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.
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.
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.
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:
Did IRM give METRA a high-rail truck or a rubber-tired rail-car mover, like PRR and others used to switch dockside street trackage in return for the ex-Rock's Xplorer? Am I correct about the RI Explorer being at IRM? (Maybe I should take the trouble to check the IRM website.)
Dave, Rock Island didn't have an Xplorer -- they had two Aerotrains, and they had the Talgo Jet Rocket (with an Aerotrain-style LWT-12 locomotive)
Part of the two RI Aerotrain consists exist, at NRM (Green Bay) and MOT (St. Louis). To my knowledge IRM only has steel Rock Island coaches from around 1927.
And it was the Baldwin locomotive, not the Fairbanks Morse, that caught fire because of an imperfect third rail installation on its demonstration run.
Didn't the New Haven's articulated trains get sold to the Pickins short line in Georgia, that intended to use them for excursion service? Did the New Haven pick up a hirailer in return?
I rode some of the Danial Webster's equipment running in Amtrak New Haven - Boston via Springfield service around 1972. I wonder if any of it is sitll around.
daveklepperAnd it was the Baldwin locomotive, not the Fairbanks Morse, that caught fire because of an imperfect third rail installation on its demonstration run.
If I remember correctly the Speed Merchants had a third-rail fire problem too. I don't remember any of the lightweight-train fires being related to 'defective third rail' though; I thought they were all shoe or onboard-equipment problems. I suspect you probably know much more about the specific electrical issues that caused the fires than I do.
I think you have your lightweight trains confused. The "Dan'l Webster" (note sp.) was the counterpart of the Xplorer, and it was sold to Jones Tours (Pickens) to go with the Xplorer equipment. These trains if I recall were designed to have an RP-210 at each end and were underpowered/rode poorly when this was not the case - incredibly enough the car air suspension ran off the brake-air pressure and if you put the train in emergency down went the Xploder! (That all could have been fixed, but after Young died and McGinnis went to the pokey I think nobody cared... and the Pickens folks probably wouldn't have had the budget even if they had the inclination.)
The train you remember was the RDCs-with-noses, which was the "Roger Williams". Exactly half this train (both cabs and one center car) were preserved (I think Jim Gagliardi still owns them, and that they are still in Lincoln NH being tinkered with). I do not know if they still have the gearboxes for the separate DC motors they used for third-rail access to NYC (the motors I think were taken off by the time they were modified for commuter service in the late '50s, but not because they didn't work for the purpose required, which was slow operation in the Park Avenue tunnels etc.)
Pictures from 1993 still show the outside swing hanger trucks on both cabs post-retirement. The traction motor would have hung on the outside axle, which would have required only some brackets on the end crossbar. The middle unit still has its original trucks at the Hobo Railroad.
I meant defective third-rail-shoe attachment, not the third rail itself. It was the first of the three lighweights put into service. McGinnes fired his Rolling Stock Superintendent or Mechanical Officer or whatever over the incident. It was in all the Boston papers. New York and Connecticut also, I think. It was an articulated train with power at both ends, and it was the trailing locomotive that caught fire. The fire was so intense that aluminum sidesheets melted and formed aluminum puddles on the ground. Apparently third rail power was not turned off for a whole hour after the fire was noticed, and the fire could not be extinguished while the power was on.
It was the Daniel Webster.
One more hint and then I quit
The original subject of the question was about the least likely 100-mph high-speed vehicle I can remember.
Can you repost the original question? On my computer, but possibly generally, I cannot seem to recapture the past if this thread. No matter what I do, I keep getting sent to stuff on months or years ago. thanks.
Correction, no need to repost, for me anyway, finally got the computer or the website to behave. WAs the "solution" you are referring to the Itialian, pendulam, tilting truck design?
I am not sure just which trainis used it, but perhaps Acela does, and perhaps the PRR-Budd Keyshtone did or tried it.
Possibly at first GM's Pullman-built "Train of Tomorrow" may have tried it. Also possibly one of the trains imported for testing before Acela design.
Just for the record, here is the question again with a couple of hints interpolated:
Three examples of an interesting solution 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, and sources indicate they were rated for 100 mph operation. One has the interesting distinction of (after successful operation for a substantial time) being 'horse-traded' to an organization for a piece of equipment almost completely unrelated to that organization's interest or intent, but very significant to the company that did the trading.
It is about as far from a Pendolino solution as you can get in terms of systems complexity, but there is a link between the tech used to develop the Pendolino, in an important sense, and the tech used to develop the suspension on the vehicles in question. Extra points if you can provide a name.
As another hint: Everyone is overthinking the "100 mph" part of this. If you did not know, you'd probably never guess the things would get to that speed, let alone be stable there.
daveklepperI am not sure just which trainis used it, but perhaps Acela does, and perhaps the PRR-Budd Keystone did or tried it. Possibly at first GM's Pullman-built "Train of Tomorrow" may have tried it. Also possibly one of the trains imported for testing before Acela design.
You bring up so many interesting points I thought it might be valuable to discuss a few here, outside the actual question and answer format:
Acela is powered tilt to give negative cant deficiency, I believe like APT. A different approach than that used on the Pendolinos. The tubular train (Keystone) used perfectly normal trucks and bolsters; the speed 'improvement' was through the lower center of gravity provided in the dropped center sections. Likewise, the 'Train of Tomorrow' had no special tilt means for special high speed -- if anything it was a bit 'anti-tilt' with the domes raising the effective roll center a bit.
Turbotrain did do 'passive tilt' as a result of Cripe's design. And you're correct in remembering one of Amtrak's pre-Acela experimentals, from the same geographic area that gave us the AEM-7 design:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-12-13/news/9204230485_1_tilt-train-edward-j-lombardi-x2000
If nobody gets the current question, the next one will be about an earlier approach to eliminating cant deficiency... and will be appropriate to the 50-year condition.
