daveklepperWas I correct about the swap with IRM at Union?
In retrospect I have screwed up, as this thread requires 50 years or more, and the equipment I'm thinking of postdates the Turbotrain, being introduced after the '70s. In automobiles, "classic" is 30 to 49 years old, so technically this could be considered 'classic trains' appropriate, but if there is a complaint I will have to come up with something else.
The equipment that was 'traded for' is notable as being something VERY 'out of mission' for the organization that had it, but equally VERY significant for the organization that traded the vehicle in question for it...
It did have a turbine in the powertrain, but certainly not powering the axles. Here is a hint for you:
Was I correct about the swap with IRM at Union? What did METRA get from Union in return for the Rock's Explorer, assuming I am correct on this. Did I provide enough information for me to ask the next question?
I think it was the FM PI12-42 on the John Quincy Adams that had the 3rd fire on its demonstration run, much to the embarresment of everyone, and the train never did see NY - Boston service but was used Boston - Waterbury, Boston - Providence, etc., if I remembger correctly.
Dave, The New Haven lightweights were the John Quincy Adams, Talgo powered by FM P12-42 speed merchant 1600hp(400hp for lighting) B-2 units equipped with third rail capability into Grand Central,an unnamed set was also built for B&M. The Dan'l Webster used the Train X equipment with the BLH 1000hp B-2 locomotive like the New York Central Train X but with a modified rounded nose and the third was the Roger Williams,while not having any cutting edge tilt technology, used modified Budd RDCs for cars with a cab unit style RDC for power on each end,some of the cars and the two cab units survived Penn Central on to Amtrak service through the early 1980's. Hope this helps.
Here is information on the Turboliners. In 1973 AMTRAK leased 2 Turbotrain sets called RTG,built by the French consortium. ANF-Frangeco.the four power units were numbered 60-63,had a B-2 wheel arraignment,used a Turbomeca Gas Turbine that generated 1140hp and a Voith hydraulic transmission. after regular use out of Chicago for several months was deemed reasonably successful,Amtrak ordered 4 more train sets numbered 58-59 and 64-65.Amtrak then contracted with Rohr Industries to for 7 more Turbotrain sets called RTL with 14 power units numbered 150-163.these US assembled units differed from the french built units by having a wedge shaped cab nose rather than the European style rounded cab of the original power units and useing American style couplers rather than European style buffers of the RTG's.these units were based out of Rennsselaer NY,for initial use on the NYC-Niagara falls corridor.while successful,Amtrak cited high operating costs of the Turbotrains.Rohr left the Railcar business in the late 1970's three of the frenchbuilt units were retrofitted with the American style cabs during fleet rebuilding and refurbishment in the late 1980s.all were retired in 2003.
Sorry about the mixup. Yes, the Turbotrain was a United Aircraft project, and I remember they had their own maintenance people and shop in Providence where one of the two Penn Central then Amtrak trains were looiked over every night between NY - Boston runs. I rode it on several occasions, both into Grand Central and then later into Penn Statioln. The Canadian trains lasted longer, and I believe the two Amtrak trains were sold to CN, either to increase their fleet or for parts. The Turboliners were only Amtrak and went out of business when fuel and maintenance costs became exceessive. I rode them in Adarondak service, Saratoga Springs -NY. They were also used Chicago - Milwaukee.
And I guess it is the independent single-axle with articulation system that was the inovation, not the tilt, and this concept was used of course in the GM bus-bodied train, Xplorer, as well as two of the experimentals that McGinnis forced on the New Haven. One of the GMs I think wound up owned by one of the commuter authoriites. possibliy Chicago's METRA for Rock Isaland's and may have been traded to IRM at Union for something. I will try and find the name of the other guided-single-sxle articulated train that the New Haven bought.
daveklepper Talgo with its tilt technology was the first. The French Turbo trains also employed tilt technology, and went to both Amtrak and CN. Certain of Amtrak's then went to CN, but I don't remember what Amtrak got in return. The German IC High Sptileed train with tilt technology was tested before design of Acela.
Talgo with its tilt technology was the first. The French Turbo trains also employed tilt technology, and went to both Amtrak and CN. Certain of Amtrak's then went to CN, but I don't remember what Amtrak got in return. The German IC High Sptileed train with tilt technology was tested before design of Acela.
