Turboliners for Sale

You mean these?

    I have seen a Turboliner in a junk yard in south central Indiana. I'm not sure of the town but it can be seen on the north side of the highway and is still painted in what looks like its original colors. Spare parts?

There were some differences between the French imports and the Rohr Americanized versions.  The most notable was the nose.  The Rohr trainsets has a sleek, tapered nose where the French imports had a more bulbous affair.

The other notable difference was the car body width.  The Rohr trainsets had a full 10' wide carbody, the French trainsets were only about 9' wide.

In 1973,Amtrak bought six 5 car RTG Trains from ANF Industires of France. These trains were to SNCF Specs in all respects except the paint job and TiteLoc couplers at each end to permit towing. They  were powered by two 1140 hp dual shaft gas turbines that propelled the trains  to a maximum speed of 125 mph. The cars were only 9'-5" wide as opposed the US 10' and  standards such as buff strength were below the FRA requirement of 800,000 lbs. However, since the loaded weight was under 300 tons, they were permitted to run on a waiver. The RTG's went into service in the Chicago-St Louis Corridor. (In later years, two of the RTG's were renovated by Amtrak including replacement of the RTG nose with an RTL nose. The renovation was not particularly effective and the trains were finally scrapped.) Customer response was so enthusiastic that in the fall of 1973 Amtrak placed an order for 7 trains (with an option for 7 more) with Rohr Industires specifying an Americanized version meeting all FRA requirements. The first train was delivered in June of 1976 with the balance of the order completed on Christmas eve of the same year. The Rohr (RTL) Trains were bought to run in the Northeast Corridor but before delivery started, a deal was made with New York State to run them in the Empire Corridor instead. It was rumored that the change was made out of fear that the RTL's would be so successful that electrification could never be sold for the Boston-New Haven segment.

The RTL's ran in the Albany-NYC corridor until 1995.  During this time they continued to be very popular with the riding public but Amtrak chose to standardize on diesel electric power in non-electrified corridors and they were retired. However New York State wanted the service contined and in 1996, the New York State Department of Transportation, in the interests of improving high-speed rail in the state, entered an agreement with Amtrak whereby NYSDOT would receive title to seven RTL Turboliner Trains and do a complete renovation after which they would be returned to Amtrak service in the Empire Corridor. Amtrak's part of the agreement was to upgrade rail in the selected corridor to permit sustained speeds of 125 mph. The trains in question had been retired after over 20 million miles of reliable service over a 20-year period. Typical of renovation projects, this one ran behind schedule with the first train completing acceptance testing in 2003. Trains 2 and 3 followed shortly. In the meantime, however, Amtrak was experiencing a deteriorating financial position resulting in a management change. The new management gave notice that it was reneging on the agreement. This resulted in a lawsuit by NYSDOT against Amtrak that resulted in a $20 million award to NYSDOT.

 The present status of the trains is as follows:

• Train 1-in storage, ready to run
• Train 2- in storage, ready to run
• Train 3-in storage, ready to run following acceptance 
• Train 4-work stopped in final stages
• Train 5-work stopped
• Train 6-work stopped
• Train 7-scrapped.

These trains consist of two power cars, two coaches and a food service car. Each train typically has 27 Business Class seats and 236 standard seats. Total weight fully loaded is 317 tons. Traction power is provided by two TM1600 gas turbines delivering a total of 3100 HP to hydraulic transmissions for a fully loaded power to weight ratio of 9.8 HP/ton.

This probably more than you ever wanted to know.

Jerome R. Pier,  P.E. 

Engineering and Program   Mgr for the Rohr trains                        

Consultant on the Super Steel Trains

Not more than I wanted to know!  That was great!

One question:  I had heard thru the grapevine that the carbody structure was quite rusty and that was part of the reason for the rebuild taking so long.  Any truth in that?

NCDOT is currently busy rehabilitating the trains for the new Charlotte to Raleigh train being put in service as soon as it's out of the shop.

But after that .............

Jerry,

What was the hourly fuel consumption for the TM1600 at full throttle?  I wondered about this for a long time.

Incidently, the Turbos also ran to Detroit and Milwaukee.  I recall discussion about adding a sixth car from another set to increase capacity; but I never witnessed such a consist around Chicago.

