Thanks for the reference to pendulum cars, Overmod.
I recall many years ago seeing an illustration of a Talgo car the New Haven brought as a pendulum car. Certainly your links show that the technology began in the late 1930's so it was available in 1954.
But the New Haven's Talgo never succeeded. I don't think it was ever used at all.
Not in the least.
See here: Pendulum Cars
Here's a picture from another angle, showing some details not in the other pictures:
CB&Q motor train
There is a site on the Web that had the link to the relevant patents, but I don't have access to the information; I'm sure one of you can find it and provide an appropriate link.
RME
OvermodLet me throw, briefly, into this discussion the history of the Pendulum Cars
Are you referring to the Talgo train the New Haven brought about the same time it bought the Roger Williams? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Budd cars were pendulum cars.
Let me throw, briefly, into this discussion the history of the Pendulum Cars.
Original version (with the plywood body) is STILL one of the most futuristic designs I've seen. (One picture I have shows it with a very antiquated-looking set of marker lights on the streamlined end...!) This as I recall used high-pivot pendulum tilt, the same principle as Cripe would use on the Turbotrain.
But the Pendulum Cars that were built for service on the CB&Q and ATSF (to mention two that I know of) used a completely different system for larger, higher carbodies: this was a tower with a "plurality" (as patent descriptions love to state) of very long, soft springs in a tower inside the car to accomplish the tilt action. I have no idea how well the idea actually succeeded in practice, or what operating details were pro or con about the idea. But it did represent a useful approach to tilt for a car to be used in a train with 'other' conventional equipment. I'd expect ride quality to be at least as good as any other passenger car with outside swing-hanger trucks and radius rods and so forth, except perhaps for vertical bounce (and I believe but can't at the moment prove that the patents for the system covered how to address that).
The solution would NOT work well for bilevel or ATSF/Amtrak type high level equipment, as the towers would have to be so long, to keep the effective pivot point above the longitudinal center of mass, to cause severe lateral sway of the carbodies, probably far enough to create a risk of fouling. I entertain opposing opinions.
Paul Milenkovic The other advantage of a taller car besides more space is that you have a larger "beam cross section" to meet the buff force requirement. The disadvantage is that you have a higher center of gravity with respect to springing it for passive tilt or even reduced body roll -- the Amcoach supposedly has less body roll and has an FRA waiver to operate faster on curves, so you could call Amfleet "near passive tilt" in that regard. One question I have about the two-level cars, how are they from the standpoint of maintenance and especially of the A/C? Commonly, the various "accessories" for a passenger box are put in a clutter of under-the-floor boxes that are accessible to the maintenance people. One of the reasons, I suppose, that Amtrak doesn't follow Don Oltmann's idea of bus-style "possum pouch" baggage holds is that the under-the-floor space is reserved for the "mechanicals." A Superliner or California car has the mechanicals over the trucks and below the upper deck? How is that as far as accessiblity?
The other advantage of a taller car besides more space is that you have a larger "beam cross section" to meet the buff force requirement. The disadvantage is that you have a higher center of gravity with respect to springing it for passive tilt or even reduced body roll -- the Amcoach supposedly has less body roll and has an FRA waiver to operate faster on curves, so you could call Amfleet "near passive tilt" in that regard.
One question I have about the two-level cars, how are they from the standpoint of maintenance and especially of the A/C? Commonly, the various "accessories" for a passenger box are put in a clutter of under-the-floor boxes that are accessible to the maintenance people. One of the reasons, I suppose, that Amtrak doesn't follow Don Oltmann's idea of bus-style "possum pouch" baggage holds is that the under-the-floor space is reserved for the "mechanicals."
A Superliner or California car has the mechanicals over the trucks and below the upper deck? How is that as far as accessiblity?
Interesting question in regards to maintenance on the A/C. My recollection on the California cars is that the A/C is above the lower floor level and just inboard of the trucks, will take a closer look my next time riding the car (should be Tuesday). There appears to be some access to that area from the inside of the cars. The A/C units on the Superliners and Cal cars are definitely better protected against foreign object damage than most single level cars.
