Railfan.net Home Railfan Photos ABPR Archives Staff Safari Photos Railfan Links

Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please Sign In or Register. Oct 22nd, 2017, 4:47am
Categories •  FastIndex •  LongIndex •  Help •  Search •  Members  •  Sign In •  Register


TURBO ALONG HUDSON
   Railfan.net Web Forums
   Varnish
   Amtrak Discussion
(Moderators: NYC_Subway_Fan, BNSF_1088, MidwestRailfan)
   TURBO ALONG HUDSON
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint
   Author  Topic: TURBO ALONG HUDSON  (Read 399 times)
sergio_vadora
Historian
Posts: 372
TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« on: Jan 24th, 2006, 9:44am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Next march I'll be again along Hudson River Line for four days. Last time I went there I remember the Turbo northbound at 2.00 pm circa in Cold Spring:  
 
is the same today?  
What about the southboud time?
Are these trains still in service?
 
Thanks! See you along Hudson!
Sergio, Italy


Logged
NYC_Subway_Fan
Moderator
Historian
Posts: 1443
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #1 on: Jan 24th, 2006, 12:47pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

All the Turbo trains have been removed from service at this time.  So you won't find any running along the Hudson or anywhere else for that matter.   All you'll see in March are P32's and Amfleets running along the Hudson.  Sorry.  


Logged

Alan,

Take care and take trains!
Pennsy
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4586
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #2 on: Jan 24th, 2006, 4:31pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Yo Alan,
 
Any talk of removing the cab cars, Cabbage cars, from the push pull trains on Metro North etc. Here on the West Coast, Metrolink is being forced to consider placing an engine at both ends and dispense with the cab cars. Lots of publicity and gossip in this area. Lot of Lobbying going on concerning the vulnerability of Cab cars in the lead of a push pull train.


Logged

Dyed in the wool PRR fan.
NYC_Subway_Fan
Moderator
Historian
Posts: 1443
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #3 on: Jan 24th, 2006, 9:45pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Alan,
 
I haven't seen or heard any of that talk around here.  Perhaps there are some rumblings within the MTA, but very little in public.  That's probably due in part to the fact that the M series MU cars are every bit as vulnerable in a collision, as are cab cars.  And we have far more MU trains that in effect are cab cars, than we have cab cars running through grade crossings.
 
In addition to Metro North, NJT, and the LIRR all use cab cars.  And Amtrak even uses them on some of the Springfield trains.  So they are far more common place around here too and that may also have something to do with things.
 
And if we could just get people to obey the friggin law, there would be no need to remove cab cars anywhere.  


Logged

Alan,

Take care and take trains!
sergio_vadora
Historian
Posts: 372
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
  RLR_PASSENGER_50.jpg - 27554 Bytes
« Reply #4 on: Jan 25th, 2006, 6:53am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

No more Turbos?
 
 
Only Genesis.....better than nothing!
Thanks.
Sergio


http://Forums.Railfan.net/Images/Amtrak/RLR_PASSENGER_50.jpg
Click Image to Resize

Logged
silver_champion
Historian
Posts: 888
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
  b5.jpg - 163302 Bytes
« Reply #5 on: Jan 25th, 2006, 9:44am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Years ago I took a train from NYC to Troy, N.Y. I was hoping to get a ride on a turbo train but got an Amfleet train. Do anyone know where I can get some pictures of the inside of a  UA turbo train. Here is a picture of along the Hudson.


Image exceeds display size of 900 pixels wide. (163302 bytes, 928x645 pixels)


Click Here to View Image b5.jpg - 163302 Bytes


Logged
NYC_Subway_Fan
Moderator
Historian
Posts: 1443
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #6 on: Jan 25th, 2006, 11:16am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jan 25th, 2006, 10:16am, RDG484 wrote:       (Click here for original message)

 
The third were the RTL Turboliners, which were built under license by Rohr of California.  It was these particular trains that called the Hudson line home for many years.  Several RTL sets still exist, but are in dead storage.  All others have been scrapped.

 
There are still 7 RTL trainsets left in the Amtrak inventory.  Last I heard the status went like this.  Three rebuilt sets, now called Turboliner III's, are stored dead in Delaware at Bear Yard.  The remaining four sets are in various stages of rebuilding from Turboliner II status to Turboliner III status.  However all work on them has ceased.  Again last I heard, these 4 sets were still at the contractor's facility at SuperSteel in Schenectady, NY.
 
