Railroad Forums 

  • Rohr RTL III Turboliners: Status, Location, Disposition

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #261183  by Pbolo714
 
I remember taking the turbo to westport NY and back in 1987. Nice ride. Ok train.

I love that route up the hudson river and on by lake champlain
 #261189  by 7 Train
 
NellieBly wrote:Your memory is correct. New York State acquired the Turboliners in the late 1970s. They were based on a French design, with bodies built by Rohr Corp. (maker of the first order of WMATA cars).
Rohr also built the first order of BART cars in 1972 and also experimented with automated people mover systems in the 1970s. It left the rail industry to focus on its key aerospace fields and is now part of BF Goodrich (not the tire company).

 #261266  by hsr_fan
 
Doesn't Grand Central require compatibility with Metro North style third rail? Could the Amtrak equipment use both Metro North and LIRR third rail?

 #261275  by 7 Train
 
I do not think so.

 #261300  by RedSoxSuck
 
Well, at the time, I imagine they had MNR style 3rd rail shoes, and ones similiar in concept to the present day P32 shoes were liekely installed when they were moved to NYP.

 #261309  by shadyjay
 
From what I have heard, its a matter of a simple (relatively) conversion to go from LIRR-style third rail shoes (for NYP service) to Metro North third rail shoes (for GCT service), as evident by the photos here, where P32AC-DMs were temporarily converted to run into GCT. I imagine the same could have been done with the Turbos. Not sure if they were running at the time of these photos...taken a couple years ago.
http://www.geocities.com/mncommuter/amtrak1.html

-Jay H.

 #261325  by Noel Weaver
 
In the New Haven Railroad days, the FL-9's could run on electric in both
Penn Station with the over running third rail and Grand Central Terminal
with the under running third rail and no adjustment of any kind was ever
needed to do this.
In fact we had jobs that ran from New Haven to Penn Station and the
regular move was to bring the same engine around light to Grand Central
Terminal light upon arrival at Penn Station. FL-9's were often assigned to
that particular job.
Noel Weaver

 #261359  by 7 Train
 
As a history note, the Empire route along Manhattan's west side opened April 7, 1991. Prior to that date all Empire service trains operated out of Grand Central.

 #261578  by JimBoylan
 
Were any of the slightly earlier Turboliners that were built in France and
bought right off the assembly line for Amtrak service in the midWest ever
converted to run on 3rd rail into Grand Central? I remember complaints
that their Old World screw and link couplers between the cars were too
inflexible and caused derailments on some of the GCT switches.

 #261582  by DutchRailnut
 
yes two sets were upgraded to Rohr looks and had third rail capabilities installed, one set burned in Penn station one set was retired.
They had a lot more restrictions on them due o #6 switches in GCT.
The upgraded sets had hook/link couplers between cars and had extensions of side door frame as cars were narrower.
The Rohrs were refered to as RTL's the ANF upgrades were known as RTG's here is picture of one upgrades at oscawanna tunnel near Croton Harmon. note the extended doors.(not my picture)

PHOTO

 #261882  by hsr_fan
 
DutchRailnut wrote:The upgraded sets had hook/link couplers between cars and had extensions of side door frame as cars were narrower.
Interesting! It's a shame none were preserved. I hope that at least one of the Rohr units eventually finds a home in a museum somewhere.

One easy way to distinguish the converted French trainset from the Rohr version is that the cafe section is at the end of the middle car on the French built train instead of in the center. And those door extensions that you mention are quite obvious in the photo.

 #262147  by drewh
 
In the New Haven Railroad days, the FL-9's could run on electric in both Penn Station with the over running third rail and Grand Central Terminal with the under running third rail and no adjustment of any kind was ever needed to do this.
So why can't we have the same today?? Extend the 3rd rail to Albany and get rid of the diesels!! Run thru trains from LI-ALB. I often thought this should be possible, even if we had to design retractable shoes.

Why can't we have the east side access project completed running into GCT instead of a new station being built hundreds of feet undergroud??

Off topic question - which is cheaper to wire - 3rd rail or catenary??

Did the FL-9's run under wire as well as both types of 3rd rail??

 #262163  by JimBoylan
 
drewh wrote:Did the FL-9's run under wire
Not quite what you mean, but they have tiny patographs like on very old Lionel locos so they could use the overhead 3rd rail over complicated switches in Grand Central. The similar arrangement in Penn Station was removed when A.C. catenary was installed long before FL-9's were built.
Before catenary, but after Hell Gate Bridge was opened about 1917, did New Haven dual voltage electric locos run to Penn Station using 3rd rail?

 #262166  by Irish Chieftain
 
In the New Haven Railroad days, the FL-9's could run on electric in both Penn Station with the over running third rail and Grand Central Terminal with the under running third rail and no adjustment of any kind was ever needed to do this
Per someone's Wikipedia article, the FL9 had "retractable shoes operated by pneumatic cylinders" to facilitate this...but how reliable were these in the long run? and do Amtrak's P32AC-DMs not have such a setup?

 #262246  by Noel Weaver
 
Irish Chieftain wrote:
In the New Haven Railroad days, the FL-9's could run on electric in both Penn Station with the over running third rail and Grand Central Terminal with the under running third rail and no adjustment of any kind was ever needed to do this
Per someone's Wikipedia article, the FL9 had "retractable shoes operated by pneumatic cylinders" to facilitate this...but how reliable were these in the long run? and do Amtrak's P32AC-DMs not have such a setup?
Considering that the New Haven Railroad was broke at the time and
maintenance was not always really good, these shoe and shoe mechs.
worked very well. If an FL-9 or pair of FL-9's were operating on diesel
in either Penn Station or GCT, it wasn't very often that the third rail shoes
or mechs could be blamed.

These FL-9 shoes were air lowered and spring raised. When they were
down, the shoe down magnet valve kept the shoe down cylinder charged
but when it came time to raise them, moving the third rail show switch in
the cab would release the air from the shoe down cylinder and at the
same time charge the shoe unlock cylinder to permit the shoes to raise to
the up position by the action of the spring. The shoe up position was a
spring loaded position and the switch would be held up long enough to
raise the shoes.

After Penn Central formed the Metro. region, the shoes were changed on
all of the FL-9's to stationery shoes like the New York Central used and
this made the FL-9's pretty much captive to the west end of the railroad
and they pretty much stayed on the Metro. region with the exception of an
occasional trip to Pittsfield where they were able to continue to operate.
By the time the M-2's showed up, all of the bridges, platforms and other
things that fouled the shoes when down had been modified and so the
thinking was that it was one less thing to maintain.
Noel Weaver
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 45