Railfan.net Web Forums


    
      
        Railfan.net Web Forums
        (http://Forums.Railfan.net/forums.cgi)
      

        Fallen Flags >> Penn Central >>  "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
        
(Message started by: METROLINER 815 on Jun 5^th, 2013, 9:45pm)

Title: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by METROLINER 815 on Jun 5^th, 2013, 9:45pm

In 1969, a new era in rail travel began between New York and Washington, when the new METROLINERS went into service.

These gleaming, ultra-modern, high-speed MU trainsets were designed to compete with the airlines of the day; the hope was to revive passenger service between NYC and DC, by offering high speed services, utilizing new, state of the art equipment.

Though much fanfare and hoopla marked the debut of METROLINER service in 1969, and though the new service was quite popular with many businessmen, it was not the huge, revolutionary success it was hoped to be.

Conventional locomotive hauled-trains eventually proved more efficient than the high-speed MU's; in later years, the METROLINER was only the name of an AMTRAK service, and not the name of a train.

At the start of service in 1969, all indeed seemed bright for future.

As things turned out, it was not meant to be.

Here are a few links of interest:

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

http://www.privateline.com/PCS/metroliner.htm

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by George_Harris on Jun 6^th, 2013, 1:38am

I was working in DC in 1972 to 1978. The major problem with the Metroliners was that the funding mindset from the government was that appropriate to aircraft. That is, it is 98% equipment and 2% fixed facilities. For a modern high speed railroad, it is probably more on the order of 20% equipment, 80% fixed facilities.

Unfortunately these beautiful 1960's trainsets had to operate on a railroad that was still mostly 1940's and earlier. Massive investments in modernization of electrification, signals, and track, including all the curve straightening that could possibly be managed was needed and did not happen. Some money was spent, yes, but only a small fraction of the amount needed.

The trains could do it. They could run as fast or faster than anything else on rails anywhere else in the world at that time.

If the money appropriate to the need had been spent on the fixed facilities it would have been the US as the number 2 in high speed railroads, not the French. (Number 1 was and is the Japanese Shinkansen.)

There was tremendous effort put into the Metroliner operation, but there was not the money there that was needed to do more.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by ClydeDET on Jun 6^th, 2013, 10:24pm

1968, when the Metroliners first saw service, was the year i went to Vietnam. Long time ago, now. Never saw one until 1972 when I was doing reserve duty (Ordnance Officer Advanced Course) ay Aberdeen. Since they didn't stop at Aberdeen, didn't ride one, though I suppose i could have caught one at Washington and ridden to Philly or Baltimore and then back. Not liking driving on the East Coast and liking train rides, I usually went to Washington at least one weekend - catch train at Aberdeen, check in at the old Commodore across Columbus Plaza from Union Station, kick around the Smithsonian and then back. Saw Metroliners zipping by whilst waiting for my train (GG-1 hauled, eh?). Ought to have some slides somewhere.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by TAB on Jun 7^th, 2013, 2:18pm

....the airlines must have felt the effect of the competition if they sensed a need to advertise......Tom

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by ClydeDET on Jun 7^th, 2013, 9:19pm

on 06/06/13 at 23:21:32, METROLINER 815 wrote:

Clyde:

I never got the chance to ride the METROLINERS either; I was approaching my teens when they went into service, and I well rememner all the news features and articles about them when they were entering service.

However, I then lived just a block from an excellent vantage point, where I could see the METROLINERS (and other NEC trains) zip back and forth as they entered and exited the Bergen Portals at the edge of the Jersey Meadows.

One of the reasons, I feel, that the METROLINERS recieved so much publicity at the time, was that this was thought by many to be the first step on breathing new life into the ailing passenger market.

With so many folks flying via the then still fairly new jet airliners, it indeed was a call to celebrate for both railroaders and those of the traveling public that prefered to travel via train.

Of course, for a number of reasons already discussed here, the METROLINERS were never able to "open up" to thier full potential.......

a
Oh, i had a chance. just didn't take it, and now wish i had. Take a conventional train to DC, Baltimore or Philly, then a Metroliner to wherever, with return to DC, Baltimore or Philly and conventional train to Aberdeen.

There were some other trips i could have taken and for one reason or another, never did. For example, Louisville to DC during the year i was at Fort Knox (69-70). Could have. Could afford it, wouldn't have had to do anything but ask the CO and sign out for a three day pass, wouldn't even have had to use any leave.

Or either taken the Cal Zephyr (the real one) or Starlight/Super Chief (the real one) and then Texas Chief home when i returned from Vietnam (1969). Ah well, at least i took the Texas Chief and then the PRR from Dallas to Aberdeen in '66. Looking back, I probably should have taken the Texas Chief to Chicago, as i did, and then C&O to Baltimore and Pennsy to Aberdeen, instead of PRR to Baltimore and change to another PRR on north. Ah well, so life is, we always could have taken different ways than the ones we did on our journey from then till now.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by NEFAN on Jun 8^th, 2013, 9:03am

on 06/06/13 at 17:25:26, METROLINER 815 wrote:

A few items from Wikipedia:

"......the speed limit for the GG-1 was set at 75-80 MPH until October of 1967, when some were allowed to run at 100mPH for a year of two; when the METROLINER MU's were being overhauled in the late 70's, the G's were again allowed 100MPH when hauling Amfleet cars between NY and DC....."

"........the 1968 METROLINER prototype pair reached 164MPH; however due to track condition, the FRA allowed the trains to run at only 120MPH....."

GG1 to the rescue.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by TAB on Jun 8^th, 2013, 4:55pm

......article from the Daytona Beach Morning Journal - Apr 6, 1969....seems as if hopes were high....Tom

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by HwyHaulier on Jun 9^th, 2013, 7:24am

on 06/08/13 at 16:55:32, TAB wrote:

......article from the Daytona Beach Morning Journal - Apr 6, 1969....seems as if hopes were high....Tom

TOM - All -

A charmingly dated piece, which would work well as a "stage set prop" in production of the very much dated milieu relied upon in the
quite successful TV series, "Mad Men"? Shoot! They were smoking in offices, and some were doing three Martini lunches, too!

Obsession with Center City to Center City times, even then, were becoming increasingly beside the point! More and more riders had
(more or less) "average" travel challenges on, say, (all points as examples) Manassas, VA or Columbia, MD, and Purchase, NY or
Wayne, NJ. Urban Downtown to Downtown quite irrelevant?

The "PC RR executive" went along with the gag, and presented a happy face. The rest of the story? The long time PRR folks were rather
pessimistic about the entire issue. They had been burned real well on various new equipment purchases in the post WWII years. Bob
Dylan had a chart topper with, "The Times, They Are A- Changin'". The guy has been perceptive for a long time...

Side Note? The entire agenda here that of capturing much of the airline's book of business? If that the intent of the mission, IMHO, it
would have been fair and equitable had the PTB arranged to buy the subject air line operation? Else, the intent to run a market place
operator out of the trade, and do it on taxpayer money? IMHO, that's just not right...

..........................Vern....................

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by NEFAN on Jun 9^th, 2013, 5:37pm

on 06/09/13 at 07:24:30, HwyHaulier wrote:

Vern, I remember that center city to center city vs airport to airport was not necessarily a good thing for the RR's back in the late 70's. The City stations and downtowns were in a state of decay that would not be turned around in some cases until the mid 80's. Suburban riders avoided the city depots. Penn station in NYC and 30th st Philadelphia were not very welcoming.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by NEFAN on Jun 9^th, 2013, 8:54pm

on 06/09/13 at 17:45:36, METROLINER 815 wrote:

Recalling when PRR archrival New York Central experimented with "high speed rail"; in this bizzare instance, the "jet competition" angle played a key part in the development of this strange machine.

The METROLINERS were indeed quite tame and mundane by comparison.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-497_Black_Beetle

http://jalopnik.com/359202/new-york-centrals-m+497-jet-powered-train

More of a "stunt" than anything else in my opinion. The NYC was trying for some publicity while placating the government.
The Metroliners were a real start toward faster trains.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by HwyHaulier on Jun 10^th, 2013, 7:31am

on 06/09/13 at 17:37:35, NEFAN wrote:

Vern, I remember that center city to center city vs airport to airport was not necessarily a good thing for the RR's back in the late 70's. The City stations and downtowns
were in a state of decay that would not be turned around in some cases until the mid 80's. Suburban riders avoided the city depots. Penn station in NYC and 30th st
Philadelphia were not very welcoming.

NEFAN - All -

Thanks! Ah! You recall the "Era Of The Grunge" near everywhere! Indeed, a well kept rail station became increasingly rare in those years...

Here, the point being: The station to station timing metric, cited by rail or air, is hardly the sole factor considered by a consumer (rider).
Rather, the decisions are heavily weighted to result in preferred total trip times, origin to destination, hardly station to station. Add to that
the changes over the decades with widely dispersed suburban areas, so total overall trip time all the more significant.

