# Turboliners still for sale



## MrEd (Jul 5, 2009)

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...?storyID=816859

Rerouted to rail oblivion

Rohr Turboliners, once vital components of an upstate high-speed rail plan, are now forgotten

Once among America's speediest, high-powered traveling machines, seven Rohr Turboliners in various states of decay and refurbishment sit idle at rail yards in Glenville and in Delaware.


----------



## had8ley (Jul 5, 2009)

If they have three sets "in house" why not send them down to NOL?~ we'll show 'em how to head east to Orlando and even Miami if they want to go that far. I'm sure New York State would love to unload them; just look at what it took to get Manhattan Island from the Indians!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 5, 2009)

Why not start the run in SAS to NOL instead of going to a stub version of the SSL!Could do Houston,

couple of big LA. stops,NOL and highball to Florida with stops along the way as needed!Coaches and Cafe

cars will hurt the folks in the West and Texas who want and need to go to NOL and points East!


----------



## AlanB (Jul 5, 2009)

I wouldn't want to do an overnight run in one of these trains.  These are essentially fancy commuter trains.

Maybe with new seats it might not be so bad, but even then I'm still not sure that I'd want to do an overnight in a Turboliner.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2009)

I dont think anyone would Alan but A train is better than No train and AMTRAK is using the

no equipment/3 years to train crew smoke and mirrors excuse for no train from NOL to Fla.!

On third thought perhaps the CONO should continue on to Florida after getting to NOL so as to give

the Midwest market another option besides the Cardinal or CL to WAS to connect for Fla?


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 5, 2009)




----------



## Upstate (Jul 5, 2009)

I want a day train from Atlanta to NC


----------



## MattW (Jul 5, 2009)

I'd go for ATL-JAX (or ORL and/or MIA)  The equipment's there and not too "unworking." Now's the time for the state of Georgia to seize the moment and take advantage of what's right out there in front of them!


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 5, 2009)

I guess "direct drive" means they are not like diesel-electrics where the diesel engine powers electric motors?


----------



## had8ley (Jul 5, 2009)

AlanB said:


> I wouldn't want to do an overnight run in one of these trains.  These are essentially fancy commuter trains.
> Maybe with new seats it might not be so bad, but even then I'm still not sure that I'd want to do an overnight in a Turboliner.


Well Alan you would have loved SP train #39 (I believe that was it.) It was a mail train that ran from LAX up the Rock to Chicago with one heavyweight, dingy coach and about 30 mail and express cars. The Cuban cigar smoking conductor told me he had an hour or better switching to do at El Paso so I went to the depot (which is still in existence and quite a sight.) When I came out about 20 minutes after we arrived my coach (and train) was no where to be seen. Turns out the trainmaster told him to set out the head 12 cars and leave town. Well, here was a 13 year old heading from Scottsdale to a boarding school in Massachusetts totally by train. I managed to ride the Sunset to NOL and I think the Pelican to New York, the NYC to Chatham and the B&A to Pittsfield and the New Haven to Lenox, MA. I think I left on Saturday and arrived Friday evening. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Jul 5, 2009)

Since we're dreaming, I'd like to put in my pitch here for two more daily San Joaquin line runs. One earlier in the morning, and one later at night. Make the San Joaquin line as usable as the Capitol Corridor!

Not that California has the money to buy them, of course....


----------



## wrjensen (Jul 5, 2009)

Who would buy these (other then everyone on this board)?

Would it not make more sense for Amtrak to use them on a corridor service? If you put them in Chicago 2 of the seven could be used on the current Hiawatha service and 4 for MI service and the last would be a spare. All maintenance would be done in one place. This would open up 6 train service to expand other trains (IA service, more IL or MO service) or somewhere else in the country.

They would come home to where they started.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 5, 2009)

Scrap the damn things and end everybody's misery.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 5, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> Who would buy these (other then everyone on this board)?
> Would it not make more sense for Amtrak to use them on a corridor service? If you put them in Chicago 2 of the seven could be used on the current Hiawatha service and 4 for MI service and the last would be a spare. All maintenance would be done in one place. This would open up 6 train service to expand other trains (IA service, more IL or MO service) or somewhere else in the country.
> 
> They would come home to where they started.


No. I don't want them, and I wanna live in a train. They are poorly made, horribly rebuilt, and consume fuel the way a alcoholic does last call on saturday night.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 6, 2009)

so take the turbo engines out and put regular diesels engines in it.


----------



## Upstate (Jul 6, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> so take the turbo engines out and put regular diesels engines in it.


the problem is they are direct drive so you would have to put traction motors in as well. that is basically fully hand building a locomotive so you might as well just buy a one new.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 6, 2009)

Upstate said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > so take the turbo engines out and put regular diesels engines in it.
> ...


Not to mention half the motor unit is revenue coach seating.


----------



## volkris (Jul 6, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> so take the turbo engines out and put regular diesels engines in it.


The problem isn't turbo engines, the problem is THOSE turbo engines.

Turbine technology has advanced quite a bit since the turbo trains were built; it's not really correct to assume all turbo engines would work as inefficiently as those.

Well, that's the problem as far as the engine itself is concerned... plenty of other problems with the Turboliners, I gather.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 6, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> so take the turbo engines out and put regular diesels engines in it.



Can't be done (weight wise) a diesel weigh's about 15 times that of comparable Gas turbine plant.

Add to that the limited seating for a 5 car train and massive mistakes made in AC and Ductwork sizing. basicly uncorrectable without another massive rebuilt.


----------



## Tony (Jul 6, 2009)

Are there any rails in the US, where these could run long distances non-stop at 125MPH?

I guess one would need both "good" rails, and very little other traffic. I don't think that even the NE rails that Acela uses, would be good enough. So, new and exclusive rails would be needed.

Maybe Amtrak is offering these for sale again, in the hopes that some unsuspecting identity, armed with HSR federal bucks, would buy them.


----------



## jis (Jul 6, 2009)

Tony said:


> Are there any rails in the US, where these could run long distances non-stop at 125MPH?


No



> Maybe Amtrak is offering these for sale again, in the hopes that some unsuspecting identity, armed with HSR federal bucks, would buy them.


Amtrak is required to get rid of them for whatever they can get as part of the deal that was struck with NYSDOT to bring this sordid chapter to a close once and for all.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 6, 2009)

jis said:


> Tony said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any rails in the US, where these could run long distances non-stop at 125MPH?
> ...


Lets see, if we all pool our $$$ we can perhaps purchase ONE :lol: ,have our own unit for rides up and

down the NEC for perhaps a few trips until it breaks down and then it will sit forever in some yard

due to lack of funds!(Oh, thats Cal/NYS etc. etc.!) :lol: Where are all the billionaire hobbyists that could

buy these antiques for a tax write off and donate them to a worthy organization or group

such as AU or AMTRAK for NE route where they would work well?Well probably see them end up in a third

world transportation system in Latin America like so many other of our heritage transportation systems

have(trains.planes and automobiles!) Wheres the Robber Barons when you really need them? :lol:


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 6, 2009)

Repeating what jis said, Amtrak can't use them anywhere else unless they want to pay back millions to NY for their losses in what they spend on them. Frankly, I was thinking that the Keystone would be the stretch best suited for them. But they're electric, too, eh? The only other place with "high speed" >79 MPH non-electrified running is on the SWC in the Southwest. And they're only rated to 90 MPH and the P42s handle that fine.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 6, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Tony said:
> ...


Then we need to pull our monies to hire mechanics who know the Turboliners, we need to train special crew and have special facilities to repair them. That's where Amtrak killed them, it made no sense to invest all that cash into these fuel guzzling firebugs.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 6, 2009)

jis said:


> Tony said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any rails in the US, where these could run long distances non-stop at 125MPH?
> ...


Scrap thes white elephants and put them out of everybody's misery. Their initial purpose was to help politicians look like they were doing something to modernize rail travel, nothing more. That is, they were a political machine from the beginning. Notice that the originals had a very short life in France where the whole infrastructure was much better suited to their use. These trains were little more than a knock-off of the original French design regardless of how their introduction was promoted and dressed.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 6, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Notice that the originals had a very short life in France where the whole infrastructure was much better suited to their use.


Around 22-23 years, which in the scheme of things was not too bad, although only half of what they got out of the rather more rugged X2800 railcars!

I travelled on the last public train in Dec 2005. Even at the end they were well looked after and worked ok. They were quite comfortable and pleasant to ride on, and towards the end of their life were used on Lyon to Bordeaux trains, which reversed several times en route, so were well suited.

Oh, and the engine noise was just beautiful!!

http://50031.fotopic.net/p23745368.html


----------



## Steve4031 (Jul 6, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Repeating what jis said, Amtrak can't use them anywhere else unless they want to pay back millions to NY for their losses in what they spend on them. Frankly, I was thinking that the Keystone would be the stretch best suited for them. But they're electric, too, eh? The only other place with "high speed" >79 MPH non-electrified running is on the SWC in the Southwest. And they're only rated to 90 MPH and the P42s handle that fine.


I wonder if another state could take up these payments . . . For example, IL could take up the payments and then use the turbo trains on the midwest corridors, which are going to upgraded. Or would it must be cheaper to by new trains.

It seems that the trains could be a short term solution for adding capacity if Amtrak management and state politicians worked creatively


----------



## jis (Jul 6, 2009)

Steve4031 said:


> I wonder if another state could take up these payments . . . For example, IL could take up the payments and then use the turbo trains on the midwest corridors, which are going to upgraded. Or would it must be cheaper to by new trains.


Why? Is IL feeling rich enough to **** a bunch of money down the drain after nothing?


----------



## George Harris (Jul 6, 2009)

jis said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if another state could take up these payments . . . For example, IL could take up the payments and then use the turbo trains on the midwest corridors, which are going to upgraded. Or would it must be cheaper to by new trains.
> ...


Illinois ran the French originals in the very early days of Amtrak. Why would they want to go down that dead end road again?

One hit a garbage truck resulting in considerable damage. I do not recall the details of that now.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jul 6, 2009)

I guess I have a hard time understanding just how bad these things are. I rode them when I was a kid, and liked the big windows. I know little of the mechanics and the efficiencies of the things, but apparently they are really bad since they keep getting panned. I certainly didn't mean to imply that IL should waste money. I was just wondering if it would be a cost effective interim solution. Apprently that wil not be the case. Oh well . . . a few more years of horizon cars.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 6, 2009)

Steve4031 said:


> I guess I have a hard time understanding just how bad these things are. I rode them when I was a kid, and liked the big windows. I know little of the mechanics and the efficiencies of the things, but apparently they are really bad since they keep getting panned. I certainly didn't mean to imply that IL should waste money. I was just wondering if it would be a cost effective interim solution. Apprently that wil not be the case. Oh well . . . a few more years of horizon cars.


Here's the big sticking point:

Even if they were built to good standards and had good fuel consumption, the design is so different from the rest of the fleet you'd need special crews, facilities, and repair crews. Having this means you need to spend extra money to train, and crews who can't be moved around anywhere else in the fleet. If you also need to build special facilities then you can't move the trainsets around the map. They do not lend itself to versitility, whereas Amfleets could be put on almost any route, anywhere, with any crew, ect.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 7, 2009)

amtrak should put them on ebay or craigslist lol.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jul 7, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I have a hard time understanding just how bad these things are. I rode them when I was a kid, and liked the big windows. I know little of the mechanics and the efficiencies of the things, but apparently they are really bad since they keep getting panned. I certainly didn't mean to imply that IL should waste money. I was just wondering if it would be a cost effective interim solution. Apprently that wil not be the case. Oh well . . . a few more years of horizon cars.
> ...


This was helpful. Thanks. Now I understand the issues better


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 7, 2009)

heres a idea. have the MN use them by running them in 3rd rail only. convert them to full electric.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Jul 7, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> heres a idea. have the MN use them by running them in 3rd rail only. convert them to full electric.


:huh: These are gas turbines not even the standard engine. Not to mention third rail shoes are would have to be retrofitted. You would have to take everything out in the engine compartment, and then fabricate new parts as well as deal with the issue of installing shoes for picking up the third rail. If MNRR wasted that kind of time and money on rebuilding this failed concept for HSR then it would be one of the biggest wastes since they decided to build the ARC tunnels. Why MetroNorth would even buy them is questionable in the first place since MNRR uses GCT they can run diesel on most lines anyway. personally i think they should give a few sets to various museums around the country to display a failed attempt at HSR. or since you had the craigslist/ebay idea they could sell a set in an "Amtrak Fundraiser and Bake Sale"


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 7, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > heres a idea. have the MN use them by running them in 3rd rail only. convert them to full electric.
> ...


Or you could do everybody's favor and scrap the units and the ideas to retrofitting them. Seriously, the banana split was a good idea-- but that doesn't mean you can turn a fruit into a vegetable and expect the same nutritional value!


----------



## railiner (Jul 7, 2009)

The arcticle mentions its high cruising speed (125+ mph). I recall way back in the late 60's, the PRR tested an old United Aircraft TurboTrain between New Brunswick and Trenton at around 170 mph. I believe it still holds the US rail speed record, except for that stunt RDC that the NYC tested with a pair of aircraft jet engines mounted on its roof.

I agree with the comment that the original Amtrak SNCF RTG and later Rohr RTL Turboliners were political purchases to show Amtrak was 'modern', at a time when it still lived on mainly ancient heritage equipment. In those years, there just wan't much of anything available 'off-the-shelf' for railroads to buy in this country.

I agree that the fixed consist with 'orphan' equipment, is just not a good choice anymore, and that Amtrak should not invest any further.

Having said that, I think Amtrak should at least utilize the three sets ready, and just run them into the ground, then scrap 'em, or donate them to museums.

From what has been said about their relatively slow acceleration compared to diesels, I suppose they are better suited to flatlands than mountainous regions, or else I would suggest the three sets might be ideal to utilize on a Los Angeles - Las Vegas train?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 7, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> so take the turbo engines out and put regular diesels engines in it.


That doesn't work on any level.

These things were pointless toys when new. They are pointless toys now. Their political capital was spent off years ago. They are badly made, not as fast as people make them out to be, and inefficient as hell at a time when promoting anything as green is a benefit. They are cool toys. They belong in some rich guys sandbox. Not wasting our taxpaying money refurbishing these pieces of crap one more time, with money that could have gone and bought some decent real equipment.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 7, 2009)

How much sCRAP aluminum are they made out of?


----------



## GG-1 (Jul 7, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> How much sCRAP aluminum are they made out of?


Are you suggesting Amtrak turn them into Pepsi cans? :lol:

Aloha


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 7, 2009)

well amtraks been trying to sell these for years without a buyer. AND they CANNOT scrap them CAUSE THE CONTRACT STATES THAT AMTRAK MUST SELL THEM FOR WHAT EVER THEY CAN GET FOR THEM. if they scrap them they get no money and amtrak gets sued for breach of contract. so stop with the scrap comments. amtrak is not allowed to scrap them or they would have done so already. get over it.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 7, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> well amtraks been trying to sell these for years without a buyer. AND they CANNOT scrap them CAUSE THE CONTRACT STATES THAT AMTRAK MUST SELL THEM FOR WHAT EVER THEY CAN GET FOR THEM. if they scrap them they get no money and amtrak gets sued for breach of contract. so stop with the scrap comments. amtrak is not allowed to scrap them or they would have done so already. get over it.


You're totally wrong. You're reading too deeply into the contract.

Answer is easy man: Sell them to somebody who will scrap them, or sell them to a scrap yard. That's the most Amtrak is ever going to get for this stuff now or in the future. Sorry, its the truth.

The contract doesn't say they can't scrap them, it just says they have to sell to the highest bidder. Last time I checked NO bidders. This is because nobody wants to buy this junk, besides junk dealers. So sell them to the junk dealers.

Melt them down and get market price for that shoddy aluminum they're built with.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 7, 2009)

GG-1 said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > How much sCRAP aluminum are they made out of?
> ...


I prefer Coke. :blink:


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 7, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> heres a idea. have the MN use them by running them in 3rd rail only. convert them to full electric.


Third rail power is very weak (only two traction motors on entire consist, max spped 40 mph.

Also it still does not fix the low caacity of 5 cars and the screwed up HVAC/airduct system.

these cars would take several million more to fix so they are passable for Human occupation.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 7, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> well amtraks been trying to sell these for years without a buyer. AND they CANNOT scrap them CAUSE THE CONTRACT STATES THAT AMTRAK MUST SELL THEM FOR WHAT EVER THEY CAN GET FOR THEM. if they scrap them they get no money and amtrak gets sued for breach of contract. so stop with the scrap comments. amtrak is not allowed to scrap them or they would have done so already. get over it.


Scrap value is probably around $300 000 per trainset, they would not give them to a scrapper but sell them.

Parting out the Turbine and hydraulic TorQ converter would robably raise value by another $200 000.

contract is for Amtrak to try to get max $$ for them,and share with NYDOT.


----------



## Tony (Jul 7, 2009)

George Harris said:


> One hit a garbage truck resulting in considerable damage. I do not recall the details of that now.


I would venture to say that most any HSR trainset would get considerable damage striking a garbage truck.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 7, 2009)

railiner said:


> The arcticle mentions its high cruising speed (125+ mph). I recall way back in the late 60's, the PRR tested an old United Aircraft TurboTrain between New Brunswick and Trenton at around 170 mph. I believe it still holds the US rail speed record, except for that stunt RDC that the NYC tested with a pair of aircraft jet engines mounted on its roof.
> I agree with the comment that the original Amtrak SNCF RTG and later Rohr RTL Turboliners were political purchases to show Amtrak was 'modern', at a time when it still lived on mainly ancient heritage equipment. In those years, there just wan't much of anything available 'off-the-shelf' for railroads to buy in this country.
> 
> I agree that the fixed consist with 'orphan' equipment, is just not a good choice anymore, and that Amtrak should not invest any further.
> ...


to low a speed for RTL's, they run best over 100 mph, track speed LA to LV is not over 79 mph.


----------



## wayman (Jul 7, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > well amtraks been trying to sell these for years without a buyer. AND they CANNOT scrap them CAUSE THE CONTRACT STATES THAT AMTRAK MUST SELL THEM FOR WHAT EVER THEY CAN GET FOR THEM. if they scrap them they get no money and amtrak gets sued for breach of contract. so stop with the scrap comments. amtrak is not allowed to scrap them or they would have done so already. get over it.
> ...


It's not MegaBux, but it's not exactly Chump Change either: $500,000 per Turbo trainset would cover the rehabilitation costs of about four coaches sitting in Bear or Beech Grove, providing the same or more passenger capacity as a Turbo. Geez, Amtrak, take the money and run! The stimulus package has given you the labor allowing increased throughput at those facilities, and scrapping the Turbos will cover the costs of much-needed ready-to-go repairs... after trying to sell these turkeys for _how many years???_, it should be abundantly clear that there will _never_ be a bid....


----------



## jis (Jul 7, 2009)

Maybe they should be more innovative and try to sell them to Egypt, which still runs Turbos in commercial service.


----------



## Amtk511 (Jul 7, 2009)

So Amtrak and the state of New York pretty much wasted millions rebuilding these only to be scrapped / sold off again? Typical example of wasteful gov't spending. I mean if they're already rebuilt why not use them, it'll probably cost less than buying new trains to replace these again...

Old Turboliner:






Rebuilt TUrboliner:


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Jul 7, 2009)

These things belong right next to the Burlington Zephyr in the Chicago Museum of Industry. The Burlington Zephyr was just a trail train. In reality it was making 2 round trips a day inside the state of Kansas. This first generations trains do a great job getting people thinking in new ways and to innovate further they don't do so well in a practical sense.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 7, 2009)

They should definitely preserve at least one if they are to be scrapped. Personally, I think it would be a crime to scrap them. They paid for the rebuild, and they should find a way to use them. But if not, let's not make the same mistake that was made with the UA Turbos. At least one should be saved for a museum.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 7, 2009)

jis said:


> Maybe they should be more innovative and try to sell them to Egypt, which still runs Turbos in commercial service.



Even Egypte needs AC systems and the Turbo can't keep up with New York climate.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 7, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe they should be more innovative and try to sell them to Egypt, which still runs Turbos in commercial service.
> ...


Fixing the a/c isn't beyond the limits of human ability. We have the technology!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 7, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


No, its not beyond the realm of possibility. It is, however, beyond the realm of sanity. As Dutch said, the ducting is too small. The entire A/C and interior would have to be entirely rebuilt. Amtrak didn't stop using these to be mean. They have capacity problems, and I'm sure they'd love to have 7 trainsets worth of Amfleets freed up for service elsewhere. They stopped using these trains because the A/C doesn't work, they use way too much fuel, and they are gigantic piles of junk.

Stop advocating for them. You'd do better advocating George W. Bush for a third term.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 7, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Stop advocating for them. You'd do better advocating George W. Bush for a third term.


I'll keep expressing my opinion, as I'm sure you'll continue to express yours.


----------



## Tim_Metra (Jul 7, 2009)

Upstate said:


> I want a day train from Atlanta to NC


This is an excellent idea. I have been writting my senators and congressmen about adding express trains to the routes already in the system. These express trains would be shorter version of the route between to important points which need better service at more reasonable times. In your example create a Crescent Express 19X Charlotte - Atlanta (8 AM - 1 PM) and Crescent Express 20 X Atlanta (4 PM - 9 PM). In addition I would have these express trains skip one or more little used stations to speed up the train. Lastly, these express train routes would be the first tracks to get stimulus money. It is important that the track improvements should a quick payback. We already have examples of these in the system now Carolinian/Piedmont and Texas Eagle/Lincoln Service.

Just my two cents worth!


----------



## Upstate (Jul 7, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Turboliner. A train barely alive. Gentlemen, we can rebuild them. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic train. Turboliner will be that train. Better A/C than it had before. Better, cooler, faster. :lol:


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 8, 2009)

Upstate said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Dutchrailnut said:
> ...


Anybody willing to donate a brain to these things? :lol: :lol:


----------



## GG-1 (Jul 8, 2009)

Aloha

I dont have any money, maybe I should buy one as a "Stimulus".


----------



## AlanB (Jul 8, 2009)

GG-1 said:


> Aloha
> I dont have any money, maybe I should buy one as a "Stimulus".


Just think of how much fun your commute between Vegas and LA to see your daughter and grandaughter would be with your own private trainset.


----------



## GG-1 (Jul 8, 2009)

AlanB said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > Aloha
> ...


But don't you think the turbine would disturb the desert turtles. :lol:

Aloha

Eric


----------



## railiner (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> They should definitely preserve at least one if they are to be scrapped. Personally, I think it would be a crime to scrap them. They paid for the rebuild, and they should find a way to use them. But if not, let's not make the same mistake that was made with the UA Turbos. At least one should be saved for a museum.


None were preserved? Not even a CN? What a shame!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 8, 2009)

GG-1 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > GG-1 said:
> ...


Think of how much money you'll save on gas!

Oh... right... turboliners. Oops.


----------



## tp49 (Jul 8, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> heres a idea. have the MN use them by running them in 3rd rail only. convert them to full electric.


Why? So New York State (who through their agency the MTA operates MN) can pay twice for these "improvments?" In this climate I just don't see the state being very willing to do this.



VT Hokie said:


> Fixing the a/c isn't beyond the limits of human ability. We have the technology!


Though, in the case of the Turboliners it would not be cost effective to do so. Attempting the fixes would cost more than the sets are worth.



wayman said:


> It's not MegaBux, but it's not exactly Chump Change either: $500,000 per Turbo trainset would cover the rehabilitation costs of about four coaches sitting in Bear or Beech Grove, providing the same or more passenger capacity as a Turbo. Geez, Amtrak, take the money and run!


Amtrak would have to split the proceeds of the sale with NYDOT so they would not get the full $500,000 per trainset. Amtrak would only get a percentage.