The chief advantage of the California cars over the Superliner's is having two doors on each side, along with two stairways to the upper level, which allows for much faster loading and unloading. There's room at each door for at least a half dozen people to stand while waiting for the train to stop. there is 2-1 seating on the lower level, which is reserved for disabled and "senior citizens", where as the lower level on the Superliner reminds me of the passageways on a nuclear submarine.
The one advantage of the Superliner over the Cal cars is better legroom, though the Superliners seem to have a rougher ride than the Cal cars.
- Erik
Paul Milenkovic, you brought up two points.
1. The lightweight trains and Santa Fe's high level cars came into view at the same time. Do you remember the issue of Trains which had an article on each of these? (Paul North may be able to tell us which issue it was.)
2. The full-length domes were not domes. I agree, for to me a real dome allows the passenger to see ahead and behind while sitting. I was glad to have the opportunity to ride in one of the SP's home-built domes, but....
Johnny
George Alpert, the New Haven's last President, was going to the government for handouts in order to keep his passenger service going. He succeeded and did provide hourly passenger trains between New York and Boston but it wasn't easy. He is reported to have complained that a passenger train is not a business because a business implies the hope of a profit and there is no such hope in passenger service.
No reflexive knock; in fact, I loved Train X early, while they still existed in Travelers Rest, and thought that the Speed Merchants (like that last DL109) should have been preserved.
When I talk about 'lightweight trains of the Fifties' I am specifically referring to those designs, the follow-on to the C&O thing with the individual wheels. Cheap replacements for existing service, mostly, rather than, say, reboots of the approach taken with the early Streamliners. I don't mean to be disparaging, but they WERE market failures if you had to ride 'em with other choices available to you.
I think of lightweight trains then and now as being the same comparison as economy cars of the '50s compared to now, or lightweight sports-car design, or engine technology... what's built now is out of all comparison engineering-wise... and also cost-wise in the case of any of the true HSTs. (There is also the friendly Government stepping in to assume some of the equipment and infrastructure costs... but I'm not digressing...)
The short answer to the Northeast Corridor question is that UA was responding to Johnson's UMTA or whatever it was called. Not incidentally it was ... unlike those other designs ... an honest-to-God high-speed train, with then-cutting-edge propulsion, and good sound insulation, and what I considered to be good buiild quality, and nice interiors. Problem was that the infrastructure was never there to let them run fast without being slammed apart ... I love my Viper, but would I drive it up and down the potholed streets of Manhattan? And how long would I expect it to remain in 'high-speed-capable' condition if I did?
Would have been interesting to see the diesel-powered version. Perhaps with the kind of engine in the Speed Merchant (there were two 'test mules' sitting waiting and wasting for just such an opportunity. If I were going to be waspish I would now bring up the amazing success of the Canadian LRC with Alco power, or the experience with the APT-P in Britain. Things are different now; I wonder how different it might be if these trains were put into service today as alternatives...
Thanks for catching the typo on the British test vehicle -- fingers were cold and keyboard was tiny.
Paul MilenkovicWhy didn't the government buy more of these things for the Northeast Corridor Project
I cannot answer your question. However about 1990, New Jersey Transit bought Stadler GTW 2/6 diesel multiple units for its Riverline. Each set is two passenger cars with a diesel electric power unit in the center. Like Budd cars they can be connected to form as long a train as is required although I have never seen more than two sets connected at any one time. They are standard gauge light rail vehicles. Ralph Budd's vision still lives in New Jersey and, of course in Europe. Stadler is a Swiss company.
By the way, the New Haven lightweight trains all had names. The Train-X with the Baldwin Diesel hydraulic locomotives was called the "Daniel (or Dan'l) Webster", the Talgo with the Fairbanks-Morse "Speed Merchant" Diesel electrics was the John Quincy Adams, and what Budd called the "RDC Hot Rod" (somewhat lighter RDCs with lower roof lines and the locomotive noses) was the Roger Williams.
