We should at least keep around the technology so we can continue to make it just as good. Unfortunately that is impossible for too many reasons than I care to learn.
same with gm buses, take care of them, and they will last a century, i mean a lot of the ones on the road still that are preserved are between 40 and 60 years old. this isn't counting the few old looks still on the road. but i think the best bus to fit the "never retire" category should be the new flyer low floors, they're easily accessible, and they're still reliable like a fishbowl.
Yes it was cleaned up. After that I believe Teva a generic drug prescription manufacture was there. After they shut down I believe it’s been turned into a golf course. Not sure however. I live about 30 minutes from the site. I’ll have to take a drive out there soon to see what’s exactly there.
Budd don't break. I think it will be very tough to find any other rolling stock that has been so rugged and still looks good after so much time. The Amfleet Is are going on 50 years old and look how much of the VIA equipment, some of it 70+ years old is still running in daily service, not at some tourist train or museum, but in daily intercity service.
As someone from Indonesia, where our national rail company transtitioned into Stainless Steel carriages in their next gen. I do agree that Stainless steel are based as hell
I worry we’ll have to relearn the manufacturing processes. Maybe if new passenger routes are proposed and work is down towards them demand can be created to warrant the continued operation of the Budd plants. But if a domestic company creates passenger equipment, I think they should make it look just like the old Budd streamlined cars. I don’t think we’ve gotten much better since, except with some safety improvements (removal of asbestos/lead). Other than that (and I hate that this seems to be most plausible of a solution) pray that some rich man decides he’s going to take his personal money and build a Budd factory just for kicks.
@@marcleslac2413 You’d have to win the really big billion-dollar prize multiple times. I doubt even a nine-figure millionaire could start one of these himself and produce equipment at such a scale to make the price affordable for railroads.
i'm still convinced the metroliner was a soviet train that accidentally was displaced into the US. it's very dumb brick go fast (then again the 91/IC225 set's are basically the same)
@@CABOOSEBOB Even then, I feel like it would cost a lot to import all the metals, manufacture the equipment, and ship them products to the transit agencies, even on a small scale. Railroad equipment includes some of the largest ground transportation vehicles one can make.
Free trade works when everyone else wants to play that game too. Otherwise, trying for "fair competition" in a field where nobody else is playing fair just results in you losing - and let's not pretend either European or Japanese (and now Chinese/South Korean) manufacturers didn't have a huge amount of government help.
Budd made great simple cars but they failed miserably when they tried to do more than that. There plenty of old basic refurbished rail cars in Europe, Asia and other places that still work well but if you want a more modern up to date equipment it will be more complicated to build and will have more teething problems, especially in the US where companies must redesign their rolling stock to adapt to the specific requirements and state of infrastructure and do it locally. Budd fell because they couldn't adapt to the new world and because the US decided to stop investing in rail.
“Failed when they tried to do more?” The Metroliner was the fastest train in the world when it debuted, being 35MPH faster than the 0 series Shinkansen. It was also rushed through development in only 18 months and forced to make do on only $90 million of funding - *1/2 the time and 1/3rd the budget of its Japanese counterpart.* The average availability rate of 73% wasn’t even particularly-poor by any standard except the GG1’s - European electric locomotives and multiple units were considered fine with as low as 70%. The fact Budd managed a mild fumble out of a project set up to fail is a testament to how good they were. Contrast the story of the Metroliner with the likes of the APT, LRC, TGV-001, Avelia Liberty, and anything wearing the Siemens logo, which were just as problematic with proper planning and funding. If anything, the struggles of every foreign manufacturer to adapt to the US rail market shows that Budd didn’t fall because they couldn’t adapt. They fell because they built rolling stock that was too good to require replacement - which means no business in a stagnant passenger market. Meanwhile the planned obsolete appliances that Siemens tries to pass off as trains will not only need replacement after 15-20 years, but the manufacturer is actively trying to market that as a good thing.
