Railroad Forums 

  • The First Metroliners

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #211701  by PRRTechFan
 
Mr. Nasadowski wrote:
The main transformers were single winding (not unlike the ALP-46). They tended to trip the substations due to their low impeadance. Pan ups were restricted in places, and I'd imagine they had trouble at power gaps too.
...I recall that the employee timetable at that time had a warning about operating more than 6 metroliner cars as a set because of "possible catenary outages" !!
The single winding was designed for 11kv and 25kv, 25hz and 60hz. GE had a tap switch here.
Oh my God! I didn't suppose that anyone was even thinking about 25kv or 60hz operation in the mid-60's, let alone designing it in to the metroliners! Just think; if any of these units survived, we could still run them today, even to Boston!

 #211709  by hsr_fan
 
PRRTechFan wrote:Mr. Nasadowski wrote:

...I recall that the employee timetable at that time had a warning about operating more than 6 metroliner cars as a set because of "possible catenary outages" !!
Obviously that was no longer the case by 1985, when this photo was taken! :wink:

I'll never get to ride aboard a true Metroliner MU, but one of these days I'm going to try to ride aboard one of the cab car conversions. Maybe when they start running push-pull Keystones to Harrisburg...
Last edited by hsr_fan on Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

 #211710  by Nasadowsk
 
<i>Oh my God! I didn't suppose that anyone was even thinking about 25kv or 60hz operation in the mid-60's, let alone designing it in to the metroliners! Just think; if any of these units survived, we could still run them today, even to Boston!</i>

GE was talking about it in the Silverliner II cars. Actually, 23.5kv, but called '25kv', just like NJT's Hoboken Division '25kv' is really 27.6kv. Even back then, it was obvious the 25hz system was a dead end.

Freqency swapping was easy on the rectifier units, voltage meant a tap change on either the high or low side. GE went high side, W went low side. I don't know if either could change frequency on the fly, automatically, or if they needed a jumper or switch setting changed.

I believe when the New Haven was studying what to do with their electrification, one sugesstion was change to 60hz and go north. They bought the FL-9s instead...

 #211713  by PRRTechFan
 
In a previous message, I wrote:
...I recall that the employee timetable at that time had a warning about operating more than 6 metroliner cars as a set because of "possible catenary outages" !!
hsr_fan replied:
Obviously that was no longer the case by 1985, when this photo was taken!
(The photo showed an 8 car Amtrak metroliner set)

The employee timetable note I referenced was definitely Penn-Central; but I certainly could have had the number of cars wrong.... I still have that timetable somewhere; I'll verify the note.

...or Amtrak may not have been as conservative as the PRR or PC!

 #211744  by Nasadowsk
 
They implemented Westinghouse's 'fix' by then, which was to modify the substations to not trip as quickly, as opposed to fixing a faulty main transformer design. I suspect this outlook by everyone involved gives you an idea how long those cars were really expected to last in service...

etc

 #211847  by Noel Weaver
 
I ran the Metroliner equipment to and from New Haven quite a bit in the
1970's. We had one round trip every day for the most part. They ran
fair but were much too complicated for normal railroad use. The control
system was ridiculous with a cruise control type throttle and braking
system. The braking system could be varied by the engineer but it was
still a poor system especially on the New Haven between New York and
New Haven as we had frequent speed changes. We also had gaps but
they had special proceedures for us to follow going through the gaps.
These cars could have been better with a more simplified control system.
I didn't like the cab on them either, much too small, quite cramped really.
On the territory between New York and New Haven they often ran with a
specially assigned "special duty" engineer although some of us were
actually qualified on them. They also ran with a technician on them at all
times and he was always kept busy.
I have always maintained and still do that any equipment that has to have
a technician on board in order to operate should not be operated in the
first place. The operating costs in these circumstances are too much and
generally not justified.
Noel Weaver
 #211913  by Tom Curtin
 
This equipment was a classic case of how not to design/build a radically innovative product. All the wisdom on this subject says: Build a single prototype and run it, run it, run it to get the bugs out. And do all that before you construct a single production item.

Any and every reputable engineering school teaches that!!!

This lesson has not been learned yet, either. Woudn't ya know, history has repeated itself with the Acelas. under political and economic pressure to get the stuff into service they ruch the whole order to completion.

Now, it's interesting to reflect on what might have been had this wisdom been followed with the Metroliners. The prototype testing would've revealed all the bugs that are well documented and described here (and well remembered by many passengers of that era including yours truly), and the prototype have gone back to Budd for massive redesign, and God knows when if ever there would have been any Metroliners. And yes, that too probably would have happened again decades later with the Acelas.

Oh, one other thing, this sad saga of Metroliner unreliability was the first big indication of Budd's engineering going to hell. A decade later they came out with the SPV-2000 (RDC successor) which was undoubtedly the most abysmal, miserable, totally rotten piece of passenger equipment to ever turn a wheel.

 #211946  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Totally agree, Mr. Curtin--

Yes, Budd rail equipment looked like a stainless steel "drop zone' (that's the best name I've seen of late for the apparatus), but yet it continues fifty years later in tri-weekly or maybe greater revenue service on VIA Rail, and to a much lesser extent, on Amtrak.

I know that"our road's' 8600's had anything Budd ever built beat hands down in the aesthetics (beauty) department, but where are all, save museum pieces and stationary structures here and there, the 8600's today?

However, Budd's legacy could be redeemed with the Amfleets; they sure are tough and reliable - could be even more so if the word "maintenance' ever makes its way into the Amtrakese lexicon. While 30 is still a long way from 50, I don't see too much 'sunshine in the funding sky' at present.
Last edited by Gilbert B Norman on Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

 #211984  by John_Perkowski
 
But 30 years is close to 40 years, and 40 years means PC-2 inspections.

So.... my mark on the wall is: Fleet retirement as cars hit 40 years.

John Perkowski

 #212042  by hsr_fan
 
What are PC-2 inspections, and would they be more expensive than buying new cars?

 #212314  by JimBoylan
 
Some Metroliners were rebuilt in the Amtrak era, regeared for a maximum speed of 130 m.p.h. and had some resistors moved from underbody to the roof under a bigger cover.

 #212364  by hsr_fan
 
How fast did the Metroliners run in revenue service initially? I know the official test run record was something like 164 mph (only 5 mph shy of the Acela's record), but did they ever hit 150 in revenue service?

 #212367  by Gilbert B Norman
 
110mph was the max authorized during 1969 when I first rode. I'm afraid it was downhill from there. i.e., as Penn Central let even the Corridor deterioriate, 110 became 105...became 100.

Metroliner sets hauled by GG-1's were authorized 90....however GG-1' s and ASCES never knew one another.

 #212369  by Nasadowsk
 
I tried researching newsclippings in college, and the best I can tell, the metros *were* allowed 150 for a very breif time initially - we're talking weeks or a month or two, and then were cut back to 125 due to 'traction motor issues that aren't safety related'

Heh, calling Acela's top speed a 'record' is a bit silly - it couldn't even keep up with regular traffic on the TGV. I think Turbotrain edged it out slightly anyway.