Turboliners... What happened?

[Green Maned Lion]

I've read lots of articles and information about RTG-III/ROHR Turboliners being updated for usage on the Empire Service.

The list reads as follows:

1) New York State and Amtrak came to an agreement regarding the Turboliners,

2) Schenectady Steel Refurbished them.

3) One went back into service.

4) New York State sues Amtrak.

?????????

What the heck?

Its like the following:

1) Joe meets John.

2) Joe and John become friends.

3) Joe and John enjoy being friends.

4) Joe shoots John in the head 5 times.

In both cases, something obviously happens between 3 and 4. But look as I might, I find nothing. Anyone know?

 

[the_traveler]

I'm not sure of the exact situation, but it was something like this. NYS was going to refurbish them for service, but after (at least 1) was complete, Amtrak took them to DE "for storage until there were enough complete to use in service". (I think Amtrak had 3. The others were, and still are, in a field in Schenectady.) Then either state money ran out or Amtrak wanted changes. But when Amtrak wouldn't return their "in storage" trains to NYS, the state sued Amtrak.

I forget the exact terms of the settlement, but I think Amtrak can keep their units in DE, and NYS will resume refurbishment on their units, and when they are all completed, they will be used in Empire Service.

I'm sure you'll hear from others.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

3 were completed with 1 in conditional service.

The rebuilder Supersteel would not provide schematics and manuals for rebuilt units, so Amtrak started to balk.

The AC was rebuilt with insufficient capacity, plus the fuel use/cost was through te roof.

Meanwhile NYS insisted on keeping supersteel occupied, but NYS failed to upgrade the track and signals from Poughkeepsie to Renselear.

So Amtrak who owns the trainsets, decided they did no longer want to use the money loosing sets, since performance could be easely matched with a P32acdm and 4 coaches, and save half the fuel plus they did not need a techinician like on the Turbo's.

So settlement is no turbo's and both NYS and Amtrak can dispose of the cars each has in custody, look in your local scrapyard for a follow up on the story.

Currently there is no turbo trains in service anywhere in world, so Amtraks decision is not a singular event.

 

[Neil_M]

Currently there is no turbo trains in service anywhere in world, so Amtraks decision is not a singular event.

I travelled on one of the last French sets in traffic on its last day of running in December 2004. Superb bits of kit, loads of noise, hear them arriving a mile off, and very comfy to ride in. I wouldn't want to be the one paying for the fuel though.... :blink:

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

 

[battalion51]

I know an Engineer who had the "pleasure" of running one of the new sets. He said it was not a fun run at all, they ran very rough, and were constantly breaking. It was so bad someone from Mechanical had to be on every trip. From Amtrak's perspective this was not a reliable solution, where as a diesel hauled train is. Go with what works.

 

[had8ley]

I know an Engineer who had the "pleasure" of running one of the new sets. He said it was not a fun run at all, they ran very rough, and were constantly breaking. It was so bad someone from Mechanical had to be on every trip. From Amtrak's perspective this was not a reliable solution, where as a diesel hauled train is. Go with what works.

Having been in the engine of everything from an E-9 to an RS-3 I would have never thought, after walking through the engine room on the Turboliner, that it would be such a gas guzzler. How much horsepower are they rated for? It seems like I've seen air compressors on some of the newer comfort cabs are larger than the engine on the Turboliners. Anybody have any statistics on the engine/HP/ fuel consumption compared to a Genesis?

 

[Dutchrailnut]

I know an Engineer who had the "pleasure" of running one of the new sets. He said it was not a fun run at all, they ran very rough, and were constantly breaking. It was so bad someone from Mechanical had to be on every trip. From Amtrak's perspective this was not a reliable solution, where as a diesel hauled train is. Go with what works.

Having been in the engine of everything from an E-9 to an RS-3 I would have never thought, after walking through the engine room on the Turboliner, that it would be such a gas guzzler. How much horsepower are they rated for? It seems like I've seen air compressors on some of the newer comfort cabs are larger than the engine on the Turboliners. Anybody have any statistics on the engine/HP/ fuel consumption compared to a Genesis?

Each power car had a 1200 gallon tank but it could not make two round trips on one fill up, the Genesis P32acdm has a 2100 gllon tank good for 3 round trips.