I don't think that the New Haven had a GM AeroTrain apart from perhaps a short test run.
Each name was that of a historical figure in New England. I believe Roger Williams left Massachusetts to escape religious persecution and founded modern day Rhode Island.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
OvermodWhat I think I would have done, for dedicated high speed, would be to use diesel-electric propulsion (dedicated one generator to one motor) with Cardan shaft drive to both axles (similar in principle to a French monomoteur bogie, but with the motor in a different place), It would then have been possible to arrange this so that the motor crankshaft and generator mainshaft could have been set with a lockup coupling and stiff Ferguson-clutch-like arrangement to provide direct engine drive to augment the traction-motor power (yes, an early exsample of 'hybrid' operation)
Really clever idea! Small gen and motor - just enough to get you up to speed, then lockup.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
There seems to be this reflexive knock on the "lighweight trains of the 50s."
From the link, "These cars were the best of a poor group "
The article seemed to praise them, and here they are on Amtrak a quarter century later. If they were the "best of a poor group", what, if anything was bad about them?
Why didn't the government buy more of these things for the Northeast Corridor Project, say with "futuristic airline-style" interiors subsituted instead of the TurboTrain?
Little more anecdotal info in the caption of this
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=356271&nseq=5
Looks like non-std RCD trucks. These appear to have outside swing hangers.
erikem Overmod When I say "massive mistake" I am referring mainly to the lightweight-train 'craze' of the 1940s and '50s... up to the point where railroad companies stopped buying new experiments to try and seize back demand (or keep subsidized mail service, etc. at lower cost) Possibly the most successful "lightweight" American RR passenger car design from the 1950's was the Santa Fe Bi-level, as cars of similar, though updated, design are still in production. Santa Fe's specific design goal was to lower the weight per passenger seat while retaining the same ride quality and comfort of the not quite so light weight single level passenger cars. - Erik
Overmod When I say "massive mistake" I am referring mainly to the lightweight-train 'craze' of the 1940s and '50s... up to the point where railroad companies stopped buying new experiments to try and seize back demand (or keep subsidized mail service, etc. at lower cost)
When I say "massive mistake" I am referring mainly to the lightweight-train 'craze' of the 1940s and '50s... up to the point where railroad companies stopped buying new experiments to try and seize back demand (or keep subsidized mail service, etc. at lower cost)
Possibly the most successful "lightweight" American RR passenger car design from the 1950's was the Santa Fe Bi-level, as cars of similar, though updated, design are still in production. Santa Fe's specific design goal was to lower the weight per passenger seat while retaining the same ride quality and comfort of the not quite so light weight single level passenger cars.
The Santa Fe "Hi Level" train cars were contemporaneous with the "lightweight experimentals", and the Amtrak Superliners and Amtrak California Surfliner or "California cars" are the same concept.
They are far from lightweight as a train car -- I had seen a figure from Alstom of 150,000 lbs. Given their size, this is roughly equivalent to a Talgo weighing 50,000 lbs -- I saw that the Talgo's, even the North-American adapted Talgo 8 comes in around 35,000 lbs, so I guess the Talgo is still lighter per seat but not by factors of 2.
The other "sales feature" of the Santa Fe Hi Level was that all of the revenue seating was on the upper deck, and having the passengers "up high" was to convey some "sight seeing" advantage of a dome car. In fact, there were a few "experimental" Hi Levels -- I had seen them in the Southwest Limited consist in the early Amtrak years. These prototype coaches have a slight angle to the sides distinguishing them from the production run. The story was that the passenger seating was on a step up from the aisle, much as on a dome car, for more sightseeing height.
However cool that Hi level was, it was no dome car. The point of a dome is you can see out the front.
Overmod Fourth big difference: better suspensions, both active and passive. The revolution for single-axle guidance that came out of Britain in the '60s isn't as recognized as it should be (HSRV-1 has now been preserved, hallelujah -- but I'd bet not one in ten American railroaders, let alone railfans, can tell you what it was without Googling...) There is also much better analysis in control theory and nondeterministic mechanics to determine consequences of critical speed and geometry interaction. Most people on here can care less about the math ... but the results give much smoother ride WITHOUT introducing weird compliance issues, like the old chevron springing that was tried in the '70s, or soft wabbly secondary suspension (the Pioneer III family, including Amfleet, and the "improved" air bags on the Aerotrain).
