Turbo Trains

[HarveyK400]

My memory of the RTG was that it was a firm-riding train; but not any worse than most at the time.  It was built for higher speeds which requires a stiffer primary suspension.  The softest-riding cars in my experience were the single-level CNW 400 cars until the Swedish ASEA X-2000 came along. 

The Chicago - Milwaukee line still had a lot of jointed rail back in the late 1970's at the end of or just after the Milwaukee Road era which probably contributed to the rough ride.  The last jointed rail was in Metra territory south of Rondout and wasn't replaced until around 2000.

I agree the RTG's were smelly.

As to your suggestion for twin turbines, look back at the thread "Turbos for Sale."

[Erie Lackawanna]

I thought all of the Rohr Turboliners survived.  I think they are stored by Amtrak.  One is even rebuilt (although not in service).  I'm not sure about the French ones.  I know that they had work done to make them look like the Rohrs... but I don't know if they survive with them or not. Maybe that's what's in the scrapyard you're thinking of, one of the French ones, modified to look like a Rohr.

The Amtrak UA Turbos were stored at Ivy City in DC in the late 1970s before scrapping.  I got to DC in September of 1979 with the intent of getting some shots of them, but just missed them.  Don't know where they were scrapped.  Before the left, you could see them perfectly from New York Avenue.  I've shared this before, but it's a shot my dad caught (again, that low quality Tri X Pan) of one of them at Ivy City.

 http://knox.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1088252

The Canadian ones were scrapped at Naparanno in Newark NJ, and could be seen for awhile from Routes 1 and 9 awaiting their fate.  A friend of mine took a shot of them, but I just checked his site on RRpics and it's not posted.

[RKFarms]

Back in the late 70's I rode a turbine powered train several times between Chicago and Milwaukee. My memories are rough ride and jet engine exhaust fumes. It seems like this would be a very uneconomical setup for that trip. Maybe a twin turbine design, using an "instant startup" second powerplant for acceleration and a main power source sized for normal constant loads would have been more efficient. Too bad I cannot remember more about those trips (Floridian from Lafayette IN to Union Station, turbo to Milwaukee).

PR

[kalvingp30fan]

None of the UAC turbo trains still survive but 1 of the rohr turbos still exist in a scrap yard in indiana.

[narig01]

 Kind of a little off subject ,   but a couple of weeks back their was a thread bout the Rohr turbos & Jerry (I forgot his last name) did a couple of very good pieces bout the engines.

 

   One ofther comment about turbos today is that it would seem like they would be excelant  projects for a battery / turbo hybred. 

RGDS IGN

[Kootenay Central]

.

[HarveyK400]

What you write about the Turbo Train ride is a surprise. 

• I would have thought that the angular acceleration at straight switch crossover and slipswitch points would cause the body to sway out - lean into the curve, not lean over - to absorb the lateral centripetal force and smooth the jerking.
• The elastomeric torsion snubber and air spring might allow the car to rock, eg., sway out, but not expect continuing harmonic rocking.
  

[tdmidget]

No it is not a "jet" engine. A"jet" engine is a reaction engine, producing thrust exactly like a rocket, another form of "jet" engine. It is a gas or combustion turbine, converting the expansion of burning gases to torque via the action on turbine blades.

[HarveyK400]

See also the earlier discussion on gas turbine power in "Turboliners for Sale" in the Passenger forum.

[cx500]

I had not realized which Turbo it was.  But also bear in mind that the same ownership issues as apparently apply for the LRC locomotive would probably also apply to the Turbo.  For the LRC we were fortunate enough to have a cabinet minister with a real interest in trains who could exercised some pressure.  I believe that VIA is prohibited, whether by its enabling legislation or other standard government directives, from simply giving away equipment, museums do not have enough spare cash, and a tax receipt has no value to a money-losing company.

 I agree that the M640 is an oddity and justification for its preservation at Exporail is marginal.  It properly should be preserved in the Canadian Science & Technology Museum in Ottawa, where its technology can be highlighted, but they seem to have little interest in expanding the railway component of their collection.  Did CRHA enthusiastically jump at it, or did they accept it primarily as a favour to CP in return for other benefits?  The M640 had survived for several years after retirement so I assume certain parties within CP wanted it saved, presumably proud of its experimental role in the development of AC traction for freight service.  

 Likewise, the Turbo would seem to be a better fit with the Science and Technology mandate.  I assume that transferring ownership from one federal entity to another would not have posed the same bureaucratic blocks as donating to an outside museum.  But as you say, there was not the collective will to make its preservation happen.