Arrangements were supposed to be made to move those 4 sets to long term storage.  However, I have no idea where that long term storage will be, it could be at the SuperSteel plant.  Or if the sets are movable via tow, it could be that they will go to Amtrak's Bear facility or they could just end up in some yard in NY State.


« Last Edit: Jan 25th, 2006, 11:18am by NYC_Subway_Fan » Logged

Alan,

Take care and take trains!
silver_champion
Historian
Posts: 888
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #7 on: Jan 25th, 2006, 1:58pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

TO READING 484;
I know what picture I posted. It is just a picture of Turbo along the Hudson. I am asking if someone has pictures of UA Turbo inside.
Thank you


Logged
silver_champion
Historian
Posts: 888
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
  AMTURBO.jpg - 59524 Bytes
« Reply #8 on: Jan 25th, 2006, 2:06pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

This is a picture of a UA Turbo and it is not along the Hudson. Do anyone have any pictures of the inside.

http://Forums.Railfan.net/Images/Amtrak/AMTURBO.jpg
Click Image to Resize

Logged
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3824
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #9 on: Jan 26th, 2006, 3:22am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

The turbos are such huge fuel hogs it is unlikely that they will ever return to service unless by someone with connections to their own well and refinery.  I have heard quotes of consumption at idle = 60% of full load consumption.  Since other than during part of acceleration, the turbine would seldom be handling full load, fuel consumption is much higher than the equivalent power diesel.  
 
Another problem with the French built ones was use of the European style hook and buffer coupling between cars.  When the French trains were in St. Louis to Chicago service, one hit a garbage truck.  The train compressed on the buffers and several of the links popped off the hooks, turning the train into a series of loose cars gouging into each other.  
 
George


Logged
sergio_vadora
Historian
Posts: 372
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #10 on: Jan 26th, 2006, 3:25am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

So Amtrak has spend a lot of money for revamping the modern Turbo (Acela paint scheme) and now they're just not working?
I'm sorry for this......
CIAO!
Sergio, Italy


Logged
Dutchrailnut
Historian
Posts: 536
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
  Amtrak_Turboliners_Stored_at_Bear_Del._6-05b_Medium.jpg - 60442 Bytes
« Reply #11 on: Jan 26th, 2006, 8:39am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Not Amtrak but state of New york decided to piss away money on rebuilt program on 30 year old trains, Amtrak did not want the rebuilt.
 
 Here is picture of stored Turbo's at Bear Delaware.
(not my picture)


http://Forums.Railfan.net/Images/Amtrak/Amtrak_Turboliners_Stored_at_Bear_Del._6-05b_Medium.jpg
Click Image to Resize

Logged

A true fan only takes pictures and only leaves footprints
ClydeDET
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4794
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #12 on: Jan 26th, 2006, 12:26pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Turbines (despite cerrain operational advantages - mainly they run real smooth and spool up quickly) haven't had a good record in railroad service. Or in vehicles other than tanks where their disadvantages are outweighed by advantages...
 
Not knocking the RTGs - they are good trains, but as turbines, they are fuel hogs and the engines themselves are quite expensive when they ahve to be over-hauled or replaced.  
 
Current circumstances in re oil prices and availability suggest that gas turbines ain't gonna be running trains again soon, and I can understand why.
 
I also question the adviseabilty of running essentially permanently coupled and inflexible train sets - teh Santa Fe had good reasons fro opting out of the articulated train set (as the Burlington did not in its early diesel streamliners) when they decided to buy lightweights. And while things are differnt now than in 1937 - most of Chico's reasoning for independent locomotive hauled cars strike me as still valid.
 
And unfortunately, i don't ahve any piccies of the interiors of the old US Turbos. Posisbly the National Railway Historical Society might be able to help via their library. Worth  contcting them


Logged
NYC_Subway_Fan
Moderator
Historian
Posts: 1443
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #13 on: Jan 26th, 2006, 12:51pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jan 26th, 2006, 8:39am, Dutchrailnut wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Not Amtrak but state of New york decided to piss away money on rebuilt program on 30 year old trains, Amtrak did not want the rebuilt.