----------



## stntylr (Jul 8, 2009)

railiner said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > They should definitely preserve at least one if they are to be scrapped. Personally, I think it would be a crime to scrap them. They paid for the rebuild, and they should find a way to use them. But if not, let's not make the same mistake that was made with the UA Turbos. At least one should be saved for a museum.
> ...


My dad has a picture of me in front of a UA Turbo at Houston's Union station. I was 5 years old. It was on a cross country tour to show off Amtrak's new train.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 8, 2009)

tp49 said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > It's not MegaBux, but it's not exactly Chump Change either: $500,000 per Turbo trainset would cover the rehabilitation costs of about four coaches sitting in Bear or Beech Grove, providing the same or more passenger capacity as a Turbo. Geez, Amtrak, take the money and run!
> ...


Technically speaking though, each year these things sit around Amtrak has to pay to keep them parked. So just getting rid of them, contract or not, would be a money saving move on Amtrak's part.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Stop advocating for them. You'd do better advocating George W. Bush for a third term.
> ...



opinions are great but just like political opinions they hardly make sense as even politicians lack expertise.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 8, 2009)

I often relate things to cars, and in this case I'm getting another example in my head. Back a few years ago, my dad had a mid-life crisis. He ran out and bought himself a used car- specifically a 1982 Ferrari 308 GTS. It wasn't a particularly expensive car to purchase- I distinctly recall him telling my mother a price of $48k. She was still pretty upset, regardless.

Now I bet many of you on this board would love to drive one. I bet you'd love to ride in one. I bet you'd love to have one in your driveway. But believe me, unless you have more money than you know what to do with, you don't want to own one!

Lets start with fuel economy. Driven softly, tooling around town, the car could get about 12 miles to the gallon. Also, it would surge, buck, stumble, and generally complain about you having the gall to drive its thoroughbred self so slow. I'm a pretty good driver- actually, I used to rally race a lot, and I primarily used a Porsche 912 to good effect- and once I borrowed my uncles 911 Turbo. (I am not a crusade against cars, I am on a crusade against their use in any situation where mass transit makes more sense!) Trying to drive the 308 around town, I looked like someone who was pretending to know how to drive stick. Also, it stalled. A lot.

Now, if you were to use the 308 in a capacity more like it was designed for- very fast, especially around curves - it was a pleasure to drive. But the fuel economy? It could go through a gallon of gas in 5 miles if you pushed it hard enough. We won't even go into the irrelevant-to-my-point aspect of how it attracts the constabulary like iron filings to a magnet.

But wait. There's more. First of all, it was uncomfortable. Your butt was practically on the ground, your legs bent uncomfortably due to the too-close pedals, and your arms stretched to their limits trying to hold the steering wheel. I didn't know what people meant by the "Italian ape" driving position until this car. The seats were thinly padded, the radio sounded horrible (I can forgive that, since the engine sounded so good) and in my overweight case, it was a bit small in the hips. Getting in and out- even for my agile sister- was a pain in the ass, too- and often embarrassing.

Starting the car in the morning? It was grumpy as hell until it warmed up, engaging first gear was difficult, and you'd have to skip to third until it was warm- second simply refused to accept shifts while the car was cold. And starting usually took several tries, and more then once, a battery booster.

And oh yes, it was unreliable. We blew two clutches on this thing- several thousand dollars each. The distributor and rotor kicked the bucket. The electrics were a constant headache. I don't think there was a single day of ownership where everything actually worked right. A few times the car just shut off, and refused to start until AAA showed up with a tow truck- at which point it started promptly. Keep in mind, we had Ferrari of Brynmawr check this car out thoroughly before we bought it- they said it was in excellent condition and needed nothing. When we complained about the above, the answer was: "What do you expect? Its a Ferrari."

About $15k worth of repairs later, my dad had it, and sold the car at a loss of $5k. $20k later, we had nothing to show but a few fun days blowing through the Poconos and a smaller bank balance. Not to mention the money we spent on aspirin.

The Turboliners remind me of my dad's Ferrari in a lot of ways. They have a certain appeal. They are sleek, modern looking, and special looking- especially compared to the comparatively ordinary Amfleets. They are powerful and fast, and promise high-speed service. They have nice, large windows. Their turbine engines sound cool.

But like the Ferrari, its trackside appeal for the rider is not consistent with the horror for the check-writing owner. They guzzle fuel- and Amtrak doesn't have the money to spend on fuel frivolously like my dad did for the Ferrari. Their air-conditioning - a mandatory item for a sealed window mass transit vehicle - doesn't work. The engines are unreliable and require a lot of repairs and maintenance. They have limited capacity, so their considerable operating cost (much higher then a P32ACDM hauling 5 Amfleets) is not off-set by the number of riders it can carry. They weren't even offering it as a premium service, so they can't make money the way they do on the Acela surcharge.

They had some positive aspects to them that I'm sure Amtrak would have loved to make use of. They would replace 7 sets of Amfleets, freeing up 7 cafe cars and 28 Amfleet I coach cars for use other places, such as the Keystone, more profitable state corridors, and the Northeast Corridors politically profitable Regional service. They would also free up the even more rare resource of P32AC-DMs, potentially allowing Amtrak to run the Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and Lake Shore Limited without switching engines at Albany. Prior to the reinstatement of the Boston section, this could conceivably have eliminated the expense of a switching crew at Albany! Or, with some modifications, reduced or eliminated engine switches on the Springfield corridor.

Much as you'd like to ride in my Dad's Ferrari, I doubt you'd want to pay for the cost of owning it. Ditto the Turboliners.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 8, 2009)

Like I said, they should at least preserve one in a museum then. Would be a crime to scrap them, just as it would be to scrap a perfectly good Ferrari.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 8, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Much as you'd like to ride in my Dad's Ferrari, I doubt you'd want to pay for the cost of owning it. Ditto the Turboliners.


VERY good analogy GML.

Also, I rode in an early 80's 308 also. I agree with your assessment.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Like I said, they should at least preserve one in a museum then. Would be a crime to scrap them, just as it would be to scrap a perfectly good Ferrari.


Sure, but this is out of Amtrak's hands given their agreement with New York State. They have to sell them for the maximum they can get for them. If a museum puts up a bid, then I'm sure Amtrak will happy provide them with a trainset. Otherwise, Amtrak's hands are tied, regardless of how much sense it may make to preserve them. And there's no way that Amtrak is going to waste their time trying to renegotiate the agreement with NY. Especially not given the recent antics in Albany. So if they are to be preserved, a museum needs to organize an effort and money needs to be raised. That's the only way.


----------



## Tony (Jul 8, 2009)

Would Amtrak sell just one trainset? Or is any buyer expected to buy all 7 trainsets ?


----------



## Upstate (Jul 8, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Much as you'd like to ride in my Dad's Ferrari, I doubt you'd want to pay for the cost of owning it. Ditto the Turboliners.


HAHAHA! :lol: Thats a great story. I took the low rent route of Italian car ownership and had a 1979 Fiat Spider 2000cc. It sounds like just as much trouble as your dad's Ferrari but at a much lower price tag. I actually used it as a daily driver for a couple of years. I upgraded to an old MB 240D that is way more reliable. I never have to worry about cranking the Benz.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 8, 2009)

This whole sorry affair has definitely made me rethink my support of Amtrak. While I am a proponent of federally supported passenger rail, there has to be accountability. And it would be nice if there were some form of competition. Contrast Amtrak's "let the passengers have any equipment they want, as long as it's Amfleet" approach with airlines, where competition drives innovation and where new amenities are introduced to gain business. Obviously bus, car, and airline competition is not driving Amtrak to strive for excellence, as it maintains its barely good enough cattle herder mentality. The rebuilt Turboliners were a brief and welcome change, but now there are no enhancements to service, accomodations, and amenities on the horizon. I don't know what the solution is, though - maybe the British model of separating operations from infrastructure and opening operations to competition. Note the successful acquisition of Pendolino equipment by Virgin to replace the old British Rail equipment.

Of course, the Pacific Northwest has a small and unique fleet of Talgo equipment in operation, and I'm sure it'd be cheaper for Amtrak to simply use Amfleet or Horizon equipment up there. But nicer, more appealing rolling stock is one reason for the Cascades' success. It's a shame that New York's Turboliner program has shown Amtrak/state partnerships to be potentially disastrous, when it seems to have worked elsewhere.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 8, 2009)

btw, here's a solution to your fuel consumption concerns - tow it with a diesel!

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1667518

The RTL-II was operated behind a P32AC-DM in its final days of service.


----------



## Chris J. (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> I don't know what the solution is, though - maybe the British model of separating operations from infrastructure and opening operations to competition. Note the successful acquisition of Pendolino equipment by Virgin to replace the old British Rail equipment.


Competition? The competition is usually "the company who runs your line" or "another mode of transport". I can take a National Express train to London, or I can take a bus (which would likely also be National Express). That's the National Express train service that's now being re-nationalized (well, bailed out by the taxpayer because it's in a financial mess but that's another story). With some exceptions; there is generally only one train company who will get you between two points.

The Pedolino introduction (which was still at 125mph rather than the original plan for 140) had massive cost overruns, meanwhile some areas are still using some pretty old and worn out trains. I suspect there would be older trains still around now if the government hadn't banned the old slam-door stuff. It's not like British Rail didn't introduce new trains, in the late 80s - early 90s the east coast line got new electric trains (still in use now), so had BR still been in place the west coast would've likely got some new trains by now.

I believe estimates are that the privatized UK railway costs the taxpayers 3 times what it cost when it was BR.

Amtrak has it's faults, but I think following the British route will just make them many times worse. If you must look to the UK, just use it as an example of "how not to do it".


----------



## AlanB (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Contrast Amtrak's "let the passengers have any equipment they want, as long as it's Amfleet" approach with airlines, where competition drives innovation and where new amenities are introduced to gain business.


So you don't see the logic and the cost savings in not having to support 5 odd ball trainsets? Not to mention the logic in saving money on fuel. And then there is the idea that the AC was inadequate and people were complaining about it.

And let's not put all the blame on Amtrak for this either. NY State made a major mistake with this entire project, which not only caused it to run far behind schedule, but required NY State to actually help bail out the original company that went bankrupt.



VT Hokie said:


> The rebuilt Turboliners were a brief and welcome change, but now there are no enhancements to service, accomodations, and amenities on the horizon.


So you don't consider new Viewliner sleepers, Viewliner Dining cars, and new Viewliner baggage/dorm cars an enhancement to Amtrak?


----------



## George Harris (Jul 8, 2009)

Chris J. said:


> Amtrak has it's faults, but I think following the British route will just make them many times worse. If you must look to the UK, just use it as an example of "how not to do it".


A statement consistent with the views of every knowledgable Englishman I know.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> btw, here's a solution to your fuel consumption concerns - tow it with a diesel!
> http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1667518
> 
> The RTL-II was operated behind a P32AC-DM in its final days of service.


yup great Idea tow a 5 car trainset with two power cars as deadweight and still a F**d up HVAC system and ductwork while 3 Amfleets and a food service car weigh half as much and provide more seating.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 8, 2009)

AlanB said:


> So you don't see the logic and the cost savings in not having to support 5 odd ball trainsets? Not to mention the logic in saving money on fuel. And then there is the idea that the AC was inadequate and people were complaining about it.


Not when the cost of operating them is less than the cost of new equipment would be. They already paid for 'em, right or wrong - might as well get some use out of the trains. I can't believe the a/c was an insurmountable problem. If they're saving so much money now operating Amfleets, why can't they afford to bring back the cafe car service that I enjoyed when I traveled on the Turboliner?



> And let's not put all the blame on Amtrak for this either. NY State made a major mistake with this entire project, which not only caused it to run far behind schedule, but required NY State to actually help bail out the original company that went bankrupt.


I'm skeptical of the claims regarding their reliability and operational costs. I think the problems are being overstated. The mid 90's RTL II rebuild was done as a test case, and its performance was deemed acceptable. That lone oddball trainset ran for 7 years or so. I'm not convinced that the RTL III was any worse, and if it wasn't, then there's no reason they can't use them as they used the RTL II.