Dave, I agree with your basic answer, but must respectfully quibble a bit with your details.
1) Talgo's initial innovations involved its independent guided-wheel wheelsets which, together with its low-slung lightweight articulated design, made for interesting prospects. (Unfortunately, it took additional development before it would become the successful design that it is today.)But tilt was not added by Talgo until about 1980, long after the Rock Island, New Haven, and Boston & Maine gave up on them.2) I think you are mixing up the TurboTrain and the Turboliner -- both of which had jet turbine power plants. The TurboTrain was strictly North American. A product of the creativity of Alan R. Cripe (who also designed the RoadRailer, among other railroad-related innovations), the designs were executed by the Sikorsky division of UAC (United Aircraft) in the late '60s. It was used by Penn Central and Amtrak in the US, and more successfully by Canadian National and VIA in Canada. It did have an innovative tilt features. (Not just on the single-axle coach wheelsets, but he also designed a passive tilt system for the 2-axle drive axles.)
The Turboliner was based on a French design (called Turbotrain in Europe), placed in US service in the '70s. I believe that (1) it never served in Canada and (2) it did not have a tilting mechanism.
Three interesting solutions to North American passenger service were imported for test at various times. They were based on a famous and groundbreaking design for high-speed stability. One has the interesting distinction of being 'horse-traded' to an organization for apiece of equipment almost completely unrelated to that organization's interest or intent, but very significant to the company that did the trading.
I have been asking lots of questions recently. You did OK, and better than just about anyone else could have. So please go ahead. Regarding those center wood cars in the Fulton C-units, since they remained trailers, and the weight of the steel reinforceing just about equalled that of the removed platforms, the old trucks worked fine. Some of those old ex-steam hauled trailers lasted until Qs replaced BUs on the Myrtle Avenue elevated, the City's last elevated line, running as trailers between two 1300 composite convertable motor gate cars.
Wizlish: Give it a try. So far you've posed some clever ones that we had a hard time answering (B&O's MK-1 comes to mind). I think you know more than you might think you do.
daveklepperYou mentioned three of the four series of passenger equipment and can ask the next question.
I can't take credit for it. I knew the subway question had something to do with doors and trucks, and probably with the Fulton C-types, but (1) I did not realize (although I should} that it was the door CONTROLS and not something about the doors themselves that was involved, and (2) I thought the trucks under the 'center' units of the C-types (wooden steam trailers from 1893 or before, weren't they?) would be an important change -- from what you said, I don't know if they were changed.
Ask another one.
My mother has a black and white photo of The Worcester Salt Special. Is there a market for this photo or a museum?
Out of curiosity -- does SP grafting the swing-hanger trucks from Lake View onto the business car Oakland qualify as an answer to this question?
I'm thinking there is something about galvanic corrosion that relates to this story, Hey - the cars they built at Juniata for the Trail Blazer et al. rotted out early, didn't they? I can see re-using those trucks on something like P-70FBRs; are there pictures showing them?
What trucks were put under the wooden center cars on the Fulton Acenue C-types?
The wood cars that were extensively rebuilt operated on the same tracks that a new rush hour service using the most modern cars then operated in New York and the only cars that could run on this service was introduced about 12 years after the wood car rebuilding, a rebuilding that did include considerable steel elements.The steel cars from which equipment was removed were successful steel cars, but an economy measure made the equipment that was removed unnecessary but useful on the wood cars which benefited from the same kind of economy move.
The modern PRR cars that donated equipment to the older cars had a flaw. While they were in operation, they were the most comfortable cars of their type on the PRR.``I always felt lucky to ride them, and indeed on occasion chose the PRR instead of the NYCentral because of their comfort.
Lots of cases of tenders being moved around, the NYCentnral in particular, but they don't count, not passenger equipment.
You are in the right direction to mention the PRR and to mention trucks. Now think about the total history of PRR passenger equipment. Other than Budd=built equipment, what was the newest and most confortable and what survived to be up to and by Amtrak? What premium large-fleet passenger equipment had a relatively short life and why?
