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

 #267148  by hsr_fan
 
Just out of curiosity, were the Turboliners ever sent out to Pueblo, CO for testing, either during the Super Steel rebuild program or in their original form?

 #267161  by Bill West
 
Sorry, I’m joining this a bit late.

HSR Fan -until 1991 dual power Amtrak Empire service equipment had underrunning shoes for GCT. Then as RedSox suggests they were summarily changed to overrunning for NYP. In both eras I would think they had to be retractable to get past MN’s clearance protection blocks north of Croton. The P32AC-DM’s are, but I’m not sure the FL9 picts show that type of shoe so maybe the blocks were removed for a while. For ShadyJay’s point, one off visits to GCT since 1991 may have just cheated a bit and used the diesel.

Jim Boylan -half of the reason for creating the EP2 was to have enough power to get up the East River tunnel grades, the other half was to get up the HG bridge grades, both far steeper than anywhere else in NH electric territory. And they were given retractable overrunning shoes for DC operation. But despite spending the money to create the locomotives it appears they never actually ran west of Sunnyside SS-2 at Woodside Ave until 1933. I wonder if having taken care of NH’ s steam delivered trains from 1917, PT&T’s union objected to letting NH crews run through when the electrics became available in 1918, or could it be that the schedules were so sparse that the EP2s would have had to be constantly deadheaded all the way back to Oak Point? In the AC era the engines just laid over in a corner of NYP.

Drewh -1. although as Noel says the FL9 convertible shoes successfully hauled trains to both stations there have also been past conversations of long term trouble. 2. extending to Albany would never save enough fuel to justify the huge cost. 3. over 10-20 miles only the higher voltage of catenary is economic for new work, closer than that we just don’t have many samples in the world with which to compare 3rd rail and cat costs. You would have to count in closer 600v substation spacing, differences in AC/DC loco costs and bias that by any need for MUs. 4. the FL9s operated under AC catenary but never used it. Triple power ideas like this have been proposed but they never seem to be by anyone with practical knowledge.

Bill
 #271320  by lensovet
 
hello everyone, if you could contribute more historical information on the turboliner (facts only, PLEASE...no personal attacks, opinions, evaluations of the services, just what exactly the trains were, how they ran, etc) to this wikipedia article, i would very much appreciate your help. thanks!

 #271322  by hsr_fan
 
One error I can immediately point out in that article is the claim that the Turboliners were based on the gas turbine TGV prototype. The French Turboliners, of which a few were imported by Amtrak, actually pre-date the TGV 001 and are what the Rohr units were based on.

 #271433  by lensovet
 
would you be so kind as to fix this Wikipedia error? Just click the edit link at the top of the page!

 #271535  by hsr_fan
 
Sure, I'd be happy to when I have some time.
 #273133  by dhaffner
 
The RTG trainsets preceeded the RTL (Rohr) sets. The RTG sets began arriving in Chicago in late 1973. The construction of Amtak's Brighton Park Turbo Facility began around that time, at 37th and Sacramento.

The story on the purchase of the first two sets was that the Ford Motor Company bought them and donated them to Amtrak. The last four sets were enhanced, with better interiors and automatic vestibule doors. The first two sets were eventually brought up to that standard.

There were six sets of RTG equipment. The power cars, one on each end, were numbered between 58 and 69. The sets also had coaches(2 per set) and bar/grill cars(1 per set).

The trainsets operated between Chicago and the following cities at various times: St. Louis, Port Huron, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Toledo (via Detroit).

During the energy crisis of the late 70's, several modifications were performed, such as the addition of a higher horsepower and more efficient main engine, so the sets could run with only one of the two main engines operating to save fuel.

The alternator that supplied head end power to the coaches was driven by a smaller turbo engine (the "Astazou") and the output was 380V/50 hertz. The later RTL equipment supplied the American standard 480 volts/60 hertz to components also found in the Amfleet cars.

The RTG sets also had the European coupling system (buffers and turnbuckles) as opposed to the later RTL equipment which had American style-couplers.