> So you don't consider new Viewliner sleepers, Viewliner Dining cars, and new Viewliner baggage/dorm cars an enhancement to Amtrak?


I'll believe it when I see it, or at least see an order placed. But no, that doesn't really do anything for New York - Albany Empire Corridor passengers.


----------



## Tony (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Not when the cost of operating them is less than the cost of new equipment would be. They already paid for 'em, right or wrong - might as well get some use out of the trains. I can't believe the a/c was an insurmountable problem. If they're saving so much money now operating Amfleets, why can't they afford to bring back the cafe car service that I enjoyed when I traveled on the Turboliner?


I hate to be redundant, but where exactly are you going to run these? Where is this existing HS track?

The cost of operating them would be quite high considering one would need to lay new, almost private, HS rail. Remember, these trainsets can't stop/start all that well so you really need a point-to-point, without any unnecessary stopping or slowing in between (ie, no other rail traffic) where they can cruise at their HS.


----------



## Upstate (Jul 8, 2009)

AlanB said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > The rebuilt Turboliners were a brief and welcome change, but now there are no enhancements to service, accomodations, and amenities on the horizon.
> ...


I wouldn't call that much of an enhancement. More like purchasing involved with regular maintenance. I know some things like the LSL getting a full dining car are better, but that is more like restoring a standard. I would call enhancements things like parlor cars for sleeper passengers on all trains.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> I'm skeptical of the claims regarding their reliability and operational costs. I think the problems are being overstated.


Indeed. For something like NY to Albany they would be suitable, the whole nonsense of them not being able to be made work strikes me as a none argument. The French made them work for 24 years, it can't be beyond the wit and skill of American railroad engineers to get them to run.

Yes, they guzzle fuel, but how much fuel would a P42 use for a similar length run?

Reading between the lines, I would imagine the political/financial aspect of it would be the main stumbling block.....


----------



## transit54 (Jul 8, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm skeptical of the claims regarding their reliability and operational costs. I think the problems are being overstated.
> ...


Here's what I don't get. If they are so inefficient, why on earth would we want to use them?

I guess I look at rail this way: the reason that I justify the need for increased rail spending is specifically because it is fuel efficient. We need to move towards more efficient means of transportation, rail is one of them. Why on earth should the government start using my tax dollars to fund something that is inefficient? Let people drive or fly if that is the case. How can you possibly justify needing to have a national passenger rail system for any other reason than fuel efficiency and transitioning to a lower energy lifestyle (other than perhaps congestion on very major corridors and a few train sets won't matter on that front)? I deeply, deeply believe in rail transport, but I do so because it is efficient. If it was more efficient to fly or drive (including factoring in congestion), I'd be the first one to advocate the government completely leave the passenger rail business. Just like the government has no business, say, subsidizing the production of a hummer, it has no business subsidizing inefficient modes of transportation.

So I just don't get why people are advocating for these turboliners. What benefits are the public going to derive from them that aren't already present with buses/airlines/cars? That's what I just don't see.

While I'd love to see one of turboliners (or more than one of them) preserved, I never want to see them running in revenue service. They seem to undercut the absolute largest reason, if not the only reason, to support rail travel.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 8, 2009)

Not to mention Amtrak made it work from the 1970's into the 2000's. If they were that terrible, I don't think they'd have lasted that long.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Not to mention Amtrak made it work from the 1970's into the 2000's. If they were that terrible, I don't think they'd have lasted that long.


Amtrak typically just makes things work because they don't have anything else to work with!

Not to mention that putting them on corridor service would be silly, because of the acceleration curve, you need limited stop routes on straight track on flat land to make it worth while. At least with the Acela sets they can accelerate to maximum speed much faster and keep times down somewhat.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 8, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> So I just don't get why people are advocating for these turboliners. What benefits are the public going to derive from them that aren't already present with buses/airlines/cars? That's what I just don't see.


How 'inefficient' are they though?

The benefit could well be new or extra services to be added to places with poor or no service until more rolling stock appears.


----------



## jis (Jul 8, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> How 'inefficient' are they though? The benefit could well be new or extra services to be added to places with poor or no service until more rolling stock appears.


While theoretically possibly true, I don;t think it makes sense to try to flog these puppies into another round of short-lived service and focus rather on acquiring new equipment to serve said places. Even if they wanted to put these back in service immediately it will be at least six months and several million dollars (better spent on new equipment) before anything like that will happen and even then they will remain difficult to manage because they will be the odd piece of equipment in the fleet. And also because they will be there, there will be less pressure to actually solve the equipment shortage problem by that much, which in the long run will be a bad thing. Just IMHO of course.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Not to mention Amtrak made it work from the 1970's into the 2000's. If they were that terrible, I don't think they'd have lasted that long.



NYC had very succesfull Niagra's , you don't see those anymore either.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 8, 2009)

Has anybody ever heard the expression, "Beating a dead horse"


----------



## jis (Jul 8, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Has anybody ever heard the expression, "Beating a dead horse"


The horse in this case is screaming in agony in horse heaven


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 8, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention Amtrak made it work from the 1970's into the 2000's. If they were that terrible, I don't think they'd have lasted that long.
> ...


If New York spent $70 million in taxpayer funds rebuilding them, I'd say they'd better use them until they wear out, obsolete or not.


----------



## had8ley (Jul 8, 2009)

Just one more bale of hay for the horse; "Could the power cars be cut off and the coaches be used with diesel power ???"


----------



## wayman (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > VT Hokie said:
> ...


Sunk Cost Fallacy


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Contrast Amtrak's "let the passengers have any equipment they want, as long as it's Amfleet" approach with airlines, where competition drives innovation and where new amenities are introduced to gain business.


There is nothing wrong with Amfleets, the workhorse- and best- car in Amtrak's fleet. They are well built, fairly light, and capable of pretty high speeds. Indeed, capable of the same speeds that the Turboliners were capable of- 125 mph.

Amtrak is being smart, for once. Their plan seems to be to move all of the Amfleets to the east coast by procuring bi-level equipment for points west. Good. There is no good reason to replace the Amfleets. They work. No, they don't look pretty. But that's ok. Glorified commuter trains (which, lets face it, is what the New York - Albany Empire Service trains are!) aren't supposed to be pretty. West of Schenectady, the tracks aren't capable of high speeds, anything exotic would be a waste.

Amtrak has been given a task: run a viable national rail network, and any other trains other people will pay you for, and do it with the greatest possible financial efficiency. They have been given that job. And they are doing that job. If New York wants to run flashy trains, Amtrak will oblige, so long as New York is wiling to pay every last penny of that flashiness. They weren't willing to do that, and they provided junky, poorly rebuilt examples of trains that were junky pieces of crap to begin with as the motivator.

If Amtrak was looking to provide us with some cool smoke and mirrors, they'd run these pieces of junk while listening to people scream about how bad the A/C is. But they aren't. They are looking to move people efficiently, and 5 Amfleets and a Genesis dual mode is a more effective way of doing it.

Why not support them if they are doing what they are supposed to do?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 8, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Just one more bale of hay for the horse; "Could the power cars be cut off and the coaches be used with diesel power ???"


Remember the bad AC.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Jul 8, 2009)

I know another idea that will be shot down but I hear Metrolink is in an amazingly tight spot in terms of having enough equipment perhaps they would pick up a few sets? Since you cant order new cars when all you have is an IOU


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 8, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Just one more bale of hay for the horse; "Could the power cars be cut off and the coaches be used with diesel power ???"
> ...


so what replace the a/c that ain't hard. the a/c doesn't always work in the superliner sleeping cars either now does it.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Jul 8, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > had8ley said:
> ...


Well nothing is ever working at 100% 100% of the time that is unrealistic. Everything has breakdowns, failures, down time, ect. Again replacing thing means wasting even more money. They need to do something with this things and minimize the impact on the budget.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 8, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > had8ley said:
> ...


I don't know all the details, perhaps Dutch or others could give the full on of it, but the problem wasn't something minor like bad A/C units. I think the entire HVAC system was incapable of delivering enough cold air to keep the cars cool. I think the ducting was too small or some such. It wasn't a small problem. It was one of those terminal problems you can't fix with any ease. It would have involved another complete rebuild of the cars at hundreds of thousands of dollars each.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 8, 2009)

Regarding the Amfleets, here is where I feel they fall short in comparison with the rebuilt Turbos:

Ride quality. Amfleet trucks do not offer the smoothest ride out there, and the turbos were superior in this regard.

Interior design of the rebuilt RTL III trains was more like Acela than Amfleet. The vestibules were reconfigured to be more open, with the restrooms in the large vestibule area, separated from the passenger compartment by sliding doors. The windows were of course much larger and the interior brighter than Amfleet. Like Acela, the RTL III had a few tables among the coach seating. The sleek design of course gave the impression of riding a modern Euro-style train, instead of a typical American tin can on wheels. I didn't know how lacking the Amfleets were until I started riding trains like the ICE, TGV, Eurostar, Pendolino, and Acela. I wish we had more trains like the Acela in this country. The turbos at least came a step closer than the Amcans do!

And they did have the operational advantage of having a cab at both ends whereas the P32AC-DM hauled trains have to be turned around in Sunnyside after arriving at NYP.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 8, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Regarding the Amfleets, here is where I feel they fall short in comparison with the rebuilt Turbos:
> Ride quality. Amfleet trucks do not offer the smoothest ride out there, and the turbos were superior in this regard.
> 
> Interior design of the rebuilt RTL III trains was more like Acela than Amfleet. The vestibules were reconfigured to be more open, with the restrooms in the large vestibule area, separated from the passenger compartment by sliding doors. The windows were of course much larger and the interior brighter than Amfleet. Like Acela, the RTL III had a few tables among the coach seating. The sleek design of course gave the impression of riding a modern Euro-style train, instead of a typical American tin can on wheels. I didn't know how lacking the Amfleets were until I started riding trains like the ICE, TGV, Eurostar, Pendolino, and Acela. I wish we had more trains like the Acela in this country. The turbos at least came a step closer than the Amcans do!


You've got it backwards. Its the Euro trains that are tin cans. Compare Chase, MD with Eschede, Germany. Several cars from Chase still roam the system. I don't think vaporized ICEs do the same.

I like the tables, too. But the Amcans can have those fitted- the SPV-conversion coaches on SLE had them, and those are based on the same shell. The small window is a bit of a drawback, but not really on the trains that run Amfleet Is.

As for the ride, there is a fallacy in your logic. The Amfleets you are riding in, like most cars on the Amtrak system, are over used, with far too long between mechanical refurbishment. The Turboliners had their trucks replaced as part of the rebuild. You aren't comparing Amfleets to Turboliners. You are comparing a train with new trucks to one whose trucks are in need of replacement. The Amfleets rode impressively smooth back in 1976 when they were brand new.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 9, 2009)

I'm not so sure - I believe that the Amfleets' inboard bearing Pioneer trucks give an inherently inferior ride.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 9, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't see the logic and the cost savings in not having to support 5 odd ball trainsets? Not to mention the logic in saving money on fuel. And then there is the idea that the AC was inadequate and people were complaining about it.
> ...


Except that Amtrak didn't pay for them, NY State paid for them. And getting use out of something just because it is there, when if it costs more isn't necessarily a good idea in anyone's book. While I'm guessing here, let's just assume that one round trip costs Amtrak and extra $500 in fuel over using a conventional trainset. If the existing RTL-III's make 4 RT's each day, that's $2,000 wasted in fuel. Multiple that by 365 and you've just blown three quarters of a million dollars. And that's just a guess, from what I've heard the fuel wasted is much higher.

As for food service, that has nothing to do with this entire conversation. There are three reasons why you can't buy food on that trip. Lack of sales on what is essentially a long distance commuter train, NY State's failure to support what is a state service and not a national service, and Congress' micromanaging.



VT Hokie said:


> > And let's not put all the blame on Amtrak for this either. NY State made a major mistake with this entire project, which not only caused it to run far behind schedule, but required NY State to actually help bail out the original company that went bankrupt.
> 
> 
> I'm skeptical of the claims regarding their reliability and operational costs. I think the problems are being overstated. The mid 90's RTL II rebuild was done as a test case, and its performance was deemed acceptable. That lone oddball trainset ran for 7 years or so. I'm not convinced that the RTL III was any worse, and if it wasn't, then there's no reason they can't use them as they used the RTL II.


