Turboliners

njt/mnrrbuff wrote:The turboliners were okay. They has better acceleration then a genesis although, the stops on the Empire Corridor are not as close to one another as the Keystone. If anything needs to be fixed, then that has to be done. The main issue that really irks me is the fact that NY DOT should have rehabilitated the Empire corridor first. I can't stress how CRITICAL that second track is needed between just past LAB and Schnectady. 2:25 between NYC and "The Cathedral" is good but it can be better. Whenever you are rehabilitating any line. You always should focus on maintaining the right of way, then think about new equipment.

I couldn't agree with you more on that second track. I lost 45 mins sitting there, as did my g/f when she took the train a year later. 64 routinely gets stuck at the single track section.

there is an article in this month's TRAINS magazine about the turboliners

Yeah, I just got the latest issue yesterday afternoon. It talks about numerous service cutbacks, including the removal of the Turboliners and the Three Rivers debacle. There's a nice photo of the first "RTL III" trainset. I actually rode aboard that train, sitting in "power car" #2135, which has the train's business class seating.

I was thinking that Amtrak should really consider lowering their fares between Albany and New York. Why? Because that is pretty much the commuter service. Many people take the train from Albany to New York. Believe me, 2 hours and 25 min ain't bad, but yes, it could be just under 2. In fact, that is what Amtrak and NY state should have thought about before bringing back the turbos. Infrastructure comes first. Any corridor that is contributed by the state, is always like a commuter service depending on how many runs. The level of service NY-ALB is just like LAX to San Diego, or even the capital corridor. If the fares are too high, nobody will want to use the service. Another benefit for lowered fares is for passengers who board at Metro North stations, you could get to the west side of Manhattan. Just like one who lets say has to go to Oakland from San Jose, they try to take Amtrak's Capital service because it services Oakland, wherabouts, Caltrain services right across the bay.

I was thinking that Amtrak should really consider lowering their fares between Albany and New York

You need something to make up the revenue difference. Like, increased subsidy from DC...?

njt/mnrrbuff wrote:I was thinking that Amtrak should really consider lowering their fares between Albany and New York. Why? Because that is pretty much the commuter service. Many people take the train from Albany to New York. Believe me, 2 hours and 25 min ain't bad, but yes, it could be just under 2. In fact, that is what Amtrak and NY state should have thought about before bringing back the turbos. Infrastructure comes first. Any corridor that is contributed by the state, is always like a commuter service depending on how many runs. The level of service NY-ALB is just like LAX to San Diego, or even the capital corridor. If the fares are too high, nobody will want to use the service. Another benefit for lowered fares is for passengers who board at Metro North stations, you could get to the west side of Manhattan. Just like one who lets say has to go to Oakland from San Jose, they try to take Amtrak's Capital service because it services Oakland, wherabouts, Caltrain services right across the bay.

The state of New York contributes nothing to the operation of most of the
Empire Service trains with the exception of the Adirondack. The costs
have to come from somewhere, thus it comes from the fare box.
Amtrak is still the BEST way to travel between Albany and New York City.
As for the turbo trains that are presently in Delaware. In my opinion, it
was a huge waste of money on the part of the state of New York to dump
money into these trains. They were old to begin with and much less
flexible and much more costly to operate. A techinician has to ride each
train on each trip to take care of the frequent problems.
On peak travel days, a train that normally would have the turbo can't use
it as there is too much travel for the available space.
The existing diesel equipment is just as capable of maintaining the
schedules on this line as the turbo trains are. They are all allowed the
same speeds over this entire route.
Problem with New York, the piddled all of the money in these trains and
that money could have been better spent in improvements to the tunnels
into and out of Penn Station or in a cab signal system west of CP-169
which would have helped service between Albany and Buffalo to a huge
degree. Maybe not as glamerous but much better spent.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote: They were old to begin with and much less
flexible and much more costly to operate. A techinician has to ride each
train on each trip to take care of the frequent problems.

Super Steel has disputed Amtrak's claim regarding high fuel costs. I'd like to see some real numbers. The rebuilt trains are at the very least supposed to be more efficient than the original Rohr Turbos, which Amtrak ran for many years.

