Trying To Understand The Old Amtrak Metroliner Equipment

While browsing through the pictures of the old Metroliner Equipment, some have a engine pushing and pulling and some like this:

ATK Metro 859 Glenn Dale MD Feb 1978 19780200N-18 by Dick Leonhardt, on Flickr

Look more like a subway layout with two cab cars. Can anyone clarify the difference in equipment? Did Amtrak later slap some Amcan's together and call it a metroliner?

The original EMU sets did not prove to be particularly reliable. Amtrak replaced them wholly by AEM-7 powered Amfleets in Metroliner Service. There was never a push mode loco hauled operation of Metroliners. Loco hauled Metroliners were always operated in pull mode.

Refurbished ex-Metroliner cab cars have been used in Keystone Service. For a period Metroliner cars were operated powered by locomotives but with the Metroliner car pantos up to provide hotel power, before they were converted to standard HEP.

jis said:

The original EMU sets did not prove to be particularly reliable. Amtrak replaced them wholly by AEM-7 powered Amfleets in Metroliner Service. There was never a push mode operation of Metroliners. They were always operated in pull mode.

Refurbished ex-Metroliner cab cars have been used in Keystone Service. For a period Metroliner cars were operated powered by locomotives but with the Metroliner car pantos up to provide hotel power, before they were converted to standard HEP.

Click to expand...

And in English?

Ask a more specific question and you might get an answer

EMU = Electric Multiple Unit

HEP = Head End Power

jis said:

The original EMU sets did not prove to be particularly reliable. Amtrak replaced them wholly by AEM-7 powered Amfleets in Metroliner Service. There was never a push mode loco hauled operation of Metroliners. Loco hauled Metroliners were always operated in pull mode.

Refurbished ex-Metroliner cab cars have been used in Keystone Service. For a period Metroliner cars were operated powered by locomotives but with the Metroliner car pantos up to provide hotel power, before they were converted to standard HEP.

Click to expand...

Ah ok, so unlike here in CA, Amtrak has access to wye's for easy turns on the NEC? Also in the end, "Metroliner" was nothing more than the name of the service than the actual equipment.

seat38a said:

Ah ok, so unlike here in CA, Amtrak has access to wye's for easy turns on the NEC?

Click to expand...

There is a Wye at Ivy City in Washington DC, and there are turning loops at Sunnyside in New York and Southampton Street in Boston. Indeed in New York it is difficult to get a train to Sunnyside without going around the Sunnyside Loop.
However, operationally, there were extended periods when even loco hauled Metroliners were turned in the station without going through a Wye or a Loop by simply detaching the loco from one end and attaching another loco at the other end and flipping the seats in the train.

Today I am not aware of any Regional that is turned in station. Keystones which use ex-Metroliner cab at one end are routinely turned in station and Acelas are quite often turned in station without going through a Loop or a Wye.

Also in the end, "Metroliner" was nothing more than the name of the service than the actual equipment.

Click to expand...

Correct. Metroliner was (and actually still is, though not actively used)officially a Service Mark and during its existence two different types of equipment were used.

Perhaps they should try using that service mark.

Also in the end, "Metroliner" was nothing more than the name of the service than the actual equipment.

Click to expand...

The term "Metroliner" was actually both. "Metroliner" equipment were EMU units, pictured above. However, they had reliability issues. The Amfleet carriage was designed based on these Metroliner units. As the EMUs were replaced with Amfleet carriages pulled by AEM7s, the term "Metroliner" continued to be used as a designation of service, and was considered the premier service on the NEC.

Metroliner's are older than Amtrak.....they were ordered by the old Pennsylvannia Railroad from the Budd Company, after some high speed testing by the pre-DOT US Department of Commerce, Office of High Speed Ground Transportation utilizing some specially modified 'Silverliner' electric multiple units, with streamlined noses. The first Metroliner's were delivered with PRR Keystone's emblazoned upon them, but by the time they went into revenue service, they were owned, operated, and marked for the Penn Central, in 1969. When Amtrak took over their operation in 1971, they were the newest equipment that Amtrak owned, except for the similar vintage United Aircraft TurboTrains, until the purchase of the SDP-40F diesel-electric locomotives.

The Metroliner's at one time were refered to as the "Corridor Cars". They also spawned the later Amfleet I, the Amfleet II, and the rail diesel car 'SPV2000', which provided the New Haven to Springfield Shuttle for many years....

And some of them got new lives as cab-control cars for push-pull service.

Found this NYT article about the NEC and Metroliner. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/03/us/metroliner-not-yet-as-fast-as-a-speeding-bullet-train-but-it-s-getting-there.html

So they spent 2 billion in 1985 to upgrade the NEC, and yet 150 mph on Acela is only like 20 min improvement in speed since 1985. Also, essentially the current NER, is then what the Metroliner used to be then just slower than the Acela.

Aren't EMU's, generally, by definition, bi-directional? Or were the Metroliners "special" in that regard?

Metra Electric Guest said:

Aren't EMU's, generally, by definition, bi-directional? Or were the Metroliners "special" in that regard?

Click to expand...

Yes, the original Budd EMU Metroliners were bi-directional. The AEM7-hauled Metroliner Service trains were not.

There was a brief period that locomotive hauled Metroliner service did indeed operate in push pull service, Jis. That period was when Amtrak introduced he push-pull Conference Car 9800. The 9800 was originally a concept car. It was supposed to be the future of Metroliner first class service and the intent was to have multiple dedicated sets, operated in push pull service. This would result in shorter servicing times and would require less engines.

During its brief career, it did operate in push pull service with the higher numbered AEM-7s.

Thanks Thirrail7. Good to know.

I was also wondering if there was any push pull operation in the brief period when motive power was provided by AEM-7s or some other motor and the original Metroliner sets ran pulled (or perhaps pushed) by motors but with their own pans up just for hotel power.

Metra Electric Guest said:

Aren't EMU's, generally, by definition, bi-directional? Or were the Metroliners "special" in that regard?

Click to expand...

The Metroliner 'sets', sometimes were four car's, other times more car's, were bi-directional, but not all cars had cabs, and those that did had cabs only on one end, so they were not like traditional MU's. Even commuter MU's later were designed to run as pair's....

All metroliners had cabs on one end. The cabless cars known as metroliner trailers are today known as "amfleets" and have been known as such since prior to delivery.

When these things worked right, they were awesome. They could have left the Shinkansen trainsets in the dust if they had the track on which they could have run flat out. Unfortunately, there was not enough track on which they could run at or even get close the operating at their capabilities.

To compare these things to a subway or commuter emu is like comparing a Farrari to a Pinto. Yes, both of those are cars, and both the Metroliner and the Subway are EMU's. but there the similarity ends. At the speed where the subway car has topped out the Metroliner was just beginning to get wound up.

There was a lot of pride in their operation as well. Remember, passenger conductors and other passenger train crew that interact with the passengers wore uniforms but the engineers do not. However, those that operated the Metroliners wore suits. These were mostly old men. Remember, the top passenger jobs went to the top of the seniority rosters. But, even though they may have spent 50 years running trains, they were not coasting into retirement. They were going out in a blaze of glory running the best of the best.