This information is to the best of my recollection accurate. I worked on this equipment from 1975 until 1981.

The facility was closed in 1981 and the equipment mothballed in Beech Grove, Indiana.

 #273156  by hsr_fan
 
Interesting, I didn't know much about the original French Turboliners. To add to that history, three of the French trainsets were acquired by New York and rebuilt to more or less match the Rohr units, with a similar nose and of course, third rail capability for operation into NYC. However, all of the French built units were retired after one caught fire in New York.

 #273162  by lensovet
 
thanks for that info! if you look i've updated the page with it, let me know how it is.
just a clarification – the st. louis which had service was the one in Missouri, correct?
thanks again.
 #273505  by Gilbert B Norman
 
dhaffner wrote:The story on the purchase of the first two sets was that the Ford Motor Company bought them and donated them to Amtrak.
I'm sorry, Mr. Haffner, but I must question the veracity of your quoted statement.

I was in the Chicago area railroad industry during 1973 when the "off the shelf' ANF Turbos were delivered and was unaware of any such transaction. I think I "was in a position' to know having regular "line of duty" interface with Amtrak personnel during that period.

I have further checked with a highly informed retired Amtrak manager with whom "I go back a long way', i.e. college, and he too is unaware of any such Ford Motor donation. Furthermore, since Ford has not been in either the locomotive or railcar business, I cannot see what economic objective they would have from making such a donation.

But if you have substantive documentation to establish such a transaction occurred, I for one as well as I'm sure many others, will be all eyes. But failing that, I am not prepared to accept your statement as anything other than unsubstantiated hearsay.
 #273705  by oldtimer
 
I believe that Mr. Haffner may have mistakenly repeatd a "railroad story" about the RTG tuboliner train sets that operated out of the Brighton Park shop in Chicago. All six RTG trainsets were purchased from Amtrak by Ford Motor Credit and leased back to Amtrak. This I know as a fact as all of the trainsets were taken to Glenn Yard on the old GM&O in Forest View IL. as to avoid a city of Chicago tax on the transaction. I was there.

 #273937  by Gilbert B Norman
 
While I am not prepared to affirm or refute Mr Oldtimer's report, I am prepared to accept that Ford Motor Credit entered into a financing transaction with Amtrak for the noted Turbo equipment.

Another interesting but off topic point is "I learned somewhere along the way' (and I think anyone knows you don't learn the following in a railfan bull session) that Amtrak and the Norfolk & Western entered into some kind of agreement (presumably a lease) for the A-II's that enabled someone to have benefit for a now-long repealed IRC provision called the Investment Tax Credit. The cars represented "qualified property' but in order for any tax benefit to be realized there had to be tax liability against which to offset. Amtrak obviously never has or never will have such, but the N&W did. Ergo; a lease transaction.
 #274236  by dhaffner
 
When I mentioned Ford and the purchase of the Turboliner sets (RTG) I used the word "story" with it. I didn't mean to imply that as a fact!

Why would Ford be interested in doing something like that? There was this little GM plant in LaGrange......think about it!

Anyway, that all happened before my career started at Brighton Park. I was there from 1975 until they shut the doors.

I believe the writer who mentioned three of the RTG sets were brought up to RTL standards was basically correct, although I cannot vouch for the number. I do recall the "meltdown" incident he mentioned.

The RTG Turbotrains were a good, quick fix for Amtrak at the time.
 #275999  by RDG484
 
lensovet wrote:hello everyone, if you could contribute more historical information on the turboliner (facts only, PLEASE...no personal attacks, opinions, evaluations of the services, just what exactly the trains were, how they ran, etc) to this wikipedia article, i would very much appreciate your help. thanks!
I rode an RTL turbo several times and I must say the ride is quite smooth and the windows are gigantic and therefore much much better than Amfleet I. I was told by someone else who rode RTG's that their ride was also was as smooth as glass.

To clarify about the RTG's couplers, side buffers and manual couplers were retained only on the intermediate units, while the outer ends had AAR knuckle couplers.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 45