@@GintaPPE1000 The top speed you've mentioned was reached by a Budd Rail Diesel Car after strapping a GM jet engines on it just for the speed, not exactly an actual train aimed at servicing passengers. There were many tests just to reach high speeds and a rocket sled on tracks managed to reach far higher speeds in 1954. As for the Budd company, they did great job in what they new how to do but in this case they failed, mainly because they didn't have the expertise required and also lack of money and time, that for some reason you consider as a positive - and it's not. Th speeds of those cars in service was lower than the speed of the 0 Series Shinkansen and the reliability was poor, even after many redesigns and improvements and were retired or used as regular hauled cars. Their last attempt was a replacement to the RDC (the one they slapped a jet engine on) called SPV-2000 that was unreliable and short lived. The good thing that came out of the Metroliners is the body of those cars, that was great and what they were good at, turning into the famous and long living Amfleet. I'm not saying that Budd was a bad company, they did great and have advanced rail travel with great innovations but long lasting cars (and many other things) were a thing back than and cars built by others are also still in use today. What they lacked was the ability to change, which happens to many companies, and the lack of interest and investments by the US government didn't help. As for Europe, unlike what you're trying to portray the European designs are a success. When developing a new complicated thing there are always problems delays and teething periods but they are rarely as problematic as those of the Budd Metroliner and are resolved after a while. Today things are much more complicated, development takes longer and there are far more delays but the end product is mostly better.
@@AL5520 Firstly, the Black Beetle was not a Budd project. It was a private venture by the New York Central, and it reached 183MPH, not 164MPH. You seem to be under the impression the 0 series was much faster than it actually was: its top speed was 130MPH, 125MPH in revenue service. Secondly, the Metroliners' reliability was only unspectacular by US standards. 73% availability rate was considered perfectly workable by the standards of most contemporary European EMU designs, and while that got worse as they aged, the fact the 8 rebuilt cars had over twice the mean distance between failure shows the issues weren't unsolvable - the problem was a lack of money to overhaul the propulsion system rather than just move stuff around to reduce overheating. Thirdly, Siemens products are not better. They look more modern, but the Charger has a distance between failures about 1/5th that of the P42DCs they're supposed to replace, and the Venture has proven so unreliable they're being withdrawn repeatedly from service and substituted with Amfleets that Amtrak is bringing back from retirement. I don't care how many new shiny features they have - if they don't work, then passengers never experience them.
@@GintaPPE1000 I know exactly what was the speed of the 0 and, for that time, it was the fastest, and more importantly constant. The Metroliners might have had a higher theoretical speed but in service it rarely maxed out at 120 mph, which is lower than the constant 130 mph (and later 137 mph) of the 0. As for the availability of Metroliners, it was around 60% and at times even reached 40%.
The GM engines and transmissions weren't the problem on the SPV-2000. They were taken straight out of commercial buses and trucks. The problem was how Budd designed the cooling, ventilation, and water pump systems: they were all electrically-powered because that's what the numpties in Europe were doing rather than having them being driven mechanically off the diesel engines themselves, and Budd was blindly copying what they did in an attempt to compete. That was compounded further by them selected a British diesel engine as the APU, and mounting everything underfloor in a cramped arrangement that overheated very frequently. When the diesel failed, it would bring the whole car to a stop because the propulsion diesels would soon overheat without cooling water being pumped through them.
Bi-level Superliner’s, Amfleet’s, Silverliner’s, and RDC’s are the steel of bangers by the Budd’s manufacture, and now the Transit systems can’t get those at all anymore, well the ‘Build, Back, Better Act.’ Is completely a laughingstock, and the Infrastructure is started to worn out like rust and dried. Poor sleepy joe should’ve just quit being a president. But I guess he wanna continue to fight his country, and now I had to live in with these two Boomers beefing and wanna debate to be president. Trump should be in jail where he belongs.💯💀 Note - **I don’t support politics, nor their ideologies, or controversial agendas about American’s political. I am not a liberalism either. So it just my opinion. *
About the politics, I unsubbed Our Changing Climate after he became *TOO* politically incorrect. He forgets that Western Europe is the best place for urbanism, and is *CAPITALIST.*
That's how our modern economy works. Build good high-quality product, and you go out of business because your stuff is so good that nobody needs to buy a replacement. Build disposable trash, and planned obsolescence rewards you with repeated orders and the cash to stay afloat. It’s a race to the bottom that rewards all the wrong kinds of engineering.
@@robk7266I mean Budd was mostly doing the carbody manufacturing; we can blame GM for the SPV-2000’s faulty motors and Westinghouse Electric for the Metroliner. Budd still don’t break.