Illinois didn't take a serious look at 125-mph service between Chicago and Saint Louis until around 1990, well after the Turbos were gone.  I no longer have a copy of the study for IDOT, but around $350 million was estimated for flawed and politically doomed grade separation and crossing elimination proposals.  Even if the rail passenger office was filled with politically connected and Springfield residents with little planning or rail experience, a national consulting firm was employed.  

I liked the RTG's, having ridden them in the US and later in France.  Ironically, my ride in France was in the scenic hills/mountains of Central France between Bordeaux and Lyon and speed was only around 40 mph. 

Hundreds of people came to the Bloomington station to see the innaugural run, and there was similar excitement at other stops.  Publicity and buzz like that is hard to come by now.

The Bordeaux - Lyon line was interesting for its manual block signaling with counter-weighted cables and pulleys rather than steel rods and cranks to set turnouts and signals.

Don, 

This rumor was completely false although it was repeated by some SuperSteel people, possibly as an excuse. ANF, which built the car bodies, used a labor intensive procedure to accomplish a ripple-free surface from welded steel sheets. After the car body structure was completed, the side wall were flattened by using a powerful electro-magnet on the outside pulling against an armature on the inside. The armature had numeous holes, 2 or 3 inches in diameter in it. heat was applied with a torch through these hole holes, relieving residual stresses left from the welding process and shrinking the metal. After this process was completed, the car body was sandblasted and a heavy layer of a "Bondo"-like material sprayed on. This was then troweled flat in a manner similar to that used in plastering. The standard for flatness was that a a gap of no more than 1 millimeter could not be exceeded over the length of a 3 meter bar positioned anywhere on the car side.

I strongly advised SuperSteel to avoid sand blasting all of this material off and rather to do a  spot repair. They ignored this recommendation. When the torch spots occuring in the original straightening process showed up, they had no idea what it was they were seeing and started the rumor. In fact, the sandblasting process revealed very little rust, all of which could have been handled with spot repairs. Since they lacked the expertise to repeat the French process, cemented plastic panels below the windows were substitued and  autobody repair people were hired to do the Bondo thing between the windows. The end product does not look bad but its durability has yet to be tested.

Harvey,

The TM1200 has a BSFC of 0.494 at its full power of 1542 HP. This works out to be about 109 gallons per hour based on 7 lbs/gal for diesel 2. Two TM1200's total 2288 lbs while a 3000 hp diesel will weigh more than 40,000. The weight saving compensates somewhat for the higher fuel consumption compared to a diesel and the turbine's exhaust emissions are far lower.

Incidently, I was on thet inaugural RTG run to St Louis representing Rohr Industries

Jerry Pier wrote:

Don,  This rumor was completely false although it was repeated by some SuperSteel people, possibly as an excuse. ANF, which built the car bodies, used a labor intensive procedure to accomplish a ripple-free surface from welded steel sheets. After the car body structure was completed, the side wall were flattened by using a powerful electro-magnet on the outside pulling against an armature on the inside. The armature had numeous holes, 2 or 3 inches in diameter in it. heat was applied with a torch through these hole holes, relieving residual stresses left from the welding process and shrinking the metal. After this process was completed, the car body was sandblasted and a heavy layer of a "Bondo"-like material sprayed on. This was then troweled flat in a manner similar to that used in plastering. The standard for flatness was that a a gap of no more than 1 millimeter could not be exceeded over the length of a 3 meter bar positioned anywhere on the car side. I strongly advised SuperSteel to avoid sand blasting all of this material off and rather to do a  spot repair. They ignored this recommendation. When the torch spots occuring in the original straightening process showed up, they had no idea what it was they were seeing and started the rumor. In fact, the sandblasting process revealed very little rust, all of which could have been handled with spot repairs. Since they lacked the expertise to repeat the French process, cemented plastic panels below the windows were substitued and  autobody repair people were hired to do the Bondo thing between the windows. The end product does not look bad but its durability has yet to be tested.

Interesting!  Thanks, Jerry.

Sounds to me like these would have been just the ticket for the NYP-AC service the casinos have contracted with NJT for (provided there's still 3rd rail in the Hudson River tunnel.), or even NC's Piedmonts.