HALLELUJAH
Now for the second part of the question: What was the trade?
Durbin & Greenbrier Valley did well. The LEV-2 is sitting untouched in the weeds at Warehouse Point.
The LEV-2, and a once-a-day extension of MBTA's New Hampshire Division service between Boston and Lowell to Manchester and Concord NH (The LEV-2 ran as a shuttle north of Lowell) was a pretty transparent campaign move by then-president Jimmy Carter during 1980's campaign. Fast forward 35 years and the same idea - minus the railbus and the political connection - is still under discussion.
The President today announced that he will nominate John M. Sullivan, of Jenkintown, Pa., to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration…
He was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., on December 18, 1924. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1946…[as did Jimmy Carter.]
From 1946 to 1949, Sullivan served as a radar officer on the U.S.S. Providence. In 1949 he took flight training in Pensacola, Fla., and in 1950 he became a naval aviator. He served on the U.S.S. Midway, specializing in tactics of close air support.
After leaving the Navy in 1954, Sullivan was a sales engineer for the Dolan Corp., and a manufacturer's agent. In 1961 he founded the John M. Sullivan Co., which markets industrial components.
Sullivan was coordinator of the Carter Presidential campaign for the Pennsylvania primary in 1976. He and his wife, Mary Maxine, were Carter delegates at the Democratic National Convention.
110% to wanswheel -- what's next?
The idea that the passenger train demonstrations were a Carter campaign thing in association with Hugh Gallen - a two term Governer who was the only one ever to die in office - wasn't mine. Both the Manchester Union Leader and the Concord Monitor, which then as now represent polar political opinions, had articles suggesting it in 1980.
I can do better than that; I can give you the fireman, too:
Engine #1
Engineer John Unglaub
Fireman G.A.Reynolds
There is, of course, a bit of a 'trick' to this question; it concerns a little detail about President Garfield when he 'rode' this train...
(LORD how I wish I had free access to that newspaper archive database! It would make finding out this sort of stuff much easier...)
Amusing alternative answer: Garfield had previously ridden a train that had NO named engineer, and NO engine number, over NO established railroad ... where and when did that occur?
Nope, that was the late James A. Garfield. The James A. Garfield who rode this train was breathing.
Excerpt from “Thomas Corwin Donaldson”
As soon as Hayes had settled in the Executive Mansion in Washington, Thomas Donaldson renewed his acquaintance with the former Ohio Governor…
After he left the White House, the ex-President asked Donaldson for an occasional favor…
A particularly special errand the ex-President asked him to do. "I want to give Unglaub a New Year’s present of a watch. He was engineer of our train at the time of the accident near Baltimore. Let it be fit and worthy with this inscription engraved on it: "To John M. Unglaub. In grateful recognition of his courage and fidelity. 5 March 1881. R. B. Hayes, L. W. Hayes."
The circumstances of the presentation were this: On March 5, 1881, the special train bearing ex-President and Mrs. Hayes and family and friends, under the charge of Engineer John Unglaub, was returning the Hayes family from the Garfield Inauguration to their home in Fremont, Ohio. The train collided with an unscheduled extra going South, and both trains were wrecked, the engineer of the extra being killed. According to the Washington Evening Star, "Engineer John M. Unglaub … stood manfully at his post, reversing the engine as soon as he saw the approaching extra, but failed to avert the accident. Mr. Unglaub was badly injured, and Mr. and Mrs. Hayes, when they were made aware of the facts, with tears in their eyes thanked Mr. Unglaub, saying that he had not only saved their lives but those of others on the train." The Hayeses also provided every attention for his care and recuperation at his home in Baltimore.
Donaldson had the watch made to order in Philadelphia, and on the outer case he had engraved: "J.M.U." And Donaldson personally went to the engine house in Washington on January 3, 1882, found Unglaub there and presented him with the watch, together with a letter from ex-President and Mrs. Hayes.
“The following is a report of material used: Cross ties 1,767; spliced joints, 203; railroad spikes, 3,600 pounds; cut spikes 100 pounds; plank for road crossings, 4,000 feet; handled and used 300 cubic yards of earth and cinders for grading and surfacing track. In addition to the above there were: Station lamps, 14; hand lanterns, 36, and 14 two horse teams with their drivers, volunteered, and did good work. Only fifteen hours 20 minutes in building and surfacing 3,420 feet of track. George W. Abbott, track master from Somerville, assisted Mr. Murtaugh, and great credit is due to their excellent skill and ability. W.W. Stevens, assistant general superintendent, was on the grounds and superintended the work.”
OK, if he has to be breathing:
PRR engine 658
Engineer William Page
Firemen (2, not sure why) 'Lamisom' and Gwinnell.
Unglaub and Reynolds were actually on the engine 'local' to Bay View (and I think that means more than just being the B&P 'pilot' for the PRR crew on the engine), so whether you like it or not, that part of my answer turns out to be technically correct...
(BTW, the name in this reference was given as "S.A.Reynolds" and I don't have an unambiguous reference as to whether 'G.A." or "S.A." is correct, but I'll bet I know someone who can find out...)
Thank you so much for both the question and the wealth of historical material that I, for one, would never have seen if you hadn't posed this question ... or contributed so much material in getting to an answer.
As a peripheral brain-teaser: What named landmark was constructed using materials from the 'siding' built for Garfield's train?
Question (to get things quickly into other hands) --
The first narrow-gauge locomotive equipped with a stoker was notable for an unusual mechanical feature. What was it?
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