feltonhill wrote: In capable hands, the T1 wasn't all that slippery starting, either. The engineer just had to remember it wasn't a K4.When tested on C&O and N&W there were no complaints about slipping. In fact on C&O there were many comments (in correspondence that is still very much available) about the T1's not slipping under difficult circumstances. Of course, C&O had to fix the sanders on both T1's before testing. Seems that PRR didn't have them aimed at the rail heads. This is straight from the daily test reports written by the PRR engineman assigned to the tests. Glad you brought up the mileage in a positive light. This is a long standing myth. At first, the top T1's were matching the E7's monthly mileage, about 10,000 to 11,000. This comes directly from the monthly mileage reports tht PRR kept and some still survive. However, someone made the remark that the best one only managed something like 2,800 miles early on. Of course, that's what made print, but it was unsubstantiated hearsay. Hard evidence says otherwise.However, whether they were really what PRR needed.....well, that's subject to considerable debate. I'm afraid I'm in the camp that considers them not the best possible choice for PRR's operating conditions.The thing to remember is this - all recent research indicates that the T1 wasn't nearly as useless as we've been led to believe for almost 50 years. They pretty much took what was handed them and got the trains over the road. This is based on PRR memos, test reports from PRR, C&O and N&W, interviews with the crews that operated them, letters between C&O, N&W and PRR. Primary source stuff, first person commentaries. A lot of this has appeared in magazines published by PRRT&HS (many articles), C&OHS (one so far) and N&WHS (one). There's more on the way at PRR and C&O. Keep an eye on the magazines from these two groups.
In capable hands, the T1 wasn't all that slippery starting, either. The engineer just had to remember it wasn't a K4.
When tested on C&O and N&W there were no complaints about slipping. In fact on C&O there were many comments (in correspondence that is still very much available) about the T1's not slipping under difficult circumstances. Of course, C&O had to fix the sanders on both T1's before testing. Seems that PRR didn't have them aimed at the rail heads. This is straight from the daily test reports written by the PRR engineman assigned to the tests.
Glad you brought up the mileage in a positive light. This is a long standing myth. At first, the top T1's were matching the E7's monthly mileage, about 10,000 to 11,000. This comes directly from the monthly mileage reports tht PRR kept and some still survive. However, someone made the remark that the best one only managed something like 2,800 miles early on. Of course, that's what made print, but it was unsubstantiated hearsay. Hard evidence says otherwise.
However, whether they were really what PRR needed.....well, that's subject to considerable debate. I'm afraid I'm in the camp that considers them not the best possible choice for PRR's operating conditions.
The thing to remember is this - all recent research indicates that the T1 wasn't nearly as useless as we've been led to believe for almost 50 years. They pretty much took what was handed them and got the trains over the road. This is based on PRR memos, test reports from PRR, C&O and N&W, interviews with the crews that operated them, letters between C&O, N&W and PRR. Primary source stuff, first person commentaries. A lot of this has appeared in magazines published by PRRT&HS (many articles), C&OHS (one so far) and N&WHS (one). There's more on the way at PRR and C&O. Keep an eye on the magazines from these two groups.
as far as what "camp" we are in......did any RR realy need a new steam locomotive after say..1940(the FT came out)....take the Niagara....introduced 1945.....by 1950 they were bumped off most long distance trains...and most of my info in my post came from PRRT&HS articles
Since you've read Neil Burnell's article in The Keystone, you've seen some of very best of recent research on the T1.
If you want to read the text of the C&O test of the PRR T1's (there were two) here's the link:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3943/is_200505/ai_n13642634
It's a bit hard to understand without the graphics but the story is clear enough. I understand there will be a Part 2 published later this year or early next. Single back issues are available from C&OHS if you want the whole picture.
The N&W tests of 5511 were published by N&WHS in the Nov/Dec 2006 issue of The Arrow. Unfortunately, the text is not available on the internet nor can the Arrow be purchased as a single issue (yet, this may change). See NWHS site (nwhs.org) for cover photo and some information about the article.