Jerry Pier wrote:

Harvey, The TM1200 has a BSFC of 0.494 at its full power of 1542 HP. This works out to be about 109 gallons per hour based on 7 lbs/gal for diesel 2. Two TM1200's total 2288 lbs while a 3000 hp diesel will weigh more than 40,000. The weight saving compensates somewhat for the higher fuel consumption compared to a diesel and the turbine's exhaust emissions are far lower. Incidently, I was on thet inaugural RTG run to St Louis representing Rohr Industries

A random point of comparison:  An EMD SD50's BSFC in N8 is 0.34.

The TM1200 has a BSFC of 0.494 at its full power of 1542 HP. This works out to be about 109 gallons per hour based on 7 lbs/gal for diesel 2. Two TM1200's total 2288 lbs while a 3000 hp diesel will weigh more than 40,000. The weight saving compensates somewhat for the higher fuel consumption compared to a diesel and the turbine's exhaust emissions are far lower.

Thanks once again to Jerry for contributing all of the info on something many of us are interested in.  The description of the novel manufacturing process is something I had not heard about, and it indicates that ANF was developing a technique to get long life that did not require stainless steel.

The BSFC 0f .494 is not out of line of what they used to get with Diesels, but Diesels have been a "moving target" and have improved over the years as Don Oltmann indicated.  The big problem with turbines is what they use at part load.  In the railroad application where you have station dwell time, less-than-full-speed running, cruise power that is much lower than acceleration power, you are operating the turbines at far from optimal fuel consumption.

I read in Aviation Week that the Turboliners idled one of the turbines and cruised on the second turbine -- apparently this saved some fuel over running both turbines at half load.

Jerry.

Thanks for the numbers.

As I recall, an E8 burned 114 g/h and a turbo-charged F40 130 g/h.  At the time, 109 gph compared favorably, even if less efficient at lower power settings.

The question now is what are current fuel consumption ratings for diesels and gas-turbines?  An implicit attack on rail transportation is the potential for raising automobile fuel efficiency.  It's important to speak up for parallel improvement and potential in the rail sector.

Re Gas Turbine Fuel Consumption (More)

A gas turbine comprising a compressor section, a combustor and a power section delivers its best fuel consumption at full power which is fine for airplanes and helicopters but not so good for locomotives, particularly those in commuter service where the majority of time is spent in notch 6 or about 50% power. This problem can be alleviated by adding a recuperator to the turbine. To do this, the turbine case is separated at the compressor stage outlet and the compressed air is conducted to a counter flow heat exchanger, where heat is transferred from the exhaust, returned to the combustor and on to the power turbine section. Because it has gained energy in this process, less fuel is required to produce the required power, resulting in an improved BSFC number. This works for all power levels below full power. The price of adding this feature is increased weight and space, which is important on aircraft but not so much on a locomotive.

One of the examples of a recuperated gas turbine is the 1500 hp AGT1500 that powers the Abrams Tank. Gas turbine power was selected to help hold the weight of the tank at a level that would permit air transport as well as for its ability to go from a cold start to full power in 90 seconds. In this example the recuperator surrounds the engine. The space available limited the recuperator's effectiveness but the results are quite good, producing a BSFC of 0.513 at 50% power, only 32% above the full power number of 0.386.  In 2002, I presented a paper (#02-3249) at the transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting titled "Diesel Locomotive Retrofit Conceptual Design" wherein I proposed the use of two AGT1500's in parallel to replace the 3000 hp diesel in a commuter locomotive. At that time zero hours rebuilt AGT1500's were available at less than half the cost of a new engines making the proposal economically feasible. (With the heavy usage of the Abrams Tank in Kuwait and Iraq, this is no longer true.).

In  2004 I did a Life Cycle Cost (LCA) analysis of various existing or proposed locomotive engines. Among them was the TM1800, an 1800 kW turbine generator unit designed from the ground up for locomotive applications. Relaxation of weight and size constraints for the recuperator resulted in a full power BSFC of 0.332 versus 0.331 for the 12-710 diesel and 0.354 at 50% power versus 0.335 of the diesel. The generator was a 22,000-rpm, permanent magnet alternator, eliminating the need for a gear reduction unit. Unfortunately, the TM1800's manufacturer withdrew from the industrial market before the unit reached production. I have been working with a group to get the mothballed design resurrected by a qualified builder but without success to date.

