Does anyone know why the RTL-III Turboliner project was cancelled? Based on what little I've been able to find out about these trains, they sound like a good first step toward high speed rail on non-electrified tracks. It's a shame that they never saw the light of day.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I think there have been other threads on this. The short version is that the start of this was a political play that should have never happened. These trains are old, obsolete, high maintenance fuel hogs and should never run again. Maybe one should be stuffed and mounted in a museum somewhere with a plaque explaining how they were a bad idea from the beginning.
It is worth noting that the French, who built the first of these, and do run extensive passenger services have retired all their originals, and so far as I know do not run any turbos anywhere. If it is not electrified, it is diesel.
There are some quite nice, and fast, diesel services in this world.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I'd much rather see wider use of Talgo trains such as those in use for the Cascade Service in the future. Nice big windows. Quiet runners. More efficient use of energy than the Turboliners.
Posted by tarheelman (Member # 6095) on :
Thanks for the replies, folks.
George, I was under the impression that the turbines in these trains had been upgraded to more fuel efficient units sometime during the 1990s. Is this not true?
David, I agree that Talgo passenger cars would make great replacements for the aging Amfleet coaches. I'm hoping that Alex Kummant's idea of forming a buying group with state DOTs and the NJ Transit Authority will become a reality---that should make it more affordable to replace the Amfleets with Talgos.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by tarheelman: George, I was under the impression that the turbines in these trains had been upgraded to more fuel efficient units sometime during the 1990s. Is this not true?
Maybe so. I really don't know. On the other hand, the turbine fuel efficiency and maintenance requirements were so much higher than those for a diesel, the "new improved" version may have still been too far on the wrong side of the diesel in operating costs.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Tarheel, why not hook up with the fellow over at railroad.net who goes by the handle of "HSR Fan"?
quote:Originally posted by tarheelman: George, I was under the impression that the turbines in these trains had been upgraded to more fuel efficient units sometime during the 1990s. Is this not true?
Maybe so. I really don't know. On the other hand, the turbine fuel efficiency and maintenance requirements were so much higher than those for a diesel, the "new improved" version may have still been too far on the wrong side of the diesel in operating costs.
Point taken, George. This, along with the fact that the then-new (at the time the Turboliners were retired) P42s could cruise at 110 MPH, most likely spelled the end of the RTL-III project.