Other period events in the NEC, and note dates. In the end of the 1950s - early 1960s, Continental Trailways operated its "Five Star"
non-stops on any number of lanes, including Baltimore - New York. It credible competition to the rail, and delivered well operated highway
services. Present day highway services are very significant players in market shares.

..............................Vern......................

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by atlpete on Jun 18^th, 2013, 10:48pm

Interesting thread; I've always been fascinated with the Metroliners, even when I was a PC hater. The lengthy development and testing provided the build-up that captured my attention to them for the duration of their service life and long afterward. Even now I covet the opportunity to ride or photo the subset still in service as cab cars whenever I travel.
The significantly fatal flaw to me with the original cars themselves was the way in their weight lurched upwards with each modification (often ill considered) due to regulations, preferences, bias, half baked development and testing etc. prior to delivery and through out there service life.
Like the Acelas they shouldn't have been as heavy as they wound up; the intended trucks were the inbound bearing version found on the Pioneer, subsequent Silverliners, Arrow, Amfleet et al. But no- the operating departments went nuts over the "flimsy" design and they wind up with hybrid AAR B styles, added weight= larger resistor grids = More weight = trickier control systems = More maintenance = relocate part of portion of underbody appliances to roof = more weight and maintenance. The last intact Metroliner I rode was in Keystone service, one of a three car set regularly hauled by an F40.
I still think they're way cool, and have accumulated some O scale 85' blank extrusion to build at least a four car set.
Pete

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by Inlet-Longport on Jun 20^th, 2013, 10:01am

The Metroliners were reportedly "rough riders". One wag referred to them as "bumpycruisers". I recall that a friend of mine (not a railfan) took the Metroliner BAL to NYP and reported that the ride was less than smooth. I only rode the Metroliner once, from WAS to BAL and don 't recall the ride as being all that memorable. The Metroliners were a premium service and not exactly within the budget of younger railfans such as I was in that era.

I think that the Metroliners were, in many ways, hoked up Budd Silverliners. The whole project was rushed into production and you got what you got.

The Metroliners provided the basis for the ubiquitous Amfleet coaches.

Several model train manufacturers have come out with Metroliners, so there is a growing appreciation of these trains as time passes on.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by atlpete on Jun 22^nd, 2013, 12:25am

IL wrote I think...Metroliners were hoked up Silverliners

Agreed. though again my opinion and to be specific it was the DOT's Pioneer III's T1-4 which then indeed were very fast and powerful albeit far lighter; to my earlier point we'll never know given how compromised the design was once delivered for service; and yes "bumpycruisers" but again given the final "armour-like" weight as delivered and aspects of the route's track conditions then, well the Acela's would likely have been nicknamed "bumpy-crushers" as well.
Note- Acelas are similarly bad worse weight-wise on a per car basis like the M-L's, likely worse, but the track on the NEC is sooo much better now.
Ditto "Keystone" corridor.

I can attest to the Amfleet's ride as well regarding the the track they're on, can only think at twice the avg speed, an over weighted MU version would suffer accordingly.

Pete

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by NEFAN on Jun 22^nd, 2013, 10:11am

I agree. The track has to be in the right condition for the type of trains run over them. In the 70's there were still Conrail freights running here. I remember standing at the station in Iselin NJ watching a boxcars' less than perfect wheels beating up the nice track. If an Acela ran there it would be a rough ride for sure.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by atlpete on Jun 22^nd, 2013, 10:20pm

You'd have to think CR Joint Assets and Amtrak would have some wheel inspection "gate" about sending those periodic forays of freights down the corridor south of Newark, Philly, Wilmington etc.
In the 2004 to -07 period I recall seeing SB CSX freights at Linden booking through as fast as they could down the middle tracks , with all sorts of clatter though AIR not many flat wheels.
(It's true, for the railfan real freights are a "luxury" on the corridor.)
I can't imagine what fully loaded 50'ft sand cars, fully loaded 60' - 80' TTX flats with auto and truck steel frames etc did back in the 70's to the Metroliner's ride.
One would assume that a utility freight track for the remaining on line industries is not far off in the future, like those certain ROW's that survive the conversion to public transit.
Pete

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by Inlet-Longport on Jun 26^th, 2013, 6:27pm

The Metroliner project was initiated by the Johnson administration. There was a big push to get the first Metroliner in service before Johnson's last day in office in 1969. The first Metroliner was in service one day before Johnson left office.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by George_Harris on Jun 27^th, 2013, 2:50pm

on 06/26/13 at 18:27:23, Inlet-Longport wrote:

Even with all the uproar socially at the time, what we did have was an "It can be done" spirit. It seems like it died after that decade.

