**FTA:'…**GLENVILLE, N.Y. – New York State Operations Director Howard Glaser has announced plans to sell 20 turbo train cars and the spare parts for them, the Albany Times-Union reports. The trains likely will be scrapped. They have been stored since 2005 when the state abandoned plans to rebuild the 1970s Rohr Turboliners.
The administration of Gov. Andrew Cuomo was pointing to the hulks as a glaring example of waste and incompetence they say has long plagued New York State government. It costs the state $153,000 a year to store them. The administration plans to hire a consultant to see how they can sell the trains, although they will probably end up being scrapped…"
"…Rebuilding of the trains was touted as a job builder for the Schenectady area. “There is no state in America that has made a bigger commitment to high-speed rail than New York,'” then-Gov. George Pataki said in 2000 when Wisconsin-based Super Steel company rolled out the first refurbished Turboliner. As it turned out, the turbine fuel was too costly and Amtrak mechanics needed special training to work on the engines – so much so that a specialist had to be assigned to ride the trains as they traveled back and forth along the Hudson between New York and Albany. The trains’ air conditioners never worked properly, and the turbines had a tendency to catch fire if not perfectly maintained.
By 2003, the program been discontinued. Four of the original seven Turboliners train sets were ultimately brought to Glenville and mothballed with the doors sealed. Amtrak towed three other trains to Delaware, where they have been stored…"
Perhaps the final end of another ‘we-know-it-all’ aerospace outfit’s failed attempt to enter the railroad passenger equipment market - no, it’s not just like airplanes, only they don’t get off the ground ! Air conditioners are not rocket science !
[:-,] I wonder if the Frech-built turbine engines as used in the helicopters also “had a tendency to catch fire if not perfectly maintained” ? And/ or, do the helicopter “mechanics needed special training to work on the engines – so much so that a specialist had to be assigned to ride the trains [helicopters]” ?
Maybe they should have instead used the 1,500 HP Chrysler gas-turbines as used in the US Army’s M1 Abrams series of Main Battle Tanks ?
Now time to do with these what was done to the original Penn Central - US DOT MetroLiners: Convert them to locomotive-hauled coaches (forerunners of the “Amfleet I” cars). Wonder if some tourist line or local passenger agency could use them in that configuration ?
Turbo trains made sense when fuel prices were low. They are extremely inefficient when the turbine does not run at ideal speed. Huge increases in fuel prices plus unusual maintenance requirements are why Amtrak would not use them.
I rode them quite a bit. Amtrak got them in the late 70s - about the time NY State was paying Conrail to raise speed on the Hudson Line north of Poughkeepsie.
They were smooth and fast. They were an off-the-shelf design modified with a nose/cab and had the car bodies bumped out to 10’ wide between the vestibules.
The combo of better track, higher speeds and these trainsets increased ridership on the Hudson line to a large degree, so much so, that NY has had to build two iterations of stations in Rensselaer to handle the crowds. This was the one corridor outside the NEC that actually got the speeds, equipment and frequency to succeed. Too bad this success wasn’t emulated elsewhere.
My recollection is that they burned regular #1 diesel or jet fuel. The rap on gas turbines was always high part throttle and idle fuel consumption. At full throttle, gas turbines are plenty efficient. The trick was to keep them busy or plugged into standby between runs. I don’t think the overall fuel economy of these trains was all that bad, if I recall some of Jerry Pier’s earlier posts.
I don’t recall them being out of service for any period of time due to fires. In fact, they ran for 25 years or so before the ill-fated rebuild program.
If you do some searching, you’ll find Jerry Pier and others who have posted here about their experience with these beasts and the rebuild program.
It was a shame that the trainsets became political footballs.
In response to Paul North’s diatribe on the RTL Turboliners:
1.0 The “know-it-all” aerospace company (Rohr Industries) had a a rail division in which I was Program and Engineering manager forthe 6 train Amtrak project. My team of 250 engineers included many with railroad expereince (I cam from WABCO) and the manufacturing team had built cars for Bart and WDC. We built the seven trains on schedule and for the contract price.
2.0 There was no tendency for the Turbmeca Gas Turbines to catch on fire. The only fire I’m aware of took place on an RTG power car as a result of failure to conect a ground cabble while the unit was in contact with the 3rd rail while parked in Penn Station.