The turbo range on its tanks was adverized as 840 miles on original turbines, it never ever came close and the later turbines were of higher capacity.

The Turbo liners always had a Engineer, conductor, trainman and technician as crew, so cost of extra crew member 24/7 was high.

With a Turbine about 90% of energy heads out the stack moving or standing.

The electric third rail mode, with only one traction motor in each powercar, had not enough power to pull the turbo liner through the east river tunnels unless the train was absolutly empty.

With only 263 seats in 5 cars, the consist can be easely beat by 4 amfleets and a food service car, you would gain about 100 seats.

 

[Galls]

I know an Engineer who had the "pleasure" of running one of the new sets. He said it was not a fun run at all, they ran very rough, and were constantly breaking. It was so bad someone from Mechanical had to be on every trip. From Amtrak's perspective this was not a reliable solution, where as a diesel hauled train is. Go with what works.

Having been in the engine of everything from an E-9 to an RS-3 I would have never thought, after walking through the engine room on the Turboliner, that it would be such a gas guzzler. How much horsepower are they rated for? It seems like I've seen air compressors on some of the newer comfort cabs are larger than the engine on the Turboliners. Anybody have any statistics on the engine/HP/ fuel consumption compared to a Genesis?

Each power car had a 1200 gallon tank but it could not make two round trips on one fill up, the Genesis P32acdm has a 2100 gllon tank good for 3 round trips.

The turbo range on its tanks was adverized as 840 miles on original turbines, it never ever came close and the later turbines were of higher capacity.

The Turbo liners always had a Engineer, conductor, trainman and technician as crew, so cost of extra crew member 24/7 was high.

With a Turbine about 90% of energy heads out the stack moving or standing.

The electric third rail mode, with only one traction motor in each powercar, had not enough power to pull the turbo liner through the east river tunnels unless the train was absolutly empty.

With only 263 seats in 5 cars, the consist can be easely beat by 4 amfleets and a food service car, you would gain about 100 seats.

So is this debacle proof that: 1) Amtrak is an horribly defective organization? 2) NYS is an horribly defective organization? 3) Both are horribly defective organizations?

 

[Dutchrailnut]

No its proof that, if I fix my neighbours old car, he has no obligation to start using it, no matter how much money I spend.

The Neighbour is fully authorized to scrap the car cause he feels like it, after all he owns it.

Now as for me not fixing the road that my neighbours car was to run on thats another matter.

 

[AlanB]

This was all about some politicians in NY State wanting to make it look like they were doing something for high-speed rail, as well as providing some jobs for NY residents. No one ever stopped to examine if it was a good idea or cost effective, or if they did stop to do that, then the results were quietly swept under the carpet.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

gas turbine jet engines are relatively small and lightweight for the amount of power they generate. Hence their use on jet airliners and helicopters. Abrams tanks use them, if I recall correctly. Airliners cruise at very high altitudes. As high as possible, in fact, given the length of the trip and also depending on the altitude and directions of the jet stream for each flight. But those engines are really only relatively efficient at very high altitudes - 30,000 feet for instance. On the ground, they are truly horrible gas guzzlers. In fact I believe that the fuel per second used at taxiing around the airport is not much different than the fuel flow at 30,000 feet at cruising speed.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Gas-turbine engines...? I was figuring the refurbishment would have meant switching to some sort of diesel. No wonder they discontinued them/

 

[Galls]

gas turbine jet engines are relatively small and lightweight for the amount of power they generate. Hence their use on jet airliners and helicopters. Abrams tanks use them, if I recall correctly. Airliners cruise at very high altitudes. As high as possible, in fact, given the length of the trip and also depending on the altitude and directions of the jet stream for each flight. But those engines are really only relatively efficient at very high altitudes - 30,000 feet for instance. On the ground, they are truly horrible gas guzzlers. In fact I believe that the fuel per second used at taxiing around the airport is not much different than the fuel flow at 30,000 feet at cruising speed.

And the army has been regretting it ever since because they get 10 gallons per mile.

So it was mainly a political move on behalf of my remote upstate, but no one at amtrak said anything about the flaws of the move.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Gas-turbine engines...? I was figuring the refurbishment would have meant switching to some sort of diesel. No wonder they discontinued them/

The Turbo power cars could never support a diesel and cooling system, the construction is simply to light for such a powerplant.