@@robk7266 The same Metroliners that were the fastest trains in the world when they debuted - a whole 35MPH faster than the 0 series Shinkansen - even though they were developed on a rushed 18-month schedule and on less than 1/3rd the budget? Whose availability rates would be a figure considered acceptable in any country besides the United States? Which are still in service as control cars today and will outlast 3 generations of subsequent electric traction (E60, AEM-7, Acela) by the time they're finally gone, while their Japanese counterparts have already been retired for 13 years? This was a project that was all but intentionally set up to fail, and yet the worst that came out of it was a train that initially had European rather than American reliability. As the 8 cars that had their propulsion systems rebuilt proved, this wasn't even unfixable - they had less than half the out-of-service rate and went over twice the distance between failures as the originals - the federal government simply gave up. Even Budd hasn't managed to repeat a miracle like that again.
Love the aesthetics of steel cars so much, I'm happy for designs and materials to move forward and improve, but the aesthetic of a Budd steel car will always be the best looking rolling stock to my eyes. There was a rolling stock manufacturer in Portugal named Sorefame that built steel rolling stock under license from Budd. Budd even got a symbolic amount of shares in the company. So a lot of multiple units, passenger cars and metros that were seen in Portugal look very identical to these iconic designs. A lot of have already been scrapped or sold, but there's a few still in service. As a matter of fact, this unit in Portugal ended up building shells for CTA's 2400 Series and for SEPTA's N-5 cars for the Norristown HSL. Sadly Sorefame shutdown in 2004 shortly after being sold to Bombardier. There's a new consortium trying to develop Portuguese rolling stock manufacture once again, with an emphasis on using steel, and one of their ambitions was supplying parts to the North American market again.
I wish that would be the role of leadership culture, a good relationship with the workers, and accountability to the traveling public, though that is wishful thinking.
0:06 the irony is the WMATA 7000 series with the pressing problem is made of stainless steel. Also the issue was mostly WMATA’s fault, not the manufacturer
It's like Frank Sobotka said in The Wire: "We used to make [stainless steel railcars] in this country, build [stainless steel railcars]. Now we just [accept low bids from nationalized manufacturers in other countries who do just enough work in this country to clear the Buy American hurdles]."
Hell yes! More Abba train songs please! Also kind of ironic your featuring the Metroliner in the old footage; they were super delayed too (although to be fair they were rushed)
Developed in half the time and a third of the budget of the Shinkansen Series 0, and yet still 35MPH faster. 27% unavailability was also pretty common for most European multiple unit designs of the time. If the Metroliner's goals were more realistic and the project wasn't forced to do it all in just 18 months, it could've easily become a success.
@@GintaPPE1000 like I said they were rushed; honestly the bigger problem was that they were kencapped by the track the signals and the mp54s who’s windows they would suck out.
Budd only did the bodyshells and final assembly, electricals were provided by Westinghouse and later GE, so Budd in the end didnt mess up the Metroliners in what they were responsible for (cab cars are still going strong, they just look old).
From a market perspective, the worst possible thing you can make is the last x you'll ever need. Because you reach market saturation really quickly, and then you're done. Yet another contradiction inherent in the capitalist mode of production.
Reece Martin hates unpainted trains, and of course he’s too popular to read all comments or respond to me. But you are 1000% correct. Stainless is a CLEAN look.
Modern urbanists in general are obsessed with the idea that America had no good ideas or competent capabilities because of the rail industry's fortunes in the last 70 years. Even though every European and Asian manufacturer that's come to the US has also struggled with building stuff that's up to the standards of the US rail industry.
One of the greatest crimes of Amtrak was not buying the IC3. There, I said it. If the new and more powerful engines had been retrofitted, as was done on the sets sold to Denmark, Sweden and Israel, you'd have a fine train capable of doing both commuter service and rural intercity services. Also, there's an electric version of it, so the North East Corridor could also have benefitted.
The B in Budd stands for Based
Based it is. Totally accurate.
Based, ultimazely dis-destroyable
Based
Utilitarian
Drivable
Dominators of the market.
That’s what Budd stands for.
Wrong. It stands for BUILT RIGHT.
@@shadow-va-dktgm brudd
This further contributes to the fact that you should never retire anything ever. Because Budd Don't Break.