Think, this was also the decade in which we went to the moon. It is hard to imagine the extent of the technological changes of the first six decades of the last century. Think, for those of us that are looking at 60 in the rear view mirror, our grandparents grew up when the technological marvels were the steam locomotive, the telephone and the light bulb, but for most of them, it was still horses, mules, kerosene, and firewood. That the Wright brothers were able to get a machine to move in the air under its own power was awesome. Yet these people lived to see a man walk on the moon and watch it as it happened on a small screen in their own houses.

At the time is was thought that it would only be a few years before a permanent settlement on the moon and in the same time frame we would be on the way to Mars - with people, not just a machine.

Not only have we not gone to Mars or Venus or anywhere else, WE HAVE NOT EVEN GONE BACK TO THE MOON!!!!!

Let me say it again: Over 40 years after walking on the moon we have not gone back and we not gone further.

It seems that as a nation we have lost our vision, our desire to explore, our curiosity. It seems we are more interested in developing the how and why to not do something that developing the why, how, and ways to do something.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by Inlet-Longport on Jun 27^th, 2013, 4:59pm

Here is what the early Metroliner Schedules looked like. My source is AMTK form 79, 2nd Ed. 6-71, effective date June 7, 1971. There were a total of 9 Metroliners scheduled in each direction between NYP and WAS.

Northbound, the first Metroliner #100 operated Mondays thru Fridays except Fourth of July and Labor Day. It departed WAS at 07:30 hrs. It made stops at the then Capital Beltway Station to board passengers, BAL, WIL, PHL, NWK before arriving at NYP at 10:30 hrs. This was the only northbound Metroliner to bypass TRE; all others made this stop.

Metroliner 102 left WAS daily at 08:30 hrs and arrived at NYP at 11:30 hrs.

Metroliner 104 left WAS at 11:00 hrs. Mon. thru Sat. and arrived at NYP at 14:00 hrs.

Other departures from WAS were #106, leaving daily at 12:00 hrs.; # 108, leaving WAS daily at 13:00 hrs.; #110, departing daily at 16:30; #112 departing at 18:00 hrs. Sun. thru Fri.; and #114 departing at 19:30 hrs. daily.
The final northbound Metroliner, #116, left at 20:30 hrs. daily and arrived
at NYP at 23:30 hrs.

The trains included a Metroclub Car (meals and beverages served at seats, according to the schedule) and a snack bar coach.

In addition to the nine Metroliners, there were 8 GG-1 hauled trains daily, and an additional one which ran Sundays thru Fridays, and another one which ran Saturdays, Sundays, July 5, and September 6.

There were nine listed Metroliners southbound with similar scheduling.

Title: Re: "All Is Not Gold That Glitters" (Recalling METROLINER MU's)
Post by HwyHaulier on Jun 28^th, 2013, 7:19am

"I-L" - George - All -

Distinctions in all this? In the implementation of METROLINER, it effectively a move by the FEDS to provide new equipment and financing
so to aid a private market operator. The PRR did have motivations to obtain newer equipment for the "NEC" route, but by the time somewhat
pessimistic about passenger services, no particular enthusiasm to acquire new equipment, and found itself in increasingly weaker financial
conditions.

By the time of introduction of METROLINER, the railroad had become PENN CENTRAL. Nevertheless, it a market place, corporate operator,
and certainly not a public (government) takeover of passenger services.

Your writer also submits the former PRR had no enthusiasm for the METROLINER design itself. Among other issues, it had real problems
with high speed equipment of end control cab design with little crew protection. PRR demonstrated its thinking of new equipment needed,
in 1956, in its acquisition of its sole KEYSTONE trainset. It made for a significant trial, but PRR lacked resources for more. See ref.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_%28train%29

George, yes, your writer is on board with your conjecture and thesis of what we have to deal with, in our experiences of "walking thru time"
in this set of decades. Something has evidently gone wrong with the old "get up and go" which drove and powered so much innovation. Have
we been beat to pieces by too many "public responsibilities" as compelled and enforced by endless regulations upon regulations. So that:
US finally defeated by its own internal fad of the day foolishness? (Or, it might be really bad when offices of a "family doctor" practice require
in house "compliance officers"!)

.............................Vern.....................