early Amtrak vision of High-Speed service

[Seaboard1968]

I'm new to the RAILROAD.NET forums and have been mostly hanging out in CSXland. But, I've been reading and thinking about High-Speed passenger rail and how it would affect
the USA. This of course got me thinking about early Amtrak. So...if we went back in time to the late 1970s or early 1980s what would Amtrak have considered High-Speed rail
service. This question assumes that there would be adequate funding and political willpower. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks!

[spacecadet]

That's a CN Turbo Train, but Amtrak operated these as well.

These were designed for 170mph speeds, but only reached 120mph in actual use (I guess due to the tracks in North America).

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAC_TurboTrain

Amtrak also did call their early Metroliners "high speed" trains for a while, and they were the result of the High Speed Rail Act of 1965. These were also capable of 160+mph speeds, but I don't think they ever went higher than 125mph in service.

The tracks have always been the biggest problem, not the trains.

[Matt Johnson]

Amtrak also did call their early Metroliners "high speed" trains for a while, and they were the result of the High Speed Rail Act of 1965. These were also capable of 160+mph speeds, but I don't think they ever went higher than 125mph in service.

The tracks have always been the biggest problem, not the trains.

Well, officially anyway! I do recall a poster here describing an early Metroliner trip where the speedometer was showing 137 mph near Princeton Junction - about what the Acela does there today!

Was the UA Turbo specifically designed with the Northeast Corridor in mind? And what made Amtrak decide on acquiring the French Turbos? Were there any unrealized plans to run them faster than 79 mph out of Chicago?

[NellieBly]

United Aircraft's facility where the Turbos were constructed was "on line" near Providence, RI. When the Turbos began running (IIRC in 1969), a three-car train made one round trip a day from Back Bay to Grand Central in a scheduled 3:55, then deadheaded to Providence for overnight maintenance and inspection. The Turbo had third-rail shoes for running into GCT, so yes, I guess it was designed for the NEC.

The CN turbos were originally a fleet of five seven-car trains, later reconfigured to three nine-car trains. Amtrak was supposed to get a five-car train (IIRC) made up of the leftover parts, but it got into some sort of accident and was totaled. The CN turbos were originally promised to begin operating before Expo 67 in Montreal, but didn't actually enter service until late 1968.

Amtrak never had more than the single three-car unit. I rode it in 1970 from Back Bay to GCT, and it was a railfan's dream. After it came out of the Boston service, Amtrak ran it as one "side" of the train from WAS to Pakersburg (aka "Harley's Hornet"). I rode that train as far west as Cumberland in 1973 or so, returning on a conventional train with two B&O coaches and a C&O E unit.

In the mid-70s, Amtrak sent the Turbo barnstorming around the system to promote modern, high speed rail (we're still waiting). A friend of mine rode it from Santa Barbara to Oakland over Cuesta Grade.

The Turbo was a railfan dream. Passengers could sit right behind the engineer in the front dome, separated only by a Plexiglass partition.

[Gilbert B Norman]

United Aircraft's facility where the Turbos were constructed was "on line" near Providence, RI. When the Turbos began running (IIRC in 1969), a three-car train made one round trip a day from Back Bay to Grand Central in a scheduled 3:55, then deadheaded to Providence for overnight maintenance and inspection.

Confirm April 1969 as inauguration date; I was aboard first EB revenue run.

Gotta make sure there is a little largess in it for the "Father of the Northeast Corridor" Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI).

Incidentially, that's the same guy who may have helped you pay for college.

[spacecadet]

Amtrak never had more than the single three-car unit.

Wow, I didn't realize that. I guess that thing got around.

The Turbo was a railfan dream. Passengers could sit right behind the engineer in the front dome, separated only by a Plexiglass partition.

I didn't realize that either - I always wondered why the dome was so long. I thought it was only for the engineer.

[electricron]

What's disappointing about North American fast trains, is how the train companies eventually retract speed from them. VIA replaced the wishbone passively tilting Turbos with the electronic actively tilting LRC cars; now VIA is removing the tilt capabilities from the LRC cars altogether.

Amtrak had two different turbo trains and LRC trains before which they couldn't get rid of fast enough. Now, they're wishing to retire the Acela trains as soon as they can convince Congress to buy something newer and better. Yet, without new track alignments and catenary towers, even the newer trains Amtrak wishes they had can't go much faster than the Acela trains do today.

[Mcoov]

If the Turbos were in service before A-Day, than who were they originally delivered to?

[Nasadowsk]

Might as well toss this in here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETYDiT4h4oU

The second and third sections are worth it to. Very interesting film, especially given the era..

[TomNelligan]

If the Turbos were in service before A-Day, than who were they originally delivered to?

The original three-car UA Turbo was built for the New Haven RR and owned by DOT, later operated by Penn Central, finally owned and operated by Amtrak. Amtrak then acquired additional cars from Canada to assemble two five-car sets. I agree with Ms. Bly that the dome seat behind the engineer offered a fantastic view.

