Rohr RTL III Turboliners: Status, Location, Disposition

These trains were, by US standards, decades ahead of the state of the art. So they had issues. Issues can be fixed. This equipment was fast, smooth, a huge improvement that needed maturation. A professional rebuilding and modernization would be worth the effort. And yes, my 2 rides on these years ago were pretty amazing.

Were they really that much better than riding in Horizons or Amfleets?

There's a reason the GTELs and turbos didn't catch on. Sure, it was decades ahead technology, but the fuel guzzling was too much even for Amtrak. In a day and age of emissions awareness, investing in the turbo rebuild was a huge mistake.

eolesen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 5:15 pm Were they really that much better than riding in Horizons or Amfleets?

Those huge picture windows were fantastic for taking in Hudson or Lake Champlain views and also made the interior space feel large and airy. (Amfleet slit windows and curved sides give you an aircraft experience.) Little things like the double-opening interior car doors with tall windows felt European and cool.

Exterior: the white paint scheme (when clean, which it often was not) and futuristic nose gave it the most modern and stunning look of any North American train in the 70s-80s.

Bellyache all you want about fuel use, SuperSteel debacle, and supposed unreliability; they served Empire Corridor well for ~25 years.

Also, before the electrification north of New Haven, they made it more practical to take a train from New York to Boston. They filled a need, and the main issue a train operator had when I talked to him on my trip North was the fuel consumption. The idea that you could have two power cars with what, a trunk sized turbine in each, and seating in about half of those cars was amazing, and it was a good, smooth trip in both directions.

I'm not sure the RTL turboliners were used in NY-Boston service -- maybe you're thinking of the early UA turbos.

But speaking on electrification: the RTLs did make it possible to go from NY (either GCT or Penn) to Buffalo without a locomotive change -- I think they swap out P32s in Rensselaer even today.

You could be right. I don't know where my pictures are. But whichever it was, there was real promise there.

Certainly someone can expand on this, but I have always understood that a turbine is at its most efficient when going flat out for an uninterrupted period--better suited for the UP across Wyoming than the Shore Line in Connecticut.

I don't think it was about fuel efficiency rather than having a smooth, fast single ride with no loco changes going from NYC to upstate NY or to Boston.

The only train set that needed a tech with varying lengths of wire jumpers hanging around his neck just to keep the thing moving. The HVAC system was terrible cold in the winter hot in the summer. Transmission issues, 3rd rail issues that includes the rebuilds. Lets see what other fun tidbits I can share the brakes on a few sets were less than desirable, as in placing the train in emergency to stop. I do remember having outside doors being wired shut so they would not open while moving, had one catch fire in Penn while sitting idle on third rail. Those big beautiful windows? Watched them shatter while crossing over at 80mph on the Metz. The list can go on and on.

Rode them as a kid worked them as a LSA, Conductor, and Engineer.

JUNK

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 8:18 pm Certainly someone can expand on this, but I have always understood that a turbine is at its most efficient when going flat out for an uninterrupted period--better suited for the UP across Wyoming than the Shore Line in Connecticut.

Yup, their peak efficiency is at sustained speed. Perfect for something like Chicago-St. Louis where you can maintain track speed for 30 minutes at a time. Not so much on Chicago-Milwaukee or service with a bunch of shorter sprints and then a stop, or speed restrictions.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 8:07 pm Also, before the electrification north of New Haven.

Mr. Bug, on the New Haven, the Shore Line and the West End were Timetable East and West, vice North-South.

While possible, I doubt if Amtrak has changed that where their Rules apply (I'm sure if mistaken, I shall be quickly corrected).

All I was saying was that some form of a turboliner, it was dual mode and went fairly quickly to different points north of NYC, plus it was fairly quiet and quite smooth; excellent from the viewpoint of a passenger. I was told by the engineer that there were plans to upgrade the turbines to improve fuel mileage.

Aren't turbines way louder than a regular diesel engine?

lensovet wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 5:34 pm Aren't turbines way louder than a regular diesel engine?

Not with enough brown and orange carpeting on the walls.

@photobug56 when did you ride the Boston train you remember? If 1971-76, then it was a UA turbotrain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAC_TurboTrain

If early 80s, it could have been the LRC. https://history.amtrak.com/blogs/blog/the-lrcs

If 1993, you may have caught the RTLs towing the X2000 demonstration train.

After 1978