Fourth big difference: better suspensions, both active and passive. The revolution for single-axle guidance that came out of Britain in the '60s isn't as recognized as it should be (HSRV-1 has now been preserved, hallelujah -- but I'd bet not one in ten American railroaders, let alone railfans, can tell you what it was without Googling...) There is also much better analysis in control theory and nondeterministic mechanics to determine consequences of critical speed and geometry interaction. Most people on here can care less about the math ... but the results give much smoother ride WITHOUT introducing weird compliance issues, like the old chevron springing that was tried in the '70s, or soft wabbly secondary suspension (the Pioneer III family, including Amfleet, and the "improved" air bags on the Aerotrain).
Inquiring railfans can't find out about the HSRV-1 either, even with the aid of Google.
I had heard about the British high-speed rail research effort on hunting and dynamic rail-wheel stability producing a two-axle railroad car that was operable at higher speeds.
I think the correct monicker is the HSFV1 for "High Speed Freight Vehicle 1." Two axle freight cars are common in Europe, and the design "tuned" the compliances (i.e. springs) of the suspension to achieve a critical speed above 140 MPH.
I believe that was the downfall of the GM Aerotrain, and to blame the faults of that design on "light weight" or using "bus bodies not meant for railroad service" is too simplistic. The use of single-axle unguided trucks in Aerotrain was a naive design. There are four-wheel buses, and they run OK down the highway, so if we put two wheel on each of two axles on a railroad car, that should run down the rails, no? No indeed, except at the slowest speeds, as this design doesn't take into account how coned wheelsets guide when running on rails. Long wheelbase combines with the wrong spring stiffness against turning, such as an 0-8-0 steam locomotive, works against stability above yard speeds. I guess the British calculated the right turning stiffness in the two-wheel trucks for their HSFV1, and such math applied to engineering could have made Aerotrain successful.
If one is going to knock the lightweight experimental trains of the 1950s, critique them for being naive engineering, or critique them for departing from accepted practice in the absence of a good scientific engineering theory of how to design trains. But to dismiss them for being lightweight and suggest trains need to be heavy may be as naive as those designs (not informed by the best science -- naive art is produced by artists who don't learn about anatomy in art school and hence draw human fingers that look like tea sausages).
Overmod The original point I was making is that you can save weight in railcar design to make the train cost less, cause less weight-based wear on the track, and burn less fuel. Or you can save weight to make the train faster for the same horsepower and better on the track geometry at high speed. The RDCs were a successful design, in part, because they could do both, to the required limits of available NH passenger speed at least, without compromising either function. But to run them above 100mph... let alone 125mph or higher... you would need to make a number of design changes. And I had thought that the Roger Williams design was intended to help usher in an age of that kind of speed between New Haven and Boston...
The original point I was making is that you can save weight in railcar design to make the train cost less, cause less weight-based wear on the track, and burn less fuel. Or you can save weight to make the train faster for the same horsepower and better on the track geometry at high speed. The RDCs were a successful design, in part, because they could do both, to the required limits of available NH passenger speed at least, without compromising either function. But to run them above 100mph... let alone 125mph or higher... you would need to make a number of design changes. And I had thought that the Roger Williams design was intended to help usher in an age of that kind of speed between New Haven and Boston...
From New Haven to Boston we are talking about the Shore Line, a line that was surveyed before the Civil War and designed to connect existing cities. Except for the Providence to Boston segment the line is notorious for its curves. And, as you point out, that was in the days of wooden ties. I recall reading an article that said when Amtrak replaced the track with concrete ties they found granite monuments that marked the center of the original tracks. Some were as much as 4 feet out of alignment. Of course none of this has anything to do with Budd RDC's. It does suggest that to the degree higher speeds were desired that was kind of naïve.
