Well, what they were thinking was to have an observation that maximized the usable space inside the car, and that could be coupled anywhere in the train and still ‘walked through’ with a good diaphragm-protected connection.
Most of the early parabolic-end cars had little better than a schoolbus-door type arrangement, suitable perhaps for reverse moves with a monkey-tail arrangement, and putting a full diaphragm and buffer involved both higher weight and some ugliness, particularly when the diaphragm and frame were externally added. You will note that the actual amount of useful room in the pointed end was considerably less than a flat end obs (or a solarium-car arrangement) especially when you arranged the seating to face the rear windows. (Ain’t never gonna replace the outside observation platform!)
That said, I have never really cared for square-end observations; the Skytop being one of the better alternative arrangements. I never quite understood why no one combined the ‘dome’ idea with glass-end observation in an arrangement like a B29 nose with bi-level visibility but preserving full pass-through if the car were run midtrain (or with private cars appended).
I think you’re partly right about WWII killing Preco’s passenger-car market … but it’s also true that both the early and late ‘versions’ of their pendulum system were dramatically underdeveloped and weird-ri
The original Lark cars had the same floor plan as the American Milemaster and Muskingum River (all variants of Plan 4082) and more importantly used the same Pullman diagram for a 2 DBR, 1 Cpt, 1 DR buffet lounge observation.
According to Randall’s book of SP Prewar PS floor plans, the three NYC cars, American Milemaster and Muskingum River had one minor difference. There was a sofa facing rearward in the curved end in those five cars while the two “Lark” cars just had individual lounge chairs around the side facing inward. Apparently the “Lark” cars had radio speakers in the observation room not in the others.
The rearward facing sofa was a feature of the “Island” cars used on the 20th Century, so this allowed the Pullman pool cars to replace them if required. During the war, the low capacity of the Island cars meant that River cars were substituted at Government direction.
Randall indicates that Muskingum River had an aluminium body (on a steel girder frame) although Dubin in “More Classsic Trains” suggests that it was stainless steel. Since Randall had the drawings, I’d side with him, although the notes on the floor plan aren’t really clear as to material.
If it was indeed aluminium, that might explain its withdrawal after a sideswipe since the damage may have been greater to aluminium body panels.
Certainly Cripe’s ‘turbine motor train’ (that became the UA TurboTrain) both needed and got an effective and practical method of progressive passive tilt good to above 160mph. That its primary suspension and NVH absorption were inadequate for contemporary track maintenance and jointed rail is a peripheral concern.
I travelled in the VIA Turbotrain from Toronto to Montreal (almost Montreal) in 1977. On leaving Toronto Union Station passengers were instructed to remain in their seats and not to attempt to move about until the train had cleared all the switches in the station yard. I was still trying to find my seat at that time and while I remained standing, I had to hold on to an adjacent seat back. The coach class dome was leading, so I spent much of the journey up there until a fire warning near Dorval Airport shut the train down, and we transferred across the ballast to a Rapido that we had overtaken earlier. To avoid fire, all the seat padding in the dome (above the turbines) was attached by Velcro and the speed with which the crew removed the seat padding suggested that they had done it before.
That’s why RRs needed industrial designer, they could maintain a balance between beauty and practicality in their works. I believe when PRR needed a new design of observation car which could connect to additional cars, any industrial designer could provide a much better design for the post war View Series, but they didn’t hire any noted designer or probably didn’t request Pullman to make an interesting observation lounge car for their prime train as a greeting of the arrival of 1950s. When the ridership was declining rapidly, I think RRs needed cars and services which were good enough to wow and to lure patrons back.
Actually, the thing that killed it was the OPEC fuel ‘crisis’ of the early Seventies and the high relative price of the necessary ‘burn’ of turbine fuel. Very similar economics initially changed the French TGV from gas-turbine to electric propulsion.
A secondary factor, in the United States, was diversion of one of the prototype trains to what was essentially a branch-line service to a political destination. Even considering the TurboTrain as a glorified motor train a la EMC, it was the opportunity cost that hurt things. The TurboTrain was intended as the New York-to-Boston extension of the Metroliner service (from New York to Washington) and that was not conveniently done with one of the precious prototypes helping out Harley’s re-election chances.
Interestingly, there were other turbine trains (the RTG and then Rohr variants) that succeeded in niche markets for a while. The early versions, at least, were considerably less exotic than the ‘ground airliner’.