You are also on the track with New York subways, but the transfer of equipment occured before unification and the newer steel cars bereft of the equipment continued in operation, some as late as 1967, without the equipment removed. The wood cars that were extensively rebuilt ended operations earlier.
A pity the tenders from the R-1 ACL 4-8-4s don't qualify under the 'special' terms of this question (where they went was decidedly not behind passenger locomotives!)
Does putting R44 trucks under the NYC R46 cars count? (IIRC the replacement trucks weren't actually taken off R44s, but were built to that spec.)
I have a suspicion that a case could be made for 'older' trucks replacing Allied Full Cushion on troop sleepers, although that would be a great technical 'stretch' to fit within the spirit rather than 'letter' of the question.
What was put on the PRR's double-unit Budd-"Micheline" train to make it operate successfully until 1948?
We know of equpment removed from old rolling stock going into new, such as the electrical and mechanical equipmenet from scrapped interurban cars going into the Key System's Bridge Units, with bodies that still look very up-to-date today. Third Avenue used old walkover seats from scrapped cars in all its homemade lightweight cars. I wish you to name two cases of equipment taken from modern cars to upgrade older passenger rolling stock, one a transit system and one a large Class I railroad. In the first case the equipment was involved in heavy rebuilding program, in the second, some cars were heavily rebuild but most were not.
Piedmont and Northern it is. It was owned by Duke Power (hence the electrification).
I had tentatively suggested the Piedmont and Northern, but was sidetracked by someone else mentioning a body of water, but Piedmont and Northern is the obvious answer. It claimed exemption from the ICC because it wished to be classed as an interurban. It was that, electrified at 1500VDC with catenary and simple trolley wire. It had one division in North Carolina and one in South Carolina, the latter the larger. Its map in the Official Guide always showed a dashed line as proposed connecting the two. It did interchange with the Southern and the Seaboard, which bought it, and possibly othe railroads, and all four terminals did see interchange. The ICC catagorized it as railroad, and would not permit the connection because there were railroad tracks connecting the two divisions already. I believe it was associated large with the Duke family and with tobacco. I did see it in Charlotte around 1960. The interchange was at the railroad station, and I saw a freight motor before boarding the Piedmont LImited for New Orleans.
Passenger traffic on each section was intrastate, but the line participated in interline tickets. Freight traffic was interchange with several other railroads, but it was unable to build the link between sections to haul interstate traffic on its own.
The ICC case that denied permission to build the missing link was opened around 1930 by one of the railroads that interchanged with this system. Unlike many similar operations, the railroad was a full freight interchange partner to other railroads.
How could it handle interstate business only if it provided passneger service, with some of the passengered assuradly intrastate?
It operated freight and passenger trains on both sections. While it was owned by a company tied to a particular agricultural interest, it was very much a common carrier.
Did it have the following characteristics: (1) no passenger service (2) one major commodoty and/or one major shipper?
Was it a US Steel owned railroad located in the Pittsburgh area?
The railroad I asked for is a regional carrier (in modern speak), not a switching carrier. The railroad claimed exemption from ICC regulation at one point in attempting to close its gap because of a particular characteristic, but the ICC ruled that it had jurisdiction and denied permission. The larger system that later acquired it connected at all four ends.
Ahah, of course, the Cross Harbor Railroad handles only interstate traffic and no intrastate traffic, since all its freight traffic must see both New York State and New Jersey. Much of the freight sees other states as well, on other railroads in interchange. And the dashed line refers to the ferry crossing.
There was another operation, freight-car carrying ocean-going steamships, some of which saw WWII service carrying tanks and other war material, and it was discussed in this Forum, but it might not meet the definition of a railroad, which the Cross Harbor definitely does meet.
Or that operated across a river or body of water, like the Hudson or New York Harbor, to a yard on the other side?
In other words, this was a regional that had two separated sections, with trackage rights or haulage on another railroad between the two sections, like the Peidmont and Northern, possibly?
The interstate "section" was shown as a dashed line on the OG listings.
If it operated in two states, I would expect interstate traffic, and intrastate traffic might not be profitable because of short haul.
Did you not mean intrastate, only one state? The traffic coming from many states but only handled in one state by this regional railroad.
This might mean a regiional that has a section of line in its middle that is out of service. But still has interchage at or near both ends.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter