Turboliner, anyone?

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Merritt Mullen

unread,
Apr 19, 2008, 1:28:27 AM4/19/08
to
A classified ad in Progressive Railroading as forwarded by RailPAC.

ROHR TURBOLINERS FOR SALE

Amtrak has available for sale seven (7) trainsets of Rohr Turboliners
(Direct Drive Gas Turbines) and associated spare parts inventory. Each
trainset consists of a combination power and coach at each end and three
intermediate coaches, one with a food service facility. Three (3)
trainsets have been overhauled and are stored in Delaware; four (4)
trainsets are in various stages of overhaul and are stored in New York.
Contact information provided below for interested parties:( B. A.
Hastings, Officer Asset Recovery, Telephone Number: 215-349-1192 E-mail:
has...@amtrak.com
//

Posted by Merritt

Jishnu Mukerji

unread,
Apr 19, 2008, 10:05:34 AM4/19/08
to

This is the agreement between NY State DOT and Amtrak that we heard
about at the NARP Region II meeting being put into action.

Bob Scheurle

unread,
Apr 19, 2008, 4:06:05 PM4/19/08
to
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:05:34 GMT, Jishnu Mukerji
<jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>This is the agreement between NY State DOT and Amtrak that we heard
>about at the NARP Region II meeting being put into action.

I doubt anyone would buy them. Look for them in a local scrap yard soon.

Jishnu Mukerji

unread,
Apr 19, 2008, 9:27:14 PM4/19/08
to

That is the plan, but they are required to offer them for sale as per
the agreement as I understand it.

Joe Versaggi

unread,
Apr 20, 2008, 7:30:00 PM4/20/08
to

The will all join the Midwest and UA Turbos in railroad heaven (or hell).

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 10:50:32 AM4/21/08
to
On Apr 19, 1:28 am, Merritt Mullen <mmullen8...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> ROHR TURBOLINERS FOR SALE

Could someone explain the purpose of buying turboliners in the first
place? What specific characteristics did they have that made them
superior to existing diesel-electric or straight electric equipment?

It appears that the orignal United Aircraft models for the New Haven
line and the later models for the Albany line always had poor
mechanical reliability.


Would the trainsets now for sale have any value as a shell, that is,
for the engine units to be refitted with normal engines, and the
coaches to be used as coaches? Isn't there now a coach shortage?

Candide

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 11:33:42 AM4/21/08
to


<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:73c24176-0518-4c1d...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...


On Apr 19, 1:28 am, Merritt Mullen <mmullen8...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> ROHR TURBOLINERS FOR SALE

Could someone explain the purpose of buying turboliners in the first
place? What specific characteristics did they have that made them
superior to existing diesel-electric or straight electric equipment?

Purpose was to give high-speed rail without having to electrify a line,
and at speeds faster than a diesel locomotive.

Designed and built in France, Turboliners would run on diesel power at
low speeds, then switch to gas turbine engines for speeds up to 147kph.
IIRC, 41 units were built, Amtrak bought two, others were sent to Iran
and another country (forget who).

After 1973 with the price of oil going up, the costs of running
turboliners in France no longer made them feasible, and France moved to
the TGV. IIRC, Amtrak ran it's turboliners between NYC and Chicago,
with limited success, and they were withdrawn from service.


It appears that the original United Aircraft models for the New Haven


line and the later models for the Albany line always had poor
mechanical reliability.


Would the trainsets now for sale have any value as a shell, that is,
for the engine units to be refitted with normal engines, and the
coaches to be used as coaches? Isn't there now a coach shortage?

Am not sure, but think these are train sets, much like TGVs or Acelas.
IIRC, bogies are between cars making them joint units.


Merritt Mullen

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 12:53:39 PM4/21/08
to
In article
<73c24176-0518-4c1d...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Apr 19, 1:28 am, Merritt Mullen <mmullen8...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > ROHR TURBOLINERS FOR SALE
>
> Could someone explain the purpose of buying turboliners in the first
> place? What specific characteristics did they have that made them
> superior to existing diesel-electric or straight electric equipment?

A gas turbine engine produces lots of power at low weight, but usually
at the cost of low fuel efficiency. If fuel cost is not a concern, they
make good powerplants for non-electric lightweight high speed trains.

> It appears that the orignal United Aircraft models for the New Haven
> line and the later models for the Albany line always had poor
> mechanical reliability.

Plus the tendency to catch fire.

> Would the trainsets now for sale have any value as a shell, that is,
> for the engine units to be refitted with normal engines, and the
> coaches to be used as coaches? Isn't there now a coach shortage?

A regular diesel-electric engine would not fit because of size and
weight considerations. Direct diesel hydraulic drive would have similar
reliability problems, plus lower power output.

I don't believe the Turboliner coaches are compatible with standard
Amtrak coaches (they may be articulated, I am not sure). In any case,
Amtrak does not currently have a coach shortage (although it will as
coaches get older and ridership increases). It does have a sleeping car
and diner shortage.

Merritt

Bob Scheurle

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 5:14:21 PM4/21/08
to
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:33:42 GMT, "Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com>
wrote:

>Designed and built in France, Turboliners would run on diesel power at
>low speeds, then switch to gas turbine engines for speeds up to 147kph.

No. The turbines burned diesel fuel. Perhaps you meant to say they
could also operate on electric power to access Grand Central Terminal
(and, later, NY Penn Station).

Bob Scheurle

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 5:22:08 PM4/21/08
to
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:50:32 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>Could someone explain the purpose of buying turboliners in the first
>place?

In 1973, Amtrak was in desperate need for modern equipment. The
Turboliners from France were already in service over there, and something
Amtrak could get on short notice. The order for Rohr Turboliners
followed in 1974, with those trains modified for American tastes.

Joseph D. Korman

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 6:27:04 PM4/21/08
to
Bob Scheurle wrote:

Not AMTRAK, but the LIRR experiments with turbos are in two of the
brochures on this page:

http://www.thejoekorner.com/lirrbrochures/index.html

One seems to be straight turbo power and the other turbo generation of
electric to traction motors.

I don't know how these compare with the types of turbos that AMTRAK used.

--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------

tobias benjamin koehler

unread,
Apr 21, 2008, 6:33:59 PM4/21/08
to
Bob Scheurle schrieb:

> In 1973, Amtrak was in desperate need for modern equipment. The
> Turboliners from France were already in service over there, and something
> Amtrak could get on short notice. The order for Rohr Turboliners
> followed in 1974, with those trains modified for American tastes.

The first generation of French turbotrains (ETG) had a diesel engine on
one end and a gas turbine on the other. The successor RTG had two
turbines. The trains were meant for high speed on non-electrified lines.

The TGV 001 also used gas turbines; after the high speed tests of 1955
showed the limitations of (low voltage DC) electrification, they thought
that unelectrified high speed lines with gas turbines would be a good
idea to avoid pickup problems.

The last SNCF RTG went out of service in 2004. Some may still be
operating in Iran.

gl4...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 12:38:21 AM4/22/08
to
In article <mmullen8014-FFBE...@netnews.mchsi.com>, Merritt
Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:

> In article
> <73c24176-0518-4c1d...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 1:28 am, Merritt Mullen <mmullen8...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > ROHR TURBOLINERS FOR SALE
> >
> > Could someone explain the purpose of buying turboliners in the first
> > place? What specific characteristics did they have that made them
> > superior to existing diesel-electric or straight electric equipment?
>
> A gas turbine engine produces lots of power at low weight, but usually
> at the cost of low fuel efficiency. If fuel cost is not a concern, they
> make good powerplants for non-electric lightweight high speed trains.


Gas turbines can do reasonably good at their maximum efficiency point, but
the problem is that fuel consumption per unit horsepower is horrible at
anything off the maximum efficiency point. Diesel engines have a much
broader range at which they are reasonable. Turbines from the 1970s would
be horrible, as these days much has been done to improve turbine
efficiency.


> A regular diesel-electric engine would not fit because of size and
> weight considerations. Direct diesel hydraulic drive would have similar
> reliability problems, plus lower power output.


A regular diesel engine would be heavier and larger, but at the same time
the British HST continues to prove (still running after all these years!)
that given light weight passenger cars and high speed diesel engine
designs, it is possible to build light weight diesel powered trains that
operate at fairly high speeds. Make no mistake either: when the HST first
appeared on the scene in the 1970s, the 125 mph speed was pretty much just
as fast as anything else operating in any other country at the time.

Nearly 40 years later, better materials and engine design could get us an
even better high speed diesel train. Currently, however, only Talgo is
trying to market such a machine.

--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.

tobias benjamin koehler

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 5:23:05 AM4/22/08
to
gl4...@yahoo.com schrieb:

> Gas turbines can do reasonably good at their maximum efficiency point, but
> the problem is that fuel consumption per unit horsepower is horrible at
> anything off the maximum efficiency point. Diesel engines have a much
> broader range at which they are reasonable. Turbines from the 1970s would
> be horrible, as these days much has been done to improve turbine
> efficiency.

Bombardier is apparently testing a gas turbine powercar similar to the
acela power units, what's coming out of this?

> Nearly 40 years later, better materials and engine design could get us an
> even better high speed diesel train. Currently, however, only Talgo is
> trying to market such a machine.

Germany built fast tilting diesel units (class 605) but found no way of
operating them economically. After years of standing around they are now
being used between Hamburg and Köbenhavn, allowing the Danish to free
some of their IC3 units needed for inland trains (as the Ansaldobreda
IC4 is delayed).

The British (partly tilting) class 221 and 222, both for 200 km/h, seem
to be more successful ....

Philip Nasadowski

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 6:45:03 AM4/22/08
to
In article <d024f$480dae78$5473814c$32...@news.chello.at>,

tobias benjamin koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bombardier is apparently testing a gas turbine powercar similar to the
> acela power units, what's coming out of this?

Nothing. Nobody was buying it in the US 5 years ago. Not surprisingly,
right now, there's even less interest in it, in North America....

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 5:08:31 PM4/22/08
to
Candide <PityM...@anywhere.com> wrote:

>Purpose was to give high-speed rail without having to electrify a line,
>and at speeds faster than a diesel locomotive.

>Designed and built in France, Turboliners would run on diesel power at
>low speeds, then switch to gas turbine engines for speeds up to 147kph.
>IIRC, 41 units were built, Amtrak bought two, others were sent to Iran
>and another country (forget who).

>After 1973 with the price of oil going up, the costs of running
>turboliners in France no longer made them feasible, and France moved to
>the TGV. IIRC, Amtrak ran it's turboliners between NYC and Chicago,
>with limited success, and they were withdrawn from service.

I recall them only in corridor service. In Chicago, they ran only to
Milwaukee and that was only at the end of their Amtrak service. The joke
was they'd never be too far from the shop.

Jaap van Dorp

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 5:41:29 PM4/22/08
to
No longer testing,the unit is stored in Pueblo at AAR test center.
The unit is property of USDOT, not bombardier, they only got right to
market the technology, but noone is interested.

Jaap

"tobias benjamin koehler" <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d024f$480dae78$5473814c$32...@news.chello.at...

Bob Scheurle

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 6:20:19 PM4/22/08
to
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:08:31 -0500, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
wrote:

>
>>IIRC, Amtrak ran it's turboliners between NYC and Chicago,
>>with limited success, and they were withdrawn from service.
>
>I recall them only in corridor service. In Chicago, they ran only to
>Milwaukee and that was only at the end of their Amtrak service. The joke
>was they'd never be too far from the shop.

Amtrak also used them NYC - Buffalo and NYC - Montreal.

Candide

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 6:47:09 PM4/22/08
to

"Bob Scheurle" <njt...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in message
news:o2ps0490knsavc2ue...@4ax.com...