With respect to 'high-speed rail' -- other railroads got 80mph speed out of RDCs without much effort. Reading with its service in the general NY- Philadelphia corridor is one example; B&O Speedliners -- even adjusting for the notorious Italian-like optimism of their speedometers! -- would be another. If I remember correctly, high speed was a factor in the RDC wreck on the LA-San Diego route that led ATSF to abort use of RDCs for high speed -- in muy opinion, tremendously prematurely.
The problem for me is that there needed to be some detail-design changes to make RDCs truly fast, and I suspect (but can't prove at this time) that they were not successful or needed in the service New Haven was running. Effect of higher final-drive gearing on the engine and torque-converter performance, for example, or the need to conjugate the truck axles (note that the SPV2000, only about 10,000lb heavier, demonstrably needed four-axle drive to reach any sort of high speed without slipping one and then the other engine as single axles broke loose, and hammering the gears and the transmission internals each time...)
What I think I would have done, for dedicated high speed, would be to use diesel-electric propulsion (dedicated one generator to one motor) with Cardan shaft drive to both axles (similar in principle to a French monomoteur bogie, but with the motor in a different place), It would then have been possible to arrange this so that the motor crankshaft and generator mainshaft could have been set with a lockup coupling and stiff Ferguson-clutch-like arrangement to provide direct engine drive to augment the traction-motor power (yes, an early example of 'hybrid' operation) and this would have reduced the size and weight of the TMs required, or allow them to be buiilt to spin at higher speed without damage (again, just as in hybrids) This involved a little more tare weight than the diesel0hydraulic converter drive, but for one thing it would have provided default capability for the New Haven trains to run through NYP, and perhaps even (given appropriate electrical gear) to run south of there under catenary and hence act as a kind of 'Metroliner-Lite' (MUCH more in keeping with the original Pioneer-III-style-trucked designs that turned into the Metroliner proposals...) [EDIT: look at the Bowes drive proposed for the Ingalls Shipbuilding 2000hp passenger unit for a likelier lightweight but robust solution possibility]
It's really 'both', but one thing that has really made the difference is the improvement in rail-fastening systems. I had thought in the mid- '70s, looking at some of the track-mechanics stuff coming out of France (mention of EIGHTH-order differential equations was not something that escaped my youthful sense of wonder!) that actual sprung track, like the German experiments in the '20s but much better damping, was going to be required. Pandrol et al. changed that, dramatically (and subsequent experience in the United States with concrete ties has, I think, borne that out).
Second big difference: lighter vehicles. I think both Paul and Henry6 were mentioning this in slightly different contexts in other threads. Perturbing force in the track, and the amount of reflected energy that the track has to disperse without geometry change, go down with lighter mass, and while the increase in force goes up with the square of velocity, we're predominantly concerned with the vertical component of that velocity, which of course is considerably less than 'conversion of forward momentum into vertical shock' or the like.
Third big difference: Development of automatic track-maintenance equipment, and the diagnostic procedures to optimize its use. Just look at the sophistication of modern European systems, and consider the amount of manual tinkering that would be required even to approximate what the machines can do.
There are more factors, like better design (and cheaper ways to do the civil) of things like vertical curvature, which become critical for HSR even as ruling grade becomes less so. (It turns out that while curvature is a no-no, peak grade can be as much as 8-10% for sustained HSR: how long can a train BE on a grade that steep and not get to the top of whatever it's climbing largely on momentum...)
Other factors too, but I think those will do for a starter. We've already discussed the relative advahtages of CWR.
Overmodhere was (in my opinion) never a clear distinction between 'lightweight trains as a cost-saving measure' and 'lightweight trains as high-speed machines'. And there badly needed to be!
So are you saying that there was never anything wrong with Budd RDC's in themselves but the mistake was in seeing them for something they were not?
