The Roger Williams

[Overmod]

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.

RME

[John WR]

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.  

[Deggesty]

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....

[erikem]

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?

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

[Overmod]

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.

RME

[John WR]

Overmod

Let 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.  

[Overmod]

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

[John WR]

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.