Turboliners still for sale

[ALC Rail Writer]

If Taglo ever started running things OTHER than the cascades service I would stop riding Amtrak. A Talgo sleeper? I can only imagine the literal rattling of the cage.
Oh, and that trainset is a rattling metal deathtrap. Lightweight power, lightweight cars, and.. GLASS for vestibules? Wow...

According to one person I know that was involved in these things before their placement in service, every time Amtrak wanted changes to the basic Spanish design, they got a visit from the Spanish ambassador to the US with reminders of "international relations issues from various State Department types.

You'd think Amtrak would at least attempt to keep the jobs in America... I realize that the State of Washington actually decided who built what and when, but still...

My fondest memory of a Cascades service was a LSA in the bistro car who bragged on and on about how wonderful the trains were and how happy she was to have been involved in some sort of planning to keep them, about how she didn't have to smell bathroom anymore and this younger SA with her worked the coffee machine with this look of "Not this story again"

I soon returned to my bathroom-smelling BC seat... I made note of it, not because I am opposed to bathroom smell (I mean, all trains have the smell to some degree) but the fact that this LSA made a point to say they did not smell like bathrooms thanks to "the superior upkeep and venthilation systems" just got me...

 

[Neil_M]

4. The rear power car continued to push even after the train separated. This may have made little or no difference in the severity of the results, but it should not have happened.5. While the train had many "lights, bells, and whistles" to detect a number of defects, wheel defects were not on the list.

Why would the rear power car continue to push if the air brake pipe and train control wiring was destroyed and the overhead power would have been off?

What readily available system is ready to fit to trains to detect flanges coming off the tyre?

 

[Neil_M]

Oh, and that trainset is a rattling metal deathtrap. Lightweight power, lightweight cars, and.. GLASS for vestibules? Wow...

That's such a convincing argument. Don't crash the trains then.

 

[Neil_M]

Neil,
The Metrolink cars were NOT Amfleet, but Bombardier built! :angry:

I know, I was just using the GML style of argument development........

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Oh, and that trainset is a rattling metal deathtrap. Lightweight power, lightweight cars, and.. GLASS for vestibules? Wow...

That's such a convincing argument. Don't crash the trains then.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

If we should build trains without expecting accidents, then we should hire conductors who aren't trained for emergencies. They simply won't happen! <_<

 

[Neil_M]

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
If we should build trains without expecting accidents, then we should hire conductors who aren't trained for emergencies. They simply won't happen! <_<

Weld over the windows, fit seatbelts to all the seats and get the passengers to wear crash helmets.

Don't allow luggage on the racks. No hot drinks. Toilet breaks only when train stopped.

Wrap passengers in foam padding. Add water and stir.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
If we should build trains without expecting accidents, then we should hire conductors who aren't trained for emergencies. They simply won't happen! <_<

Weld over the windows, fit seatbelts to all the seats and get the passengers to wear crash helmets.

Don't allow luggage on the racks. No hot drinks. Toilet breaks only when train stopped.

Wrap passengers in foam padding. Add water and stir.

No need to have conductors who know how to evacuate. No worries about the safety cards or exit windows. Exits don't need to be clearly marked.

Allow people to run up and down the consist, they don't need shoes.

Tell passengers that a crash will never happen. Vomit and flush the toilet.

 

[Neil_M]

Allow people to run up and down the consist, they don't need shoes.

Please provide practical and relevant evidence of train accident being caused by people without shoes.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Allow people to run up and down the consist, they don't need shoes.

Please provide practical and relevant evidence of train accident being caused by people without shoes.

Please state the logic of building trains without security in mind.

Neither makes sense. Seriously.

Build trains that are going to provide some modicum of safety to pax if a collisions or accident happens. Build trains knowing that an accident will happen, and that pax safety is the priority. Compromising safety in the name of "well if we build the accident proof system" then, well... just crazy man.

 

[George Harris]

4. The rear power car continued to push even after the train separated. This may have made little or no difference in the severity of the results, but it should not have happened.5. While the train had many "lights, bells, and whistles" to detect a number of defects, wheel defects were not on the list.

Why would the rear power car continue to push if the air brake pipe and train control wiring was destroyed and the overhead power would have been off?

