Discussion relating to the Penn Central, up until its 1976 inclusion in Conrail. Visit the Penn Central Railroad Historical Society for more information.

Moderator: JJMDiMunno

  by ex Budd man
One of One-Sixty wrote:What type of trucks Budd use on the Metroliners? I could not find any info on that, thanks guys.
The trucks on the Metroliners were a commonwealth four wheel design, with double drop equalizers, rubber encased coil springs and air spring secondary suspension. Both axles were powered with either Westinghouse or GE traction motors. I'm not sure of the wheel diameter, 40" seems to come to mind.
  by One of One-Sixty
Was the pantographs retrofitted when Amtrak took control of these, from Single Arm to double arm? Cause there are pictures like this one below throws me off. It looks like pantographs from both the first and second cars are both raised.


But then there are pics like this where there is only one car with a double arm pantograph.

It was my understanding that each car only had one single-arm pantograph like below, but photographic evidence seems to dictate otherwise as the photos above demostrate.

Also one last weird question, what was the PRR designation for the Metroliners?
  by walt
One of One-Sixty wrote:
Also one last weird question, what was the PRR designation for the Metroliners?
The Metroliner EMU's ( or Corridor Cars) were designated MP 85--- the same as the original Silverliners from which they were developed.
  by Nasadowsk
Westinghouse-equipped cars had the Stenmann (double arm) type pan. I believe this was made in the US by UKM.

GE equipped cars had a Faiveley knockoff that GE used back then. It's the same pan as the E-44, E-60, Silverliners, etc. I believe the part number's even the same 17-whatever.

I don't know if they ever evaluated the difference between the two (there's a few interesting videos from RENFE on Youtube on pan testing on their stuff back in the 80's...)
  by ex Budd man
As was mentioned the Westinghouse and GE equipped cars had different types of pans. What may be more confusing is since they ran as married pairs only one pan needed to be up on each pair. Usually it was the leading car that had its pan up. This can be seen in the photo of car 851 which is followed by a set of Stennman equipped cars.
The cars were developed from DOT test cars which were themselves developed from the Silverliner II cars.
  by CSXT 4617
One of One-Sixty wrote: Image

Also one last weird question, what was the PRR designation for the Metroliners?
The Pennsylvania Railroad built the Metroliners for intercity passenger service along the Northeast and Keystone Corridors. Based off what I've heard from former Pennsylvania Railroad and Penn Central conductors, the Metroliners could easily achieve 165 miles an hour, but due to the track condition at the time, they were only allowed to reach between 90 miles an hour or 110 miles an hour. But, winter was a disaster on the Metroliners. These cars would often require a GG1 to give them an assist to their ultimate destination. This was common in both the Penn Central and the Amtrak years.
  by ex Budd man
Like their half sister the SPV-2000 they rushed in production and service before they were fully tested and had all the teething problems corrected.Political pressure won out over common sense. The British APT train had a similar fate being forced into use while still under developement. It proved to be such an embarisment that it was hidden from the public eye and eventually GIVEN to a private individual with the proviso to keep it out of sight. This gentleman is a major recording producer who has a very large collection of British railway equipment. He eventually sorted out the problem and now has unique piece of railway history. :wink: