Amtrak also owns the "Post Road" branch used by the Boston section of the Lake Shore. The Empire Service lines are leased by Amtrak between Hoffmans where the line to Selkirk yard heads southeast and Poughkeepsie, where Metro-North ownership begins. The West Side line in New York City is also Amtrak-owned.
RailfanGXYAnyway, if I we were to reintroduce full-on lightweight trains to the US (meaning less than 50 tons per single-level car), they would only have good reception on the NY-DC Northeast Corridor, and the Pacific Northwest Corridor. Since Amtrak actually owns those rails, their trains can run better and smoother than if they were to run on the roadbeds of say UP or CSX.
I believe the only rights of way that Amtrak owns are the NEC from DC to Boston and some mileage in Michigan.
On the West Coast, Amtrak doesn't own any of the rights of way.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It would seem that certain railroads still haven't learned from the days of Penn Central. In the immediate postwar period, the streamlined cars by ACF, SLCC, or Budd ran just as well as the Pullman heavies. Relatively speaking of course, since most roads pretty much ran themselves into the ground during the early '40s. When you look at Penn Central, and the amount of new equipment they got, it probably made their number of derailments worse because track maintenance wasn't anywhere close to a priority. This was the case even on busy sections like the Northeast Corridor, hence why the Metroliners (and several years later, even the Acela's) were unable to reach their designed high speeds.
I completely get that rolling stock is most useful when its moving, but the "better to move over bad track than be idle" concept is old and really self-harming at this point. If our trackwork over here was built to the same standards as those in France or Japan, I'm almost certain the Talgo, Keystone, and X trains would've caught on quicker. Also, if more time and development had been spent on these concepts, we'd be better off today. Railroads themselves don't seem to view the concept of well-spent time as well as the builders did. EMD and GE spent time and precision with their diesel development. While they weren't as successful in that field, ALCo, Baldwin, and Lima did the same thing with their steamers. Some of the failure of course came from railroads not using that technology in the best way (C&O)...
Anyway, if I we were to reintroduce full-on lightweight trains to the US (meaning less than 50 tons per single-level car), they would only have good reception on the NY-DC Northeast Corridor, and the Pacific Northwest Corridor. Since Amtrak actually owns those rails, their trains can run better and smoother than if they were to run on the roadbeds of say UP or CSX.
I remember being very impressed by the extremely smooth ride at about 50 and 60 mph, on the lightweight highspeed ex-Cincinnati and Lake Erie "Red Devils" used on the Liberty Bell interurban run from Philly (Upper Darby) to Allentown, and I have been told the Indiana Railroad High Speeds were even smoother. Very clever truck design from what I have been told.
When Pittsburgh Railways tried PCC's in interuban operations on the Charleroi and Washington lines, they decided something better than then the normal B-2 Clark Equipment truck was needed, so on 1600-series was retrofitted with a new St. Louis design truck and about 15? of the on-order 1700 standee window new PCC's came with this different truck. Similarly, Red Arrow for its post-WWII St. Louis double-end cars, not strictly PCC's but with the PCC body design and conventional cam-control electrics, used a conventional drop-equalizer MCB-like truck instead of a PCC design.
As to Amfleet trucks (the Pioneer III-derived design, also one of the lightweight 1950's trains) having no swing hangers, it does not mean they have no lateral cushioning. You know that rod with the rubber bushings at each end that connects the truck bolster to the carbody in that style of truck? The rod constrains the bolster from moving fore and aft, but it allows the bolster to move up and down (compressing the spring) and side-to-side (shearing the spring). Apparently using an air spring for up and down as well as side-to-side cushioning is one of the design tricks, although this may be done with coil springs as well.
This style of rod is also used in swing hanger trucks, only it connects between bolster and truck frame instead of between bolster and carbody.
As to heavy-weight-rides-better, that was been true in automotive as well as in railroad practice, but I think that perhaps "heavy weight soaks up the bumps better" is too simple an explanation. There have been some smooth riding lightweight cars as well as trucks that rode like, well, trucks.
One factor is that the load be small compared to the empty weight. If the load weight is large, you get compression of the springs that changes the ride quality -- if you could expect the load you could tune for that and perhaps be roughriding when empty.