 
Well actually to be fair, under Warrington's administration of Amtrak, they did want the rebuilds.  That's why Amtrak signed the deal with the State of NY that required the State to pay for the rebuilds and Amtrak to pay for track and signal improvements to permit 125 MPH running.
 
When David Gunn took over the reigns at Amtrak, he quickly realized what a boondoggle this whole idea was.  Not to mention that Amtrak didn't have the money to carry out the improvements that they were supposed to pay for.  So when they started having problems with the air conditioning units and something else, David saw the opportunity to pull the plug on the whole deal.
 
He stopped providing some of the needed parts to SuperSteel, pulled the 3 completed sets from service, and bailed on the entire project.  This saved Amtrak from spending much in the way of money on this entire project.  Yes the track improvements would still be useful even now, but in the long run I happen to think that it was a wise decision.
 
As noted they are gas hungry, many passengers didn't seem to like the cars, there were operational problems, and it meant keeping tools, parts, and training for these trains in Albany.  That in addition to all the needed parts and tools for the P32's and other engines.


Logged

Alan,

Take care and take trains!
ClydeDET
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4794
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #14 on: Jan 26th, 2006, 6:26pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Don't ever want to be a minority piece of equipment. Get a copy of Early Diesel Days on the Santa Fe (by McCall) and see what he has to say about the F-M cab set for an example of how it can go for the minority providers.

Logged
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3824
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #15 on: Jan 27th, 2006, 1:23am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jan 26th, 2006, 12:51pm, NYC_Subway_Fan wrote:       (Click here for original message)

 
Well actually to be fair, under Warrington's administration of Amtrak, they did want the rebuilds.  That's why Amtrak signed the deal with the State of NY that required the State to pay for the rebuilds and Amtrak to pay for track and signal improvements to permit 125 MPH running.
 
When David Gunn took over the reigns at Amtrak, he quickly realized what a boondoggle this whole idea was.  . . .  

Warrington's entire administration of Amtrak appears to have been an attempt to substitute facade for substance.  His whole "Glide Path to self sufficiency" was a smoke and mirrors exercise that would have probably gotten the guy locked up if he had done it with a publically traded corporation.  
 
You must remember the whole "Empire Service" (Empire State, that is) grates on the rest of the country, particularly states that support their own trains such as North Carolina and California, as a prime example of a high income high tax state getting a free ride off the rest of the country for their in-state service.  I really never saw any reason that Amtrak should spend one nickel on track upgrades on this line.  The state should do it.  Somehow New York also seemed to feel that CSX would be willing to put in money for track upgrades for the benefit of the state as well.  That was even more out there in the land of irrationality, as New York takes more from CSX in taxes than anybody else.  IIRC, about 1/4 of all the state and local taxes paid by CSX go New York state and subdivisions thereof, and New York state is certainly far less than 1/4 of their track and traffic.  
 
I fully agree that a speeded up service between New York and Albany, and on to Buffalo, for that matter, is something that should be done, but the state of New York should put their money where their mouth is on this thing.  Whether the turbotrains or a diesel hauled service or electrified, there is also the need for some trackwork and quite a bit of easing of curves to make this line high speed.
 
George


Logged
NYC_Subway_Fan
Moderator
Historian
Posts: 1443
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #16 on: Jan 27th, 2006, 11:58pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

George,
 
First, no argument from me about Warrington.  He was probably the worst Amtrak pres, at least so far.  He hurt Amtrak's credibility big time with that "glide path" nonsense.  Even people who had failed math in high school could figure out that there was no way that Amtrak was gliding onto any path but bankruptcy, and I mean no disrespect to anyone who might have failed math.  This was the boldest, most constantly repeated lie, ever told.
 
And now New Jersey Transit is suffering under his leadership, at least IMHO.
 
Now turning to NY State and its trains, first let me make it clear that I do live in NY City.  That said, I do think that the deal struck with Amtrak over the Turboliners was wrong, and Amtrak should have never agreed to it.  If NY wants faster trains, then they need to either foot the bill or get a federal matching funds program to help them out.  But the monies should not be coming out of Amtrak for a service that only benefits NY State.
 
Of course the easy way to deal with part of the problem, would have been to grant CSX a tax cut for improvements to the tracks and signals.  That would have helped right off the bat.  But wait, that would be too creative.    
 