I wasn't referring to this with my comment. I was referring to the wisdom of NY State choosing a manufacturer who wasn't really qualified to do the rebuilds and one that was going bankrupt.

However, the problems aren't overstated. Dutchrailnut has the inside scoop on these trains. He's not just spouting the party line as it were; he's an industry insider whom I suspect has spoken to more than one Amtrak engineer regarding the issues with these trains.



VT Hokie said:


> > So you don't consider new Viewliner sleepers, Viewliner Dining cars, and new Viewliner baggage/dorm cars an enhancement to Amtrak?
> 
> 
> I'll believe it when I see it, or at least see an order placed. But no, that doesn't really do anything for New York - Albany Empire Corridor passengers.


I can’t recall right now where I saw the story, but I did just within the past two weeks or so, see a story regarding Amtrak’s putting out a Request For Information to builders for the new Viewliner II’s. If I can remember where I saw that story, I’ll post the link.

But regardless, it is happening.

And you’re original statement didn’t say anything about NYP-ALB, it was phrased as a blanket statement against Amtrak, which is what triggered my response.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 9, 2009)

Fair enough. But I think the Acela Express proves that people are willing to pay more for superior rolling stock with nicer accomodations, even if the train isn't much faster. The Turboliner rebuilds represented the only serious attempt on Amtrak non-overnight corridors outside the NEC to offer something superior to the no frills, bus on rails Amfleet experience, save for the Talgos in the Pacific Northwest. I think people would find Amtrak more appealing on routes around the country if the coaches were a little brighter, more modern, and nicer looking than the typical dreary Amcan rolling stock.


----------



## railiner (Jul 9, 2009)

I think that the Amfleet cars are wonderful. They are very versatile...they have run as commuter cars, long distance cars, parlor cars, dinettes, and even sleeping cars (remember the experimental economy bedrooms on the old Shenandoah?). Their predessor, the Metroliners were M.U. cars some of which now are cab control cars for push pull; and their design was also adapted for the SPV2000 rail diesel car. I think that they offer a fine ride, and the larger windows found on the later Amfleet II's are large enough.

And let's not forget the heroic role they played in Amtraks early history. In that dark, frozen, long ago winter, I think was around 1976 or '77; when broken pipes and catastrophic mechanical failures of ancient heritage equipment caused wholesale cancelling of half of Amtrak's long distance trains out of the Chicago hub and brought Amtrak to its knees; the new Amfleet was pressed into service that it was never intended for...running on transcontinental trains. Sure, they were not as comfortable as the regular fleet, but they served admirably and reliably, until the thaw came and Amtrak was slowly able to get the regular fleet back into service. Many people at the time said that the Amfleet had literally saved Amtrak.

I believe that the fine Budd Company design of these cars will be around longer than anything else in Amtraks fleet...as long in fact that Amtrak wants them to be.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 9, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Fair enough. But I think the Acela Express proves that people are willing to pay more for superior rolling stock with nicer accomodations, even if the train isn't much faster. The Turboliner rebuilds represented the only serious attempt on Amtrak non-overnight corridors outside the NEC to offer something superior to the no frills, bus on rails Amfleet experience, save for the Talgos in the Pacific Northwest. I think people would find Amtrak more appealing on routes around the country if the coaches were a little brighter, more modern, and nicer looking than the typical dreary Amcan rolling stock.


Overall I wouldn't argue most of what you said above, and if you were to confine the final statements to single level trains only, then I would agree with all.

I know that I ride Acela on the NEC 90% of the time. In fact, about the only time that I don't ride Acela on the NEC is if I'm connecting to/from the Capital. And while it is still an Amcan, when I do have to ride in one, I'm typically in Business Class for whatever little that adds on the NEC. Off the NEC, it adds a lot more with the Club-Dinette cars and the 2 & 1 seating.

So yes, in recent years, the Turboliner did represent an attempt to improve things for a short haul corridor. While it seemed to impress some passengers, other's didn't like it. That's not exactly surprising, just pointing out that not every passenger loved it.

Turning to the final point, if we are looking at single level only then short of the Club-Dinette and Acela, nothing much else has been done single level recently. If we look at Bi-level however, we have dozens of Surfliner and California cars out in Cali. Now California owns the bulk of these cars, but Amtrak does own some. Additionally, Amtrak does expect to be placing an order for more of these cars, to use on runs out of Chicago. So they will indeed be seeing improvements there a few years from now.

Sadly that still leaves the single level fleet for now without anything new, but hopefully in coming years that can be dealt with. And in the meantime, once those bi-level cars come online, that would at least ease the strain on the Amfleets and perhaps let maintenance have more time with them to keep them in better shape and even perhaps send them through a refurbishment program.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 9, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You've got it backwards. Its the Euro trains that are tin cans. Compare Chase, MD with Eschede, Germany. Several cars from Chase still roam the system. I don't think vaporized ICEs do the same.


Yawn. Same old GML nonsense......

Different circumstances, but don't let that stop you talking catflap.

The Amfleets are old horrible rubbish. If you want to get people out of their cars and onto trains then you need to offer something more than manky old rubbish.

40+ year old bangers just don't cut it, despite the protestations of Buddfoamers.....

More Talgos. Less Amfleet.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You've got it backwards. Its the Euro trains that are tin cans. Compare Chase, MD with Eschede, Germany. Several cars from Chase still roam the system. I don't think vaporized ICEs do the same.
> ...


The Talgos are pieces of crap, the Amfleets are superior.

And yes, sometimes GML can be... opinionated... but I have to agree with him here.

The Talgo sets currently used in Cascades service are loud and unreliable. Big windows are nice, but at the cost of comfort. It's an attempt for something "different" but in the end they just manage to make rolling stock that can't me moved around the system. For forty years you have been able to put the Amfleets in the North, South, East, West, the desert, the blizzards, the floodlands, you can put those things anywhere on any train and they still do their job.

The purest judgement of a rolling stock's contribution to the fleet is to see how it has managed to serve the fleet. It has served medium, long, short distance trains-- it has served overnight pax, day pax, commuters.

Can you say any of that for the Talgos? No.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 9, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> I'm not so sure - I believe that the Amfleets' inboard bearing Pioneer trucks give an inherently inferior ride.


there is absolutely no difference (to ride) as to where bearings are located.

a outside bearing truck is just about twice as heavy due to casting but that is only difference.

the MNCR M1 's were actually praised for their ride quality with essentially the same truck as Amfleet.


----------



## had8ley (Jul 9, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not so sure - I believe that the Amfleets' inboard bearing Pioneer trucks give an inherently inferior ride.
> ...


Dutch;

I'm almost sure the Turbos were articulated BUT can the power cars be cut off and the coaches be used with Genesis power?


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Dutch;I'm almost sure the Turbos were articulated BUT can the power cars be cut off and the coaches be used with Genesis power?


Aren't the power cars also the coaches (kind of like a subway car)?

Loose both power cars, and what's really left?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 9, 2009)

Guest said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Dutch;I'm almost sure the Turbos were articulated BUT can the power cars be cut off and the coaches be used with Genesis power?
> ...



seating is as followed:

Powercar 1 has 40 seats in 2 x 2 seating

Coach 1 has 72 seats in 2 x 2 seating

Food service has 52 seats

Coach 2 has 72 seats in 2x2 seating

Powercar 2 has 27 seats in business class in 1 x 2 seating

______________________________________________

for a total of only 263 seats


----------



## jis (Jul 9, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You've got it backwards. Its the Euro trains that are tin cans. Compare Chase, MD with Eschede, Germany. Several cars from Chase still roam the system. I don't think vaporized ICEs do the same.
> ...


Yep, if damage caused by a bridge falling on top of a train and the rest of it piling up against that mess is considered to be the same as from a mere collision, then GML has a point  I am sure even Amfleets will do much worse than at Chase if a bridge fell on top of one and the rest of the train piled up into the bridge leftovers at 125mph. Besides there are the cars from the front half of the Eschede crash that were naturally quite undamaged. They did not "vaporize", and nor did the rearmost few cars.

Let me hasten to add that in terms of pure buff strength, of course the Amfleets are much stronger, but it is not at all clear that in lateral crashes they come out too good. The Amfleet that was completely destroyed at Chase was the one that got hit from the side after the train jacknifed. The thing that really worked well at Chase is the anti-climbers.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 9, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Dutch;I'm almost sure the Turbos were articulated BUT can the power cars be cut off and the coaches be used with Genesis power?


You're perhaps thinking of the UA Turbos - those were articulated.

http://hebners.net/amtrak/amtTurbosUA/amt51a_turb.jpg

The Rohr Turbos have conventional separate trucks for each car.

http://hebners.net/amtrak/amtTurbos/amt158c.jpg


----------



## AlanB (Jul 9, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> The Talgo sets currently used in Cascades service are loud and unreliable. Big windows are nice, but at the cost of comfort. It's an attempt for something "different" but in the end they just manage to make rolling stock that can't me moved around the system. For forty years you have been able to put the Amfleets in the North, South, East, West, the desert, the blizzards, the floodlands, you can put those things anywhere on any train and they still do their job.
> The purest judgement of a rolling stock's contribution to the fleet is to see how it has managed to serve the fleet. It has served medium, long, short distance trains-- it has served overnight pax, day pax, commuters.
> 
> Can you say any of that for the Talgos? No.


You can't say that about the Talgos for the simple reason that there aren't enough of them to go around like the Amfleets. Therefore this is a useless comparison. Sorry! 

And the Talgo's were originally supposed to be else where, in fact one set was even painted for Las Vegas service, a service that never materialized. But between the fact that Amtrak only owns two sets, with the State of Washington owning the rest, this is why the fleet is largely captive in one section of the country. But Talgo does make sleepers, diners, long distance cars, and short haul cars.

To my knowledge, the Talgos have one of the most impressive maintenance records, with fewer failures and more miles between service than the Amfleets and other Amtrak equipment.

Personally, I felt my one ride in the Talgo to be quite nice and I'd take that any day and twice on Tuesday over an Amfleet consist, if Amtrak had one trainset running on the NEC.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 9, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You've got it backwards. Its the Euro trains that are tin cans. Compare Chase, MD with Eschede, Germany. Several cars from Chase still roam the system. I don't think vaporized ICEs do the same.
> ...


They are not horrible old rubbish. They are overused cars that have been functionally equipped to serve their general market. Lets consider the services that the Amfleet I is captively used on:


Northeast Corridor: Relatively short-distance Inter-City and long commuter runs.

Keystone Service: Long commuter trains.

Empire Service, New York-Albany: Long commuter run.

Empire Service, New York-Buffalo/Niagara Falls, NY: Relatively short-distance Inter-City.

Adirondack: Longer-distance Inter-City

Carolinian: Long-Distance



I will admit that the New York to Buffalo, New York to Niagara Falls, Adirondack, and Carolinian could benefit from some better equipment. According to rumors I have heard, if the Viewliner order comes out well, lounge cars and coach cars come next. If that happens, you can be assured the Amfleet Is will be replaced in favour of Amfleet IIs on the longer Empire Service trains, Adirondack, and Carolinian.

They aren't glamourous cars, I admit. But they are rugged, reliable, reasonably comfortable, capable of relatively high speed running, light weight, and space efficient. The Talgos, Horizons, and Acela Express lack atleast some of the above qualities. The Talgos aren't particularly comfortable- or so I hear- the Acelas aren't that reliable, are heavy, not rugged, and not particularly space efficient- the Horizons are unreliable, not rugged, prone to freezing, not particularly comfortable, and not capable of high-speed running.

The RTL-III Turboliners were not rugged. They were not reliable. They were not comfortable. They were not fuel efficient. If you want to argue that we could use some replacements for the Amfleets, or atleast a decent supplement to them, ok.

But the priority for its replacement should be, in order:


Rugged- it must last a long time, Amtrak funding is scarce most of the time.

