Abandoned Turbo Train

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So wrong. The turbo at the scrap yard in the pictures are not the NY turbo that Amtrak and New York have for sell. Two different set of equipment from two different times of Amtrak history.
 
There is at least one Turbo Train set sitting by the fence at the Bear, DE shops. I saw it about 6 weeks ago when I was down there. I think they are for sale.
 
The turbo trains (?3) at Bear are for sale, also the two sets up in Scotia NY that have not been work on are also for sale. However the OP is mix up the one at the scrap yard for the ones that NY paid to rehab.

This looks like an Troll posting.
 
I dont know about a troll...But here we have the future sitting in a scrap yard. Why pay millions when we already have the equipment. BTW what ever happened to the Bombardier high speed deisal that was test run at 200 mph about 5 years ago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
steamtrain6868 said:
http://en.wikivisual.com/index.php/JetTrain here it is...
Click to expand...
Neither the Turbo Trains (which were fully depreciated and at the end of their useful life with all sorts of structural problems) nor the Bombardier/FRA misadventure yet again with turbine engines were the future of anything. The Turbos have been retired even in their country of origin. They are huge fuel hogs and were not economical to operate. The rebuilding of them by New York was itself a misguided effort, as they were told back then by many. But Mr. do nothing Pataki went ahead and decided to **** away money on them anyway. Turbine engines generally are ill suited for rail application. This fact has been established quite a few times already, and that of course did not deter the FRA from pissing away more taxpayer money one more time.
 
steamtrain6868 said:
I dont know about a troll...But here we have the future sitting in a scrap yard. Why pay millions when we already have the equipment. BTW what ever happened to the Bombardier high speed deisal that was test run at 200 mph about 5 years ago.
Click to expand...
I might just say you have started several topics over the past couple of days which were minimually researched, and often in the wrong forum. A lot of what you have been asking about has been covered if not on this forum, but other sites as well.
 
The TurboTrains were an abject example of how not to build a high speed passenger train. Turbines have been a gigantic waste of money in all situations thus applied. The Bombardier Jet Train wasn't the future, anymore than Lamborghini's Sesto Elemento is a glimpse at the future of motoring. Its a concept car, a glamorous publicity stunt that not only will go nowhere, but was never intended to go anywhere to begin with. The Bugatti Veyron is much like the Shanghai Mag-Lev. It was built to go as fast as man has ever managed in that kind of transportation device. But it was never intended to do anything, even if it did go into production.

Volkswagen AG charges about $1.8 million for a Veyron... and loses about a million bucks on each one. It was a publicity stunt, and a sacrifice at the alter of Dr. Ferdinand Karl Piech's considerable ego. But as progress to the future of transportation, it s a non event. The Jet Train and TurboTrain before it are basically the same thing. Investing more money in them has more to do with sating egos and political goals than accomplishing things of moment.
 
jis said:
steamtrain6868 said:
http://en.wikivisual...ex.php/JetTrain here it is...
Click to expand...
Neither the Turbo Trains (which were fully depreciated and at the end of their useful life with all sorts of structural problems) nor the Bombardier/FRA misadventure yet again with turbine engines were the future of anything. The Turbos have been retired even in their country of origin. They are huge fuel hogs and were not economical to operate. The rebuilding of them by New York was itself a misguided effort, as they were told back then by many. But Mr. do nothing Pataki went ahead and decided to **** away money on them anyway. Turbine engines generally are ill suited for rail application. This fact has been established quite a few times already, and that of course did not deter the FRA from pissing away more taxpayer money one more time.
Click to expand...
So then why do a lot of people want to bring the Turboliners back?
 
GlobalistPotato said:
jis said:
steamtrain6868 said:
http://en.wikivisual...ex.php/JetTrain here it is...
Click to expand...
Neither the Turbo Trains (which were fully depreciated and at the end of their useful life with all sorts of structural problems) nor the Bombardier/FRA misadventure yet again with turbine engines were the future of anything. The Turbos have been retired even in their country of origin. They are huge fuel hogs and were not economical to operate. The rebuilding of them by New York was itself a misguided effort, as they were told back then by many. But Mr. do nothing Pataki went ahead and decided to **** away money on them anyway. Turbine engines generally are ill suited for rail application. This fact has been established quite a few times already, and that of course did not deter the FRA from pissing away more taxpayer money one more time.
Click to expand...
So then why do a lot of people want to bring the Turboliners back?
Click to expand...
Well there are indeed a few ignorant foaming and frothing railfans that want them back. But I don't know of anyone with a scintilla of operational knowledge of railroads that wants them back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
steamtrain6868 said:
One thing is that the turbo train passenger cars had large windows see-- http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Rohr+Turbo+Train++car++Images&view=detail&id=7BA1F8772B0913F25F1844310A402E240B4EBE59&first=1&FORM=IDFRIR as opposed to the slit like windows on Amfleet

see http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=amfleet&view=detail&id=0FB3DDAE26A3BAD9C9151799EA8CD9038ED195E6&first=31&FORM=IDFRIR
Click to expand...
Oh I do love large windows. But that has nothing to do with them being Turbine driven. Even Acelas have nice large windows, and the new single level standard cars will have similar large windows.
 
Can I get a picture of those new train cars... I also loved the VIA Trains as well between Toronto and Montreal.
 
They haven't been designed yet. But laws require them to have windows of a certain size. Something to do with firemen wearing tanks on their back or some such.
 
If you want to go fast without going electric eithier update the design of the HST 125 to modern standards, or design a modern steam engine based off of the most recent technology. Of course if you are going to go much over 125mph you are better off springing for catenary.
 
The SNCF Turbos were designed for secondary main lines, and so were not really meant to be high speed trains. They were frequently used on the lines from Paris to the lesser Channel ports and also on cross-country services that avoided Paris altogether. If they had been meant for the heavy main lines they would have been much longer. They should not be confused with the TGV prototype which was also turbo powered but a completely different design. SNCF stopped using these trains for various reasons

1) They had reached a point in their life where they would have required heavy re-engineering work had it been considered desirable to extend their lives.

2) Expansion of the TGV network meant there was plenty of surplus Corail stock + locomotives around and it was cheaper to refurbish this and use it to replace the turbos on their core routes.

3) Some of the routes onto which the turbos were experimentally cascaded were lighter routes and this required shortening the sets. This proved uneconomical as the trains were then over-powered.

Not all of these reasons are entirely comparable to the situation on Amtrak, so saying that it was right for Amtrak to abandon them because SNCF did the same isn't really a good reason in itself. However, the Amtrak units were essentiall clones of the French ones and utterly incompatible with anything else which may have contributed.
 
cirdan said:
The SNCF Turbos were designed for secondary main lines, and so were not really meant to be high speed trains. They were frequently used on the lines from Paris to the lesser Channel ports and also on cross-country services that avoided Paris altogether. If they had been meant for the heavy main lines they would have been much longer. They should not be confused with the TGV prototype which was also turbo powered but a completely different design. SNCF stopped using these trains for various reasons

1) They had reached a point in their life where they would have required heavy re-engineering work had it been considered desirable to extend their lives.

2) Expansion of the TGV network meant there was plenty of surplus Corail stock + locomotives around and it was cheaper to refurbish this and use it to replace the turbos on their core routes.

3) Some of the routes onto which the turbos were experimentally cascaded were lighter routes and this required shortening the sets. This proved uneconomical as the trains were then over-powered.

Not all of these reasons are entirely comparable to the situation on Amtrak, so saying that it was right for Amtrak to abandon them because SNCF did the same isn't really a good reason in itself. However, the Amtrak units were essentiall clones of the French ones and utterly incompatible with anything else which may have contributed.
Click to expand...
You left out one very major item: The turbines by their nature were and are fuel hogs. If they could spend all their time running flat out, they were not too bad, but their fuel consumption at idle and during braking was quite high, I have heard numbers of as high as 75% of full throttle.

When Union Pacific ran their truly unique freight turbines back in the 50's and early 60's, they had a length set of rules and restrictions on their usage to save fuel. I do not know their range of dates of operation, but I do know they were in use in 1961 because I saw one in operation in Wyoming.
 
George Harris said:
You left out one very major item: The turbines by their nature were and are fuel hogs. If they could spend all their time running flat out, they were not too bad, but their fuel consumption at idle and during braking was quite high, I have heard numbers of as high as 75% of full throttle.

When Union Pacific ran their truly unique freight turbines back in the 50's and early 60's, they had a length set of rules and restrictions on their usage to save fuel. I do not know their range of dates of operation, but I do know they were in use in 1961 because I saw one in operation in Wyoming.
Click to expand...
The other thing that cirdan forgot to mention either by chance or because s/he did not know is that the first TGV prototype was Turbine driven train. After a few trials, that being the time of the first petroleum crisis, SNCF made a conscious decision to abandon gas turbines for ever and move over to electric power. The future of all the turbos running around at that time was thereby sealed. there never was going to be another new Turbo to be built and introduced by SNCF.

So lets see what was the situation on Amtrak:

1. The Turbos were fully depreciated, with significant structural issues due to rusting.

2. Capaciy-wise they were unsuitable for the route given the traffic growth that was projected.

3. They were in need of re-engining and their fuel efficiency was not going to increase any.

4. They had the highest CASM of any of Amtrak's equipment of similar capacity.

5. New York State, apparently driven by non-technical considerations had chosen to have them rebuilt at a nicely politically connected outfit which seemed to be incapable of even delivering proper operating manuals for the refurbished sets, was unwilling to bear the additional operating expenses that Amtrak would have incurred after they foisted them back on Amtrak.

So yes, given the core issues that Amtrak faced, which had a surprising resemblance to some of the issues that SNCF faced, abandonment was and still continue to be the right course of action.
 
The issue of turbine trains comes up in this forum about, what, twice a year?

And it's a rehashing of the exact same script every time. Nobody learns anything from the other side.

So I guess I'll go ahead and play the part of the pro-turbo side since it's been missing here so far:

Modern turbine engines in trains actually are a good idea that has never been really tried. Turbines are highly efficient, light-weight, low maintenance, and based on now-mature, now-available technology. Yes, they are only efficient when run at efficient speeds, so run them at efficient speeds. It's not fair to call them fuel hogs because they can be run in fuel-hogging ways.

Turbine-powered trains did poorly in the past, yes, but turbine technology has progressed by leaps and bounds since then. With advances in material science, computer modeling, better understandings of viscous flow, and other technological aspects, the turbo technology of today is generations ahead of where it was last time turbo trains were given a real chance. Should we judge modern diesel engines by those at the turn of the century? Hell, advances in turbo technology are even used to improve modern diesel engines!

So go check out the publications surrounding the Jet Train. And then remember that we're a decade advanced from even that!

But don't think all of the anti-turbo guys in this forum are presenting the whole picture. It's not nearly such a closed case. I work with turbo technology every day, and it's just astounding to think how much things have advanced in the past ten or twenty years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top