Amtrak Talgo Cars

[Supermicha]

Hi,

i have a question regarding the original Talgo train set which was in the United States for Amtrak testing in the 1990´s. Does anybody knows how many cars (coach, bar, restaurant) this trainset had, and in which order they were arranged in the consist?

Thanks,

[nanaimo73]

The Spanish RENFE-Talgo (Train Articulated Lightweight Goicoechea/Oriol) tested between Boston and New York during May 1988. The consist was a head-end-power car, three coaches and a diner. The power was two of Amtrak's Rohr Turbos, 150 and 156, coupled back-to-back.

[Supermicha]

Thanks, but the train i mentioned was the one which runs north out of Portland around 1995 and 1996.

Thanks,

[nanaimo73]

There was a 12 car Talgo train that arrived in Baltimore on March 19, 1994 on a six month lease to the Washington State DOT. The first run from Seattle was north to Vancouver, British Columbia on March 29, pulled by BN GP38-2 2083.
It ran in daily service between Seattle and Portland from April 1st until Sept 30, 1994.
The 12 cars were 2 utility cars, 1 dining car, 1 bistro car, and 8 coaches, with 201 seats total, all in 1st class configeration.

[METRO]

I've seen pictures of a Talgo train in Amtrak Phase 4 scheme without the streamlining shrouds seen on the later Pacific Northwest Service Talgos, back in the mid-1990s.

The train was pulled by two F40PHs, one on each end, and I believe it had the same consist as the later models.

ER Models makes an HO scale Amtrak Talgo in exactly this scheme.

Cheers!
~METRO

[Paul Milenkovic]

The instruction book that comes with a 6-car HO scale package from Electrotren gives the consist as

TG 1-axle service van
(3) TA 1-st class car
TR lounge car
TC Bar car
(8) TB 2-nd class car
TGz 2-axle service van

(15 car total -- if you want to model this, you need to buy extra cars sold separately)

The Electrotren HO model is a little strange as the manual states "Escala HO" (HO scale), but the cars seem a little narrow and short. I almost think what is the case is that HO track gauge is taken as the Spanish 5'6" gauge and that the model is proportioned undersized (is actually in a higher-numbered scale than 87:1 HO). So it is a little dicey to take dimensions from the model.

But in rough round numbers, the wheel spacing between cars is 45' while the spacing to the "extreme axles" on the end cars is about 30' -- the end cars are a bit short. Both end cars by the way appear to be HEP gen-set service cars -- don't know what is on the end cars in the current Talgo where they get HEP from the F59. The between-car axles are of course steered with those now-famous Talgo link rods, and they "split the difference" between train cars going around a curve. The end car axles are a special case because they have to be steered by extrapolation of the angle between the last two cars -- this can create some problems on the model negotiating crossovers -- you can be shoving an end car with the end axle in some strange orientation, and they may have a similar problem on the prototype hence the shorter end-car wheelbase. Turbo Train was guided axle but avoid this problem by having conventional trucks on the end cars under the domes.

The end-car axle steering is somewhat of a mystery. As far as I can tell, some old European Talgo's got their end-car steering from the European-style buffers at the connection to the locomotive -- the newer Talgos (includes Talgo 200 -- what you are interested in) get their steering by some kind of undercar link rods. I found one Web page of a computer model (for evaluating engineering data) of a Talgo-based test train where they describe the end-axle steering. On the Electrotren model, you can see "detail" under the end-car body of that steering mechanism, but on the model, they cheat, and attempt to steer the end axle from the coupler, resulting most of the time in just "shoving" that axle through curves and creating a "track cleaning car" from the sliding friction of the misaligned axle serving to pick up dirt.

Usually we study the prototype to build the model, but here I am studying the model to understand the prototype. The box of the Electrotren model states that they are licensed by Patentes Talgo, S.A. to do the model. I know we gripe about U.P. wanting tribute money out of Athearn and Lionel, but here, the Electrotren model seems to have an official sanction from the Talgo company, and Talgo views the model as a marketing tool.

Talgo is said to be the front runner for the proposed Midwest Regional Rail Initiative to bring 110 MPH service to 9 Midwestern states, but mainly because Talgo is hungry for the business. They are perhaps on the outside-looking in competing with Siemens-Semmering-Graz-Pauker and others in Europe, so they are engaged in an aggressive marketing campaign to get in on the ground floor if there is a passenger rail revival in America. I think that from a train model perspective, guided axle is neat as all anything, but I have concerns on the 1:1 version -- can we get more feedback pro and con on the ride quality. The other thing I have learned from Talgo promotional material on the Web is that Talgo has (or had) techs riding the Cascades Talgo constantly monitoring things -- like wheel alignments! With guided axle you need to worry about wheel alignment like in a car, not a worry with conventional trucks. I just hope that if we get the Midwest Regional Rail funding that we don't plunge head first into Talgo and break our noggins as the experience with Talgo back in the 1950's.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Oh, one more thing!

The reason one end car is 1-axle and the other end car is 2-axle is that if you have an axle between each car and one axle at each of the two extreme ends, you need an extra axle somewhere. Talgo 200 has 2-types of end-car: 1-axle (other end rested on neighboring coach with axle) and 2-axle (neighboring coach with its axle on far end rests on it). Talgo says their newer design has only one type of end-car (1-axle), but they need 2 types of intermediate car (a 1-axle, and 2-axle to make the axle count come out right). What they save, I don't know.