Another factor is that heavier is often stiffer and creates a perception of a smoother ride because it flexes or perhaps rattles much less. Heavy and stiff structures can soak up the high frequency disturbances, noise, and vibration -- in automotive they talk about NVH.
Yet another consideration is that the lightweight trains may have needed more refinement of their suspensions. But I have ridden on the first-generation Bullet Train, a lightweight train by American standards, and the ride was smooth as glass through Tokyo at 80 MPH, and there was a little bit of the sidesway dance that trains do at 150 MPH out in the country. I also imagine they put a lot of work into track maintenance, both track geometry as well as rail profile.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Although I haven't been lucky enough to gather an extensive amount of riding experiance, I have noticed differences between several different styles of trucks. I remember a few years ago BNSF ran a trainrid for the kids of the Make-a-wish foundation, and our museum lended 6 or 7 cars for the trip, which ran over 100 miles from Pheonix (Mobest Yard) to Wickenburg and back. There were 2 observation cars with 6 wheel trucks. Both were private cars, one was an ex-NYC business car, the America, and the other was the Promentory Point, a well travelled car painted in Central Pacific (UP look-a-like) colors. BNSF also supplied a few of their private cars, including a full dome car (not the superliner version either) which rode on 6 axles. The rest of the train was former AT&SF Budd cars, one RI Budd car, and one RI Pullman, all with Commonwealth 4 axle trucks.
I can say the absolute best riding car of the train was the America, which was a VERY heavy car. I should mention that it's running gear had just been totally overhauled right before the run, so it was absolutly perfect. That car had a full steel plate body, a very heavy frame, and the most complicated trucks I've seen. I was able to see the trucks when they were layed out in the individual 600 pieces when they were being overhauled. They have all kinds of different springs, levers, dampeners, a tons of other equipment I can't even identify. The car was unbelievibly smooth and gentle. I never felt a single bump, even over switches or slack action, although you could hear them under the floorboards. The only sensation in the car was a very soft, subtle swaying motion, which was just delightfull. There's another interesting tidbit about this car and this trip. While on the way out of Pheonix, the train had to take a siding for a hot freight train. Unfortunatly the only siding available was a spur with a very sharp descending curve coming off of the switch. It was also our luck that the car had to be backed in, and the America was on the rear of the train. Lucky for us, that car is equiped the way it is, as it's trucks curved 'round that turn without a hitch.
Another interesting car is also a 6 axle car, but it isn't actually a heavyweight. The term heavyweight is usually associated with cars that have 6 axle trucks, but this isn't always correct. Heavy is exactly what it says, a car that is extreamly heavy, and usually requires 6 axle trucks as a result. The thing is, lightweights can have 6 axles too. Such was the case of the Promintory Point. This Pullman car was originally built on 4 axles, with the standard Commonwealth drop side equalizer trucks. Those trucks were being rebuilt at the time though, and the car was on a set of 6 wheel "loaners" until it's original trucks would be ready. Although the trucks were nice and were a very similar style to those on the America, the car did not ride very smooth. The car was simply too light for this set of trucks, and it bobbed around quite a bit. The trucks were so heavy that you hardly felt any bumps, but you should felt like a pendulem on a grandfather clock on that car.
The full dome car was unusual also. It had the proper trucks, and they were well maintained, but the extra top weight of the car gave it an unusual style of rolling motion that took a little getting used to. On the lower floor, instead of the pivet being justbelow your feet, it was up by your kneecaps. On the upper floor, it was like 10 feet below you. It had a very smooth ride though I must say.
The rest of the cars, which might almost be considered as the standard type of passsenger car (four axles, lightweight and shiny) all had a similar ride. You felt the bumps of the road, a little bit of the sidways tug of a switch frog, and the standard level of roll. All in all it was just what you'd expect of this kind of car, which is very tame compared to Amtraks Superliners, which seem to ride like a WWI destroyer in the north Atlantic when you compare the two, although it isn't any order of magnitude close to that.
I could only imagine how the X-plorer and other ultra lightweight trans would have riden. With it's low center of gravity and complex articulated equipment, I doubt it would have rolled any except for the tilting on curves. I bet when it hit a switch though, especially at 120mph, it felt like you were in a Lionel passenger car and somebody hit it with a hammer.
