Cleanliness of the UA Turbos

Note to Moderators: This is not intended to be a commentary on or discussion of the Rohr Turboliners in any way.

One of the things I've noticed whenever I've seen pictures of the old 1970s-era United Aircraft Turboliners that were operated by Amtrak and VIA is that they are always either filthy or covered in dents and blemishes or both. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a single picture of a clean and unblemished UA Turbo. For whatever reason, they always seem to have looked like they had just been caught in a tornado. Also, most pictures I've seen of Amtrak's UA Turbos shows them with metal bars over the windshields. Why is that? Did the 1970s-era Northeast Corridor have that bad of a problem with teenagers dropping rocks from overpasses? The ANF and Rohr Turbos never looked that way as far as I could tell.

Judging by other pictures I've seen from that time period, it wasn't just the UA Turbos that were filthy... it was pretty much the majority of passenger equipment. Amtrak was relatively new and was running in those early days with locomotives and equipment from the freight railroads, predominantly, the PC.

I just picked up the new Morning Sun Book, "Amtrak Power In Color" which in Vol 1 has units 1-499, including Es, Fs, F40s, P42s, and such. One picture shows a freshly painted Amtrak locomotive in Phase I paint, but with numerous dents and blemishes showing through. A coat of paint went a long way but in those days I'm pretty sure they were just trying to keep equipment on the road and running, especially during the winter months.

Regarding the "ghetto grills", F40s also sported them, both Amtrak and MBTA versions. Overpasses in those days were more open than they are today, especially on the "Shore Line". Now with electrification and higher fences, the access to them is more challenging. Now its mostly stray wildlife which gets into the ROW. Refer to the case: Tom Turkey VS the AEM-7....http://www.thesunchronicle.com/devices/ ... 963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What was the exterior of the UA Turbos made of, aluminum? Carbon steel? In any case, I'm guessing it may not have held up as well as stainless steel rolling stock.

I've noticed this, too. The CN/VIA turbos were a lot cleaner. I think it was a washing thing. It may also have to do with predecessor NH/PC ownership. Neither road was good to their equipment toward the end of legacy passenger service.

I caught E60 956 with a ghetto grill in 1980.

[Trespassing comments are discouraged; trespassing on railroads was common and unremarkable at the time.]

In recent times, a number of Hudson Line P32AC-DM's have dings on their faces and are dirty. Some,though, are clean and undented.

Tadman wrote:I've noticed this, too. The CN/VIA turbos were a lot cleaner. I think it was a washing thing.........

Yes......that off white/light grey looks pretty clean to me. It’s Mar 1975 and the Turbo would have been in service for 5 or 6 years.

@Bob, that must be New York drivers (or engineers in this case) for you...

@NSVia, great shot. I think the turbos looked great in that livery. It was also by far the best use of the CN Allen Fleming look.

The UAC Turbo Trains were probably even worse than the other later models of this stuff, simply put, a bunch of junk. They were no cleaner nor dirtier than the other equipment of the period. Their ride was nowhere near as good as any standard passenger coach of the period including the older HW coaches of the New Haven or the P-70's of the PRR. They were not very dependable either, there were six turbo engines all together, three in each cab/control car and one was always not available for traction power due to being needed for APU. Often we would make the run from New York to Boston with only three and sometimes only two turbo engines available for power. We limped over to Fields Point in Providence one night from New Haven with only one good turbo engine working, we made it but never reached track speeds. Convention equipment was capable of the same speeds, rode better, was just as comfortable and far more dependable.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote:The UAC Turbo Trains were probably even worse than the other later models of this stuff, simply put, a bunch of junk. .... Convention equipment was capable of the same speeds....
Noel Weaver

But for a "bunch of junk" It still holds the North American Rail Speed record..... 8^)

They were Ferraris given to a railroad that's only interested in operating Toyota Corollas.

Matt Johnson wrote:They were Ferraris given to a railroad that's only interested in operating Toyota Corollas.

More like Ferraris given to a railroad forced to make do with this everywhere:

n2cbo wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote:The UAC Turbo Trains were probably even worse than the other later models of this stuff, simply put, a bunch of junk. .... Convention equipment was capable of the same speeds....
Noel Weaver

But for a "bunch of junk" It still holds the North American Rail Speed record..... 8^)

I am not so sure about this. Regardless of whether they did nor not, they were still JUNK.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote: I am not so sure about this. Regardless of whether they did nor not, they were still JUNK.
Noel Weaver

170.8 mph, still yet to be officially broken by the Acela Express. I guess the New York Central's jet powered RDC doesn't count. There was a clip of the UA Turbo on its record run through Princeton Junction, but the youtube user's account has been deactivated. Darn, should've saved it when I had the chance!

Like the NYC's jet-powered M-497, a UA Turbo was capable of going very, very fast in a test run. Their problem in revenue service was just making it from Boston to New York at more modest speeds without breaking down.

Well, they weren't the train of the future after all!