 

[had8ley]

Gas-turbine engines...? I was figuring the refurbishment would have meant switching to some sort of diesel. No wonder they discontinued them/

The Turbo power cars could never support a diesel and cooling system, the construction is simply to light for such a powerplant.

If memory serves me correctly, the engine room wasn't much bigger than the cab of an SD-70.

 

[Mike S.]

3 were completed with 1 in conditional service.The rebuilder Supersteel would not provide schematics and manuals for rebuilt units, so Amtrak started to balk.

The AC was rebuilt with insufficient capacity, plus the fuel use/cost was through te roof.

Meanwhile NYS insisted on keeping supersteel occupied, but NYS failed to upgrade the track and signals from Poughkeepsie to Renselear.

So Amtrak who owns the trainsets, decided they did no longer want to use the money loosing sets, since performance could be easely matched with a P32acdm and 4 coaches, and save half the fuel plus they did not need a techinician like on the Turbo's.

So settlement is no turbo's and both NYS and Amtrak can dispose of the cars each has in custody, look in your local scrapyard for a follow up on the story.

Currently there is no turbo trains in service anywhere in world, so Amtraks decision is not a singular event.

What speed would the increase in signals bring from Poughkeepsie to Renslear bring? Isn't this presently 110mph territory? Or is it 90mph?

I wish I could find a map of Max track speeds in NYS on the Empire Line.

Mike S.

 

[AlanB]

3 were completed with 1 in conditional service.The rebuilder Supersteel would not provide schematics and manuals for rebuilt units, so Amtrak started to balk.

The AC was rebuilt with insufficient capacity, plus the fuel use/cost was through te roof.

Meanwhile NYS insisted on keeping supersteel occupied, but NYS failed to upgrade the track and signals from Poughkeepsie to Renselear.

So Amtrak who owns the trainsets, decided they did no longer want to use the money loosing sets, since performance could be easely matched with a P32acdm and 4 coaches, and save half the fuel plus they did not need a techinician like on the Turbo's.

So settlement is no turbo's and both NYS and Amtrak can dispose of the cars each has in custody, look in your local scrapyard for a follow up on the story.

Currently there is no turbo trains in service anywhere in world, so Amtraks decision is not a singular event.

What speed would the increase in signals bring from Poughkeepsie to Renslear bring? Isn't this presently 110mph territory? Or is it 90mph?

I wish I could find a map of Max track speeds in NYS on the Empire Line.

Mike S.

The plan was to get parts of the line up to 125 MPH, they even put in quad gates in perperation for that IIRC. Currently the line has varrying speeds up to a max of 110 MPH in a few places.

 

[George Harris]

The plan was to get parts of the line up to 125 MPH, they even put in quad gates in perperation for that IIRC. Currently the line has varrying speeds up to a max of 110 MPH in a few places.

And it won't get any faster without a lot of work to straighten out the curves. Any part over 110 mph would be so short as to be meaningless, In fact, I would not be surprised if the 110 mph segments are almost pointless as well. If they could get more at a consistent 90 mph by getting rid of some of the more crooked areas it would be more worthwhile.

Just for reference:

from: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/twgreport.htm

The FRA's rail safety regulations require that crossings be separated or closed where trains operate at speeds above 125 mph (49 CFR 213.347(a)). Additionally, if train operation is projected at FRA track class 7 (111 - 125mph) an application must be made to the FRA for approval of the type of warning/barrier system. The regulation does not specify the type of system, but allows the petitioner to propose a suitable system for FRA review.
In 1998, the FRA issued an Order of Particular Applicability for high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor. In the Order, the FRA set a maximum operating speed of 80 mph over any highway-rail crossing where only conventional warning systems are in place and a maximum operating speed of 95 mph where 4-quadrant gates and presence detection are provided and tied into the signal system. Grade crossings are prohibited on the Northeast Corridor if maximum operating speeds exceed 95 mph.

I added the bold. I wonder if New York state even bothered to see what types of warnings the FRA would accept for their supposed 125 mph parts or if, like the rest of this debacle, just decided to do what they wanted to do and thought everybody else would go along with it.

 

[Mike S.]