Go and buy some new bits every now and then and they are always good as new
We should at least keep around the technology so we can continue to make it just as good. Unfortunately that is impossible for too many reasons than I care to learn.
same with gm buses, take care of them, and they will last a century, i mean a lot of the ones on the road still that are preserved are between 40 and 60 years old. this isn't counting the few old looks still on the road. but i think the best bus to fit the "never retire" category should be the new flyer low floors, they're easily accessible, and they're still reliable like a fishbowl.
Budd don't break...but they died out.
What a lack of planned obsolescence does to a mf
I am still crying about Nippon Sharyo’s failure to build the California/midwest bi levels.
Unfortunately there won't be another Budd the way purchasing is done in this country.
Work hard, *train* hard.
My father worked for almost 40 years as an electrical design engineer at the Budd Red Lion plant.
im pretty certain that plant is or at least was a superfund site
It absolutely was a superfund site.
@@vinalboy fortunately I'm pretty sure it got cleaned up at some point a few years ago
Yes it was cleaned up. After that I believe Teva a generic drug prescription manufacture was there. After they shut down I believe it’s been turned into a golf course. Not sure however. I live about 30 minutes from the site. I’ll have to take a drive out there soon to see what’s exactly there.
These coaches outlived their own manufacturers
When JDM guys start talking about R32s and I picture Budd Brightliners...
God I love budd
Heavy ✅
Bulky ✅
Stainless steel ✅
0 aerodynamics ✅
reliable ✅
American ✅
Yeah, this is budd
Budd don't break. I think it will be very tough to find any other rolling stock that has been so rugged and still looks good after so much time. The Amfleet Is are going on 50 years old and look how much of the VIA equipment, some of it 70+ years old is still running in daily service, not at some tourist train or museum, but in daily intercity service.
Alan, you always provoke, pleasure and amaze me!
Budd was truly our Buddies
Budd. Don't. Break.
Budd don't break
B is
for bullet proof.
Thank you Budd, you were the true pioneers of a better tomorrow. Stainless steel for life!
As someone from Indonesia, where our national rail company transtitioned into Stainless Steel carriages in their next gen. I do agree that Stainless steel are based as hell
How do we bring Budd back and make em stay?
I worry we’ll have to relearn the manufacturing processes. Maybe if new passenger routes are proposed and work is down towards them demand can be created to warrant the continued operation of the Budd plants.
But if a domestic company creates passenger equipment, I think they should make it look just like the old Budd streamlined cars. I don’t think we’ve gotten much better since, except with some safety improvements (removal of asbestos/lead).
Other than that (and I hate that this seems to be most plausible of a solution) pray that some rich man decides he’s going to take his personal money and build a Budd factory just for kicks.
@@DiamondKingStudios Or one of us if we win the lottery.
@@marcleslac2413 You’d have to win the really big billion-dollar prize multiple times. I doubt even a nine-figure millionaire could start one of these himself and produce equipment at such a scale to make the price affordable for railroads.
I may be a European aluminium dweller but the Budd Company took stainless steel and turned it into art
Peak passenger trains
Back when America had its own railcar manufacturing industry.
We makin Soda cans with this one🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔛🔝
i'm still convinced the metroliner was a soviet train that accidentally was displaced into the US. it's very dumb brick go fast (then again the 91/IC225 set's are basically the same)
Sometimes the answer can be staring you right in the face
We know one of these never derailed; because if it did then the Earth would not still be here.
Sorry we need all that stainless steel for the cybertrucks
And those things are easy to rust for some reason compare to INKA stainless steel train
they wanted the stainless steel to look good when formed into body panels(apparently it was looking "wavy"), so made it worse at being stainless
I'm in this video for .75 seconds, and I like it.
This goes unbelievably hard!
based
RIP Budd....
How much would it cost to start budd up again
Billions upon billions. I shudder at the thought.
@@DiamondKingStudios could you start it small, a few trains for a small transit agency, and then grow?
@@CABOOSEBOB Even then, I feel like it would cost a lot to import all the metals, manufacture the equipment, and ship them products to the transit agencies, even on a small scale. Railroad equipment includes some of the largest ground transportation vehicles one can make.
LOl
Stainless steel looks good! Some genius should use it on a car
Dang maybe…maybe free trade isn’t an unalloyed good?