IIRC there were two designs of the French Turboliner that ran on routes
out of Chicago to Detroit, St. Louis, and Milwaukee.

Let us not forget the other experiment Amtrak tried at the same time,
the LRC (Light, Rapid and Comfortable), trainsets, powered by "jet"
engines. Built by United Aircraft by Pullman in 1967, Amtrak ran them on
the NY-BOS route. Due to so many problems trains were retired in 1975,
and shipped to Canada.


Merritt Mullen

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 7:43:49 PM4/22/08
to
In article <NVtPj.7112$XY1.6671@trndny03>,
"Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com> wrote:

> Let us not forget the other experiment Amtrak tried at the same time,
> the LRC (Light, Rapid and Comfortable), trainsets, powered by "jet"
> engines. Built by United Aircraft by Pullman in 1967, Amtrak ran them on
> the NY-BOS route. Due to so many problems trains were retired in 1975,
> and shipped to Canada.

You are thinking of the UAC "TurboTrain", not the LRC. The "TurboTrain"
was replaced by the French (and later Rohr) "Turboliner."

The LRC was a tilting train (except for the locomotives) developed by
Montreal Locomotive Works (later Bombardier) that went into service
about 1980 in Canada. Amtrak leased some train sets but after trying
them sent them back to Canada. The LRC locomotives were retired in the
mid '90s, but the coaches are still used in Canada, pulled by standard
locomotives. I don't think the tilting mechanism is used any longer.

Merritt

Merritt Mullen

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 7:51:18 PM4/22/08
to
In article <d024f$480dae78$5473814c$32...@news.chello.at>,

tobias benjamin koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bombardier is apparently testing a gas turbine powercar similar to the
> acela power units, what's coming out of this?

Bombardier did develop and US DOT WAS testing a turbo-electric loco
similar to Acela electric power units, but as far as I know, the project
is dead. At one time, it was to be a test bed for the use of flywheel
energy storage being developed at the University of Texas, which was
thought to be a way to make the turbine more fuel efficient.

When Acela was first being developed, it was planned to build one turbo
(or possibly, diesel) powered train set for demonstration around the
U.S. in order to stir up interest in high-speed train service in
non-electrified territory. Budget issues eliminated that train set.

Merritt

Jaap van Dorp

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 8:17:43 PM4/22/08
to
The Chicago group was RTG the french built Turboliner.
The NY units were the Californie build Rohr Turboliner

Jaap

"Bob Scheurle" <njt...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in message
news:o2ps0490knsavc2ue...@4ax.com...

Jaap van Dorp

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 8:19:17 PM4/22/08
to
The LRC was not jet powered the LRC was a Alco powered MLW product.
I believe your confused by UA Turbo

"Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:NVtPj.7112$XY1.6671@trndny03...

gl4...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 11:27:03 PM4/22/08
to
In article <mmullen8014-3723...@netnews.mchsi.com>, Merritt
Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:

> When Acela was first being developed, it was planned to build one turbo
> (or possibly, diesel) powered train set for demonstration around the
> U.S. in order to stir up interest in high-speed train service in
> non-electrified territory. Budget issues eliminated that train set.


There's also the little issue that Bombardier doesn't really have any true
light weight passenger cars to put behind it - at least not in the same
category as what Talgo has produced.

If they really wanted to do such a demonstration, they could have mixed
one of the demonstration Talgos with the turbine locomotive, but
politically that would not have gone over that well within Bombardier.

Merritt Mullen

unread,
Apr 22, 2008, 11:56:50 PM4/22/08
to
In article <gl4316-2204...@69-30-11-77.pxd.easystreet.com>,
gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:

> In article <mmullen8014-3723...@netnews.mchsi.com>, Merritt
> Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > When Acela was first being developed, it was planned to build one turbo
> > (or possibly, diesel) powered train set for demonstration around the
> > U.S. in order to stir up interest in high-speed train service in
> > non-electrified territory. Budget issues eliminated that train set.
>
>
> There's also the little issue that Bombardier doesn't really have any true
> light weight passenger cars to put behind it - at least not in the same
> category as what Talgo has produced.