3.0 The gas turbines did not require any special attention while in service, in fact they required less maintenance than an equivalent diesel. The attendants that rode the trains during the early days were primarlly to monitor and give Amtrak a “warm” feeling. It was a nice job. The Turmo III gas tubine had been in service on the French RTG’s for a number of years (SNCF operated 35 RTG Trains with this gas turbine and it’s successors for amny years) We looked at the 1500 hp tank turbine but it had no experince at the time (1973) and was not comercially available. Amtrak insisted on the Turmo III or equivalent and there was no equivalent.
The RTL Turbolners were very popular with Amtrak’s customers as well as with the maintenance staff at Renssaelaer. In 1994, after 17 years of continuous service, the train interiors were a little worn and Amtrak decided to do a limited refurbishment including re-engining with 1600 hp Turmo 12 engines and electronic turbine control replacing the original relay type. This was done at a reasonable cost and with good results. The train, designated the RTL II , performed very well and got a favorable response rrom the passengers.
In the mid 1990’s New York State took title to the trains for the purpose of parforming a complete
Thanks to Don (oltmand) for recommending a response from Jerry, and to Jerry Pier for his response, and lucid description of some of the history of the Turboliners.
Over time there has been a lot written about the Rohr Turboliners, as with much at times to an observer from afar it seemed to be mostly negative (or at least couched in the negative context–Sort of a play on the old saw about newspapers-bad news sell papers)
Without trying to put words into Paul’s mouth, or explaine his post for him. My thoughts were that I had personally confused the Turobliners from Rohr with their earlier cousins the UAC TurobTrains ( which came before in the early 1960’s)
Linked here United Aircraft Company’s Turbo Trains; which were used in Canada and USA::
These were bor in the 1970’s and their lineage was partly French and American, and as Jerry explains9paraphrsed); they had a long and useful career, until the point they became political footballs:
FTL: "…The Turboliners were closely based on the French ANF company’s gas-turbine T 2000RTG “Turbotrain” trainset, including the use of similar Turbomeca gas-turbine engines. Despite the high cost of fuel common to all gas-turbine trains, the ANF and Rohr Turboliners ha
Jerry, I want to comment on your 1.0 answer way back about Rhor being a "know it all areospace company. At that time we had a lot of air and aerospace people out of work and tried to turn them into railroad engineers. It was they who came up with the ailine like fusalage for the Metroliners and for the failing electronics of the Budd SPV and the troublesome UA Turbo’s. It was we who thought rocket science was ubiquitess enough to be used in any form of transportation and embraced thier presence. And of course European engineering just won’t fly here in the Colonies because of our heavier loading guage. A lot of things have been successful in Europe because they don’t need the extra weight and protections we demand in cars and locomotives and their appliances. Europe is reported to have a better fail safe signalling system that keeps trains away from each other rather than a heavier center post and frame to absorbe hits and being hit. I don’t think Rhor was a “know it all” at that time as much as a “knew better” than we because of practice. It is just their practice can’t stand up to our bulwarks.
The ROHR Turboliners were built to US, not French standards. IE: Buff strength, center couplings, Air brakes and 60 hz power. As I recall, this added about 300,000 lbs to their weight. The body shells were built,and painted in France to our specs, shipped on deck to LA and then trucked to Chula Vista. As noted in my previous sumission, key engineering people had railway experience. The turbine controls, heating, lighting and aircondioning controls were designed by Rohr and built or purchased to our specifications. The trucks were completely of ANF design and manufacture.(These are far superior to any US truck at speeds up to 125 mph) Once the engineering was complete, we built 7 five car trains in 6 months and delivered them to Amtrak in Chicago under their on power. In the whole process I worked closely with the French Company and gained a high llevel of respect for their engineering and construction capabilities.
At the conclusion of the project, the ANF Chief Engineer told me they were very impressed with what we had accomplished in such a short time and admitted that out finished train was better than their RTG.
In closing re aerospace engineers, fail safe in railroading is to stop, It’s a lot more critical in aerospace.
At first I hated them for replacing my beloved E units. I came to enjoy their smooth ride, and comfortable interiors. They were fun to watch roaring up and down the Hudson Valley.