Paul Milenkovic Why preserve/restore the Aerotrain? One could argue that all of the 1950's "lightweight experimentals" (Pennsy-Budd Tubular, Budd Pioneer III, Talgo, Train-X, Aerotrain) were failures (do we include the Alan Cripe TurboTrain in with that group -- it was derived from a design back in the 1950's for the C&O but never built). On the other hand, the lightweight experimentals were a generation after the switch to what are generally called lightweight streamline passenger cars (conventional 4-axle 85-foot stainless steel or Corten steel cars that supplanted the "heavyweight" steel cars around the time of the Diesel transition). When the lightweight experimentals came out, passenger rail was already in serious decline and the failure to work out the bugs in the lightweight experimentals is connected to the fact that they were supposed to be a magic cure for declining passenger revenues when their innovative designs would have needed more fine tuning and passenger service needed more than simply a new train design. The GM Aerotrain was more of a failure than the others. Talgo and Train-X had some measure of technical sophistication in their guided axle mechanisms. Aerotrain was simply putting GM bus bodies on unsteered single-axle trucks and was fantastically bad from what I have heard. Talgo, Train-X, TurboTrain may have been rough riding compared to say, some six-axle heavyweight cars with sophisticated swing-hanger trucks that represent the gold standard of smooth ride, but it all depends on your sensibilities and expectations. Aerotrain, from what I gather, was a naive design that had a critical speed below that of mainline passenger operations, and it shook so bad as to be dangerous at speed. I have ridden TurboTrain, and while people nit pick about "lightweight trains" and how bad they are on crossover and switch frogs, at speed and on welded rail, it ran quite smoothly, which is not anything you can say about Aerotrain. A lot of motives are assigned to GM, wanting to favor cars and buses over trains, and so on. But what I think happened is that some engineers thought, a bus runs on two axles (actually 3 axles for the big motor coaches), a two-axle bus runs smoothly enough over a highway, why don't we put two steel axles on a widened bus and hook a bunch together and make a smooth-running train? There is a lot that is said to be different about trains than highway, and one of the widely held beliefs is that trains need to be heavy to ride well, a belief that I don't share as demonstrated by European trains, which are all lightweight by U.S. standards. On the other hand, a railroad car needs to take into account the pecularity of rail-wheel guidance, and the suspension requirements for a stable train are very different from a stable highway vehicle. In fact, the stability of trains at high speeds was put on a scientific basis by work in Japan, the U.K., and the U.S. starting in the 1960's. The guided axle designs have the potential for high speed as demonstrated by the modern Talgos; the Aerotrain was proven to be a particularly bad design from the standpoint of highspeed running. If I were to select a lightweight experimental for preservation or restoration, my pick would be the NYC XPlorerer (the Train-X). Is there one still moldering away in that weeded siding somewhere in the Carolinas? The reason to pick Train-X is that Talgo is still in service while Aerotrain was a naive design without future potential. As to Train-X, many regard it as an antecedant to TurboTrain, and while TurboTrain was not a raging success, it was an inspiration to many about the possiblities of modern lightweight trains (see the Midwest Highspeed Rail Association Web page for their take on TurboTrain). I have also heard rumors that the Train-X equipment was used during the development and testing of TurboTrain. As to my nomination of Train-X, it was in part the brainchild of Robert Young, not the actor but the railroad exec who headed C&O and later NYC, and who had the failed dream of revamping declining passenger service using lightweight trains with lower fuel and motive power costs. It is also said that Train-X was to antecedant to TurboTrain, but the patent trail suggests it is more complex than that. Alan Cripe held patents from the early 1950's at C&O for a "paper train" that looks an awful lot like TurboTrain, complete with clamshell doors at the ends for connecting these unit trains in multiple. The Train-X patents ("Axle guiding mechanism" and others) are assigned to Pullman Standard and do not involve Alan Cripe, and their axle guiding mechanisms are different from either the C&O train or the later TurboTrain. The Train-X, however, uses a similar four-bar linkage remote roll center pendulum tilt as TurboTrain, not found on Talgo. Based on a combination of the history of Robert Young, the ill-starred dreamer of restoring passengeer trains who took his own life, probably owing to mental depression illness, the indirect connection to Alan Cripe, perhaps one of the more creative railroad car designers, the sophistication of both the pendulum tilt and the guided-axle systems, my vote on preservation and/or restoration goes to Train-X, if this is still possible, rather than bothering with Aerotrain.
Why preserve/restore the Aerotrain?
One could argue that all of the 1950's "lightweight experimentals" (Pennsy-Budd Tubular, Budd Pioneer III, Talgo, Train-X, Aerotrain) were failures (do we include the Alan Cripe TurboTrain in with that group -- it was derived from a design back in the 1950's for the C&O but never built). On the other hand, the lightweight experimentals were a generation after the switch to what are generally called lightweight streamline passenger cars (conventional 4-axle 85-foot stainless steel or Corten steel cars that supplanted the "heavyweight" steel cars around the time of the Diesel transition). When the lightweight experimentals came out, passenger rail was already in serious decline and the failure to work out the bugs in the lightweight experimentals is connected to the fact that they were supposed to be a magic cure for declining passenger revenues when their innovative designs would have needed more fine tuning and passenger service needed more than simply a new train design.