Free trade works when everyone else wants to play that game too. Otherwise, trying for "fair competition" in a field where nobody else is playing fair just results in you losing - and let's not pretend either European or Japanese (and now Chinese/South Korean) manufacturers didn't have a huge amount of government help.
Budd made great simple cars but they failed miserably when they tried to do more than that. There plenty of old basic refurbished rail cars in Europe, Asia and other places that still work well but if you want a more modern up to date equipment it will be more complicated to build and will have more teething problems, especially in the US where companies must redesign their rolling stock to adapt to the specific requirements and state of infrastructure and do it locally.
Budd fell because they couldn't adapt to the new world and because the US decided to stop investing in rail.
“Failed when they tried to do more?” The Metroliner was the fastest train in the world when it debuted, being 35MPH faster than the 0 series Shinkansen. It was also rushed through development in only 18 months and forced to make do on only $90 million of funding - *1/2 the time and 1/3rd the budget of its Japanese counterpart.* The average availability rate of 73% wasn’t even particularly-poor by any standard except the GG1’s - European electric locomotives and multiple units were considered fine with as low as 70%.
The fact Budd managed a mild fumble out of a project set up to fail is a testament to how good they were. Contrast the story of the Metroliner with the likes of the APT, LRC, TGV-001, Avelia Liberty, and anything wearing the Siemens logo, which were just as problematic with proper planning and funding.
If anything, the struggles of every foreign manufacturer to adapt to the US rail market shows that Budd didn’t fall because they couldn’t adapt. They fell because they built rolling stock that was too good to require replacement - which means no business in a stagnant passenger market. Meanwhile the planned obsolete appliances that Siemens tries to pass off as trains will not only need replacement after 15-20 years, but the manufacturer is actively trying to market that as a good thing.
@@GintaPPE1000 The top speed you've mentioned was reached by a Budd Rail Diesel Car after strapping a GM jet engines on it just for the speed, not exactly an actual train aimed at servicing passengers. There were many tests just to reach high speeds and a rocket sled on tracks managed to reach far higher speeds in 1954.
As for the Budd company, they did great job in what they new how to do but in this case they failed, mainly because they didn't have the expertise required and also lack of money and time, that for some reason you consider as a positive - and it's not.
Th speeds of those cars in service was lower than the speed of the 0 Series Shinkansen and the reliability was poor, even after many redesigns and improvements and were retired or used as regular hauled cars. Their last attempt was a replacement to the RDC (the one they slapped a jet engine on) called SPV-2000 that was unreliable and short lived.
The good thing that came out of the Metroliners is the body of those cars, that was great and what they were good at, turning into the famous and long living Amfleet.
I'm not saying that Budd was a bad company, they did great and have advanced rail travel with great innovations but long lasting cars (and many other things) were a thing back than and cars built by others are also still in use today. What they lacked was the ability to change, which happens to many companies, and the lack of interest and investments by the US government didn't help.
As for Europe, unlike what you're trying to portray the European designs are a success. When developing a new complicated thing there are always problems delays and teething periods but they are rarely as problematic as those of the Budd Metroliner and are resolved after a while. Today things are much more complicated, development takes longer and there are far more delays but the end product is mostly better.
@@AL5520 Firstly, the Black Beetle was not a Budd project. It was a private venture by the New York Central, and it reached 183MPH, not 164MPH. You seem to be under the impression the 0 series was much faster than it actually was: its top speed was 130MPH, 125MPH in revenue service.
Secondly, the Metroliners' reliability was only unspectacular by US standards. 73% availability rate was considered perfectly workable by the standards of most contemporary European EMU designs, and while that got worse as they aged, the fact the 8 rebuilt cars had over twice the mean distance between failure shows the issues weren't unsolvable - the problem was a lack of money to overhaul the propulsion system rather than just move stuff around to reduce overheating.
Thirdly, Siemens products are not better. They look more modern, but the Charger has a distance between failures about 1/5th that of the P42DCs they're supposed to replace, and the Venture has proven so unreliable they're being withdrawn repeatedly from service and substituted with Amfleets that Amtrak is bringing back from retirement. I don't care how many new shiny features they have - if they don't work, then passengers never experience them.