Quoting what I have read. Presumably it did not do it for long. Recall that it took a little while for the bridge to come down and break the wire. It is also a question of which direction to the feed. Do not know the nature of the power control system. Could well be that with the train line broken there was no way for the front end to change to power commands. Also note that I said, "This may have made little or no difference in the severity of the results, but it should not have happened."

What readily available system is ready to fit to trains to detect flanges coming off the tyre?

Recall that is was not the "flange coming off" this was a light rail type resilient wheel with a layer of some form of elastomer between the tire (tyre to you) and hub. They tire with flange came off, and a chunk came up through the car floor near a passenger. As to detection of such, what do I know? I am just an ignoramus track and alignment man.

 

[jis]

I don't think the cause (and effect) of the Eschede or Chase accident or for that matter the superiority or lack thereof of Amfleet, Bumfleet, Talgo, Shallgo, Acela, Bcela, Surfliner, Superliner, Hyperliner or any other liner has much effect on whether the junk Turbos will sell soon or not :lol:

 

[GG-1]

much effect on whether the junk Turbos will sell soon or not :lol:

Mahalo for returning this to the Subject.

Aloha

 

[jis]

The Metrolink cars were NOT Amfleet, but Bombardier built! :angry: And the whole accident was an amazing set of circumstances that probably couldn't be repeated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrolink_(So...2C_January_2005

Actually most accident are a result of some series of events that are very unlikely to be strung out together in the right order too often, 'cause otherwise we'd be having accidents much more often than we do. But of course I must admit that some are indeed more bizarre sequences than other, e.g something like the AF447 crash and the direction that the investigation is leading to will probably lead to one of the more amazing unbelievable series of events leading to the disaster.

Getting back to the Turbos, someone mentioned that they use AAR couplers. Is that true for couplings within a set? Perhaps Dutch knows the answer off the top of his head, if he is still around and has not walked away in disgust from this thread.

 

[VT Hokie]

seating is as followed:
Powercar 1 has 40 seats in 2 x 2 seating

Coach 1 has 72 seats in 2 x 2 seating

Food service has 52 seats

Coach 2 has 72 seats in 2x2 seating

Powercar 2 has 27 seats in business class in 1 x 2 seating

______________________________________________

for a total of only 263 seats

That's close, but I think those figures are for the pre-rebuilt Turboliner. The RTL III had 76 passengers for coach, 52 for coach/cafe, 36 in the coach/power car, and 24 in business class/power car, for a total of 264 seats. However, a coach could be added, bringing the total to 340 seats. In fact, the revised plan before the trains were removed from service was to have a total of four rebuilt sets instead of seven, and to add a coach to each of those sets. I don't buy the argument that their fixed consist nature was a problem, as Amtrak never runs Empire Corridor trains of more than 5 or 6 cars anyway. Almost all Empire Corridor trains consist of a half cafe/half business class car, and four coaches.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

seating is as followed:
Powercar 1 has 40 seats in 2 x 2 seating

Coach 1 has 72 seats in 2 x 2 seating

Food service has 52 seats

Coach 2 has 72 seats in 2x2 seating

Powercar 2 has 27 seats in business class in 1 x 2 seating

______________________________________________

for a total of only 263 seats

That's close, but I think those figures are for the pre-rebuilt Turboliner. The RTL III had 76 passengers for coach, 52 for coach/cafe, 36 in the coach/power car, and 24 in business class/power car, for a total of 264 seats. However, a coach could be added, bringing the total to 340 seats. In fact, the revised plan before the trains were removed from service was to have a total of four rebuilt sets instead of seven, and to add a coach to each of those sets. I don't buy the argument that their fixed consist nature was a problem, as Amtrak never runs Empire Corridor trains of more than 5 or 6 cars anyway. Almost all Empire Corridor trains consist of a half cafe/half business class car, and four coaches.

But adding one coach to the consist of a Turboliner was time consuming and wasteful. You can couple 9, 10, 11 coaches together on an Empire Service train if needed. You can also remove cars when they don't sell out-- thus saving money. The Turboliners can't match the Amfleets in any respect... except window size.

 

[VT Hokie]

But adding one coach to the consist of a Turboliner was time consuming and wasteful.

How so? The Turboliners used conventional couplers, not drawbars like the Acela. In the pre-rebuild days, they often ran with 6 cars.

You can couple 9, 10, 11 coaches together on an Empire Service train if needed.