I’m not sure that anything short of full-active suspension in 3 planes could have saved the ride over the early Seventies New Haven, whether into GCT or later Penn. It wasn’t that employees were incompetent, just that even with federal subsidy there wasn’t enough money to keep the track lined and surfaced for that train to run with the necessary acceleration and speed.
I remember discussions about providing 12.5kV electrification for the UA train (with UK-sourced pantographs mounted on extensions of the intercar pendular frames, not touching the carbody); the situation with the glassed-in domes was no “worse” than running under the New Haven electrification, which the train did almost from new. The motor arrangement
The initial use of the UA Turbos into GCT illustrates something that Penn Central (and New Haven) knew - that New York was never going to generate a large amount of transfer traffic between Turbos and Metroliners. The reroute into Penn in November 1971 introduced more problems without generating more traffic, as the East River tunnels were not very forgiving to the third rail motors. By the time any changes would have been made to the drive train, the reality of the suspension issues negated any real interest. The Turbos were also leased from UA by DOT, and not Amtrak owned.
Extending some Metroliner runs to New Haven probably met the service demand. The RTG and Rohr turbos were reasonably successful in the markets they were used in, but the flexibility of AEM7 and F40-hauled Amfleet I coaches proved hard to beat.
I wonder if the UA Train could maintain 120mph or above after electrification and modification or not, as rcdrye and you stated the almighty GG1, AEM7 and F40 plus Amfleet I coaches proved hard to beat, there was no economic incentive to further develop the UA Train, given that
. Although, I think the apperance of the UA TurboTrain was much more attractive.
Yes. Easily. (Certainly as easily as a Metroliner!)
If I recall correctly the APT-P had a similar arrangement that kept the pantograph from tilting with the carbodies. I strongly recommend that anyone at all interested in this join the APT Yahoo group, as many of the original engineers actively participate and it’s a bit like being at a symposium on Olympus … even with the edge of history threatening.
It would not have been different to develop a better ‘fast scheme’ for a G in Amtrak colors, including in black (or DGLE) with only the ‘stripe’ in color as on some of the E units. Or color five-stripe (see Josh Moldover’s paint-shop site for GG1 drawings to start your own experimenting…)
On the other hand… I still remember as one of the high points of my life Raymond Loewy signing 4935 with a felt-tip marker; hard to get anything better than that.
Raymond Loewy’s insight on GG1 was right, using of a smooth, welded body instead of riveted one. But I personally prefer the shape and details of the original 4899, later 4800, the riveted body gave the engine a tougher looks, but rust stain from the rivet would make them looked beat up after a few years.
Note the number board on the tip of the front end.
If I recall correctly the APT-P had a similar arrangement that kept the pantograph from tilting with the carbodies.
I think there was a serious proposal for such an arrangement on the BR APT but my recollection was that in the APT-P as built, the non passenger carrying power cars did not tilt. These were basically Swedish RC4s in a new shell and with trucks designed for higher speed.
As a result, I think the SJ X2000 ended up with the same power as the APT-P also in a non tilting body.
The Italian Pendolinos, on the other hand, do have pantographs on tilting vehicles. I understand that after the original prototype didn’t reach expectations, the Italians used the BR APT designs, adapting them as required.
Now of course, Pendolinos run past the preserved APT-P at Crewe on services to Liverpool and Glasgow.
The observation coach by Pullman was not considered succedssful, especially the aluminum trucks. The “George M. Pullman” observation-lounge-sleeper was more successful, especially after its 4-wheel aluminum trucks were replaced by more conventional Pullman 6-wheel trucks. Both Pullman and ACF built all-aluminum cars in the 1930s and early 1940s.
All-aluminum cars fell out of favor after a disastrous rear-end collision on the Missouri-Pacific around 1942. Union Pacific continued to get aluminum cars (with steel underframes) until at least 1956 from Pullman, ACF and St. Louis Car.
Quite true. Most prewar aluminum cars were retired very early because of this. ACF developed some kind of buffer material used between steel frame members and aluminum sheets that was good enough for most of UP’s postwar aluminum cars to survive long enough to see Amtrak service.
Note that this is also true of stainless sheathing over carbon-steel structure (as on all those Pullman-Standard cars that couldn’t compete with Budd on all-stainless fabrication). The rot in some of those, especially when chloride gets into the mix, can be amazingly awful.
