Turboliners still for sale

[RTOlson]

Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2

Here's another odd-looking consist from RailPictures.net:

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=287623&nseq=6

The photo caption explains the situation pretty well, but it is unusual to see a Surfliner coach sandwiched between two engines.

 

[DET63]

Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2

Here's another odd-looking consist from RailPictures.net:

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=287623&nseq=6

The photo caption explains the situation pretty well, but it is unusual to see a Surfliner coach sandwiched between two engines.

So the coach was merely there to trip the signals during an engine movement?

 

[VT Hokie]

How about this one?

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1671421

 

[VentureForth]

Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2

Here's another odd-looking consist from RailPictures.net:

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=287623&nseq=6

The photo caption explains the situation pretty well, but it is unusual to see a Surfliner coach sandwiched between two engines.

So the coach was merely there to trip the signals during an engine movement?

I think there were two locos so that it could be run either direction. The reason for the coach was most likely so that it could travel at "P" speeds (up to 79 MPH)rather than single loco speeds (up to 25 MPH). Of course, there ARE Surfliner Cab Coaches that could have been used . . . maybe something about a minimum number of axles like CN requires...

Just my opinion.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2

Here's another odd-looking consist from RailPictures.net:

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=287623&nseq=6

The photo caption explains the situation pretty well, but it is unusual to see a Surfliner coach sandwiched between two engines.

So the coach was merely there to trip the signals during an engine movement?

I think there were two locos so that it could be run either direction. The reason for the coach was most likely so that it could travel at "P" speeds (up to 79 MPH)rather than single loco speeds (up to 25 MPH). Of course, there ARE Surfliner Cab Coaches that could have been used . . . maybe something about a minimum number of axles like CN requires...

Just my opinion.

one engine was taken off that train and hooked up the broken train and it took the bad engine back with it. thats why it had 2.

 

[tp49]

Saw this photo and it reminded me of the Turboliner discussion. If Amtrak is so concerned about fuel economy, why does it run trains like this?
http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290362&nseq=2

Here's another odd-looking consist from RailPictures.net:

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=287623&nseq=6

The photo caption explains the situation pretty well, but it is unusual to see a Surfliner coach sandwiched between two engines.

So the coach was merely there to trip the signals during an engine movement?

According to the picture's caption that is exactly why the coach was there. It was done to meet the minimum axle count.