Good points. There is a lot of work to do. From a selfish point of view, much need to be done between NIA and ALB. Getting the time down from 8.5 to say 6 hours (doable) would make it a lot easier for many in this neck of the woods to take the train instead of driving. Right now, I can drive faster than Amtrak can get me there. They could tap into a bunch more business by marketing it as an alternative to driving...as long as it doesn't take any longer.

 

[George Harris]

Good points. There is a lot of work to do. From a selfish point of view, much need to be done between NIA and ALB. Getting the time down from 8.5 to say 6 hours (doable) would make it a lot easier for many in this neck of the woods to take the train instead of driving. Right now, I can drive faster than Amtrak can get me there. They could tap into a bunch more business by marketing it as an alternative to driving...as long as it doesn't take any longer.

Even if close to the same a driving time, a lot of people would probably figure out that the train was the better choice. new York State needs to try something like California has done, all with state money, in the service down the San Joquin Valley. Six trains each way a day, about a 50 mph average speed, so if you make any sort of a meal stop or break in your trip, the train is equal or faster, and you can sit, eat, read, work on your laptop, etc. and arrive much more relaxed. And this is being run on a mostly single track line with a maximum of 79 mph that also carries quite a few freight trains. Great dispatching by BNSF helps a lot. The state has also paid for some track and signal improvements, as well, and built or restored all the stations and platforms. Your problem lies in Albany, not Washington.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Good points. There is a lot of work to do. From a selfish point of view, much need to be done between NIA and ALB. Getting the time down from 8.5 to say 6 hours (doable) would make it a lot easier for many in this neck of the woods to take the train instead of driving. Right now, I can drive faster than Amtrak can get me there. They could tap into a bunch more business by marketing it as an alternative to driving...as long as it doesn't take any longer.

Even if close to the same a driving time, a lot of people would probably figure out that the train was the better choice. new York State needs to try something like California has done, all with state money, in the service down the San Joquin Valley. Six trains each way a day, about a 50 mph average speed, so if you make any sort of a meal stop or break in your trip, the train is equal or faster, and you can sit, eat, read, work on your laptop, etc. and arrive much more relaxed. And this is being run on a mostly single track line with a maximum of 79 mph that also carries quite a few freight trains. Great dispatching by BNSF helps a lot. The state has also paid for some track and signal improvements, as well, and built or restored all the stations and platforms. Your problem lies in Albany, not Washington.

As long as the main line from Poughkeepsie to Renselear and on to Buffalo were not owned by CSX you would be able to upgrade it, but with CSX its money wasted as they let it slide to below standard in no time.

Also the signalling would need to be upgraded from Renselear to Bufalo is not cab signal equipped and CSX likes to keep it that way.

 

[Galls]

Good points. There is a lot of work to do. From a selfish point of view, much need to be done between NIA and ALB. Getting the time down from 8.5 to say 6 hours (doable) would make it a lot easier for many in this neck of the woods to take the train instead of driving. Right now, I can drive faster than Amtrak can get me there. They could tap into a bunch more business by marketing it as an alternative to driving...as long as it doesn't take any longer.

Even if close to the same a driving time, a lot of people would probably figure out that the train was the better choice. new York State needs to try something like California has done, all with state money, in the service down the San Joquin Valley. Six trains each way a day, about a 50 mph average speed, so if you make any sort of a meal stop or break in your trip, the train is equal or faster, and you can sit, eat, read, work on your laptop, etc. and arrive much more relaxed. And this is being run on a mostly single track line with a maximum of 79 mph that also carries quite a few freight trains. Great dispatching by BNSF helps a lot. The state has also paid for some track and signal improvements, as well, and built or restored all the stations and platforms. Your problem lies in Albany, not Washington.

Albany is currently going broke. As NYS besides having the center of the world, is a rust belt state.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

What makes you call NYS a rust belt state? Its one of the most gorgeous states in the country and I wish I lived there.

 

[Galls]

What makes you call NYS a rust belt state? Its one of the most gorgeous states in the country and I wish I lived there.

Well I do live there, in the center of the world part.

But outside of NYC the state is hurting. Upstate was reliant on manufacturing jobs, jobs which have left, leaving a lot of buildings up there rusting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_belt

 

[George Harris]

Any comment that I could make on the "center of the world" illusion that New York has of itself would probably start a flame war.