ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
Of course this assumes you could even convert them into push-pull sets, so to speak....
New equipment for Amtrak
- Thread starter Hanno
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
wayman
Engineer
Not Amfleets, no, but Amtrak is turning old Heritage coaches into baggage cars. Anytime you see an Amtrak baggage car with a single center-door that rolls up like a garage door instead of slides to the side, that car used to be a heritage coach. It's not exactly efficient and it doesn't give them baggage cars that are significantly newer than their old baggage cars, but they are doing what they can to reuse and recycle where possible since they can't buy new.
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
That's a good thing, but it isn't cost effective. They won't last another 30 years, its a good idea.
... And it proves Amtrak doesn't treat its cars as 'toys'. They stretch everything out as far as it can go.
The turboliners could not stretch. They can do no more than they do now. Sit, and hope for a buyer. They were a very specialized train set.
Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. And the article you quoted is in error - there was only one "RTL II" trainset, and it was not one of the ones rebuilt into an RTL III. The lone RTL II still sits outside of Super Steel. The RTL II was in effect the prototype for the RTL III. When New York decided that the RTL II performed well, it authorized the full rebuilding of the entire 7 train fleet.
As for ownership, I don't know exactly what the outcome of the lawsuit was, beyond the agreement that Amtrak would retain possession of the three completed RTL III sets in Delaware. In any case, all seven were listed for sale, and so far apparently there are no buyers. Meanwhile, New York continues to make false promises of passenger rail improvements (and even still shows a picture of a Turboliner on the NYDOT website!):
https://www.nysdot.gov/index
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
If you don't know what the outcome was: I'll tell you.
Amtrak paid NYDOT money. NYDOT gave up rights to the sets.
And if NYDOT keeps making "false promises" it is not Amtrak's fault.
The three completed RTL III sets could indeed stretch - they had a lot of miles left in 'em. They should have at least gotten maximum use of the three completely rebuilt sets, even if they didn't follow through with the remaining trainsets. Instead, practically brand new trains, among the nicest in the Amtrak fleet, go to waste:
http://forums.railfan.net/Images/Amtrak/Am...-05b_Medium.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
Stretch out as fuel guzzling fire hazards. The whole idea of a turbo train is flawed. It will never work.
This is business. Sometimes businesses make mistakes, this was one of them. Why run a gas-guzzling three car turboliner when you could have 5 amfleet's hooked up to a P40 or P42? For the sake of speed? To upgrade the tracks the Empire Service runs on to 125mph is a pipe dream at best. You could get Empire service trains up to a hundred mph, if the track was nicer.
Track work needs to be done, and that isn't within Amtrak's power.
It worked for over 20 years on the Empire Corridor. The Rohr Turbos went into service in, what, 1976? And they ran until the 1990's before the lone RTL II rebuild entered service. The RTL II ran from 1994 until 2002, as I recall. And they did so without catching fire. (There was one fire in the early 90's, and that was with a rebuilt French set, not a Rohr trainset. Surfliner F59PHI #451 just went up in smoke. Should all the F59PHI's be considered a fire hazard now? Seems every few months an AEM-7 has a transformer fire too.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Shawn
Service Attendant
Sounds like a heated argument going back and forth. Maybe time to sit back with some A/C before replying again?
Okay, let's talk about the other stuff going to waste. I'd like to know how many Amfleets and former Metroliner cars are sitting in Delaware. Why can't Amtrak get innovative and reconfigure some of them to be sleepers or diners or whatever they're currently short on?
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
Well since your argument is:
"Lets not have Amtrak build the needed single-level sleepers and baggage cars, until they figure out what to do with some flimsy 20 million dollar trainsets."
How about a compromise? Let's make the turboliners into sleepers! Hell they're scraping for money so badly that they're turning heritage coaches into baggage cars, the turboliners could easily become sleepers...
They don't treat their stuff like toys. They use it until they're dead. They are well and truly dead. And good riddance.
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
An amfleet turned into a sleeper? Hell, its hard enough to stand upright in them much less lie down. It would probably be cheaper to build new cars than to do something insane like that.
Besides, they could always use a few spare amfleets. Give em a good slap of paint and some new windows, brakes, HEP, a whole tune up and put them on corridor service. That would seem more logical and far less costly.
But Amtrak needs the money to implement that course of action, money which you oppose because of a few little failed train sets.
Where is the logic in your idea? Turn amfleets into sleepers... its about as silly as turning Heritage cars into baggage cars, which desperate times aside, is a silly idea itself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amtrak runs most of its equipment into the ground, but the RTL III is a glaring exception. It was not simply a worn out 30 year old trainset. It was completely rebuilt, down to the bare frame, and virtually every component in it was new.
George Harris
Engineer
Have you ever heard the expression, "Beating a dead horse."? That is what is going on here. The Turboliners are a dead horse. Send them to the mechanical equivalent of the glue factory and be done with it.
Technology has moved on. At best these things were an experiment that did not work out. At worst, they were fuel hogs that should have never gotten off the drawing board. Their main draw was that they were different and had a "space age" appearance. They were and are very inefficient machines that attempted to marry some of the aircraft technology to a rail vehicle. They would have worked best in a regime where they could spend most of their time running flat out, as they were extremely inefficient in variable speed operation. But then, if the line permits long distances of full speed running their ability to accelerate more quickly than a diesel becomes insignificant. So, back to the beginning: At best these things were an experiment that did not work out. At worst, they were fuel hogs that should have never gotten off the drawing board.
Structurally these things are not stout enough to be turned into diesel hauled coaches. They were so different from the metroliner cars it is doubtful that anything other than the body shell, if even that, would be of use if they wanted to turn the power units into cab control cars, and it is doubtful that they come anywhere close to current crashworthiness standards. Explain that one in court if they are ever in an accident.
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
Thank you George Harris!
Okay, well getting beyond the specifics of the Turboliner equipment, how can we as taxpayers be assured that such waste will not happen in the future when nobody was accountable in the past? Nobody went to jail, nobody got fined, nobody was accountable for wasting $75 million on the Turboliner project. Why should I have confidence that next time, it won't be $750 million spent on faulty equipment that ends up sitting in a storage yard while Amtrak comes begging for even more money?
Well again, while Amtrak did have a hand in things, you're barking at the wrong horse. NY State wasted the money on these things, not Amtrak. And NY State did it to make it look like they were doing something about high speed rail, and to provide some jobs in NY State rebuilding the darn things, in the hope of buying some votes at the next election.
The fact that Amtrak also has an entire fleet of reasonably young P40 diesels wasting away in storage indicates that nobody is held accountable for wasting precious resources and failing to plan effectively for future needs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually the error was Express Trak, and not so much the P40's. When Express Trak was up and running, the P40's were needed and heavily used. In fact they were so heavily used and so poorly maintained under the Warrington Glide Path that saw limited maintenance on everything, that when Metro North first got it's share of the 8 P40's that CT had leased, some of the MN mechanics were about ready to commit Hari Kari after being forced to work on the units.
But again, if there was a boondoggle, then it was the failed Express Trak idea and not so much the purchase of the P40's. Additionally it should be noted that the P40's came first, not the P42's. So to some extent it was the second purchase of the P42 units that would be considered wasteful, but for the fact that at the time Amtrak was still trying to make a go of Express Trak and it needed the extra power.
The P40's saw lots of miles before being put out to pasture, and then they were only put out because of the loss of the Express Trak system. If one has more equipment than one needs, does one retire the oldest and more heavily used equipment? Or does one retire the newer and more lightly used equipment? My vote goes to retiring the P40's.
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
What do you mean wasting away? They seem to be being put to as much use as possible. Besides, a surplus of something would be a good thing for once.)
Four of them found a home with NJ Transit. I guess several are still in use with CDOT. But the rest of 'em are going to waste. And yes, I realize that they are older than the P42's, and of course if you're going to sideline part of the fleet it makes sense to sideline the oldest locomotives. But the fact that so many P42's were purchased when Amtrak desperately needed sleepers, diners, etc. is an indication of poor leadership. If anything, Amtrak should've kept more F40's going when they thought the ExpressTrak initiative would require additional motive power. (And speaking of F40's, they've still got a bunch of those in storage as well!)
You can see the stored P40's here:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&...1&encType=1
Last edited by a moderator:
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
I give up. Its a lost cause.
That's kind of how I feel about Amtrak subsidies, given the lack of accountability on spending!
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
Well how about doing something pro-active.
Suggestions? I've written to my representatives in the past. I ride Amtrak fairly regularly. I'd buy a Turboliner if I could afford it!
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Chicago - St. Louis Lincoln Corridor to begin higher speed running
- Latest: MccfamschoolMom
-
-
-