@@GintaPPE1000 I know exactly what was the speed of the 0 and, for that time, it was the fastest, and more importantly constant. The Metroliners might have had a higher theoretical speed but in service it rarely maxed out at 120 mph, which is lower than the constant 130 mph (and later 137 mph) of the 0. As for the availability of Metroliners, it was around 60% and at times even reached 40%.
If gm didn’t make absolute trash for engined the spv2000 would have worked and maybe budd would be around, but no
The GM engines and transmissions weren't the problem on the SPV-2000. They were taken straight out of commercial buses and trucks. The problem was how Budd designed the cooling, ventilation, and water pump systems: they were all electrically-powered because that's what the numpties in Europe were doing rather than having them being driven mechanically off the diesel engines themselves, and Budd was blindly copying what they did in an attempt to compete.
That was compounded further by them selected a British diesel engine as the APU, and mounting everything underfloor in a cramped arrangement that overheated very frequently. When the diesel failed, it would bring the whole car to a stop because the propulsion diesels would soon overheat without cooling water being pumped through them.
@@GintaPPE1000 I didn’t know this thank you,
Bi-level Superliner’s, Amfleet’s, Silverliner’s, and RDC’s are the steel of bangers by the Budd’s manufacture, and now the Transit systems can’t get those at all anymore, well the ‘Build, Back, Better Act.’ Is completely a laughingstock, and the Infrastructure is started to worn out like rust and dried. Poor sleepy joe should’ve just quit being a president. But I guess he wanna continue to fight his country, and now I had to live in with these two Boomers beefing and wanna debate to be president. Trump should be in jail where he belongs.💯💀
Note - **I don’t support politics, nor their ideologies, or controversial agendas about American’s political. I am not a liberalism either. So it just my opinion. *
About the politics, I unsubbed Our Changing Climate after he became *TOO* politically incorrect. He forgets that Western Europe is the best place for urbanism, and is *CAPITALIST.*
wtf is this schizo posting should’ve just left the first part of the paragraph, just garnering unwanted attention then goes put out a disclaimer
I am very confused
Budd was famous for their use of stainless steel in trains
Amazing how Budd still didn't break even after the company itself went bankrupt
You can’t kill a Budd. 😎
That's how our modern economy works. Build good high-quality product, and you go out of business because your stuff is so good that nobody needs to buy a replacement. Build disposable trash, and planned obsolescence rewards you with repeated orders and the cash to stay afloat.
It’s a race to the bottom that rewards all the wrong kinds of engineering.
@@mylesspear via tried, they failed.
Budd don't break
budd dont break
spv2000 statement 🗿
Unless if it's a metroliner
Perfect example: The Amfleet
@@robk7266I mean Budd was mostly doing the carbody manufacturing; we can blame GM for the SPV-2000’s faulty motors and Westinghouse Electric for the Metroliner. Budd still don’t break.
@@robk7266 The same Metroliners that were the fastest trains in the world when they debuted - a whole 35MPH faster than the 0 series Shinkansen - even though they were developed on a rushed 18-month schedule and on less than 1/3rd the budget? Whose availability rates would be a figure considered acceptable in any country besides the United States? Which are still in service as control cars today and will outlast 3 generations of subsequent electric traction (E60, AEM-7, Acela) by the time they're finally gone, while their Japanese counterparts have already been retired for 13 years?
This was a project that was all but intentionally set up to fail, and yet the worst that came out of it was a train that initially had European rather than American reliability. As the 8 cars that had their propulsion systems rebuilt proved, this wasn't even unfixable - they had less than half the out-of-service rate and went over twice the distance between failures as the originals - the federal government simply gave up. Even Budd hasn't managed to repeat a miracle like that again.
The company broke before the coaches did
ABBA and BUDD. A combination I never thought possible.
00:30 Ok, that version of the SPV200 rocks.
Budd didn’t break; GM did. They gave the engines.
bring back Budd
Love the aesthetics of steel cars so much, I'm happy for designs and materials to move forward and improve, but the aesthetic of a Budd steel car will always be the best looking rolling stock to my eyes.
There was a rolling stock manufacturer in Portugal named Sorefame that built steel rolling stock under license from Budd. Budd even got a symbolic amount of shares in the company. So a lot of multiple units, passenger cars and metros that were seen in Portugal look very identical to these iconic designs. A lot of have already been scrapped or sold, but there's a few still in service.
