earth Rail, bought twelve 1959 Budd cars from Dallas Area Rapid Transit for $5 million. The cars had previously been owned by Via Rail Canada, which also bid on the lot. All Earth Rail said it planned to run commuter rail service in Vermont, possibly starting with a Burlington to Montpelier route.

You'll notice I have inserted links to five existing Wikipedia articles (Burlington, Montpelier, DART and Via Rail); note that in the latter case I have kept your version rather than drop the "Canada" to comply with the article title by adding a "pipe" and the preferred term -- and similarly with the city names. These are some of the tricks you can use to write really useful articles.

Ahem, about typos: I pursued your "Sevendayvt.com" reference and got nowhere. After 15 minutes of hunting I discovered your typo. Then I took 5-10 minutes to retrieve the article from the sevendaysvt.com site (because I didn't know its title). What I discovered was a great read, well worth the effort to find it – but you can understand why a fuller reference, which takes the reader straight to it, is needed.  :-) This is how the reference would go (using information I grabbed from the site):

Picard, Ken (2 August 2017). "David Blittersdorf bets on Vermont Commuter Rail". Seven Days. Da Capo Publishing, Inc. Retrieved 16 January 2018.

(With this reference I have removed the "ref" and "/ref" characters because they would trigger a refernce list on this Talk page. Just put them at the start and end, along with the missing "greater than / less than" characters, just as you did with in your original citation.

Finally, because of the large number of people around the world who interpret "8/2/2017" as February 8th, it’s a good idea to use the full "2 August 2017" or "2 August 2017" date form.

I'll leave it to you to evaluate my suggestion and reference, modified as you see fit, and put the result into the article.

I hope I've been constructive — and that you'll find your Wikipedia journey an enjoyable and rewarding one. Remember that help is readily available. SCHolar44 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Dunno. Equipment has changed hands -sometimes more in theory than practice - on many occasions without anything coming of it. It'd be nice to see some more arms-distance sources, and even then I don't think it is worth more than a single sentence yet. Anmccaff (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much; most of that I never thought of, but it all makes perfect sense and clearly improves the addition. It is totally fine with me if you do the update. In fact, that is probably better because I am still not sure exactly how to format the citation. And my apologies for the typo. I actually did proofread my statement, several times, but didn’t even think of proofreading the citation. Thanks again. Graycenphil (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll see the formatting now in the article. It's difficult to discuss the "ref" bits on the Talk page without triggering them! I also took on board Anmccaff's concerns by adding a short introductory sentence that inclines your words towards the continuing market and doesn't impart any idea of exclusivity on the All Earth Rail proposal. SCHolar44 (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I remember reading about the All Earth purchase back in August and decided against adding it here. Anmccaff is right; equipment changes hands all the time. The current "United States" section is by no means an exhaustive listing of all Budd RDC operation in that country to date, but rather meant to summarize them. I think it's premature to mention them unless this proposed commuter rail service actually develops into something. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks. Graycenphil (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

I've removed File:Budd RDC-2 B&O 2.jpg from the infobox; I don't think it's the best choice to illustrate the RDC. In particular, the paint scheme is not accurate to what the B&O actually used. I've temporarily replaced it with File:Boston and Maine RDC 6127 on Railroad Enthusiasts fantrip at West Peabody, April 27, 1969.jpg, but there's probably a better shot out there. An ideal shot would be an RDC in service or a museum, with original livery, and preferably one of the larger users. Some possibilities:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for selecting some photos, Pi-to-the-10th-decimal. Of the ones you showed, I think Reading 9163 (RDC) Philadelphia in September 1964 (22262585688).jpg is best. It has good over-all exposure and end and bogie detail, visible passengers (plenty of them), and is leaving a busy station. In general I like to see photos of vehicles in revenue service (i.e., their "reason for being", rather than museums. My 2c.  :-). SCHolar44 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Lehigh Gorge does not own any RDC cars

The Budd RDC cars listed as being owned by the Lehigh Gorge Scenic Railway are instead owned by that road's corporate owner, the Reading, Blue Mountain & Northern. Bill S. (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading, Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad. Bill S. (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)