The GM Aerotrain was more of a failure than the others. Talgo and Train-X had some measure of technical sophistication in their guided axle mechanisms. Aerotrain was simply putting GM bus bodies on unsteered single-axle trucks and was fantastically bad from what I have heard. Talgo, Train-X, TurboTrain may have been rough riding compared to say, some six-axle heavyweight cars with sophisticated swing-hanger trucks that represent the gold standard of smooth ride, but it all depends on your sensibilities and expectations. Aerotrain, from what I gather, was a naive design that had a critical speed below that of mainline passenger operations, and it shook so bad as to be dangerous at speed. I have ridden TurboTrain, and while people nit pick about "lightweight trains" and how bad they are on crossover and switch frogs, at speed and on welded rail, it ran quite smoothly, which is not anything you can say about Aerotrain.
A lot of motives are assigned to GM, wanting to favor cars and buses over trains, and so on. But what I think happened is that some engineers thought, a bus runs on two axles (actually 3 axles for the big motor coaches), a two-axle bus runs smoothly enough over a highway, why don't we put two steel axles on a widened bus and hook a bunch together and make a smooth-running train? There is a lot that is said to be different about trains than highway, and one of the widely held beliefs is that trains need to be heavy to ride well, a belief that I don't share as demonstrated by European trains, which are all lightweight by U.S. standards. On the other hand, a railroad car needs to take into account the pecularity of rail-wheel guidance, and the suspension requirements for a stable train are very different from a stable highway vehicle.
In fact, the stability of trains at high speeds was put on a scientific basis by work in Japan, the U.K., and the U.S. starting in the 1960's. The guided axle designs have the potential for high speed as demonstrated by the modern Talgos; the Aerotrain was proven to be a particularly bad design from the standpoint of highspeed running.
If I were to select a lightweight experimental for preservation or restoration, my pick would be the NYC XPlorerer (the Train-X). Is there one still moldering away in that weeded siding somewhere in the Carolinas? The reason to pick Train-X is that Talgo is still in service while Aerotrain was a naive design without future potential. As to Train-X, many regard it as an antecedant to TurboTrain, and while TurboTrain was not a raging success, it was an inspiration to many about the possiblities of modern lightweight trains (see the Midwest Highspeed Rail Association Web page for their take on TurboTrain). I have also heard rumors that the Train-X equipment was used during the development and testing of TurboTrain.
As to my nomination of Train-X, it was in part the brainchild of Robert Young, not the actor but the railroad exec who headed C&O and later NYC, and who had the failed dream of revamping declining passenger service using lightweight trains with lower fuel and motive power costs. It is also said that Train-X was to antecedant to TurboTrain, but the patent trail suggests it is more complex than that. Alan Cripe held patents from the early 1950's at C&O for a "paper train" that looks an awful lot like TurboTrain, complete with clamshell doors at the ends for connecting these unit trains in multiple. The Train-X patents ("Axle guiding mechanism" and others) are assigned to Pullman Standard and do not involve Alan Cripe, and their axle guiding mechanisms are different from either the C&O train or the later TurboTrain. The Train-X, however, uses a similar four-bar linkage remote roll center pendulum tilt as TurboTrain, not found on Talgo.
Based on a combination of the history of Robert Young, the ill-starred dreamer of restoring passengeer trains who took his own life, probably owing to mental depression illness, the indirect connection to Alan Cripe, perhaps one of the more creative railroad car designers, the sophistication of both the pendulum tilt and the guided-axle systems, my vote on preservation and/or restoration goes to Train-X, if this is still possible, rather than bothering with Aerotrain.
Pete_SRCGM employed air suspension in an attempt to give the AeroTrain a 'floating' ride that was cutting edge technology of its day. Now however, with the more recent advances from GM's engineering dept., they have develpoed a computer-controlled 'smart' magnetic suspension system that has proven itself to work well as currently used in the auto/truck industry. I firmly believe that by installing this newer type of suspension in each passenger car and renewing the engine's powerplant and cab with more modern components, this historic/futuristic train would definalely merit refurbishment of its interiors to become one of America's premier excursion trains of the 21st century!
I think you may be looking at the wrong things to improve.
There is little problem with the air suspension itself. As you note, the use of magnetorheological damping is the 'right' answer to vertical ride quality, and I suspect to lateral motion and associated ride-motion quality issues as well. I don't think it would be difficult either to scale up the technology or apply it without significantly impairing the 'historical integrity' of the existing equipment (you might have to weld a few clevis or other contact points).