As a matter of fact, this unit in Portugal ended up building shells for CTA's 2400 Series and for SEPTA's N-5 cars for the Norristown HSL.
Sadly Sorefame shutdown in 2004 shortly after being sold to Bombardier.
There's a new consortium trying to develop Portuguese rolling stock manufacture once again, with an emphasis on using steel, and one of their ambitions was supplying parts to the North American market again.
If Budd were to come back, what’s stopping this new company from being just as bad as the current crop of companies?
I wish that would be the role of leadership culture, a good relationship with the workers, and accountability to the traveling public, though that is wishful thinking.
SEPTA terminating that multi level car order with CRRC seems like a positive.
Built
Unbreakable
Durable
Designs
Love this!
0:06 the irony is the WMATA 7000 series with the pressing problem is made of stainless steel. Also the issue was mostly WMATA’s fault, not the manufacturer
It's crazy how WMATA then is very different from WMATA today
i was supposed to be in Mamma Mia in high school. this goes way too hard
Bring back Budd
y e s
Yes
We need another Budd.
Alan 2am posting????
Is Conrail?
As long as they keep the maintenance good you could run these for a good few centuries if we really wanted to.
We want to.
Age is just a number.
Old stock is still useful and good just needs maintaining and reffitting every now and then.
Thanks, budd
Welp considering I need a man and I like Budd Cars yeah this makes sense
Aw yeah gimme more quick music videos. This here is the type of Video Art that I cherish.
Amen bro 🙏
It's like Frank Sobotka said in The Wire: "We used to make [stainless steel railcars] in this country, build [stainless steel railcars]. Now we just [accept low bids from nationalized manufacturers in other countries who do just enough work in this country to clear the Buy American hurdles]."
Hell yes! More Abba train songs please!
Also kind of ironic your featuring the Metroliner in the old footage; they were super delayed too (although to be fair they were rushed)
Blame Westinghouse for that, not Budd.
Developed in half the time and a third of the budget of the Shinkansen Series 0, and yet still 35MPH faster. 27% unavailability was also pretty common for most European multiple unit designs of the time. If the Metroliner's goals were more realistic and the project wasn't forced to do it all in just 18 months, it could've easily become a success.
@@GintaPPE1000 like I said they were rushed;
honestly the bigger problem was that they were kencapped by the track the signals and the mp54s who’s windows they would suck out.
Budd only did the bodyshells and final assembly, electricals were provided by Westinghouse and later GE, so Budd in the end didnt mess up the Metroliners in what they were responsible for (cab cars are still going strong, they just look old).
*BUDD DONT BREAK*
Budd always did a pretty good job
goes hard
WE NEED A FULL VIDEO VERSION OF THIS
And they say Budd Stainless Steel Cars look old and out of date, at least they don't break.
From a market perspective, the worst possible thing you can make is the last x you'll ever need. Because you reach market saturation really quickly, and then you're done.
Yet another contradiction inherent in the capitalist mode of production.
Reece Martin hates unpainted trains, and of course he’s too popular to read all comments or respond to me. But you are 1000% correct. Stainless is a CLEAN look.
Modern urbanists in general are obsessed with the idea that America had no good ideas or competent capabilities because of the rail industry's fortunes in the last 70 years. Even though every European and Asian manufacturer that's come to the US has also struggled with building stuff that's up to the standards of the US rail industry.
One of the greatest crimes of Amtrak was not buying the IC3. There, I said it. If the new and more powerful engines had been retrofitted, as was done on the sets sold to Denmark, Sweden and Israel, you'd have a fine train capable of doing both commuter service and rural intercity services. Also, there's an electric version of it, so the North East Corridor could also have benefitted.
Great
Amfleets will prob be rolling somewhere in the world in 2100 because they never break
Ahhh Budd...
Why am i getting Metro-Cammell vibes from this? guess the 2 are similar, good trains that are still going.
you could do Chuck Norris facts about budd's train car
So when are we getting the Alan Fisher Radio channel?
Imagine if we restarted budd.
The Miami Metrorail's Budd Universal Transit Vehicles lasted over 30 years without a rebuild of any kind.
The world needs trains that are structurally sound for 10,000 years