What ever happened to the X train. Obviously it was scrapped I know that much, but is there anywhere I can find some photos? What was the porpoise for the train? Diagrams? Blueprints? When it was scrapped? That kind of thing.
The best reference I know is a recent book “The New York Central and the Trains of the Future”. I don’t have it with me right now, so I can’t give other details.
It covers the Train X, both NYC and New Haven, Talgo and Aerotrains.
It has most of the details you would need, including some drawings.
Peter
What is the X train? Are you talking about a CSX train symbol for extras?
Junction – it was the ‘train of the future’ which GM (and perhaps some railroads – but not the operating departments!) thought would save passenger travel. This in the '50s, when the handwriting was well and truly on the wall! It looked vaguely like a cross between a '58 Cadillac and I don’t know what… amazing thing. There was at one time a good HO scale model of it; may still be around at flea markets and things like that. I have no idea where in GM it came from; not EMD! Not, shall we say, a rousing success…
jchnhtfd, are you sure you’re not talking about the Aerotrain? (Which was much more of a '57 Caddy than a '58, imho…) I can remember no HO model of Train X, which looked much more like a Baldwin Sharknose than anything (well, anything that sold to automobile buyers) sold in '50. On the other hand, there were models of the Aerotrain and aftermarket detail parts in brass for the suspension (which was rather crudely detailed as part of the cast shell on the original production units).
Train X was developed by NYC under the infamous Robert R. Young. Here’s the Amazon link to the book traingeek mentioned:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1883089271/trainwebA/104-4609655-4008704
(be sure to remove any spaces from this if you have to paste it) which has a rather fun picture of the Train X nose as shown on the book cover.
I can tell you that the train wound up in Travelers Rest, SC, courtesy of T. Boone Pickens. There were pix of it more or less ‘derelict in the woods’ in one issue of Trains Magazine (which is how I know).
The purpose of all the lightweight trains (and I would clearly class Alan Cripe’s later, much more sophisticated Turbotrain in this category) was supposed to be faster, more fuel-efficient passenger service. The price that was paid was that the lightweights usually rode poorly, had cramped interior arrangements, and lacked most of the amenities that people expected of rail transportation. The most logical places for them to run were high-speed mainlines like PRR, but none of them to my knowledge were high-level-platform compatible. As it turned out, lightweight construction and high-speed railroad operating reliability are almost always contradictory and mutually exclusive.
It’s my opinion that a significant part of the Train X failure on NYC stemmed from the choice of a Mekydro transmission – which did make some sense from an engineering-design standpoint, but not from a capital or maintenance one. In
What? Don’t you like your trains to catch on fire when you ride on them?[:D]
The Aerotrain was based on GM bus bodies, so it probably came out of the motor coach division. It’s preserved somewhere, I want to say Green Bay but I’m not certain as I seem to vaguely recall ridng the thing at a museum somewhere.
Yes, there’s an Aerotrain in Green Bay, and one at the National Museum of Transportation in St. Louis.
Train X was Baldwin’s answer to GM’s Aerotrain (or at least a contemporary of it). Three of these locomotives were built, one for NYC (labeled “X-plorer”, and matched with an articulated trainset from Pullman Standard) and two for New Haven. I believe the X-plorer survived a lot longer than one would expect, on the Pickens Railroad in South Carolina. I don’t know its ultimate fate.
I would suspect that the lightweight trains of the 1950’s (Train X, Talgo, Aerotrain, etc.) were the earliest versions of that design and it shouldn’t be surprising that they had as many bugs as they did. Budd’s Tubular design was the only one that was moderately successful and that may be due to the fact that it was a fairly conservative design.
One could say that the years of experience have made a difference as the Talgo has grown into a very reliable concept in Spain and in the Pacific Northwest corridor.
…Traingeek: Go to Google to find illustrations and photos of X-Train and Aerotrain, etc…Just install what you are looking for and hunt down through the options that come up and you should find some. I have in the past. Somewhere on here maybe in Google is a very complete run down, including photos of creating the Aerotrain. X-Train is there somewhere too.
yeah, overmod – you caught the old man napping again. Dang. Have to get another cup of coffeeeeeeeeeee
http://ohiorr.railfan.net/images/x21.jpg
http://ohiorr.railfan.net/images/x12.jpg
I hope this helps out a little.
I rode the NYC Xplorer from Dayton to Cincinati and a major reason it didn’t last through the “teething” phase was lack of passenger acceptance. Those trains came out before continuus welded rail and on jointed track their ride was at best not good. Going out of Dayton I thought we had the bottom of the car hit the track as we went across a turnout. From what I understand the ride on the GM Aerotrains was just as bad. With today’s CWR they might have stood a chance. European equipment in general is lighter than US passenger cars and they provide a good ride on the CWR. I haven’t ridden the Canadian LRC equipment but it is still in use and doesn’t seem to bring about too many ride complaints. As a matter of fact, while in Toronto over this past Labor Day the only VIA equipment I saw consisted of LRC’s.
U rode the X, cool…!!!
I like NYC but THIS is one ugly loco.
No it’s cool, you have to look at it by the inventer Baldwins point of view. They adapted the shark nose that was a very successful look, why not put it on their latest creation. And the lines look clean on it too, there aren’t any bubble canopies on it that make it look like a WWII fighter.
I suppose jhh is entitled to his opinion, but I’ve always liked this train, for as long as I can remember having seen it (which was in pictures in the early '60s).
Part of the problem is that the styling was evidently done from elevations and models, since it looks decidedly weird from some trackside angles, but not at all bad when viewed from a higher platform (this is clear to me from a couple of the pictures traingeek so kindly linked - compare 012 to 021 to see what I mean)
Oddly enough, the old RF16/BP20 style Sharks looked just fine from the lower angle, but started to be decidedly weird (at least to my eyes) when seen from high angles, as from bridges.