In my view, the heavier the car, the smoother the ride. Light cars are rougher going over switches, as they simply don't have the mass to absorb the forces, no matter what suspension you installed. (unless it was a really, really heavy one!) Heavy cars don't jar or jostle easily, but with the heavy weight you would feel every tie under the rail if you didn't have a good suspension. The bumps would be much softer, but you'd surely feel alot more of them. In the end, a car like the America is the ideal as far as ride quality goes, but it is expensive to maintain and haul. Lighter cars are much less expensive, but they won't draw any passengers aside from those who like riding on washing machines.
Matthew Imbrogno-Mechanical Vollenteer, Arizona Railway Museumwww.azrymuseum.org
Traditional RR passenger car vertical suspension - i.e. carbody resting on a pair of trucks - consists of primary and secondary suspension. Generally, the best ride occurs when the primary springs are stiff and the secondaries are soft. I really wouldn't expect much of a difference between a six axled heavyweight and a four axled lightweight passenger car except for the difference in sprung versus unsprung mass. Having ridden in both kinds, and having done some ride quality measurement, I wouldn't say there was any difference I could discern.
The largest differences likely come from spring rates and damping schemes more than any other factor. Also, some truck designs include equalization and some don't, but I don't know enough about this to comment on the effect on ride quality.
Lateral suspension is very important too, and that can effect ride quality a good deal. There is more variety in design here, but the big difference is whether or not the truck design uses swing hangers.
I've always been rather surprized that the Amfleet cars ride so well given the dirt-simplicity of their truck design - rubber pad primaries and no swing hangers.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Alan Cripe's original design was the "Diesel Motor Train", there is a side view of it in the "Who Shot The Passenger Train?" issue of TRAINS in either 1957 or 1958. The resemblance to the UA TurboTrain is remarkable.
tatans wrote: Again I come upon some bizarre locomotive or train from the past and discovered in some weed covered backwater somewhere in the U.S. This seems to be becoming more prevalent on this site, just how many strange trains or locos are hiding all over the U.S. ? these things seem to be showing up on a regular basis, what's next??? keep them coming ! !
Again I come upon some bizarre locomotive or train from the past and discovered in some weed covered backwater somewhere in the U.S. This seems to be becoming more prevalent on this site, just how many strange trains or locos are hiding all over the U.S. ? these things seem to be showing up on a regular basis, what's next??? keep them coming ! !
whats next.................how 'bout any LV steam engine.......any ERIE car float....or maybe one of them Ingals Shippbuilding ugly duckling things.....
GM's Train of Tomorrow:
Didn't it travel with {4} dome cars.....I did get to see it on the S&C of the B&O at Kantner, Pa. about 1947. But that happens to be about 50 years ago and now I'm just not sure.....
Quentin
I guess we are doing engineering archeaology on some interesting tech where many of the details are lost to posterity.
A lot of people have said that TurboTrain is derived from Train-X, but there seem to be some differences.
The TurboTrain linkwork and mechanics are well-documented if you search the patent databases on "Alan Cripe." Alan Cripe held patents assigned to the C&O Railway in the 1950s that are very similar to but predate the TurboTrain. It is fair to say that Alan Cripe was working for the C&O at the time they were interested in some novel passenger train concepts. The C&O patents are very close to the TurboTrain.
Specifically, both trains had single guided axles between train cars, not under the B-end of one of the train cars. In both cases the axle was guided by a combination of "traction springs" (those struts connecting the axle journal to the carbodies on each side you see in all the TurboTrain photos). Both trains used a 4-bar linkage remote roll center tilt mechanism. Both train used a system of wishbone links to articulate the single-axle truck to the adjacent carbodies, an arrangement where there is only room for the links between train cars, not underneath the B-end of one train car. Both trains had power cars at each end of the train with a conventional truck; both cars had an elevated section over the power truck, and both trains had those fiberglass clamshell doors at the ends for connecting articulated train sets in multiple. The TurboTrain was built while to my knowledge not even a prototype of the C&O train was ever built.