What they have are the Acela carriages, which I believe are a
modification of the LRC tilting carriages.

> If they really wanted to do such a demonstration, they could have mixed
> one of the demonstration Talgos with the turbine locomotive, but
> politically that would not have gone over that well within Bombardier.

The AMTRAK concept was a train set identical to Acela but with
diesel-electric or turbo-electric power.

I don't think it would have been wise to demonstrate a HS train set for
use around the country that was not FRA compliant. The U.S. Talgos have
to operate on a waiver.

A minor issue with using Acela coaches outside the NEC is that they
require high-level platforms. I suppose it is not too big a
modification to build them with steps and wheelchair lifts.

Merritt

Bob Scheurle

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 5:36:39 AM4/23/08
to
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:17:43 -0400, "Jaap van Dorp"
<GEjo...@comcast.spam.net> wrote:
>The Chicago group was RTG the french built Turboliner.
> The NY units were the Californie build Rohr Turboliner

The RTG units were also used in New York State.

tobias benjamin koehler

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 6:42:32 AM4/23/08
to
gl4...@yahoo.com schrieb:

> If they really wanted to do such a demonstration, they could have mixed
> one of the demonstration Talgos with the turbine locomotive, but
> politically that would not have gone over that well within Bombardier.

Bombardier is cooperating with Talgo in other markets (the Talgo 350 =
AVE 102 high speed train in Spain), so why not here?

Jaap van Dorp

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 6:44:12 AM4/23/08
to
Only one or two RTG's which were upgraded to RTL standards with electric
propulsion.
They looked like the Rohrs but still had the European buffer couplers
between the cars, the RTG had severe restrictions in GCT and later burned
out on NYP.

Jaap

"Bob Scheurle" <njt...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in message

news:pn0u041enskdnj3up...@4ax.com...

dyonisien

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 7:38:56 AM4/23/08
to
On 22 avr, 00:33, tobias benjamin koehler <tbk.un...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]

> The last SNCF RTG went out of service in 2004. Some may still be
> operating in Iran.

and in Egypt, between Cairo and Alexandria with intermediate carriages
and maximum speed 140/160 km/h.
Here are two pictures :http://pagesperso-orange.fr/trains_du_sud-ouest/
Images/cairo.jpg
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/trains_du_sud-ouest/Images/cairo4.jpg

Because they are called "turbini" there, most western people
(including most travel guides) write about them being "italian" and
everybody copies this error. They look and SOUND like true RTG
relatives though !

Dyonisien

James Robinson

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 8:58:19 AM4/23/08
to
"Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com> wrote:

> Let us not forget the other experiment Amtrak tried at the same time,
> the LRC (Light, Rapid and Comfortable), trainsets, powered by "jet"
> engines. Built by United Aircraft by Pullman in 1967, Amtrak ran them
> on the NY-BOS route. Due to so many problems trains were retired in
> 1975, and shipped to Canada.

As others have pointed out, you have merged two different trains in your
description.

The United Aircraft TurboTrain entered service in about 1966 in Canada
and the US, so they were before Amtrak's creation. It was designed by
the helicopter division of UAC (Sikorsky), based on passive tilting body
designs that originated with the C&O railroad. It was powered by UAC
turbines, which were mechanically connected to the driving axles in each
power car through gearboxes. (Free running turbines)

The UAC TurboTrain sets used by Amtrak were short consists, and were
therefore not very practical, other than to demonstrate the benefits of
tilting body equipment. Being a completely new design, they had a number
of teething problems, that were eventually sorted out.

CN in Canada extended their sets to 9 cars, holding about 260
passengers, and they were somewhat successful until retired from service
due to high fuel cost. They rode poorly, particularly on jointed rail,
though passengers generally liked them.

The Amtrak sets were scrapped in the US.