The PRR/PC Metroliners preceded them in service and believe me, in 1968, 125 mph was high speed rail.

[Tadman]

Jay Leno once wrote a column about how 55mph in a 1950's Jaguar feels like 155mph in today's cars. The point being, sensation of speed is just as important to our minds as speed itself. PRR/PC track in the 1960's/70's was garbage - mud instead of ballast, worn rail, low joints... 125mph was plenty. Out west ATSF ran trains at 90 all day and I bet was much smoother too.

[Noel Weaver]

I have said this before but I will say it again. The UA Turbo Trains were clean, offered a dome car view and were, I suppose,
fun for a railfan to ride. Having said that, they were basically junk. They were not good riding, never to my knowledge did
they run with everything fully functional. They had if I recall correctly six turbo engines of which five would be used for
propulson and one for APU (train power). Sometimes we would have only two available for propulson plus the one for APU.
The trains did not go anywhere without a full time technician aboard.
Between New York and Boston there was one place in Rhode Island where they could run 100 MPH and the rest of the trip was
not too much faster than an E-8 and coaches. Even the older coaches generally rode much better than the turbo trains did,
I remember feeling every rough spot and every switch between New Haven and Boston while working this job back in 1970.
I was not sorry to see these things depart for the scrap heap.
The "Metroliner" cars of the same period were somewhat better but they also had problems and were much too sophistopicated for the railroad. They also had a technician on board every trip and often an instructing engineer as well.
They had a lot of problems with these cars before they earned a dime from them but after they finally got them running,
they were well liked by the passengers and were reasonably dependable. Big issue with these cars seemed to be with the
ones that had Westinghouse electrical gear rather than General Electric electrical gear. For quite some time the GE's would
run in revenue service while the railroad was still trying to get the bugs out of the WE cars. I remember one of the first if
not the very first revenue run of a train of Westinghouse cars. I had a regular firing job out of Penn Station, New York to
New Haven and back and on a line up sheet in the sign up room at Penn Station was a line that a six car train of WE cars
was to operate that evening on a late PM clocker to Philadelphia. As our passes were restricted to Metroliner trips but not
clockers, I decided to have a ride to Philadelphia that evening and we went like a bat all the way between stops.
I remember somebody on that train that night saying that if those cars had run that well previously, they would have been
accepted and used much sooner. I think they started using them soon after that.
It is to Amtrak's credit that even after all these years, they still have a use for some of these old Metroliner cars as cab
control cars containing not only cab controls but revenue space for passengers as well. I rode one on the Hartford Line last
year and it was still a good riding car.
In closing, I think the Metroliner qualified as a high speed train by US standards but I do not think the UAC Turbo Train ever
really made the grade to high speed status.
Noel Weaver

[spacecadet]

In closing, I think the Metroliner qualified as a high speed train by US standards but I do not think the UAC Turbo Train ever
really made the grade to high speed status.

I was all set to write that I didn't really think either qualified as "high speed rail" given the shinkansen's existence at the time, but I just looked it up and the top speed of the shinkansen at that time was only 130mph. So yeah, the United States was pretty close in those days with the Metroliner.

Too bad we stayed at 125mph for so long while everybody else eventually ramped it up to 200mph. Nowadays our 150mph Acela Express seems kind of pathetic by comparison. (Though I do like the train, and it's got some advantages over other high speed trains around the world, namely comfort and amenities. But it's just not very fast.)

[NellieBly]

I take no issue with Mr. Weaver's comments. I didn't have to run the Turbo, nor maintain it. But it sure was a great railfan ride -- even if, yes, it didn't ride very well. Actually, the Talgos in service in the Northwest (and in Spain -- I've ridden both) rather remind me of the Turbo in terms of ride quality, at least at low speed.

I also remember the "Metro Joe" on each Metroliner train, in a suit and with a briefcase full of electrical test equipment. He could usually be found in a vestible, with the electrical locker door open and a couple of test leads hooked up to something or other. That having been said, 125 MPH in 1969 was most definitely high speed by world standards. Acela Express has never bettered the 2:30 running time of the nonstop WAS -- NYP Metroliner I rode in 1969. It was, however, a wild ride. I'll disagree that the Penn Central track was "garbage" -- PRR and later PC did put some money into CWR and surfacing -- but there was still an awful lot of accelerating and decelerating, plus some rough-riding spots. Still, it was fun to ride between WAS and NYP at an average speed of just under 90 MPH.

Too bad we can't do that today.

I was in high school in 1969. I'm now 57, winding down a long career in transportation. Forty years have passed, and it's a damn shame we haven't made a bit of progress on high speed rail in that entire time.

[FatNoah]

The point being, sensation of speed is just as important to our minds as speed itself

That's a very interesting point. On many parts of the NEC, the ride is so smooth it feels like the train is just puttering along, and then you come parallel to I-95 and realize that the train is passing cars in the fast lane. That said, on the max-speed stretches, it does feel like the train is moving pretty fast!

In those early days, were there plans for any other high-speed corridors other than the NEC?