From the photos, the Train-X arrangements look very different than the TurboTrain or the C&O proposed train. Train-X looks like it has a custom drawbar pin coupler for hooking up the A-end of one car to the B-end of the other car. There is nothing about the TurboTrain articulated coupling that suggests it could be coupled without an involved assembly process in the shop.
There may be some connection in the Train-X concept and TurboTrain -- wasn't Robert R Young first with C&O before NYC, and didn't he promote ideas of revitalizing passenger service?
Victrola1 wrote the following post at 12-13-2006 1:29 PM:Is there anywhere today where you can ride a 6 axle Pullman at 70+ miles per hour?
Would you believe 90MPH with a 1898 Pullman? I know of at least one private car, the Federal (currently painted in a two tone blue inspired by B&O) which has riden on the north east corridor behind a metroliner trainset. I don't know the weight of the car, but I know it was originally a wood panel car that's been rebuilt with heavy steel plate and currently rides on commonwealth swingbolster 6 wheel trucks with SKF roller bearings. When asked about the ride on the trip, the owner (who I hope will forgive me as I do not recall his name) said it was hard to tell they were traveling very fast. He said the welded rail and the heavy, well maintained trucks allowed it to ride as smooth as glass.
It should be mentioned though that the smooth ride of the car comes at a cost. The car is meticulisly well cared for and the running gear is kept in perfect condition, which isn't easy as the trucks of that particular car have over 300 parts. The heavier weight isn't so attractive either, as it is harder to pull and so the cost (and fees) of running the car are higher.
Back on another subject, the X-plorer's running gear, I'd like to make a couple of clarifications and corrections.I think I may have gotten confused about the different articulated suspensions. The X-plorer wasn't actually a Talgo. It actually had the same suspension that was used on the Turbotrain. Actually, UA virtually copied the suspension employed by the X-plorer. Remember that UA used the X-plorer like a ready made prototype. I'd bet that the connections between the cars of the turbotrain were identical to the ones used by the RP-210.
As an aside, even though the X-plorer was a technologically advanced albeit unsuccessfull train, I think it is about the ugliest passenger train I've ever seen! (second only to the Aerotrain that is!)
Matthew ImbrognoMechanical Vollenteer, Arizona Railway Museumwww.azrymuseum.org
There is a book, "Diesels from Eddystone", published by Kalmbach. There is a chapter on the Xplorer engines. It sais, the German diesels were very fuel-efficient, but the hydraulic transmission had a tendency to overheat.
Each New Haven-units had an additional electric motor connected to the two driving axles. This arrangment is said to have reduced the advantages of hydraulic transmission. I never understood, why they not simply drove the two trailing axles of each engine when running into GCT.
Is there anywhere today where you can ride a 6 axle Pullman at 70+ miles per hour? Those were before my time. Is there any objective data comparison of the amount and velocity of jump and sway on various rail passenger equipment? Does a frame insulated from body produce a smoother ride as say a 1966 Ford Galaxy compared to a unibody Tarus?
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
One of the New Haven's experimentals was the Budd "Hot Rod". later broken up with its individual units used in the Budd RDC pool, and the riding quality of those cars was not much different in any respect than a typical RDC, OK, but not great. I rode a somewhat shorter version of the complete train running as the New Haven - Boston via Springfield Amatrak "Bay State" about 1972 or 1973, and there was nothing remarkable good or bad about the experience. I rode the New Haven's Turbotrains many times, and into Amtrak service as well, both when they ran into Grand Central and later when they ran into Penn. High-speed ride quality was excellent, but low speed on jointed track not up to normal standards, but acceptable for short times. The problem with the Turbotrains was the lack of fuel economy.
GM's Train of Tomorrow has no relation to any of the other equpment discussed on this thread. It was standard state-of-the-art post-WWII lightweight equipment, inlcuding one of the earliest dome cars, probably the first built by Pullman and the first not built by a railroad shop or by Budd. The dome coach ended up in regular service, and I think I rode it between Seattle and Portland on either the GN or NP. Someone on the thread can answer that question.
Having actually ridden the Xplorer I can attest to it's difficulty with a rough ride at times. I think the big issue was jointed rail more than it's lightweight but that's a guess based on an experience back some 50 years ago.
There has been a lot of discussion about the ride but we've got to remember today's cars are riding for the most part on welded rail and that makes a big difference. It might be of some value if anyone in the discussion has had experience riding VIA's imported cars and what difference in ride might be experienced on different sections of track.