The LRC was designed by a consortium that included Alcan Aluminum and
Montreal Locomotive Works. It entered service 10 years after the UAC
Turbo. Amtrak leased some sets that were designed to their
specification, and used them between Boston and New York City for a
while, before returning them. They didn't want to sort out the design
problems, but VIA Rail did work through them, and the cars form the basis
of their eastern corridor service to this day. The locomotives were
retired when it came time for rebuilding them, and were replaced with
GEs.

The active tilting designs from the LRC were the basis for the tilting
equipment in the Acela train sets.

Jishnu Mukerji

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 10:11:13 AM4/23/08
to
Merritt Mullen wrote:
> The AMTRAK concept was a train set identical to Acela but with
> diesel-electric or turbo-electric power.
>
> I don't think it would have been wise to demonstrate a HS train set for
> use around the country that was not FRA compliant. The U.S. Talgos have
> to operate on a waiver.
>
> A minor issue with using Acela coaches outside the NEC is that they
> require high-level platforms. I suppose it is not too big a
> modification to build them with steps and wheelchair lifts.

My understanding is that as long as compliance with FRA Tier II
requirements are ditched it would be possible to build traps for
boarding from low level platforms. Apparently Tier II requires there to
be no break in the sill or some such making traps for boarding from low
level platforms difficult to achieve.

I am sure there are others better informed than me who would be able to
disabuse me of the errors of my understanding if there indeed is an
error on this matter.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 7:12:56 PM4/23/08
to

But that was at the beginning of their life. They weren't purchased for
Chicago-Milwaukee, which is suburban train distance.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 7:15:18 PM4/23/08
to
Jaap van Dorp <GEjo...@comcast.spam.net> wrote:

>The Chicago group was RTG the french built Turboliner.
> The NY units were the Californie build Rohr Turboliner

Thanks for the correction. I had thought the Chicago set was
previously used in New York service.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 7:15:40 PM4/23/08
to
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Bob Scheurle <njt...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:08:31 -0500, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>IIRC, Amtrak ran it's turboliners between NYC and Chicago,
>>>>with limited success, and they were withdrawn from service.
>>>
>>>I recall them only in corridor service. In Chicago, they ran only to
>>>Milwaukee and that was only at the end of their Amtrak service. The joke
>>>was they'd never be too far from the shop.
>>
>>Amtrak also used them NYC - Buffalo and NYC - Montreal.
>
>But that was at the beginning of their life. They weren't purchased for
>Chicago-Milwaukee, which is suburban train distance.

Comment withdrawn.

James Robinson

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 7:54:32 PM4/23/08
to
Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:

> The LRC locomotives were retired in the mid '90s, but the coaches are
> still used in Canada, pulled by standard locomotives. I don't think
> the tilting mechanism is used any longer.

I believe the tilting mechanisms are used to improve passenger comfort, if
they are working, but I also understand they frequently aren't working.

Merritt Mullen

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 8:31:28 PM4/23/08
to
In article <12089598...@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com>,
Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.hp.com> wrote:

> My understanding is that as long as compliance with FRA Tier II
> requirements are ditched it would be possible to build traps for
> boarding from low level platforms. Apparently Tier II requires there to
> be no break in the sill or some such making traps for boarding from low
> level platforms difficult to achieve.

Interesting. I didn't realize that. Seems a good engineer could design
steps that did not reduce the strength of the car. But FRA does not
seem to put much store in "good" (read, innovative) engineering.

I remember when the US was the world leader in such things. Sigh...

Merritt

Bob Scheurle

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 9:22:38 PM4/23/08
to
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:44:12 -0400, "Jaap van Dorp"
<GEjo...@comcast.spam.net> wrote:
> Only one or two RTG's which were upgraded to RTL standards with electric
>propulsion.
> They looked like the Rohrs but still had the European buffer couplers
>between the cars, the RTG had severe restrictions in GCT and later burned
>out on NYP.

They didn't look like the Rohrs. They had manually-operated doors and
tiny, chickenwire overhead baggage racks. I recall that they had the
original RTG-style noses. I had the misfortune of riding one from Albany
to NY Penn Station, I believe in July 1992.

gl4...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 23, 2008, 10:50:03 PM4/23/08
to
In article <mmullen8014-4976...@netnews.mchsi.com>, Merritt
Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:

> > If they really wanted to do such a demonstration, they could have mixed
> > one of the demonstration Talgos with the turbine locomotive, but
> > politically that would not have gone over that well within Bombardier.
>
> The AMTRAK concept was a train set identical to Acela but with
> diesel-electric or turbo-electric power.
>
> I don't think it would have been wise to demonstrate a HS train set for
> use around the country that was not FRA compliant. The U.S. Talgos have
> to operate on a waiver.


The ones in service today require a waiver, because they were completed
while the regulations were changing. On the other hand, any of the number
of European railway stock that has operated here (Flexliner, X2000, etc.)
also require a waiver to operate as a demonstration unit. That didn't
keep the Flexliner from operating many trips as the Mt. Baker before the
Talgos arrived.

The current design (but not yet built, due to Olympia's funding situation
for the next set of trains) is compliant with Tier 1:
http://www.talgousa.com/talgo_xxi.asp
True, this does limit them to 125 mph in the USA, while Acela's cars can
go up to 150 mph. I'm not convinced that is such a big deal, considering
the amount of non-electrified track in the USA that allows for operation
above 125 mph.

In the case of the demonstration Talgo, yes they would have to have a
waiver, but one would not be required should regular service start with
FRA Tier 1 stock built to today's standards. In the case of a purpose
built turbotrain demonstrator Talgo set, a Talgo XXI could be built to the
current regulations and not require a waiver as long as the speed was kept
below 125 mph.

Philip Nasadowski

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 7:43:13 AM4/24/08
to
In article <gl4316-2304...@69-30-11-10.pxd.easystreet.com>,
gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:

> On the other hand, any of the number
> of European railway stock that has operated here (Flexliner, X2000, etc.)
> also require a waiver to operate as a demonstration unit.

Not on any crash regulations. The waiver on the X-2000 was for mostly
minor stuff, headlights, lack of sanders, top speed, cant deficiency,
etc.

Of course, today, they wouldn't even be considered since there's no way
the FRA would allow them anyway.

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 9:46:14 AM4/24/08
to
On Apr 23, 10:11 am, Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.hp.com> wrote:

> My understanding is that as long as compliance with FRA Tier II
> requirements are ditched it would be possible to build traps for
> boarding from low level platforms. Apparently Tier II requires there to
> be no break in the sill or some such making traps for boarding from low
> level platforms difficult to achieve.

I understand that the new SEPTA Silverliners due next year no longer
have the traps in the vestibule, but in mid-train, for that reason.
That is, the ends have to be tougher than in the past.

By having the doors at the car ends, one conductor can watch two
doors. I hope the loss of that design doesn't increase boarding/
alighting accidents

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 9:49:54 AM4/24/08
to
On Apr 23, 8:31 pm, Merritt Mullen <mmullen8...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Interesting.  I didn't realize that.  Seems a good engineer could design
> steps that did not reduce the strength of the car.  But FRA does not
> seem to put much store in "good" (read, innovative) engineering.
>
> I remember when the US was the world leader in such things.  Sigh...

The U.S. had two first rate carbuilders, The Budd Company and St.
Louis Car. But the feast and famine orders, inflation during the life
of the order, and other issues caused those companies to close. The
former Budd Red Lion Rd plant in Phila is now a golf course.

I was not a big fan of modern Pullman-built equipment, or aeronautics
companies switched into railcars (like Rohr, Boeing).

Jishnu Mukerji

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 11:34:35 AM4/24/08
to

Silverliners have to just meet the new Tier I requirements. They do not
need to meet Tier II requirements since they are not designed to travel
at more than 125mph.

