The Metroliner MU lives on! (Well, sort of)

David Gunn is quoted in the most recent issue of Trains magazine as saying that nine original Metroliner cars are being refurbished for push-pull Keystone trains. Does anyone out there know when we might see the first ones in service? Having never ridden aboard the original Metroliner MU's, traveling in a converted Metroliner cab car is as close as I'll get! Yeah, I know that the Springfield shuttles still use them as well, and there are a handful of "Michigan coaches" - Metroliner cars with the cabs blanked out. But I look forward to seeing the latest iteration of the Metroliner cab car for Keystone service.

I believe the first conversions of Metroliner MU's to cab cars was for the Atlantic City Expresses and one of the Chicago Hub route lines. That would have been roughly around 1994 or so...

The "Atlantic City Express" began service in 1989 and folded in 1992. That would make the conversion sometime in the late-80s.

Converted Metroliner cab cars have been in service, notably on the west coast in pre-Surfliner days, as well as around Chicago, since at least the late 80's I think.

Other than putting a diesel controls and air brake controls, what's to modify on the cab? The acordian ends were a feature on the origional Metroliners - the end doors would pop open and they'd automagically slide out via a motor. I kid you not, Budd patented this, even.

It's kinda a shame, and stupid, IMHO, that they left them out. The Metroliner always had a nice looking front end, and these cars seldom, if ever end up mid train.

The truck are different, and they ride a bit differently.

As Mr. Telesha notes, there isn't a whole lot that distinguishes a Metroliner cab car from a standard 1975 Amcoach these days other than the controls and headlights at one end, since Budd's Amfleet cars were basically just Metroliner bodies without the pantographs and propulsion equipment and with different trucks. Conceptually, they're not far removed from the depowered Budd SPVs that now run as coaches in Shore Line East service, which were also just self-powered Amfleet. All used the same fluted stainless steel body design.

Nasadowsk,

The accordion ends were actually removed (along with the sliding clamshell doors) during the conversion to cab cars. You'd know if they were still there because the clamshell doors would be constantly visible on either side of the diaphragm, and I don't think it would be good for cab visibility if there were an extra door in front (even if the door itself had a window too). I assume that's what you were thinking when you said "left them out." They were in fact unnecessary and were simply replaced by a standard Amfleet-type end door.

An exception was a group of 4 cab cars, 9825-9828, which still had the roof-mounted equipment housings and whose cab fronts were not rebuilt. They wound up in Phase III but I believe they were retired earlier than the rest of the cabs.

More info: On Track On Line

Coolness, a railfan view comes to the Harrisburg Line.

Here's the question, will the trains still be Wye'd at Harrisburg?

If Amtrak has no problem pushing a train Cab Car first on the NEC then no, if they do then yes.

Hopefully the decreased time for engine changes at Philly will show up in the schedules. It's also a shame that ZOO and STATE are loosing some work, they could really use it.

I notice on the site with the roster there appears to be an odd number of cars total. 800-830 is 31 cars. Were these not all married pairs? (even if not permanently

astrosa wrote:Nasadowsk,

The accordion ends were actually removed (along with the sliding clamshell doors) during the conversion to cab cars. You'd know if they were still there because the clamshell doors would be constantly visible on either side of the diaphragm, and I don't think it would be good for cab visibility if there were an extra door in front (even if the door itself had a window too). I assume that's what you were thinking when you said "left them out." They were in fact unnecessary and were simply replaced by a standard Amfleet-type end door.

An exception was a group of 4 cab cars, 9825-9828, which still had the roof-mounted equipment housings and whose cab fronts were not rebuilt. They wound up in Phase III but I believe they were retired earlier than the rest of the cabs.

More info: On Track On Line

In addition to 9825-9828, it looks like 9809 & 9822 only had minor modifications. How much of the Metroliner MU scrapping has taken place to date @ Wilmington??

Outside the of the Acela Express, the Metroliner is the sweetest looking train to ever operate in North America.

I saw 860 @ the museum this past Spring. Very sad site seeing such a beautiful train in that condition. When the time comes, I wonder if the Museum will restore it with Amtrak or PC trim.

Is #860 in bad shape?

hsr_fan wrote:Is #860 in bad shape?

In it's current state, it could substitute for a chicken coop. (It's a cafe car, ironically)

TomNelligan wrote:As Mr. Telesha notes, there isn't a whole lot that distinguishes a Metroliner cab car from a standard 1975 Amcoach these days other than the controls and headlights at one end, since Budd's Amfleet cars were basically just Metroliner bodies without the pantographs and propulsion equipment and with different trucks.

To amplify this--- the Amfleet cars were originally called "Metroshell" cars.

What is sad about all of this is that there was nothing inherently flawed in the Metroliner MU concept--- it was the execution of that concept that was flawed---- primarily because Budd and the PRR, for a number of reasons, rushed these units into production without the careful and extensive prototype testing which, with the exception of the T-1 steamer, had been a normal PRR practice in its development of new types of motive power.

The only flaw with the whole idea was that the PRR wanted nothing to do with it, wanted it to fail, and wanted out of passenger rail. There are so many things about the Metros that make them a bad design, and given what Budd was doing at the time, I doubt most of it was their idea. Remember, the Silverliners in service at the time weren't designed by the PRR*, weren't purchased by the PRR, anbd weren't owned by the PRR. had the city and state not purchased the SL II/III cars, riders would have been stuck in rotting (litterally - quite a few had holes in them) MP-54s for a lot longer.

The PRR was like most RRs of the 60's, they wanted out of passenger rail, period. They wanted nothing to do with moving people, and it was reflected in their investment in passenger rail (which was virtually non existant).

*Ignoring the SL Is, which were basically putting a pretty face on a then obsolete propulsion system that didn't work well anyway.

Nasadowsk wrote: *Ignoring the SL Is, which were basically putting a pretty face on a then obsolete propulsion system that didn't work well anyway.

Except that the Pioneer III cars, which were the Silverliner I prototypes were a marked improvement over the obsolete MP-54's which they were intended to replace.