I agree the experiments have paved the way for modern equipment but the comments about folks not riding the train(s) at all really sums up why they disappeared.
Dale
Mathew Imbrogno:
Absolutely fascinating bit of history.
It is a shame that these things ran into troubles with the German lighweight Diesels and hydraulic trannys while the TurboTrains had troubles with the turbine engines (mainly that they guzzled too much fuel) while the Budd SPVs had trouble with the whatever. Lightweight high speed Diesel engines with hydraulic transmissions are not rocket science -- they power most of our buses and some trucks have automatic transmissions. I imagine Colorado Railcars encounters resistance to what they would like to sell based on notions that anything other than a Diesel electric locomotive is problematic.
As to other maintenance problems that were the downfall of the 1950s lightweight trains, I heard that some Talgos had trouble tripping signals owing perhaps more to the independent rotating wheels on Talgo rather than the light weight (how much weight is needed for electrical contact anyway?), and if you can't activate signals, you have serious problems.
As to rough riding, it is hard to get a feel for things because people have different standards. That the GM Aerotrains had serious ride quality problems is a given owing to the unguided single-axle trucks. The ride quality of TurboTrain or Talgo is the subject of some controversy. I am sure it is not up to the standards of the 6-axle heavyweight Pullman cars, but is it good enough? And is Talgo intrinisically high maintenance? I read that the Pacific Talgo trains have had onboard techs from Talgo in the style of GM techs doing en-route maintenance on the early Diesel streamliners, but with the 567 engine they got something ultra-reliable going. The question is if the Talgo techs are there for early-adoption teething problems or if high maintenance is intrinsic to the Talgo design.
As to ride quality, I have ridden the Amtrak French TurboLiners, and thought they were exceptionally smooth. I have ridden Metra gallery cars recently and thought they were much smoother than when I commuted 30 years ago on the C&NW. I have ridden SEPTA Silverliner MU's recently and though them OK but a little rough on trackwork. I rode the Alan Cripe TurboTrain 35 years ago and remember it to be OK. I have heard some negative comments about the Pacific Cascades Talgos -- are some railfans applying high standards but the general public likes 'em, or is there general acceptance that guided-axle trains are rough riding under some conditions? Just about all the European trains are lighweight by American practice although they may spend more money on roadbed upkeep -- how to they ride? How do the British trains ride -- I heard they sometimes cut corners on maintenance owing to budget issues.
As to the Train X, was it a Talgo design or a competitor to Talgo? Did they have solid axles or independent-rotating wheels like Talgo? What is interesting is that the single axles are put at the B-end of each train car instead of between the train cars as on Talgo and TurboTrain.
What I can gather from the fuzzy photos is that the connection between cars is through a 4-bar linkage drawbar that must have a remote rotation center at the location of the truck axle -- thus the two cars pivot about a common center located at the axle even though the connection between cars is away from the axle. Think of a fifth wheel on a semi, only here the trailer is a few feet downstream of the fifth wheel instead of over the fifth wheel, and the trailer rotates about the fifth wheel using the 4-bar linkage arrangement you can see in the photo of the trailing car.
I see a fuzzy rendition of links like in the earlier Talgo axle-steering arrangement, and I imagine they are getting one end of the steering from the B-end of one car, the other end of the steering from the A-end of the neighboring car through the 4-bar linkage coupler. Did they really have links running the length of the car? I am thinking the links were confined to the area close to the coupling.
I have seen photos of the locomotive in Diesel Spotters which has that big two-axle up front and a single axle truck in back. I am also thinking that the B-end of the locomotive acts just like the B-end of a train car in connecting to the A-end of the next train car through that same 4-bar linkage drawbar arrangement that provides the axle steering. It seems like with the B-end of the trailing car, they just let that last axle trail. The current Talgo steers the last axle, and the end cars are the one with links running the length of the car to get steering from the next-to-last axle. The old Talgo got steering at the A-end of the first car from the locomotive drawbar and I believe they let the last axle on the last car just trail.