First of all, I doubt they could given the platform lengths, and doing so would require two P32's to haul the train. You never see Amtrak run trains longer than 6 cars on the Empire Corridor, save for the Lake Shore Limited. Usually it's 5 cars.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

But adding one coach to the consist of a Turboliner was time consuming and wasteful. You can couple 9, 10, 11 coaches together on an Empire Service train if needed. You can also remove cars when they don't sell out-- thus saving money. The Turboliners can't match the Amfleets in any respect... except window size.

ALC, I am pretty sure the RTL-IIIs had AAR couplers. IF so there was no limitations to modifying the consist. I know the original french ones had specialized couplers, but I'm pretty sure the RTLs did not.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

But adding one coach to the consist of a Turboliner was time consuming and wasteful. You can couple 9, 10, 11 coaches together on an Empire Service train if needed. You can also remove cars when they don't sell out-- thus saving money. The Turboliners can't match the Amfleets in any respect... except window size.

ALC, I am pretty sure the RTL-IIIs had AAR couplers. IF so there was no limitations to modifying the consist. I know the original french ones had specialized couplers, but I'm pretty sure the RTLs did not.

Note, both of you, I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was more difficult. Which it is--

As for limits, yeah sure, you can add cars to the consist of an RTL and guess what, the acceleration curve goes even lower.

 

[VT Hokie]

As for limits, yeah sure, you can add cars to the consist of an RTL and guess what, the acceleration curve goes even lower.

Same laws of physics apply to GE diesels, which don't have the greatest acceleration to begin with either!

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

As for limits, yeah sure, you can add cars to the consist of an RTL and guess what, the acceleration curve goes even lower.

Same laws of physics apply to GE diesels, which don't have the greatest acceleration to begin with either!

Shall we challenge them to a race? :lol: Would love to see those aluminum cans fly!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I think the Turboliners were actually faster in acceleration. Not sure, though. Diesels aren't known for their ability to generate power quickly.

The Turboliners have enough real faults to consign them to the dustbin of history. No reason to invent more to back up that argument.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I think the Turboliners were actually faster in acceleration. Not sure, though. Diesels aren't known for their ability to generate power quickly.
The Turboliners have enough real faults to consign them to the dustbin of history. No reason to invent more to back up that argument.

I don;t know, I remember watching videos of those things crawl from one station and into the next, barely topping out in between stops.

 

[oldtimer]

The RTL's were relatively easy to add cars to as the biggest difference from Amfleet would have been 2 additional cables. The French built RTG's used out of Chicago from 1973 to 1981 used the European buffer system with hook and turnbuckle couplers.

As far as acceleration goes Amtrak went into a fuel conservation mode in 1976 and would only use one powercar for traction. This caused the acceleration to suffer greatly. With two units operating it would be a decent match race.

 

[George Harris]

I don't think the cause (and effect) of the Eschede or Chase accident or for that matter the superiority or lack thereof of Amfleet, Bumfleet, Talgo, Shallgo, Acela, Bcela, Surfliner, Superliner, Hyperliner or any other liner has much effect on whether the junk Turbos will sell soon or not :lol:

True, but it is jsut the way these conversations sometimes turn.

 

[George Harris]

The RTL's were relatively easy to add cars to as the biggest difference from Amfleet would have been 2 additional cables. The French built RTG's used out of Chicago from 1973 to 1981 used the European buffer system with hook and turnbuckle couplers.

The Europeans call this "Hook and Screw" as the handle spins a screw to tighten up the link over the hook. The point of tightening was to have the buffers in compression to some extent.

This form of coupling is a minimally improved Link and Pin, in that it does not need the pins and the link is captive so you can't lose one. There are two major problems with this form of coupling:

1. In case of sudden compression, that is run in of slack in American terms, the link can pop off the hook, so you can have surprise uncouplings.

2. You have get between the car ends to hook the link over the hook, and also to take the link off the hook. A couping that requires a person to get between the cars to couple and uncouple cars was outlawed in the US by the Railway Safety Appliance Act of 1895 (or 1893, I have see both dates in writing.)

Therefore the European sets ran under a waiver. I have not looke at the accident report in a long time, so the details escape me, but there was a colission of one of these trains with a garbage truck which was made worse by the cars coming uncoupled.