As for the technician on board...it begs the question: Are the rebuilt Turboliners less reliable than they were before the rebuild? Did a technician always ride aboard the original Rohr Turboliners?

On peak travel days, a train that normally would have the turbo can't use it as there is too much travel for the available space.

I agree that the 264 passenger capacity is too low. By adding a car to each consist, however, they would raise capacity to 340.

I agree that the 264 passenger capacity is too low.

That's about the capacity of a standard Empire Corridor consist; three Amfleet I coaches and an Amfleet club/dinette. More cars are needed for trains at peak times.

What exactly is needed in order to upgrade the 110 mph segment of the Empire Corridor for 125 mph operation? Given that it's already 110, the line is obviously equipped with cab signals. New rail and concrete ties would be nice, though probably not a necessity. There are a couple of grade crossings where I would expect the signal timing would have to be adjusted slightly. Is there anything more substantial that needs to be done?

I remember reading that the first "RTL III" actually got up to 144 mph during testing! Whether that was on the Empire Corridor or someplace else (NEC perhaps?), I'm not sure.

So far as I know, all of the turbo trains both existing and in the past have
had a technician riding them at all times. They are an extremely
complicated piece of equipment and there is much to go wrong.
At one time, they were not considered very fuel efficient either although I
do not know the situation with the ones that were rebuilt.
In my opinion, these trains were ripe for retirement when New York
dumped all the money into them.
New York says that they can run a railroad, they can if money is no object
and it apparently is no object as they can tax people to pay for their waste
and mistakes. Example in point if slightly off topic, New York State and
Metro-North are spending millions to completely replace a perfectly good
working repair facility and shop at Croton-Harmon with all brand new
facilities. Just like the turbo trains, more wasteful and unnecessary
spending.
Noel Weaver

I remeber riding one of these trains in Sept 03, between alb and NYP. It was a smooth ride, and reletivley quick. I do like the view of the hudson these trains provide. At first I thought these were brand spankin new trains, but after reading this forum it seems that they are old technology.

The problem I see is the fuel consumption. From what I read is that these trains are refurbished equipment from close to 30 years ago. Turbine technology then versus now has changed LEAPS and bounds. Fuel consumption in gas turbines has dropped 30 to 40 percent even more due to advances in turbine/compressor blade design, as well as combustor efficency. One pod of two turbojets (old school Pratt turbojets) on a B52 consumes more fuel than one new GE90 engine (the new powerplant for the Boeing 777-300ER).

Turbines in the LONG run are much less maintenece intensive than Piston Diesels. The time between overhauls are longer, and the forces the engine produces are much more subtle than a piston engine (no reciprocating motion=much smoother ride). Granted you need the infrastructure to repair and service these engines, which it seems that there are none.

Didn't Amtrak build a facility at Albany-Rensselaer in the 1970s for the express purpose of maintaining the turboliners?

Aero_rail_nut wrote:The problem I see is the fuel consumption. From what I read is that these trains are refurbished equipment from close to 30 years ago. Turbine technology then versus now has changed LEAPS and bounds.

The trains were gutted and completely rebuilt from the frame up. They're powered by new 1600 hp Makila turbines, which are supposed to be more efficient than the 1100 hp turbines in the original version.

Noel Weaver wrote:As for the turbo trains that are presently in Delaware. In my opinion, it was a huge waste of money on the part of the state of New York to dump money into these trains. They were old to begin with and much less flexible and much more costly to operate. A techinician has to ride each train on each trip to take care of the frequent problems. On peak travel days, a train that normally would have the turbo can't use it as there is too much travel for the available space.

One could make the same argument about the flexibility of the Acela trainsets.

JD

RailBus63 wrote:One could make the same argument about the flexibility of the Acela trainsets.

Indeed. How they selected a capacity of 304 passengers for the Acela, I don't know, but I would think that if you're going to design a fixed consist set, you'd want a capacity more in the range of 400. I think most high speed trains in Europe and Japan seat at least 400.