I am told New Haven ran an X-Plorer locomotive at each end. How did that work with each locomotive connecting to the train at each end through their single-axle B-ends? Or did only the NYC X-Plorer have true Train-X cars while New Haven had ACF Talgos? I heard New Haven had ACF Talgos for the FM Speed Merchant locomotives.
You are telling me that the Train X tilted. The 1950s Talgos did not tilt; current Talgos tilt because they have this A-frame connecting the wheels to air springs near the top of the cars. TurboTrain tilted, but it used a 4-bar linkage remote roll center so they didn't need a physical connection to the pivot point, which is where your head is when you are in the gangway between cars. They also had a 4-bar tilt linkage on the 2-axle trucks on the power dome cars -- the FreePatentsOnline and ep.espacenet.com patent data based (look up Alan Cripe) are fantastic sources of technical information on this.
That the Train-X cab rode rough makes sense that they had this long wheelbase truck that acted almost like a Tycho model locomotive power truck. Long wheelbase trucks oddly enough don't ride well.
Finally, are there any leads to the patent literature on these things -- patents have legalize wordings but the patent drawings are a goldmine of info on how stuff was put together. Are there leads on names of inventors or consignees (NYC Railroad? Pullman Standard? Baldwin?). Or were they covered by the Talgo patents?
Baldwin built the RP-210 (Train X) in 1956. Pullman supplied the coaches (modified bus bodies). Two trainsets were built, 1 for NYC, and one for NH. The NYC train had one locomotive and 9 cars. The NH set had 2 engines linked by MU running the length of the carset.
The RP-210 trainsets had many innovative features, amoung the most notable was that it was indeed a Talgo tilting articulated trainset. It also featured HEP, and transformers to supply normal 120V power in the cars. The trains were powered by German Maybach aircraft engines built under license, which interestingly powered many airships, including the Graf Zepplin and Hindenburg. The different trainsets both had different power arrangments. The NYC had 2 engines, one V12 drive unit and one V8 auxiliary power unit that supplied HEP and control power. NH sets had one V12 drive engine, an I-6 auxiliary engine, and a PTO on the transmission that connected to the traction motor for electric drive. A second traction motor was located in the locomotive to drive the auxiliary and HEP generator. The diesel engine was connected to a 4 speed hydromatic transmission that allowed the train to reach speeds of 120 mph.
The carbodies were articulated, and rode on the 2 axle drive truck and two axle trailing truck of the locomotive, and had one axle trucks under the articulated connections. The trucks were kept in line by steering levers that ran the length of the trainset and which were control by the leading trucks of the locomotive. These levers also actuated the tilting mechanism of the cars.
It has been stated already that the units had many problems, but the nature of these probelms hasn't quite been fully described. The most recuring problem was that it had a German engine with metric parts, which were in short supply over here. There were many times that NH and NYC crews called up local Volkswagon dealerships looking for metric bolts and parts. The hydrolic transmissions were also problematic, although it wasn't so much as a bad design as it was the maintanence crews unfamiliarity with hydrolic systems. The NH units also had problems with the electrical gear that they used in Grand Central Terminal, causing several electrical fires. (EMD FL-9s had the same problems.)
The "X-plorer" may not have been an econimic success, but it did pave the way for modern high speed trains. Because it combined many innovative technologies in one trainset, it was an excellent research vehicle, and it helped to work out many of the bugs in these systems, to pave the way for the Turbotrain, Metroliner, and Acela. Infact, the Xplorer was directly involved with the Turbotrains development, taking a turn at powering the prototype trainset until the new power units could be delivered.
Also inspite of all of their troubles, both trainsets did get a few years of service life in, lasting until mid 1960. After the bugs were worked out, both units performed admirably. They had excellent fuel efficiency and good acceleration. The only real problem on the road was that the speciallized power truck had an enormous wheelbase, and it's heavy low centered weight under the light carbody gave very rough riding charactoristics in the cab. After it's retirement, the NYC train was leased to United Aircraft for the Turborain tests, and was then sold to the Pickens railroad of South Carolina, where it ran excursion runs until 1969.
The real demise of these trains came from the total collapse of the lightweight train concept and private rail service as a whole. Even though they could travel 550 miles in a little over 12 hours (with station stops), they just could not outrun the pace of the airlines.