Then fixing up some MN track would also help, as the P32's are capable of running at 100 MPH, yet they only hit 70 to 75 MPH on MN territory.
 
As for the imbalance that other states perceive with regard to contributions, I don't disagree that NY should kick in more than it does, but I do think that things aren't quite as bad as they seem.
 
First, NY does pay to run the Adirondack to Montreal, something that IMHO it shouldn't be paying for, since that train crosses out of the state.  That should be a train that Amtrak does pay for.  That said however, what they pay is about half of what North Carolina pays to run it's two trains.  Although once again, I don't think that it should be NC's job to pay for the Carolinian, since it too serves other states besides NC.  They should only be paying for the Piedmont and it's state contribution is less than what NY is paying for the Adirondack.
 
Then, let's consider that under Amtrak's accounting system, Empire service lost about $30 Million last fiscal year ending September '05.  Of that amount, all of the losses occured from trains that run west of Albany.   The NYP to ALB corridor basically holds it's own from all reports that I've seen.  Of that 30M, it's my understanding that almost $10M is lost on the Maple Leaf, which once again should be only Amtrak's responsability, perhaps in conjuction with VIA Rail.  But it gets lumped in with Empire Service, making ES look worse.  Yes, I will admit that most of the territory covered by the Leaf is in NY.  But again, I don't believe that a train that crosses state lines or international boarders, should be paid for by a state.
 
I do make one exception to that rule, some of the Michigan services, and only there because while they do cross a state line (two in fact), they really only service Michigan and allow residents to move about the state and to reach Chicago.
 
So all that said, I do think that NY needs to pony up some more money for Amtrak to support those "west of Albany" trains.  Yes NY does put a lot of money into our commuter services here in the NYC area, but then again NYC and it's suburbs put more than half the money into the State budget in the first place.  So it's time for those outside the NYC commuter area who benefit from the Amtrak services outside the NYC area, to pony up for their Amtrak service.  Yes, I know that a few of my dollars would still end up there, but I for one am fine with that idea.


Logged

Alan,

Take care and take trains!
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3824
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #17 on: Feb 13th, 2006, 3:04am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

From the CSX timetables that used to be on the web:  the change from Metro North to CSX ownership is at mile 73.8.  Assuming that Grand Central is 0.0, that gives you 73.8 miles of Metro North ownership and 66.3 miles of CSX ownership.  The average speeds are slightly slower on the MN side than they are on the CSX side, which suggests that if New york State wants a speed up, a lot of the ability to do so is in their own house.  
 
What is truly curious compared to the usual train scheduling, the Poughkeepsie to New York time southbound is only 2 minutes slower than the northbound time.  Given the usual signal slows and other things, plus the normal habit of having at least some padding into the final station this seems irrational.  Between Poughkeepsie and Rensselaer the difference is greater, more on the normal, with the southbound time being 7 minutes less than northbound.  
 
(Gadzooks, New York is loaded with difficult to spell place names, and I though we had some beauts with the Chickasaw Indian names for quite a few places in the Mid-South.)
 
George


Logged
NYC_Subway_Fan
Moderator
Historian
Posts: 1443
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #18 on: Feb 18th, 2006, 7:26pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Feb 13th, 2006, 3:04am, George_Harris wrote:       (Click here for original message)
(Gadzooks, New York is loaded with difficult to spell place names, and I though we had some beauts with the Chickasaw Indian names for quite a few places in the Mid-South.)

 
 
 
George,
 
Then you best hope that Amtrak doesn't start stopping at Spuyten Duyvil, a Metro North stop.    Actually Amtrak can't do that, as that stop is south of the interlocking that leads to the West Side line down to Penn.
 
But still, what a mouthfull.  


Logged

Alan,

Take care and take trains!
Pennsy
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4586
Re: TURBO ALONG HUDSON
 
« Reply #19 on: Feb 18th, 2006, 8:15pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Hi All,
 
I'm with George on that one, and NYC, you surprise me. Long Island is loaded with indian names, as is Massachusetts. However, it should not surprise you that they have english translations, where available. As an example my home area of the Rockaways has an interesting translation. Rockaway is translated into " Sandy Place". If you are familiar with the Rockaways, it is a great translation. The entire area is a beach community.


Logged

Dyed in the wool PRR fan.
Pages: 1 2  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint

« Previous topic | Next topic »