Overmod When I say "massive mistake" I am referring mainly to the lightweight-train 'craze' of the 1940s and '50s... up to the point where railroad companies stopped buying new experiments to try and seize back demand (or keep subsidized mail service, etc. at lower cost) UA Turbotrain and others 'of that ilk' were, I think, largely spurred by Johnson's UMTA, the incentive that was described to me as an American attempt to show it could compete with innovation in the rest of the world. Metroliner was originally designed and spec'd to have a variant of the Pioneer III truck architecture (I don't remember what it was going to be called) but someone got cold feet and retained the heavy GSC truck architecture. Not good especially as PC negligence began to set in. It might be recalled that the original 'shin kansen' Tokaido line, with greatly lighter equipment, was having to rebuild line and surface about every six weeks to keep the ride smooth -- I'm a bit more understanding of NVH issues on the Metro in light of that (rightly or wrongly). (If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, what is an iron horse designed by a *government* committee...) I confess that I loved the whole design philosophy of the Turbotrain, an airliner on tracks. I had no objection when riding it, either, but I stayed upstairs in the 'dome' the whole time every time I rode one, so I literally have no idea about comparative ride quality. One thing I remember, though, is that if you made the suspension compliant enough for smooth ride, it would beat itself out of alignment more readily and require repair -- what the repairs actually were, I don't recall, and I haven't read the book on them (which probably tells about all that.
UA Turbotrain and others 'of that ilk' were, I think, largely spurred by Johnson's UMTA, the incentive that was described to me as an American attempt to show it could compete with innovation in the rest of the world. Metroliner was originally designed and spec'd to have a variant of the Pioneer III truck architecture (I don't remember what it was going to be called) but someone got cold feet and retained the heavy GSC truck architecture. Not good especially as PC negligence began to set in. It might be recalled that the original 'shin kansen' Tokaido line, with greatly lighter equipment, was having to rebuild line and surface about every six weeks to keep the ride smooth -- I'm a bit more understanding of NVH issues on the Metro in light of that (rightly or wrongly). (If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, what is an iron horse designed by a *government* committee...)
I confess that I loved the whole design philosophy of the Turbotrain, an airliner on tracks. I had no objection when riding it, either, but I stayed upstairs in the 'dome' the whole time every time I rode one, so I literally have no idea about comparative ride quality. One thing I remember, though, is that if you made the suspension compliant enough for smooth ride, it would beat itself out of alignment more readily and require repair -- what the repairs actually were, I don't recall, and I haven't read the book on them (which probably tells about all that.
I remember having a long "oh, what do you do for a living conversation" with a guy married to someone who worked with someone that my wife had interaction with through business contacts, this being at a social gathering and sometimes "da guys" need someone to talk to.
The fellow worked in Chicago for a supplier of Diesel engine parts for Ford for their Super Duty pickup trucks, but he got tired of the "everything needs to be done yesterday, the problems with the vehicle are all your fault, and we need it for half the money" pressure from Ford. He switched to working for a company making truck chassis and I heard that he had some patents out on new truck suspensions.
He was telling me that the technology moves more quickly in the consumer/automotive area because the market was so large. I think I expressed some interest to him in the engineering aspects of the current Talgo Train design, and he cautioned me that trucks have a much smaller market and the pace of innovation is slower, and the market is smaller yet and the rate of changes with railroad even more so.
I mean it makes sense. Railroaders are accused of being innovation averse, but you don't have the volume to justify a big research engineering effort to make radical design changes, so I can see where you are "coming from" with regard to the 1950's Lightweight Trains being a massive mistake.
With respect to the Japan New Tokaido Line, I had heard from Dad who worked for GATX and had connections to the nascent HSR community that the New Tokaido line was certainly maintenance intensive in order to maintain a comfortable and safe high-speed service. Remember that a 150 MPH train was a pioneering accomplishment back then but now HSR runs much faster than that. So, maybe it isn't so much that the Bullet Train MU cars were/are light but that you have to maintain high track and rolling stock standards -- Dad told me that they inspected the tracks every night and were out there "tweaking" their concrete tie spring clips for gauge and track alignment, and that the train cars went into the shop every night to "dress" the wheel profile on a lathe.