Matthew Imbrogno-Mechanical vollenteer, Arizona Railway Museumwww.azrymuseum.org
The Talgos being used in the Pacific Northwest are not the same as the Talgos used in the 1950's, there have been advances in the design in the past 40 years.
European railroads have been willing to accept a lot more down time for maintenance and upkeep than North American railroads, which goes a long way in explaining why de Glehn compounds, Talgo, and other maintenance-intensive designs have worked in Europe and have not lasted very long in North America. Few North American railroads would be willing to accept motive power or rolling stock that would spend one-third of its time in the shop for intensive maintenance and upkeep, instead of earning its keep on the road.
Haha don't tell the people of Seattle that the Talgo is a flop, they might stop riding the high-speed smooth riding Amtrak Talgos in the Pacific Northwest.
It's amazing how much of the tech we see in Amtrak was the direct lineation of the "failed" tech ideas of the late streamliner era. The Amfleet, Superliners, Empire Turboliners, Talgos, and Surfliners all came from so-called failed tech from that era. In fact, only two of Amtrak's major cartypes did not come from late streamliner experimental tech. The Horizon cars were designed after commuter equipment and the Viewliner is technically the first true original design idea Amtrak has had to my knowledge.
Cheers!
~METRO
Terms like "lightweight trains craze" and "commercial flop" and "didn't live up to expectations" speak to another problem with the railroad industry -- fear or perhaps disdane for experimentation and innovation.
Yessiree, we are going to keep with the tried-and-true, even if that means an Amfleet car that derives from the Budd Pioneer III design, which was one of the rough-riding lightweight flops from the 1950's with the prototype ending up in Brazil. Come to think of it, practically all of the European trains that people point to as what we are missing out on would be classified as lightweight by American practices. Come to think of it, there are those who hold the Amfleet car in disdain and want a return to those 6-axle heavyweights.
The Talgo was one of those lightweight train flops, but those doughty Spanish folks haven't given up on it after over 50 years of trying.
If a passenger rail renaissance ever happens on these shores, it will probably involve lightweight and streamlined train designs for all of the operating cost and fuel efficiency advantages that people had been seeking since the 1950s. The 1950s designs were by-gosh-and-by-golly, and perhaps the GM Aerotrain was the worst hubris. Gee, a GM bus rides down a highway -- how about widening that bus out a bit, putting it on a pair of rail axles, and voila, Aerotrain, forgetting about how guidance of a coned wheelset with a solid axle on rails has entirely different driving dynamics than steered rubber wheels on a concrete road.
As part of the 1960's Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project (TurboTrain, Metroliner, and never-built passenger-ride-in-their-cars auto ferry), the Federal government worked on introducing the scientific method into designing lightweight trains with technology exchange with Japanese and European engineers doing work on this topic, with the 4-car Silverliner test train that was the Metroliner prototype, and with the Pueblo, Colorado test track (Pueblo was supposed to have a static roller test stand to evaluate ride quality and stability of prototype trains -- was that ever built and is it in operation?).
Personally, I am interested in the 1950s designs -- they didn't save passenger rail, but they were innovative and they are mechanically interesting. Also, the railfan community can speak romantically and at long length about the Pennsy T1 -- very unique, mechanically interesting, but certainly a "flop" by some standards, but talk about the 1950s lightweight trains, and there is a sense "flop, failure, who needs them, lets move along." But maybe it is just me -- I find the Bristol Brabazon propliner intriguing, and that had flop written all over it.
Those grainy photos of Train-X give hints of some interesting mechanisms. There was nothing sophisticated about GM Aerotrain -- just a bus on a pair of single-axle trucks. The Train-X shows evidence of a guided axle along the lines of Talgo along with a four-bar linkage drawbar between cars. The reason guided axles and steering trucks are so interesting is that they offer a way of getting less lateral compliance in the wheelset for higher speed operation with less wear and hence need for maintenance of both wheel and rail in high speed service.