Reliable- if it isn't reliable, then Amtrak isn't reliable.

Space efficient- Amtrak must maximize its revenue per cost.

Light weight or effiecient: it should either be capable of letting an efficient engine pull it efficiently, or move efficiently under its own power.

Versitile: It has to be able to be used on the North East Corridor, or the midwest corridors. IF it is unpowered, it should be able to pinch hit in other places, such as a long distance train. It needs to be able to take frigid Chicago winters and hot Florida summers.

Comfortable: if the train is not comfortable to passengers, they will not enjoy riding it. If you like, include your vaunted large windows in here.

When all that is said and done, it would be nice if it was good looking.



The Turboliners aren't that. The Talgos aren't that. The Horizons aren't that. The Acela isn't that. Until somebody builds a suitable replacement, the Amfleets are the best we got, and when it comes down to running a railroad under the parameters Amtrak is required to, the Amfleets are the best we got for use in the Northeast.



had8ley said:


> Dutch;I'm almost sure the Turbos were articulated BUT can the power cars be cut off and the coaches be used with Genesis power?


The Turbos are not articulated, they use standard 4 wheel trucks and standard American automatic couplers. I'm thinking there may be a height difference or door interface difference, but if not they could be used in a consist with Amfleets. It would be a good suggestion if it wasn't for the air-conditioning problem mentioned earlier. If it wasn't for that, actually, I'd suspect Amtrak would have taken it before you mentioned it.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 9, 2009)

jis said:


> Yep, if damage caused by a bridge falling on top of a train and the rest of it piling up against that mess is considered to be the same as from a mere collision, then GML has a point


Exactly.

The front coach of that Metrolink pile up outside LA held up well didn't it?


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 9, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Talgos aren't particularly comfortable- or so I hear-





Hmmm. I had a few Talgo trips in March. Perfectly acceptable trains. Plenty of comfort.

Much nicer than that old scrapyard challenge stuff that you rate so highly!


----------



## George Harris (Jul 9, 2009)

jis said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


It would take a few pages to go through it properly, but the summary is this:

There were so many deficiencies on so many levels that were made manifest at Eschede as to be completely unnerving. Here are simply the major ones:

1. The initial cause was the use of a wheel type that is normally used only in low speed light rail vehicles which broke due primarily to metal fatigue. Despite the break, the train ran for several miles before the offening wheel (running flangeless!) was kicked sideways by a turnout frog.

2. The bridge came down becuase the columns supporting it were: A. too close to the tracks, B. not connected by a crash waill at the bottom, and C. not connected with a cap at the top. This last meant that they acted individually as free standing posts, which is much weaker than the frame reaction that they would have had if connected at the top.

3. The coach bodies that hit the bridge or each other did not truly crumple, they came apart because the welds connection the sides with the floor and top came unzipped, completely exposing the passengers. Even without the virtual disassembly into "coach kits" on impact, they body shell strength was much less than the Amfleet or any other American passenger car.

4. The rear power car continued to push even after the train separated. This may have made little or no difference in the severity of the results, but it should not have happened.

5. While the train had many "lights, bells, and whistles" to detect a number of defects, wheel defects were not on the list.

The Chase MD collision where the train hit three stopped diesel units showed a number of opposite factors:

1. The three diesel units struck were much heavier than the three span two lane bridge at Eschede and they were hit dead on rather than at car roof level.

2. The Amfleets may have bent and crumpled, but they DID NOT COME APART.

3. The cause of the accident was a pothead train crew running through a switch set against their movement, not a defect in the passenger equipment.


----------



## frj1983 (Jul 9, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, if damage caused by a bridge falling on top of a train and the rest of it piling up against that mess is considered to be the same as from a mere collision, then GML has a point
> ...


Neil,

The Metrolink cars were NOT Amfleet, but Bombardier built! :angry: And the whole accident was an amazing set of circumstances that probably couldn't be repeated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrolink_(So...2C_January_2005


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > The Talgo sets currently used in Cascades service are loud and unreliable. Big windows are nice, but at the cost of comfort. It's an attempt for something "different" but in the end they just manage to make rolling stock that can't me moved around the system. For forty years you have been able to put the Amfleets in the North, South, East, West, the desert, the blizzards, the floodlands, you can put those things anywhere on any train and they still do their job.
> ...


All right, then let's have fun-- let's pretend NY wants one of the Washington sets and, for some reason, bought one. How is the set going to get from Washington to NY? I'll personally enjoy watching BNSF flatbeds hauling the sets one cream colored car at a time--

As for your one ride, sorry. I've had seven and never found one anything greater than a trip on the NEC. There will be people who have more and who agree with you, and people who would agree with me. There is always somebody who likes and somebody who dislikes the service. The suspension is terrible, the noise is awful, the doors are a joke, the rattling is un-nerving. Then, just to add cream to the coffee, the 2-1 BC seating is a hard faux leather that makes the Acela FC faux leather seem plush.

If Taglo ever started running things OTHER than the cascades service I would stop riding Amtrak. A Talgo sleeper? I can only imagine the literal rattling of the cage.

Oh, and that trainset is a rattling metal deathtrap. Lightweight power, lightweight cars, and.. GLASS for vestibules? Wow...


----------



## George Harris (Jul 9, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> If Taglo ever started running things OTHER than the cascades service I would stop riding Amtrak. A Talgo sleeper? I can only imagine the literal rattling of the cage.
> Oh, and that trainset is a rattling metal deathtrap. Lightweight power, lightweight cars, and.. GLASS for vestibules? Wow...


According to one person I know that was involved in these things before their placement in service, every time Amtrak wanted changes to the basic Spanish design, they got a visit from the Spanish ambassador to the US with reminders of "international relations issues from various State Department types.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 9, 2009)

George Harris said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > If Taglo ever started running things OTHER than the cascades service I would stop riding Amtrak. A Talgo sleeper? I can only imagine the literal rattling of the cage.
> ...


Whew! Thank goodness we had political diplomats involved in the design. I thought for sure we didn't know what we were doing. They came to our rescue! :blink: :blink: :blink: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

George Harris said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > If Taglo ever started running things OTHER than the cascades service I would stop riding Amtrak. A Talgo sleeper? I can only imagine the literal rattling of the cage.
> ...


You'd think Amtrak would at least attempt to keep the jobs in America... I realize that the State of Washington actually decided who built what and when, but still...

My fondest memory of a Cascades service was a LSA in the bistro car who bragged on and on about how wonderful the trains were and how happy she was to have been involved in some sort of planning to keep them, about how she didn't have to smell bathroom anymore and this younger SA with her worked the coffee machine with this look of "Not this story again"

I soon returned to my bathroom-smelling BC seat... I made note of it, not because I am opposed to bathroom smell (I mean, all trains have the smell to some degree) but the fact that this LSA made a point to say they did not smell like bathrooms thanks to "the superior upkeep and venthilation systems" just got me...


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 9, 2009)

George Harris said:


> 4. The rear power car continued to push even after the train separated. This may have made little or no difference in the severity of the results, but it should not have happened.5. While the train had many "lights, bells, and whistles" to detect a number of defects, wheel defects were not on the list.


Why would the rear power car continue to push if the air brake pipe and train control wiring was destroyed and the overhead power would have been off?

What readily available system is ready to fit to trains to detect flanges coming off the tyre?


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 9, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Oh, and that trainset is a rattling metal deathtrap. Lightweight power, lightweight cars, and.. GLASS for vestibules? Wow...


That's such a convincing argument. Don't crash the trains then.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 9, 2009)

frj1983 said:


> Neil,
> The Metrolink cars were NOT Amfleet, but Bombardier built! :angry:


I know, I was just using the GML style of argument development........


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and that trainset is a rattling metal deathtrap. Lightweight power, lightweight cars, and.. GLASS for vestibules? Wow...
> ...


Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

If we should build trains without expecting accidents, then we should hire conductors who aren't trained for emergencies. They simply won't happen! <_<


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 9, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
> If we should build trains without expecting accidents, then we should hire conductors who aren't trained for emergencies. They simply won't happen! <_<


Weld over the windows, fit seatbelts to all the seats and get the passengers to wear crash helmets.

Don't allow luggage on the racks. No hot drinks. Toilet breaks only when train stopped.

Wrap passengers in foam padding. Add water and stir.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
> ...


No need to have conductors who know how to evacuate. No worries about the safety cards or exit windows. Exits don't need to be clearly marked.

Allow people to run up and down the consist, they don't need shoes.

Tell passengers that a crash will never happen. Vomit and flush the toilet.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 9, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Allow people to run up and down the consist, they don't need shoes.


Please provide practical and relevant evidence of train accident being caused by people without shoes.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Allow people to run up and down the consist, they don't need shoes.
> ...


Please state the logic of building trains without security in mind.

Neither makes sense. Seriously.

Build trains that are going to provide some modicum of safety to pax if a collisions or accident happens. Build trains knowing that an accident will happen, and that pax safety is the priority. Compromising safety in the name of "well if we build the accident proof system" then, well... just crazy man.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 9, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > 4. The rear power car continued to push even after the train separated. This may have made little or no difference in the severity of the results, but it should not have happened.5. While the train had many "lights, bells, and whistles" to detect a number of defects, wheel defects were not on the list.
> ...


Quoting what I have read. Presumably it did not do it for long. Recall that it took a little while for the bridge to come down and break the wire. It is also a question of which direction to the feed. Do not know the nature of the power control system. Could well be that with the train line broken there was no way for the front end to change to power commands. Also note that I said, "This may have made little or no difference in the severity of the results, but it should not have happened."



> What readily available system is ready to fit to trains to detect flanges coming off the tyre?


Recall that is was not the "flange coming off" this was a light rail type resilient wheel with a layer of some form of elastomer between the tire (tyre to you) and hub. They tire *with flange* came off, and a chunk came up through the car floor near a passenger. As to detection of such, what do I know? I am just an ignoramus track and alignment man.


----------



## jis (Jul 9, 2009)

I don't think the cause (and effect) of the Eschede or Chase accident or for that matter the superiority or lack thereof of Amfleet, Bumfleet, Talgo, Shallgo, Acela, Bcela, Surfliner, Superliner, Hyperliner or any other liner has much effect on whether the junk Turbos will sell soon or not :lol:


----------



## GG-1 (Jul 9, 2009)

jis said:


> much effect on whether the junk Turbos will sell soon or not :lol:


Mahalo for returning this to the Subject.

Aloha


----------



## jis (Jul 9, 2009)

frj1983 said:


> The Metrolink cars were NOT Amfleet, but Bombardier built! :angry: And the whole accident was an amazing set of circumstances that probably couldn't be repeated:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrolink_(So...2C_January_2005


Actually most accident are a result of some series of events that are very unlikely to be strung out together in the right order too often, 'cause otherwise we'd be having accidents much more often than we do. But of course I must admit that some are indeed more bizarre sequences than other, e.g something like the AF447 crash and the direction that the investigation is leading to will probably lead to one of the more amazing unbelievable series of events leading to the disaster.

Getting back to the Turbos, someone mentioned that they use AAR couplers. Is that true for couplings within a set? Perhaps Dutch knows the answer off the top of his head, if he is still around and has not walked away in disgust from this thread.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 9, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> seating is as followed:
> Powercar 1 has 40 seats in 2 x 2 seating
> 
> Coach 1 has 72 seats in 2 x 2 seating
> ...


That's close, but I think those figures are for the pre-rebuilt Turboliner. The RTL III had 76 passengers for coach, 52 for coach/cafe, 36 in the coach/power car, and 24 in business class/power car, for a total of 264 seats. However, a coach could be added, bringing the total to 340 seats. In fact, the revised plan before the trains were removed from service was to have a total of four rebuilt sets instead of seven, and to add a coach to each of those sets. I don't buy the argument that their fixed consist nature was a problem, as Amtrak never runs Empire Corridor trains of more than 5 or 6 cars anyway. Almost all Empire Corridor trains consist of a half cafe/half business class car, and four coaches.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > seating is as followed:
> ...