Is HSR still that maintenance intensive, or with experience have the carbuilders come up with more robust suspension designs or have the operators determined what level of maintenance is really required? Is there some trade that you can make the train cars heavier to smooth out the ride on rougher track, trading some energy cost for reduced maintenance, or do you require glass-smooth roadbeds to operate an HSR, regardless of your suspension smoothness?
Paul Milenkovic Overmod It was a MASSIVE mistake -- in fact, given the state of infrastructure in contemporary US practice, a particularly massive mistake. This point is extensively covered in all the references to the 'lightweight train craze' I have read. The United Aircraft TurboTrain was a "lightweight" train, sponsored by the gummint about 10 years after the New Haven got tired of fooling with its lightweight trains. I rode the TurboTrain. I thought it rode well. I rode the original Metroliner, more of a heavyweight train by the time they up-powered the Budd Silverliner. I thought it rode rough. I rode the Turboliner. Lightweight for using "power cars" and not a heavy Diesel electric locomotive, but yes, heavier than the TurboTrain. Smoothest thing I ever rode, and no, it did not have active tilt or active suspension apart from possibly air-spring load-leveling. The somewhat heavier Amcoaches that replaced it rode a little more stiffly, but not as bad as the Metroliner. As to the rough riding of the Train-X, Train-X was pretty much the first iteration of the guided-axle TurboTrain. It had a design flaw in that the guided-axle steering didn't apply to the end axles on the consist. I read that the conductors herded the passengers into the smoother-riding middle cars, which squares with that theory. The TurboTrain had conventional trucks at the ends and to my knowledge didn't have a rough riding problem. Using the United Technologies PT-6 helicopter turbine in railway service was probably naive. TurboTrain designer Alan Cripe had a Diesel truck engine version that he called the Fastracker DMT that never sold. The Aero Train? A "naive" engineering design that predated modern theory on rail wheel "hunting." The Talgo? The company is still building them with an upgraded design. Why light weight? Just about every mode out there tries to reduce reduce cost by reducing weight -- lower first cost from less metal and other materials, lower fuel costs carrying it all around.
Overmod It was a MASSIVE mistake -- in fact, given the state of infrastructure in contemporary US practice, a particularly massive mistake. This point is extensively covered in all the references to the 'lightweight train craze' I have read.
It was a MASSIVE mistake -- in fact, given the state of infrastructure in contemporary US practice, a particularly massive mistake. This point is extensively covered in all the references to the 'lightweight train craze' I have read.
The United Aircraft TurboTrain was a "lightweight" train, sponsored by the gummint about 10 years after the New Haven got tired of fooling with its lightweight trains.
I rode the TurboTrain. I thought it rode well. I rode the original Metroliner, more of a heavyweight train by the time they up-powered the Budd Silverliner. I thought it rode rough. I rode the Turboliner. Lightweight for using "power cars" and not a heavy Diesel electric locomotive, but yes, heavier than the TurboTrain. Smoothest thing I ever rode, and no, it did not have active tilt or active suspension apart from possibly air-spring load-leveling. The somewhat heavier Amcoaches that replaced it rode a little more stiffly, but not as bad as the Metroliner.
As to the rough riding of the Train-X, Train-X was pretty much the first iteration of the guided-axle TurboTrain. It had a design flaw in that the guided-axle steering didn't apply to the end axles on the consist. I read that the conductors herded the passengers into the smoother-riding middle cars, which squares with that theory. The TurboTrain had conventional trucks at the ends and to my knowledge didn't have a rough riding problem.
Using the United Technologies PT-6 helicopter turbine in railway service was probably naive. TurboTrain designer Alan Cripe had a Diesel truck engine version that he called the Fastracker DMT that never sold.
The Aero Train? A "naive" engineering design that predated modern theory on rail wheel "hunting." The Talgo? The company is still building them with an upgraded design.
Why light weight? Just about every mode out there tries to reduce reduce cost by reducing weight -- lower first cost from less metal and other materials, lower fuel costs carrying it all around.