This is a long answer to your question on fuel consumption. I could go on!

Jerry Pier

Good and interesting stuff!  Thanks, Jerry.

(please "go on and on" anytime!)

Jerry,

Thanks.  This is good information and offers a practical, light weight traction power alternative for fast trains (110-150 mph) where electrification is neither available or practical.

Jerry,

Yet another thank you for posting information on the TM-1800. The sfc figure at 50% power is impressive. 

That engine would make a sweet prime mover for a commuter locomotive, especially a hybrid design. Th lighter weight of the turbine-generator package would allow for a larger battery.

- Erik 

Questions about fuel consumption.  What is "BSFC"?   

Also as mentioned could a turbine be set up in a hybred for passenger rail? The comment that one of the 2 turbines was shut down whilst cruising. (In other words fire up the 2nd turbine when you needed to accelerate from a stop)   I vaguely recall that the US Navy was using a combination diesel/gas turbine in ASW frigates & destroyers. Using the diesels when all that was needed was to puter about, but when speed & manueverability was needed(put the pedal to the metal) they could fire up the turbines.

     Forgive my ignorance on this. And please forgive me if I seem to ramble(It's kind of late)

1. Could you design a turbine powered train for fuel economy? I would think if you designed the power systems around a specific running speed combined with turbine battery electric operation you do better on fuel economy.      It is my impression that gas turbines generally were more reliable than internal combustion diesels. (fewer moving parts) , correct me if I'm wrong.

2. If I recall correctly gas turbines do very well in situations were they are run at constant speed(most engines) and at or near the maximum power.

 By the by what is the fuel consumption of tier 2 diesels compared to gas turbine?(ie the power plant in a SD 70 evo or GEVO (EMC OR GE respectively)

         It s late am going to post this & go to bed. I'll try to edit this down next chance I get.

It is kind of sad to these train sets currently. I'm thinking they may end up down in Mexico like the PA's or so many Baldwin diesels.

        Many Thx IGN

Narig01:

My turbine expertise is in aviation.  I do not know how well it would translate to railroading.

Pros:

Turbine engines are much more reliable than reciprocal engines.  They make more horsepower per pound of weight. They are fairly economical to keep fuel in.  They are not fussy about which combusible liquid you put in them.

Cons:

They are not suitable for direct drive because they make very little low end torque.  They work best running wide open for long periods of time.  They work very well running generators and auxilary power units.  In large helicopters, they often must be started with the rotor system disengaged because of the low end torque issue.  In either type of aircraft, when they are driving a propeller or rotor, they are brought up to a given RPM and remain there for all aspects of operation.  Acceleration is accomplished by changing the pitch, rather than the speed, of the rotor or propeller.

In a railroad engine, it seems to me like they could be used effectively to run an alternator or generator for turbine/electric or for head end power, but would be a very poor choice for direct drive.

However, I really believe that railroads should be electrified.  But that is a discussion for another thread.

For direct drive, you need a BIG reduction gear set similar to gas turbine engines on Navy ships.

narig01 wrote:

Questions about fuel consumption.  What is "BSFC"?    Also as mentioned could a turbine be set up in a hybred for passenger rail? The comment that one of the 2 turbines was shut down whilst cruising. (In other words fire up the 2nd turbine when you needed to accelerate from a stop)   I vaguely recall that the US Navy was using a combination diesel/gas turbine in ASW frigates & destroyers. Using the diesels when all that was needed was to puter about, but when speed & manueverability was needed(put the pedal to the metal) they could fire up the turbines.      Forgive my ignorance on this. And please forgive me if I seem to ramble(It's kind of late) 1. Could you design a turbine powered train for fuel economy? I would think if you designed the power systems around a specific running speed combined with turbine battery electric operation you do better on fuel economy.      It is my impression that gas turbines generally were more reliable than internal combustion diesels. (fewer moving parts) , correct me if I'm wrong. 2. If I recall correctly gas turbines do very well in situations were they are run at constant speed(most engines) and at or near the maximum power.  By the by what is the fuel consumption of tier 2 diesels compared to gas turbine?(ie the power plant in a SD 70 evo or GEVO (EMC OR GE respectively)          It s late am going to post this & go to bed. I'll try to edit this down next chance I get. It is kind of sad to these train sets currently. I'm thinking they may end up down in Mexico like the PA's or so many Baldwin diesels.         Many Thx IGN

BSFC is brake specific fuel consumption.  It's a measure of an engines fuel efficiency.  In English units it's lbs of fuel per brake horsepower hour.  The brake horsepower is the engine output measured at the output shaft on the engine. 