Also, Talgo 200 took up revenue space with the on-train loo -- on the model it appears the loo is on one side of the corridor and the A/C evaporator is on the other side. The newest Talgo finds space for the A/C under the car.

[kenneo]

Current Cascades Talgo's have a gutted F40PH made into a control car for push-pull with the engine compartment turned into a baggage section. The transition cars have a combination of baggage and gen-set with a two axel truck next to the "engine" and the standard Talgo configuration byond. Same arrangement with the power unit at the other end, except that the baggage compartment on the engine is filled with a diesel. Operates in push-pull mode. Power is usually an F-59, but sometimes other power has been used.

I have ridden these trains several times, and prefer a two axel truck under each end of the car. The single axel configuration really "bangs and thumps" going over frogs and the sudden sideways movement can throw a person down. An actual locomotive "pulling" on each end makes for a better ride than the push mode does.

[Paul Milenkovic]

I was under the impression that what made Talgo unique among guided-axle trains is that they had guided axles throughout, even under the end cars. Turbo Train "cheated" and put two-axle trucks at the ends (makes things simpler). Are there photos showing two-axle end trucks on Talgo?

Why the gen-set on the Talgo end (transition) cars? I thought the F59 supplied hotel power.

Anyone else confirming the rough ride on the Talgo? Is it mainly track work or is it also on mainline travel? The rough ride is a concern because a lot of people have "bought in" to the idea of Talgo, and if this guided-axle lightweight thing doesn't work, this should influence planning.

[DrummingTrainfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

Why the gen-set on the Talgo end (transition) cars? I thought the F59 supplied hotel power.

I'm no expert, but is it because originally it was to be pulled by another type or locomotive that didn't have HEP?

[AlaskaCentral]

I am looking to build a 1:8 Live Steam Scale 7.5" Gauge Amtrak Cascades Talgo train set to include the EMD F59PHI Locomotive. Any good suggestions on where to the mechanical drawings and blue prints of the talgo cars and the locomotive?

Thanks,

Steve Katkus
President

Alaska Live Steamers

[samfp1943]

Steve:

This link may be of interest to your project. Check page 3, down near the bottom are a couple of photos of a Talgo Car and a detailed end view of one.

Here is that linked site: http://www.photosbystevenjbrown.com/narp/cascades/talgo.html

This site as well may provide som information of use to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Cascades

here is a site for Talgo America that may be of interest(?)

http://www.talgoamerica.com/maintenance-equipments-overview.aspx

You might want to search YouTube for AMTRAK CASCADES, as well there seem to be a number of videos with references to the TALGOs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIywRX3iYmE&feature=fvwrel

Hope this info may be of use to you.

 

 

[khorzan]

Steve,

I have a PDF that shows some useful dimensions, window patterns and paint details, however I can't seem to share the file here on the forum...

Send me a message and I'll e-mail it to you.

To answer some of the other questions & comments from earlier - All of the Talgo cars are single axle cars. I don't know how axle steering is handled on the end cars or if they are rigidly mounted, but the intermediate wheels don't have axles at all to the best of my knowledge. Instead, the wheels are independently mounted to a structural frame that the cars attach to from either side, and the car frames and some hydraulics help keep things in alignment. The lead truck on the consist will always be the 2-axle truck of the locomotive or NPCU, whcih helps in curves.

I have ridden the Cascades Talgo sets several times in the past two years, and they are without a doubt the smoothest train I have ever ridden on. The engineer can slip the brakes and get you moving so smoothly you won't even realize it until you see the scenery going by or you hear the wheel click over a rail joint. The shorter car lengths mean the car ends don't shift as far, and having the car ends jointly supported by a common structure eliminates the "shearing" effect common to separately coupled cars.

The HEP set is included for situations where a single F59 is pulling a longer (13 or 14-car) set. This allows the F59 to dedicate all of its power to moving the train. It is a bonus that allows the passengers to remain comfortable if the F59 dies on the road and Amtrak needs to borrow a freight engine to get the train to its destination, which has happened once or twice.

Regards,

Steve P.

[Overmod]

kenneo

I have ridden these trains several times, and prefer a two axel truck under each end of the car. The single axel configuration really "bangs and thumps" going over frogs and the sudden sideways movement can throw a person down. An actual locomotive "pulling" on each end makes for a better ride than the push mode does.

The bang and thumping from an 'unequalized' single axle negotiating track 'defects' was a well-established problem on the earlier single-axle lightweight trains, and if I remember correctly, on the UA Turbotrain.  Heavier sound insulation at the ends of the cars is one potential answer, as is better (much better) means of secondary suspension in both the vertical and lateral planes.  Better compliance does NOT help these things, as it isn't the 'rebound' or jounce but the primary shock that causes most of the problem.

A worse situation arises out of those separate wheels.  You might think (and early light-train engineers did) that separate wheels with low unsprung weight are the way to go.  A prominent engineer I know has actually patented a freight-car axle with bearings in the middle to allow the two wheels to rotate separately.  As it turns out, that is NOT a good idea!

If you look at the dynamics, a rigid wheelset with coned treads actually provides some of its own restoring force for lateral displacement.  Wheels running freely do not share this characteristic, and this means that closer flange contact, fancy lateral damping, etc. are needed to get comparable running out of them.  About the best that can be said for the idea is that it staves off destructive truck oscillation (which can set in with a speed difference of only 1 or 2 mph between stable and massively unstable) -- but it does this by becoming (imho) more and more unstable at far lower speed until it's obvious the thing can go no faster in safety...