Merritt Mullen

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 3:09:31 PM4/24/08
to
In article
<c8165b64-854f-4263...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> By having the doors at the car ends, one conductor can watch two
> doors. I hope the loss of that design doesn't increase boarding/
> alighting accidents

Needing a conductor to watch each door (or an adjacent pair of doors) is
a indicator of inefficient operation that should be designed out.

Merritt

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 3:27:11 PM4/24/08
to
On Apr 24, 11:34 am, Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> Silverliners have to just meet the new Tier I requirements. They do not
> need to meet Tier II requirements since they are not designed to travel
> at more than 125mph.

What are the "new Tier I" requirements? Are they different than when
the original Silverliners were built in 1963 (800,000 lbs buffing
strength?)

I was told the steps and door were removed from the vestibule because
otherwise it could not be adequately strengthened; that is, having a
corner door was incompatible with strength construction.

tobias benjamin koehler

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 3:36:38 PM4/24/08
to
Merritt Mullen schrieb:

> Needing a conductor to watch each door (or an adjacent pair of doors) is
> a indicator of inefficient operation that should be designed out.

It depends whether the law allows a purely technical solution ....

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 3:39:35 PM4/24/08
to
On Apr 24, 3:09 pm, Merritt Mullen <mmullen8...@mchsi.com> wrote:

> Needing a conductor to watch each door (or an adjacent pair of doors) is
> a indicator of inefficient operation that should be designed out.

Well, converting some 200 stations to high platform would be nice if
there was money to do so. Many of those stations are high up or in
cuts which came about through grade crossing elimination. The
platforms are reached by staircases where there's no room for a ramp,
or ramps that are too steep to support wheelchairs. Stations also
have pedestrian tunnels or bridges reached only by steps. So, in
order to build high platforms, handicapped accessibility must be
provided as well, and cost becomes very high.

On the Paoli line sometimes passengers board from the middle tracks.
High platforms would eliminate this option and greatly reduce
operational flexibility.

On most lines there may be freight service and high platforms would
limit certain freight cars. A couple of lines have heavy trunk line
freight service where high & wide loads pass by.

In 1968 the State of New York converted many NYC area platforms to
high level. None were accessible and it was kind of rush job with
light materials, with some stations today needing to be redone as
aluminum shelters and stairwells are worn out. Back then steps were
used as there was no accessibility requirement back then. The State
of NY spent quite a bit of money on this project but it ended up with
an enormous budget deficit as a result.

Everybody agrees some SEPTA railroad routes would be better as light
rail routes, except that the tracks are shared with freight, other
commuter lines, and/or with Amtrak, and light rail can't mix. Another
critical issue is that riders LIKE having a visible conductor and the
comforts of a real train which is why they choose the train over the
subway and would not ride a subway extension if offered.

Jishnu Mukerji

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 4:14:25 PM4/24/08
to
tobias benjamin koehler wrote:

Apparently each railroad gets to spin their own rules on this at least
in NJ. As a result of the accident in Belmar where someone got caught in
a door and was dragged to his death, and the rear flag was not at the
rear door observing the platform as the train left the station, the
first thing that NJT did is fired said flag-person. The second thing
that they did is removed the requirement for the rear flag to be at the
rear door from their operating regulations. Now said person can be in
any of the doors in the last few cars. So go figure.

Bob Scheurle

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 5:39:07 PM4/24/08
to
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:39:35 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> Needing a conductor to watch each door (or an adjacent pair of doors) is
>> a indicator of inefficient operation that should be designed out.
>
>Well, converting some 200 stations to high platform would be nice if
>there was money to do so.

Montreal operates 10-car trains with low-level platforms with 2 crew
members. All they have is an engineer and a conductor on the train.

John Albert

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 7:47:31 PM4/24/08
to
Merritt wrote:
<< Needing a conductor to watch each door (or an adjacent
pair of doors) is a indicator of inefficient operation that
should be designed out. >>

I assure you that it will be, Merritt - immediately AFTER
they succeed in "designing out" passenger clumsiness and
stupidity!

- John

Merritt Mullen

unread,
Apr 24, 2008, 8:38:27 PM4/24/08