You are correct about the part throttle fuel consumption of turbines being lousy.  The notion of having several smaller turbines and bringing them on line as needed to get better overall fuel economy was the approach taken in the UA TurboTrain.  Having a smaller, single turbine drive a generator to charge batteries would be a good approach for a commuter locomotive, but would be difficult for long distance trains where they can need full output for hours on end.  I suppose you could use one large turbine and cycle the turbine on and off during periods of less that full throttle.

The navy uses gas turbines in just about everything but the nuclear aircraft carriers these days.  They try hard to capture the waste heat from the turbines by employing boilers in the exhaust gas stream.  The steam generated is used for powering other shipborad systems.  It helps the ship reduce it's thermal signature, too.

narig01 wrote:

Questions about fuel consumption.  What is "BSFC"?    Also as mentioned could a turbine be set up in a hybred for passenger rail? The comment that one of the 2 turbines was shut down whilst cruising. (In other words fire up the 2nd turbine when you needed to accelerate from a stop)   I vaguely recall that the US Navy was using a combination diesel/gas turbine in ASW frigates & destroyers. Using the diesels when all that was needed was to puter about, but when speed & manueverability was needed(put the pedal to the metal) they could fire up the turbines.      Forgive my ignorance on this. And please forgive me if I seem to ramble(It's kind of late) 1. Could you design a turbine powered train for fuel economy? I would think if you designed the power systems around a specific running speed combined with turbine battery electric operation you do better on fuel economy.      It is my impression that gas turbines generally were more reliable than internal combustion diesels. (fewer moving parts) , correct me if I'm wrong. 2. If I recall correctly gas turbines do very well in situations were they are run at constant speed(most engines) and at or near the maximum power.  By the by what is the fuel consumption of tier 2 diesels compared to gas turbine?(ie the power plant in a SD 70 evo or GEVO (EMC OR GE respectively)          It s late am going to post this & go to bed. I'll try to edit this down next chance I get. It is kind of sad to these train sets currently. I'm thinking they may end up down in Mexico like the PA's or so many Baldwin diesels.         Many Thx IGN

 Back in the late 1990's the US Department 0f Energy partnered with the FRA to do some serious research on building a hybrid version of the Bombardier JETTRAIN Gas Turbine passenger locomotive with the intention of using a superconducting flywheel energy storage system instead of conventional batteries. At the same time they were funding a similiar research project on using the flywheel technology in Diesel Electric freight applications (BN/BNSF was involved in this). They did build and test a prototype flywheel (in a stationary laboratory setting) but ultimately abandoned the program due to concerns with reliability of the Energy Storage System in mobile applications (the initial plan had been to mount it in a rebuilt bombardier LRC power car shell).

 With General Electric making a very serious effort to develop a hybrid version of the Evolution series one wonders if they will look at transit and other passenger applications. Railpower industries had also stated that they wanted to develop a hybrid commuter locomotive, but this was before they experienced the considerable technical issues(i.e fires) with the Green Goats and their website currently does not have anything about commuter applications.

Even if the turboliners were not 30 years old they are equipment not ready for this time. Conceived when fuel was cheap that operating expense has balloned. Since the equipment is only a full power efficient machine there is not anywhere at present that characteristic can be used. If the equipment was able to take power off a third rail when in a station then efficiency would go up.

An example of efficient operation would be: NY Penn station to Albany using Metro North and new third rail to Croton then the turbo to Albany with third rail in Albany station. Then non stop to Schenectady with a third rail there then non stop to Buffalo (another third rail) on the water level route (no up and down profiles). However since there is no third track or PTC yet on that route its speed advantage cannot yet be used (many years in the future). Also some third rail would have to be installed at those stations where it would stop and storage/maintenance tracks. A better location might be a limited stop Chicago - St. Louis if the passenger demand was sufficient. I'm sure you readers may think of other locations. Maybe Washington - Jacksonville.