But adding one coach to the consist of a Turboliner was time consuming and wasteful. You can couple 9, 10, 11 coaches together on an Empire Service train if needed. You can also remove cars when they don't sell out-- thus saving money. The Turboliners can't match the Amfleets in any respect... except window size.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 9, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> But adding one coach to the consist of a Turboliner was time consuming and wasteful.


How so? The Turboliners used conventional couplers, not drawbars like the Acela. In the pre-rebuild days, they often ran with 6 cars.



> You can couple 9, 10, 11 coaches together on an Empire Service train if needed.


First of all, I doubt they could given the platform lengths, and doing so would require two P32's to haul the train. You never see Amtrak run trains longer than 6 cars on the Empire Corridor, save for the Lake Shore Limited. Usually it's 5 cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 9, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> But adding one coach to the consist of a Turboliner was time consuming and wasteful. You can couple 9, 10, 11 coaches together on an Empire Service train if needed. You can also remove cars when they don't sell out-- thus saving money. The Turboliners can't match the Amfleets in any respect... except window size.


ALC, I am pretty sure the RTL-IIIs had AAR couplers. IF so there was no limitations to modifying the consist. I know the original french ones had specialized couplers, but I'm pretty sure the RTLs did not.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > But adding one coach to the consist of a Turboliner was time consuming and wasteful. You can couple 9, 10, 11 coaches together on an Empire Service train if needed. You can also remove cars when they don't sell out-- thus saving money. The Turboliners can't match the Amfleets in any respect... except window size.
> ...


Note, both of you, I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was more difficult. Which it is--

As for limits, yeah sure, you can add cars to the consist of an RTL and guess what, the acceleration curve goes even lower.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 9, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> As for limits, yeah sure, you can add cars to the consist of an RTL and guess what, the acceleration curve goes even lower.


Same laws of physics apply to GE diesels, which don't have the greatest acceleration to begin with either!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > As for limits, yeah sure, you can add cars to the consist of an RTL and guess what, the acceleration curve goes even lower.
> ...


Shall we challenge them to a race? :lol: Would love to see those aluminum cans fly!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 9, 2009)

I think the Turboliners were actually faster in acceleration. Not sure, though. Diesels aren't known for their ability to generate power quickly.

The Turboliners have enough real faults to consign them to the dustbin of history. No reason to invent more to back up that argument.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I think the Turboliners were actually faster in acceleration. Not sure, though. Diesels aren't known for their ability to generate power quickly.
> The Turboliners have enough real faults to consign them to the dustbin of history. No reason to invent more to back up that argument.


I don;t know, I remember watching videos of those things crawl from one station and into the next, barely topping out in between stops.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 10, 2009)

The RTL's were relatively easy to add cars to as the biggest difference from Amfleet would have been 2 additional cables. The French built RTG's used out of Chicago from 1973 to 1981 used the European buffer system with hook and turnbuckle couplers.

As far as acceleration goes Amtrak went into a fuel conservation mode in 1976 and would only use one powercar for traction. This caused the acceleration to suffer greatly. With two units operating it would be a decent match race.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 10, 2009)

jis said:


> I don't think the cause (and effect) of the Eschede or Chase accident or for that matter the superiority or lack thereof of Amfleet, Bumfleet, Talgo, Shallgo, Acela, Bcela, Surfliner, Superliner, Hyperliner or any other liner has much effect on whether the junk Turbos will sell soon or not :lol:


True, but it is jsut the way these conversations sometimes turn.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 10, 2009)

oldtimer2 said:


> The RTL's were relatively easy to add cars to as the biggest difference from Amfleet would have been 2 additional cables. The French built RTG's used out of Chicago from 1973 to 1981 used the European buffer system with hook and turnbuckle couplers.


The Europeans call this "Hook and Screw" as the handle spins a screw to tighten up the link over the hook. The point of tightening was to have the buffers in compression to some extent.

This form of coupling is a minimally improved Link and Pin, in that it does not need the pins and the link is captive so you can't lose one. There are two major problems with this form of coupling:

1. In case of sudden compression, that is run in of slack in American terms, the link can pop off the hook, so you can have surprise uncouplings.

2. You have get between the car ends to hook the link over the hook, and also to take the link off the hook. A couping that requires a person to get between the cars to couple and uncouple cars was outlawed in the US by the Railway Safety Appliance Act of 1895 (or 1893, I have see both dates in writing.)

Therefore the European sets ran under a waiver. I have not looke at the accident report in a long time, so the details escape me, but there was a colission of one of these trains with a garbage truck which was made worse by the cars coming uncoupled.


----------



## MattW (Jul 10, 2009)

Ok, so let's bottom line here. If say, Georgia wanted to implement intercity service a la Amtrak California ATL-JAX, then how useful would these trainsets be at providing twice daily service? I know only 3 were rebuilt which is two each way twice a day and a spare. What did the rebuild entail? Are the other 4 sets' coaches up to rebuilt standards and just the power cars not up to standard? Could their coaches be spliced into one of the working sets? How much would upgrading the turbine to a more efficient better-accelerating unit cost while maintaining the seating of the power cars? Could these older trains withstand twice-daily service for ~350 miles?

Yes, I am officially the biggest advocator for expanded Georgia Passenger Service!


----------



## George Harris (Jul 10, 2009)

MattW said:


> Ok, so let's bottom line here. If say, Georgia wanted to implement intercity serve a la Amtrak California ATL-JAX, then how useful would these trainsets be at providing twice daily service? I know only 3 were rebuilt which is two each way twice a day and a spare. What did the rebuild entail? Are the other 4 sets' coaches up to rebuilt standards and just the power cars not up to standard? Could their coaches be spliced into one of the working sets? How much would upgrading the turbine to a more efficient better-accelerating unit cost while maintaining the seating of the power cars? Could these older trains withstand twice-daily service for ~350 miles?Yes, I am officially the biggest advocator for expanded Georgia Passenger Service!


Maybe they could sell the hunks of junk for enough to buy a real coach or two.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 10, 2009)

MattW said:


> Ok, so let's bottom line here. If say, Georgia wanted to implement intercity service a la Amtrak California ATL-JAX, then how useful would these trainsets be at providing twice daily service? I know only 3 were rebuilt which is two each way twice a day and a spare. What did the rebuild entail? Are the other 4 sets' coaches up to rebuilt standards and just the power cars not up to standard? Could their coaches be spliced into one of the working sets? How much would upgrading the turbine to a more efficient better-accelerating unit cost while maintaining the seating of the power cars? Could these older trains withstand twice-daily service for ~350 miles?Yes, I am officially the biggest advocator for expanded Georgia Passenger Service!


Dude, you don't want them. Ozark Mountain Railcar is, last time I checked, selling a few F40s and some Metra Budd gallery cars. Equip them with comfortable seats and a snack area, and they would make a hell of a lot more sense for Georgia passenger rail.

The Turboliners move under their own power. They do not "work". There is a difference.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 10, 2009)

oldtimer2 said:


> The RTL's were relatively easy to add cars to as the biggest difference from Amfleet would have been 2 additional cables. The French built RTG's used out of Chicago from 1973 to 1981 used the European buffer system with hook and turnbuckle couplers.
> As far as acceleration goes Amtrak went into a fuel conservation mode in 1976 and would only use one powercar for traction. This caused the acceleration to suffer greatly. With two units operating it would be a decent match race.


The RTL's in New york always operated with both turbines on line and were pathetic getting out of stations, adding two cars would probably only have resulted in more turbine failures.

Add to that the extra crew member required on Turboliner (technicial) and the uneconomic fuel hog became amoney drain.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I don;t know, I remember watching videos of those things crawl from one station and into the next, barely topping out in between stops.


Yep. That's why one would really need to use these for LD, non-stop, runs. Allow them to (painfully slowly) reach their max speed, and then allow them to steadily cruise at that speed for a long time.


----------



## had8ley (Jul 10, 2009)

Good golly; am I missing something here? If you cut off these fuel guzzling power cars, (and we've established that the cars have normal couplers), why can't they be run with a diesel? I'm sure the Heartland Flyer or Downeaster would welcome re-furbed equipment.


----------



## wayman (Jul 10, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Good golly; am I missing something here? If you cut off these fuel guzzling power cars, (and we've established that the cars have normal couplers), why can't they be run with a diesel? I'm sure the Heartland Flyer or Downeaster would welcome re-furbed equipment.


Georgia or Oklahoma service would only work if you can get someone to pay for the A/C...

The Downeaster, I don't know; but I'm guessing the "A/C" is also the heating system, and thus is still a problem.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 10, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> The RTL's in New york always operated with both turbines on line...


That's incorrect. They were sometimes run with only a single turbine, such as when they were used on the Adirondack up to Montreal.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 10, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Turboliners move under their own power. They do not "work". There is a difference.


If they didn't work, then they wouldn't have gotten me from New York City to Albany on-time! And they certainly wouldn't have served from 1976 until the 2000's.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 10, 2009)

Guest said:


> Yep. That's why one would really need to use these for LD, non-stop, runs. Allow them to (painfully slowly) reach their max speed, and then allow them to steadily cruise at that speed for a long time.


They would have been perfect for the proposed 2 hour non-stop Albany - NYP express.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 10, 2009)

MattW said:


> What did the rebuild entail?


Pretty much new everything. The trains were stripped down to the bare frame, the doors relocated, and everything replaced. Here are a couple of pics from Super Steel during the rebuild:

http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?20031022122111646.jpg

http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?2003103000540324526.jpg

http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?2003102215571813194.jpg



> Are the other 4 sets' coaches up to rebuilt standards and just the power cars not up to standard?


There was a fourth trainset that was reportedly 80% - 90% complete. I don't know what it looked like - perhaps these coaches in Scotia, NY are from that set:

http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1328404257062038082xcDwRQ

http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1328404222062038082LQAdYt



> Could their coaches be spliced into one of the working sets?


One could - Super Steel said that the train was designed to handle an additional coach, and there were plans to run the trains as six car sets. Here's a six car Turbo in the pre-rebuild days:

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=38634&nseq=11


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> One could - Super Steel said that the train was designed to handle an additional coach, and there were plans to run the trains as six car sets. Here's a six car Turbo in the pre-rebuild days:
> http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=38634&nseq=11


Isn't that an additional (2nd) cafe?


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2009)

I guess they have already tried using the RTL coaches are regular coaches.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 10, 2009)

George Harris said:


> The Europeans call this "Hook and Screw" as the handle spins a screw to tighten up the link over the hook. The point of tightening was to have the buffers in compression to some extent.
> This form of coupling is a minimally improved Link and Pin, in that it does not need the pins and the link is captive so you can't lose one. There are two major problems with this form of coupling:
> 
> 1. In case of sudden compression, that is run in of slack in American terms, the link can pop off the hook, so you can have surprise uncouplings.
> ...


Europeans call it "Hook and screw"? Hmmm, 29 years on a railway _and_ speaking English and I have never heard that term, pretty sure the French or Germans wouldn't use that term, as funnily enough English is not generally used in everyday communication!

Screw coupling, yes. Drawhook, yes. Collectively the 'coupling; or 'shackle'.

The compression is not provided by tightening up the screw thread, as that would be hard work, the buffers are compressed when the loco is moved up to the train, and when the brakes are released the coupling will tighten up. Normally you would leave the last 3 threads exposed, so as not to over tighten.

Never ever heard of a screw coupling popping of the shackle, would think it was very rare, yes the old 3 link coupling could do that, but not a screw coupling. Granted, sometimes the screw coupling would break, but even the couplings used in the US break, or do you think they don't?

As for getting between the vehicles, it is safer to use buckeye or knuckle couplers, but how do the air lines, head end supply and train control jumpers get connected? By magic fairies? Or by someone getting between the vehicles?


----------



## George Harris (Jul 10, 2009)

Neil: Only quoting the term I have heard for these things. Yes a man does have to step between the cars to couple the air lines and other lines. Uncoupline all lines except air also requires stepping between cars, but that usually applies only to passenger equipment not to freight. In the case of the air lines, which is all there is on freight equipment and which is left coupled on passenger equipment, when the cut lever at the side of the car is pulled and the cars pulled apart, the air line uncouples itself.

AS to popping off, in the accident refereced that is exactly what happened.

It is beyond me why anyone would still use this completely archaic 19th century device, much less defend its use.

Yes, I have seen these things in use, and it took a while of watching to just comprehend them.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 10, 2009)

George Harris said:


> It is beyond me why anyone would still use this completely archaic 19th century device, much less defend its use.


Better not look too closely as to how a TGV power car is bolted to the rest of the train, might induce another bout of anti Europeanism from you!

Talking of 19th century archaic devices, how is the single pipe air system and triple valve?


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 10, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> ..., as funnily enough English is not generally used in everyday communication!


In France, everyday communication on the telephone begins with a very English "Hello". 

I remember my first time over in France, being warned to not take that "hello" as meaning the person answering the phone understands English.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 10, 2009)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > ..., as funnily enough English is not generally used in everyday communication!
> ...


Alexander Bell wanted the international telephone greeting to be "Ahoy ahoy!" however "Hello" eventually won out.


----------



## Chris J. (Jul 10, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Alexander Bell wanted the international telephone greeting to be "Ahoy ahoy!" however "Hello" eventually won out.


It's often now "yea?"


----------



## George Harris (Jul 10, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > It is beyond me why anyone would still use this completely archaic 19th century device, much less defend its use.
> ...


My understanding is the fabulous link over the hook system is used between TGV power car and rest of the train. I was once told that use of the AAR style coupler would tranmit too much vibration to the passenger compartment. To avoid further argument my thouths on that rationale I will keep to myself.

The current air reservoir and valve system is well advanced from Westinghouse's original. Single air lines work quite well, thank you.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 10, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > The RTL's in New york always operated with both turbines on line...
> ...


Wrong and one Turbo beeing pulled by that P32acdm was because the turbine failure.

Having operated the RTL's enough to know, they would hardly move with only two axles driven and a very light axle load.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 10, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I think the Turboliners were actually faster in acceleration. Not sure, though. Diesels aren't known for their ability to generate power quickly.
> The Turboliners have enough real faults to consign them to the dustbin of history. No reason to invent more to back up that argument.


The Turbo liners were slower than **** getting out of station, with only lead two axles on each power car powered.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 10, 2009)

Well, fwiw I have read in NYDOT reports that they were operated with a single turbine, and I have an old VHS tape on the Turboliners that I believe confirmed that...I'll have to dig it up.

Edit: See page 2-42 here


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 10, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Well, fwiw I have read in NYDOT reports that they were operated with a single turbine, and I have an old VHS tape on the Turboliners that I believe confirmed that...I'll have to dig it up.
> Edit: See page 2-42 here



and the word is "Reportedly" now question is by who.

And since taskforce members usualy are F** idiots with no working knowledge, I doubt anything the state of New York produces.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 10, 2009)

How does one become a "task force member" anyway? Sounds like you don't have to produce any real results, just write reports making a lot of false promises. Not a bad gig!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 10, 2009)

Guest said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > I don;t know, I remember watching videos of those things crawl from one station and into the next, barely topping out in between stops.
> ...


... I can't think of a line in the US that allows for a train with limited acceleration to move at "high speed" with any frequency. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any of them on Amtrak.



VT Hokie said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > The Turboliners move under their own power. They do not "work". There is a difference.
> ...


I got a friend with a Model T Ford. Pretty reliable car in its day. Wanna drive it New York to California on a deadline?

The problem is the rebuilds. They were badly done.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 10, 2009)

... I can't think of a line in the US that allows for a train with limited acceleration to move at "high speed" with any frequency. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any of them on Amtrak.

You could use them on certain routes, but you'd have to cut out most of the non-terminal stops. Not to mention, I don't think you'd find a LD route that wouldn't require sleepers. The Palmetto being the exception, however when one considers the Silver Palm, well--


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 10, 2009)

Like I said, the proposed express from Albany to NYC would've been ideal. A two hour run on a route with a lot of 90 - 110 mph running is a good place for the Turbos.


----------



## tp49 (Jul 11, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> How does one become a "task force member" anyway? Sounds like you don't have to produce any real results, just write reports making a lot of false promises. Not a bad gig!


Political appointment.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 11, 2009)

George Harris said:


> My understanding is the fabulous link over the hook system is used between TGV power car and rest of the train. I was once told that use of the AAR style coupler would tranmit too much vibration to the passenger compartment. To avoid further argument my thouths on that rationale I will keep to myself.
> The current air reservoir and valve system is well advanced from Westinghouse's original. Single air lines work quite well, thank you.


Must be daily incidents of the hook "popping off" on TGVs then, seeing as those trains that travel in safety at up to 200mph still use 19th century devices! Oh no, there isn't..... :lol:

As for single pipe air systems, they are fine if you want your train to run out of brake and run away.

Funny idea of "safety" you have.


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2009)

Coming to think of it, steel wheel on steel rail also seems to be a fine 19th century technology that is doing quite well in the 21st, thank you. I believe that an argument that depends on something being a 19th century technology for disparaging it, without any further elaboration, is usually a spurious one and perhaps says more about the maker of the argument than the subject being argued. Not that I am specifically suggesting that anyone here would make or does make such an argument though. :lol:


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 11, 2009)

The problem isn't with "fine" 19th century technology. It is static 19th century technology. Technology that has failed to improve over the 100+ years.

For example, 2010 tires are vastly superior to 1890 tires. And I am pretty happy they are.

One would think, and one should wonder why, "steel wheel on steel rail " railroad technology has failed to improve steadily? Why, today, are derailments even still possible? Why haven't train braking systems improved all that much? Why can't trains stop better today, other than for apathy?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 11, 2009)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> The problem isn't with "fine" 19th century technology. It is static 19th century technology. Technology that has failed to improve over the 100+ years.
> For example, 2010 tires are vastly superior to 1890 tires. And I am pretty happy they are.
> 
> One would think, and one should wonder why, "steel wheel on steel rail " railroad technology has failed to improve steadily? Why, today, are derailments even still possible? Why haven't train braking systems improved all that much? Why can't trains stop better today, other than for apathy?



Despite Railroads still using same brake as stage coach, namely a block on wheel, it has improved , and distance for braking has been cuut in half in 50 years.

Superior dynamic brake, blended brake on passenger equipment. plus the added disk brakes on in addition to thread brakes, on passenger trains.

Correct, besides the Dynamic brakes on engines, Freight trains have not seen as much a difference, but even those now have load sensing valves, better airbrakes with faster recovery etc.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 11, 2009)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Why haven't train braking systems improved all that much? Why can't trains stop better today, other than for apathy?


If you were sat on a TGV or ICE when it went in full braking you would not say that. ICEs also have magnetic track brakes for even quicker stopping.

More practically, there is a limit of how much braking you can apply before the wheels lock up, same as with traction.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 12, 2009)

Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 12, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
> http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2


first it allows the train to go the return direction without being turned saving time.

2nd the 2 engines run at 50% power each via the computer saving fuel.


----------



## stntylr (Jul 12, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
> ...


Isn't that the Heartland Flyer?

It always runs like that so it doesn't have to turn around in Fort Worth. It still has to back into the ITC station.


----------



## MattW (Jul 12, 2009)

Wouldn't a Cabbage work? And even if both P42s are running at 50% I somehow doubt the sum of fuel consumption is equal to 100% computer or not.


----------



## stntylr (Jul 12, 2009)

MattW said:


> Wouldn't a Cabbage work? And even if both P42s are running at 50% I somehow doubt the sum of fuel consumption is equal to 100% computer or not.


The Heartland Flyer is the pride of Oklahoma. No cabbage for them. Only two P42's will do.

Seriously they need to get this train running into Kansas. Maybe even extend it down to Houston.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 12, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
> http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2



Diesel engines use only fuel related to Horsepower to move the train, so even if you put two P42's at 4200 hp on train if it only takes 1200 hp to move train the engines will only produce 1200 hp.

with a Turbo however its just a big superheated wind tunnel running at 100% on both powercars at all times from idle to max power same fuel load.

but here is what I think about all these suggestions


----------



## had8ley (Jul 12, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
> ...


Good one Dutch...but people can still day dream; sure beats waiting on an eastbound Sunset out of NOL or is that one of those horses too? I don't think I ever saw an answer to cutting off the dastardly fuel guzzlers and using the cars~ bad HVAC can be overridden by an auxiliary unit in the engine that replaces the turbo. Kinda like the steam generator days.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 12, 2009)

I only wish the number of dead horses we're beating wouldn't slow down the loadtime for this page :lol:


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 12, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Good one Dutch...but people can still day dream; sure beats waiting on an eastbound Sunset out of NOL or is that one of those horses too? I don't think I ever saw an answer to cutting off the dastardly fuel guzzlers and using the cars~ bad HVAC can be overridden by an auxiliary unit in the engine that replaces the turbo. Kinda like the steam generator days.


HVAC is not located in Engines, its located in cars and since StupidSteel miscalculated duct sizes and elliminated the return duct system, the cars are about 60% below the norm for AC and Airflow.

only a lot off $$$ can get the cars aceptable, far more than what refurbishing Amfleets will cost.


----------



## had8ley (Jul 12, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Good one Dutch...but people can still day dream; sure beats waiting on an eastbound Sunset out of NOL or is that one of those horses too? I don't think I ever saw an answer to cutting off the dastardly fuel guzzlers and using the cars~ bad HVAC can be overridden by an auxiliary unit in the engine that replaces the turbo. Kinda like the steam generator days.
> ...


I have to totally agree with you~ call the junque man~ QUICK~ before they throw stimulus money at it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 12, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
> http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2


The reason for two engines on that train are fully explained in the thread. The good question I can't answer is why both engines are live, rather then one being hauled dead. You got me on that one.



had8ley said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > had8ley said:
> ...


A real risk, you know. Joe Boardman has an affinity for those piles of crap.


----------



## PaulM (Jul 12, 2009)

stntylr said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2
> ...


Is there a Saginaw in Oklahoma, or could that be the Blue Water?`


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 13, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> HVAC is not located in Engines, its located in cars and since StupidSteel miscalculated duct sizes and elliminated the return duct system, the cars are about 60% below the norm for AC and Airflow.only a lot off $$$ can get the cars aceptable, far more than what refurbishing Amfleets will cost.


Just buy a few window a/c units at Sears!


----------



## George Harris (Jul 13, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> but here is what I think about all these suggestions


I love it, I love it, I love it.


----------



## stntylr (Jul 13, 2009)

PaulM said:


> stntylr said:
> 
> 
> > VT Hokie said:
> ...


It's Saginaw, Texas. Located just outside of Fort Worth.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > HVAC is not located in Engines, its located in cars and since StupidSteel miscalculated duct sizes and elliminated the return duct system, the cars are about 60% below the norm for AC and Airflow.only a lot off $$$ can get the cars aceptable, far more than what refurbishing Amfleets will cost.
> ...


Dyaenu.


----------



## RTOlson (Jul 14, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
> http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2


Here's another odd-looking consist from RailPictures.net:

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=287623&nseq=6

The photo caption explains the situation pretty well, but it is unusual to see a Surfliner coach sandwiched between two engines.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 14, 2009)

RTOlson said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
> ...


So the coach was merely there to trip the signals during an engine movement?


----------



## VT Hokie (Jul 14, 2009)

How about this one?

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1671421


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 14, 2009)

DET63 said:


> RTOlson said:
> 
> 
> > VT Hokie said:
> ...


I think there were two locos so that it could be run either direction. The reason for the coach was most likely so that it could travel at "P" speeds (up to 79 MPH)rather than single loco speeds (up to 25 MPH). Of course, there ARE Surfliner Cab Coaches that could have been used . . . maybe something about a minimum number of axles like CN requires...

Just my opinion.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 14, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > RTOlson said:
> ...


one engine was taken off that train and hooked up the broken train and it took the bad engine back with it. thats why it had 2.


----------



## tp49 (Jul 15, 2009)

DET63 said:


> RTOlson said:
> 
> 
> > VT Hokie said:
> ...


According to the picture's caption that is exactly why the coach was there. It was done to meet the minimum axle count.


----------