There is no reason to 'replace' the original engine type, except perhaps for a easier-maintained version of the 567 crankcase (and perhaps using the adapted 645 power-assembly approach). There is no reason to chase Tier 4 final with a historic train, the likely cost of a repower with something like a Cummins QSK is several orders of magnitude above any fuel or maintenance savings you might observe, and the parts and know-how to keep a 567 running well are easily available. I would certainly think about transplanting a compatible alternator and rectification system in ... but that's not really rocket science and I suspect that appropriate parts might be cheap to acquire (e.g., from one of LT&E's switchers?)
I am not sure whether the existing Flexicoil truck at the front is ideal for modern use, but I doubt you're going to be running the train at speeds where its 'issues' with stability or perturbing forces would become significant. It might be interesting to look at what would be involved in transplanting a modern low-unsprung-mass truck (like the type on a Genesis locomotive), but again this would be a labor of love, not that mother we call necessity.
The real problem I see is that comparatively few people are going to like the 'nostalgia' associated with the cut-rate Fifties world of spartan lightweight accommodations. Associated with this is the relatively severe restriction on available seats associated with the lightweight power and limited number of cars (similar to the experience with so many of the lightweight trains of the '30s which had to be replaced with full-size consists and larger locomotives when they became successful). Is there really a practical and sustainable business model for operating the Aerotrain long-term?
(Personally, I would hope so.)
Was a PRR T-1 used to haul the Aerotrain?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I realize this is a revived thread, but it is (or was, at least) possible to create a bus-based passenger railcar which has served reasonably well, if not luxuriously, for decades - the BR Pacers from the 1980s
The t 1 never pulled an areotrain. I think the question concerning the t 1 was if it was a successful design, some say yes and some say no. Its a mute point, by the time the t 1 was maturing, steam was dead on prr and disappearing quick every else.
As for the aerotrain, why not save one, sucessfull or not. An interesting concept, that was tried on a few roads. We have lost so much railroad history, including all the t 1's all of NYC Hudson's, why the areo train too.
As per the Aero-train in St. Louis:
Engine and traction motors were removed by RI RR before donation.
Somewhere around 2002-2004 a cosmetic restoration was done on the whole train. A very good job was done; however it was then moved to the lower lot of the museum, and is now "rail-locked" A crane would be needed to move it back up to a mainline connection.
Unfortuantly, this move has also left it open to the elements, and is starting to show it.
An interview during the restoration in 2003:
The movement to the lower lot.
What the Aerotrain Looks like now:
At least she's been saved, and who knows what may happen from here? Only time will tell.
-S. Connor
It is absolutely necessary to preserve what we can about the rich history of railroading around the world. Aerotrains were certainly noteworthy because they are part of the evolution of rail transportation. The influences that led to their production and the reasons for their ultimate demise tell a story about the times people lived in and the choices they made.
We are fortunate to have such great examples of digital pictures and videos as seen in this thread. This is becoming one of the only ways to enjoy things from the past such as Aerotrains. There is something lacking in the digital realm though–the satisfaction from experiencing or touching something real and tangible.
Future generations rely on us to preserve phyisical specimens of the world around us just as we relied on our predecesors to do the same. We stand to lose a real connection to our past if we allow complacency to guide our decisions.
Posted by chutton01 on Friday, April 03, 2015 4:50 PM I realize this is a revived thread, but it is (or was, at least) possible to create a bus-based passenger railcar which has served reasonably well, if not luxuriously, for decades - the BR Pacers from the 1980s
And updated by the British TV show 'Top Gear'
Low cost to the max!
For those who would like to see or ride behind an operating Aero-Train, you just need to make the trip to Portland, OR, Our Zoo has an OPERATING 5/8 Scale (30" Gauge) replica of the Aero-Train. The passenger cars didn't scale out as well as the locomotive, but really, with the Aero-Train, who is looking at the CARS?
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
I visited the St Louis, MO Transportation Museum in July of 2008, this is what their example of the Aero-Train looked like then, I have no idea what condition it is in today.
Have fun with your trains
And they look so so cool.
I'd hardly call the Aerotrain a design classic, although I will concede its futuristic appearance. Consider that the coaches were modified GMC intercity bus bodies, the headlight assembly was originally for Euclid mining trucks, etc., etc., etc. It looks more like a quick response from GM to Train X and Talgo in the 1950's.
Be that as it may, its still part of railroad history. If a group or groups want to save it, what's the issue ?
If what I've read is true, even though those preserved Aerotrains are empty shells, the locomotives anyway, it probably wouldn't be too tough to restore them to operation. Under those futuristic exteriors was a 1200 horsepower switcher geared for high speed running, nothing special. Should be plenty of switcher parts laying around.
The LWT12s are SW1200s at heart. Many of the SW1200s are hitting the end of their service lives, and it might be easy to acquire the machinery of one being scrapped.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.