Good recap on the UA Turbotrain but I do note that the same US DOT initiative which lked to it's operations on the corridor also led to the development of a much more succesfull high speed "lightweight" set of equipment, the PC/Amtrak Metroliner trainsets..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
PS. There is a fair amount of material about Budd RDC's on the internet though.
Overmod,
I just searched our interlibrary system--84 libraries in 4 counties do not have the book. And I can search other local systems and the State of New Jersey library too. But none of them have it.
I suspect it is a book of local interest. I probably could get it in the Providence Library. Except that I live in New Jersey.
John, you could TRY to get it via interlibrary loan. (The guy's name is 'Frattasio' if the library system is too stupid and literal-minded... ;-} ) Sheesh is it rare in libraries! WorldCat only shows three:
New Haven in the McGinnis Era
carnej1 would highly recommend Marc J. Frattiaso's book "The New Haven Railroad in the McGinnis Era"
Thanks for your recommendation. However, my book budget is quite minimal and I can't afford to buy the book. Usually I can get what I want from my library's system which covers 4 counties but Mark Frattasio's book is not there. I do know Patrick McGinnis is not exactly highly regarded by people familiar with the railroad.
I actually thought the PT6 was the most reasonable contemporary choice for turboshaft engines, for a variety of detail-design reasons I won't blather on about. (Or, put another way, I can't think of any contemporary engine, including that whining thing from Turbomeca, that I would have wanted to adapt. These were the days John Kneiling was starting to espouse distributed gas-turbine power for his unit trains -- but I never asked him at the time what engine and transmission he would favor, and now I can't (Paul, perhaps you know...)
I have looked for drawings of the Fastracker DMT for many years. I had always presumed that the power was some sort of 8V71, the same general philosophy as what became the SPV2000). One of my early design efforts was a method to synchronize the engines and transmissions on the SPV -- it did not help that only two axles were driven, as one design assumption would be that both axles in a truck would be conjugated - iirc there was some union dispute that resulted in the truck shafts being removed.
A problem I had with the early Amfleet and the SPV2000 was that there was inadequate damping both vertically and laterally in the air-spring secondary suspension -- resulting in vertical bounce as well as bobbing and weaving, and continual chittering from all sorts of little plastic pieces in the inside trim. If you didn't mind that, the ride was fairly smooth. On the other hand, I remember passing onto one of the early sections of concrete ties and thinking for a long moment that we must have had a derailment! (I was spoiled by the old P70 ride, with 'just right' spring rate and big slab of concrete in the deck, it was the only car I succeeded in falling asleep in riding between NY and Philadelphia... ;-}
Closest I ever came to a Turboliner was at the old outdoor cafe in Cold Spring, near Garrison, where the train passed literally within feet of you -- signs around warned that the train traveled at 100mph so watch yourself! How this was legal or even permissible is still a mystery to me -- but I enjoyed it immensely!
Yes, active tilt really becomes useful only above 120mph or so, and active suspension is still a (rather noisy) luxury. I am waiting for magnetorheological damping to be used on railroad cars, where it should be a very useful technology.
Personally I think light and strong is a good thing, and that modern FEA crumple-zone design may eliminate much of the 'need' for the FRA buff standard in interchange service... but would I change the FRA specs for domestic service shared with freight trains? hmmmm... probably not... but please don't call me chicken!
OvermodIt was a MASSIVE mistake -- in fact, given the state of infrastructure in contemporary US practice, a particularly massive mistake.
I understand your points that Budd Rail Diesel Cars (which is what the Roger Williams was made of) gave a rough ride because the New Haven's tracks were not adequate for a light weight car, the cars broke down frequently and even when they didn't break down they were never as fast as was promised. In fact it did wind up on the New Haven -- Springfield route which is a short haul. Those are all pretty bad faults.
But Budd RDC's seem to have continued in use for a long time. Australia used them well into the 90's as did some railroads in the United States. And some US roads still use them as well as Canada's Via Rail. Can you shed any light on why they lasted so long if they were so bad?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.