Did Train-X operate on similar principles as Talgo? Was there exchange of ideas or cross-licensing or were they developed independently? What was the connection between Train-X and the later guided-axle TurboTrain? Alan Cripe held patents on a precursor to TurboTrain where the patent consignee was the B&O Railway. Was this an independent effort or did it have some connection to Robert Young?
starwardude wrote: PBenham wrote:Meanwhile on New Haven, The Dan'l Webster won lots of enemies and few, if any, friends there. Their more complicated equipment, like the dual mode equipment to enable it to run into Grand Central Terminal, plus NH's going broke and not being able to properly maintain reliable units, let alone a very,very different breed of cat that the RP210 and its train were mechanically spelled doom for them, too. Thank you bad management!
PBenham wrote:Meanwhile on New Haven, The Dan'l Webster won lots of enemies and few, if any, friends there. Their more complicated equipment, like the dual mode equipment to enable it to run into Grand Central Terminal, plus NH's going broke and not being able to properly maintain reliable units, let alone a very,very different breed of cat that the RP210 and its train were mechanically spelled doom for them, too.
Meanwhile on New Haven, The Dan'l Webster won lots of enemies and few, if any, friends there. Their more complicated equipment, like the dual mode equipment to enable it to run into Grand Central Terminal, plus NH's going broke and not being able to properly maintain reliable units, let alone a very,very different breed of cat that the RP210 and its train were mechanically spelled doom for them, too.
Thank you bad management!
Hey, they tried!
Nobody could save the passenger trains. But they tried. Since the New Haven was basically a passenger operation, nobody could save it. But they at least tried. The Xplorer, Train "X", the AreoTrain, High Level Equipment, slumbercoaches, dome cars....nothing worked.
But it wasn't for lack of trying.
cnw4001 wrote: As the others have mentioned, it was another of the experimental trains at the same general time as the GM Aerotrain and others which simply didn't live up to expectations.
As the others have mentioned, it was another of the experimental trains at the same general time as the GM Aerotrain and others which simply didn't live up to expectations.
the thing about GM's Train of Tomorrow is it toured the country.........something like 46 states and over 1 million miles.........people stood in line for hours to see it.................then got in their buicks and hudsons and studebakers and drove home...........................
samfp1943 wrote: Railfan1 wrote: Anyone ever seen seen this before? It was a new one on me.http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/archivethumbs.aspx?id=18050 Does anyone have any information on the history of this train? What is doing sitting in the weeds in South Carolina? Is it property of an Individual or a Railroad? Has it been used at all down there? It has to been out of a revenue service ( New Haven) for thirty plus years. Did Jim Bakker buy this to use at his defunct Amusement Park?Can anybody fill in the blanks? Thanks!
Railfan1 wrote: Anyone ever seen seen this before? It was a new one on me.http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/archivethumbs.aspx?id=18050
Anyone ever seen seen this before? It was a new one on me.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/archivethumbs.aspx?id=18050
Does anyone have any information on the history of this train? What is doing sitting in the weeds in South Carolina? Is it property of an Individual or a Railroad? Has it been used at all down there? It has to been out of a revenue service ( New Haven) for thirty plus years. Did Jim Bakker buy this to use at his defunct Amusement Park?
Can anybody fill in the blanks? Thanks!
According to the linked page, the train was scrapped around 1970.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
I can't remember the title of the book which has it on the cover, it may have been a hard cover book about the NYC. I spotted it over a year ago in the Cincinnati Public Library.
I rode the Xplorer between Dayton and Cincinnati and the ride was not all that great. I swear the car bottomed while we were leaving the Dayton station.
Another quirk of the engine was how it handled at low speed. It bounced up and down, some say it waddled like a duck.
The NYC version of the RP210 suffered from a number of maladies, including being a one of a kind with an engine that needed metric tools in an era when standard tools were the norm. This units bugs as well as its New Haven sisters could have been fixed, but the trains they pulled were not successful at all. See them running in Clear Block Production's Reflections of Pennsylvania vol. I. Why the PRR video? Well, they ran across a PRR line in Columbus when a camera toting fan happened to be on hand. See also "New York Central System Diesel Locomotives" by mutiple authors, either the original NYCH&T or TLC versions. The authors do not paint a rosy picture of their brief operating history on NYC. They get a going over in "Central's Later Power" by Alvin F. Staufer and Edward L. May. Then too, there's "Memories of New York Central Diesels" by Paul Carleton. Same conclusions with regard to the X-Plorer(Which is how it's spelled on the 20!)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.