 On a somewhat related topic, does anyone know the present status of the Bombardier "Jet Train" locomotive?  It demonstrated around the US and Canada about 2003, to promote potential high speed train corridors without the need for electrification.  Like the TurboTrain, its prime mover is a jet engine.

 

John

 

[Tulyar15]

In Britain, the experiemental Gas Turbine "Advanced Passenger Train" is preserved in the National Railway Museum at York (in fact it's currently on display at the NRM's out-station "Locomotion" at Shildon, Co. Durham - on the site of the pioneering Stockton & Darlington Railway's workshops which were opened back in 1825!). This was a concept train designed to prove a concept and never entered commercial service. It did set a British rail speed record of 153mph in 1975, after which it was retired.

By then rising oil prices had made gas turbine power uneconomic. Instead British Rail opted to build a fleet of 125mph diesel trains which 30 years on are still in front line service and have recently been rebuilt with newer diesel engines. They did built an electric version of the APT; 3 trainsets in all plus a couple of spare cars and a spare electric locomotive, which did briefly enter service between London Euston and Glasgow Central in 1982, only to be grounded after a few months due to technical problems with the tilt mechanism. I never rode on these but I was quite impressed when I managed to photograph one at Rugby. On one occassions one of these got up to 165mph!

 One of these electric APT's is preserved at the Railway Age, Crewe along with one of the two gas turbine locos that the Great Western Railway ordered in 1947, just before the UK govt nationalised the railways here. The GWR's Gas Turbine locos were rated at 3,500 hp and were twice as powerful as the prototype diesel locos that were running at that time. But the problems with running at less than 100% power referred to in some of the earlier posts were their undoing. In an attempt to improve matters, #18000 , the surviving loco, was adjusted so it would achiece maximum fuel economy at 75% power. The other turbine , # 18100, was less reliable and rebuilt as a straight electric loco. It lasted until 1970 and was then scrapped. #18000, which was built in Switzerland, was returned there and used in a number of research projects at the Internation Railway Research Centre there until it was dumped for many years in the 1990's. Fortunately it was secured for preservation and has been cosmetically restored for display only.

[Rapido]

cx500

Once the teething problems were solved, which took quite a few years, they actually ran reasonably reliably for Via.  But by then accidents and adjusting the consist length meant that there were only two trainsets available to cover the service, with no spares.  In 1981, when the LRC trains were introduced, the two orphans were retired.  A number of years later one was offered for preservation.  But by that time, I have been told, it was so thoroughly trashed that even cosmetic restoration was no longer realistically feasible.

One of the arguments that I make in the book is that the collective will was not there to preserve the train. Had it been there, VIA 2 or VIA 3 could have been preserved. These were in good condition. As far as I have heard, nobody at the CRHA in St. Constant even approached VIA to preserve one of these sets. According to my sources at the CRHA, their argument at the time was that it was not a "typical" train, and they were only interested in common, representational trains. That is another way of saying "we don't like it so we don't want to save it." The typicality argument fell apart when they were offered Canada's only M640 and they jumped at it. i.e. someone on the Board liked the M640 and nobody liked the Turbo. Great collections policy. (It has improved since then.)

What was offered to CRHA in 1984 was the remains of VIA 1, which was involved in an accident in 1979 and was sitting in storage for five years with a gutted interior.

There is an LRC at Exporail today which is only there because several prominent members in the community lobbied VIA and the then transport minister, David Collenette, to preserve it. However, this LRC still belongs to VIA and if a buyer offers VIA a good price for it, it will be sold.

Had such lobbying existed in any way in 1982, a Turbo or at least a reduced set would have been saved.

-Jason

[cx500]

Once the teething problems were solved, which took quite a few years, they actually ran reasonably reliably for Via.  But by then accidents and adjusting the consist length meant that there were only two trainsets available to cover the service, with no spares.  In 1981, when the LRC trains were introduced, the two orphans were retired.  A number of years later one was offered for preservation.  But by that time, I have been told, it was so thoroughly trashed that even cosmetic restoration was no longer realistically feasible.

While anything is possible, given enough resources, most railroad museums are struggling just to maintain what they have.  Accepting something that will only further deteriorate, and be an eyesore until a probable final scrapping anyway, is not a wise use of limited resources.  Regrettable, but true.

So, yes, they were all scrapped.

 John

[Rapido]

TH&B

 The basic problems with tubo type trains on rail is that turbines perform well at full blast.  But trains are exposed to stops and idle time, block signals, when delays are known ahead trains just coast along or speed restrictions.  Basicaly unlike airoplanes where wind resistance is a constant during flight, trains spend alot of time running on medium power, wich turbines do not like. 

That's a pretty good summary. Even so, the technology worked well when it was given enough TLC.

The Turbos were a new technology rushed into service very quickly. Most trains go through a testing period of up to 10 years and the Turbos were tested for one before entering service.

In 1971 CN pulled the trains and, together with Pratt & Whitney Canada, completely rebuilt them. CN told PWC that they wanted 97% on-time performance and almost perfect availability. PWC delivered three rebuilt trains in December 1973 and they ran almost flawlessly for the next nine years. There were a couple of fires, but these did not seriously affect the overall performance of the Turbo project.

The problem was that by the time the Turbos were operating beautifully, CN had already invested in the LRC project, Canada's next high-speed rail saviour. PWC went to CN and said "you wanted 97% OTP, and we delivered. You wanted good availability, and we delivered 98.6% availability. Now order more trains."

CN ordered 3, knowing that PWC needed 5 trains to make it profitable. So PWC abandoned the project, and the last two Turbos were retired in 1982, with nine years of near-flawless operation but a reputation in the media of being a failure. None was preserved, as the heritage community in Canada was not interested in anything that wasn't from the "glory days" of the steam-diesel transition era and earlier. Every Turbo has been scrapped.

The Amtrak Turbos did not receive the necessary maintenance to keep them running and could justifiably be called a failure. These trains never ran on the Hudson valley in regular service - those were the Rohr Turboliners.

Regards,

Jason

[trainfan1221]

I actually rode one to Ft. Edward,NY along the Hudson line years back.  I guess I should be glad I did get to ride one, but I got to be honest I thought it was a piece of junk.  And it broke down for awhile en route.  A problem with the brakes, I believe.    Can't say I miss them, but they were unique I'll say.

[TH&B]

 The basic problems with tubo type trains on rail is that turbines perform well at full blast.  But trains are exposed to stops and idle time, block signals, when delays are known ahead trains just coast along or speed restrictions.  Basicaly unlike airoplanes where wind resistance is a constant during flight, trains spend alot of time running on medium power, wich turbines do not like. 

 

Even power trains like the TGV or Japanese bullits have too much schedualed "middle time" to keep a turbo running full blast or shut down to be economical, or even functional.  Hence electrics.

 

The CN turbos were pretty much the fastest trains in north America and were still trpoublesome.  UP used turbines , but again they ran relativily fast , long distance freights, and still.......   Diesels can idle forever, a plus and straight electrics just sit dead or run at low power any time required.  Turbo needs to go full blast or do nothing, no inbetweens, not very railroad freindly when most work is at part throtle. The rest is history.

 

 

Kootenay Central

Exhaust gases from the turbines were hot and did the roof inside Montreal's underground Central Station no good.  The fumes permeating the concourse and the hotel above

 

Central station is the only downtown mainline station electrified in Canada.

[Kootenay Central]

.

[Modelcar]

I understand they did set speed records but the end results of their operations proved to be less than reliable.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

They may have been jinxed right from the start.  The first revenue run of the Canadian sets - with a full complement of the press on board - hit a tractor-trailer hauling meat at a grade crossing on a cold wintry day.  Trains at the time had a full-page (I recall) "Railroad News Photo" of the pieces flying taken by one of the professional photographers from the dome , and the damaged "clam-shell" type fiberglass front nose doors afterwards.

- Paul North.

[henry6]

You've got to read Shron's book...there were Canadian and American sets (fewer in the US) and both sets were very troublsome.  It is a great story, the explains it all well, and there are dramatic and detailed pictures.  It is amazing actually how long the Canadians utilized the sets.

[Modelcar]

ndbprr

As I recall there weren't any major problems with them

 

Wasn't at least one power unit {maybe more}, destroyed by fire.......?

[ndbprr]

 

If I am not mistaken they eventually would up in Amtrak service.  Since they were oddballs eventually they were retired. As I recall there weren't any major problems with them.

[henry6]

New book...reviewed in both Trains and Classic Trains...TURBOTRAIN: A Journey by Jason Shron.  Check it out for all the answers and the whole story.  I believe Trains and PJT also did recent articles on them.

[nicknoyes]

What happened to the United Aircraft/Sikorski Turbo Trains? Are there any in existence or were they all scraped?

Nick