|
|
| Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article (1075509) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1075509) | |
Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jun 16 05:31:51 2011 In PDF form on the Canada Southern Railway historical website. Interesting highlights (not in order from the article):So even back then, 160 mph wasn't regarded as too ambitious on a traditional ROW. That's $267 million and $68 million respectively in 2011 dollars. How is it that they're talking multiple billions nowadays? $12.75 is $78.50 in 2011 dollars. Since the airfare back then was $5.15 higher, that would make the equivalent airfare in 2011 dollars $110.21. Nice pix on the PDF . . . |
|
|
| (1138870) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 11 22:02:29 2012, in response to Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jun 16 05:31:51 2011. Hmm. Where are the real railfans? |
|
|
| (1173814) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Aug 22 11:11:36 2012, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 11 22:02:29 2012. Aside the photo people, pretty much gone. Haven't you noticed? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1173817) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Aug 22 11:26:06 2012, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Aug 22 11:11:36 2012. Very lamentable fact. |
|
|
| (1173842) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 22 14:15:09 2012, in response to Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jun 16 05:31:51 2011. In fact the digital speedometer in the rear cab on the first southbound (RR west) Metroliner hit 124. A Budd official had access to the cab so it was possible to read the speed over his shoulder. It was a fun trip. |
|
|
| (1173854) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Aug 22 14:50:30 2012, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 22 14:15:09 2012. Makes me wish that we did achieve the 160-mph goal back then. |
|
|
| (1173858) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 22 15:17:20 2012, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Aug 22 14:50:30 2012. IIRC they did but only in test runs on the Elizabeth to Trenton speedway. My memory is 160.4 there then. One could check the NYT 'cause I remember an article when it happened. Seems to me the Acela made all of 4 MPH gain (certainly less than 10) on the same route. I remember commenting--perhaps here, perhaps on the old Subtalk that the real accomplishment of the Acela project was electrifying the NH-BOS section. IF, C-Dot ever cleans up the catenary and curve issues we should see better speeds to NH.The PC Post (I have another issue) was the usual BS/hype--comical as long as one didn't use their "services" Unfortunately I did. A prototype for Amtrak at its worst. |
|
|
| (1558369) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Sep 23 22:21:03 2020, in response to Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jun 16 05:31:51 2011. bump . . . the stuff dreams are made of. |
|
|
| (1558372) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 24 01:14:16 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Sep 23 22:21:03 2020. dreams? no, sales presentations. As I commented back then, they did achieve 124 in revenue, 160.4 in test w/o concrete ties or fully CWR. Sadly, however, the actual Metroliner EMUs turned out to be lemons (hangar queens?); and had terrible OTP. Was it the PRR's insistence on obsolete trucks; Budd wanted to use Pioneer IIs. Can anyone find out if the MDBF of the Westinghouse and GE units differed? I do know that originally the WE cars blew substation breakers. This is why the first trains were parlors and coach/snack cars (all GEs). What was done to fix the WE units? current limiters? Larger feeders with higher rated CBs?We do do know that the window sashes in P70s had to be redone because Metroliner test runs sucked the windows out as they zoomed by. Physics teaches us that powered axles under each car are more efficient than engines pulling unpowered cars. That said, despite all of the EMUs built since the M's, Amtrak has now twice done the worst of both worlds--engine hauled trains of inflexible consists. Tres triste. |
|
|
| (1558373) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 24 01:32:09 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 24 01:14:16 2020. Physics teaches us that powered axles under each car are more efficient than engines pulling unpowered carsAnd what physics equation are you citing? More moving parts means lower heat efficiency in fact. |
|
|
| (1558377) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Sep 24 07:09:45 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 24 01:32:09 2020. Powered axles in every car means a train of any length has the same performance as a single car (as "Empire Beneath The Streets" points out). |
|
|
| (1558396) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Sep 24 10:20:36 2020, in response to Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jun 16 05:31:51 2011. The article about the NH joining PC was very interesting. |
|
|
| (1558423) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Thu Sep 24 16:17:57 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 22 15:17:20 2012. Technology has advanced dramatically since 1969, not just electronics but metallurgy, welding, sensing a monitoring. 160 then an effort and achievement level equaling at least 20% more today, maybe 200 mph.Greatest vs Millenial. |
|
|
| (1558424) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Thu Sep 24 16:21:35 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 24 01:32:09 2020. EMUs allow you to delete a 300,000 pound, zero passenger locomotive. That probably makes up for any efficiency gain from using fewer motors. |
|
|
| (1558428) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 24 17:23:51 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Steamdriven on Thu Sep 24 16:17:57 2020. obviously technologyhas advanced--we are not mailingletters typed ona monolingual typewriter or even a teletype.My point was how LITTLE the Acela achieved over what the original Metroliner EMUs had done--30 years 10 mph, shameful. |
|
|
| (1558430) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 24 17:27:09 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Steamdriven on Thu Sep 24 16:21:35 2020. from my experience of a cab ride back then, even PRR Silverliners (not yet SEPTA operated) could easily beat the time of GG1 hauled trains because they decelerated for curves later, and accelerated out of them sooner (and faster in each case). |
|
|
| (1558445) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Sep 24 19:10:09 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 24 17:23:51 2020. Depends upon your POV. Today's latest jetliners don't travel any faster than the 707 first flown in 1957. But today's jets are light years more advanced. |
|
|
| (1558451) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Thu Sep 24 20:29:48 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 24 17:23:51 2020. Yes, I was agreeing with you, I’m not sure that came across. |
|
|
| (1558456) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Sep 24 21:38:30 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Steamdriven on Thu Sep 24 16:21:35 2020. Doesn't every EMU car get treated like a locomotive, and have to go through additional inspections because of it? |
|
|
| (1558464) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 24 22:43:39 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Steamdriven on Thu Sep 24 16:21:35 2020. EMUs allow you to delete a 300,000 pound, zero passenger locomotiveRed herring. No electric locomotives on high-speed trains weigh anywhere close to that weight, not even the power cars of the current Acela Express. And EMUs create multiplicative equipment that becomes harder to access for maintenance due to being crammed into troublesome locations under the passenger cars or elsewhere, never mind creating more things to maintain; they're far better suited for commuter and transit. Now if you want to argue for less than two electric locomotives, you might be going somewhere (e.g. X2000, ICE-2). |
|
|
| (1558466) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 24 22:50:22 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Dave on Thu Sep 24 19:10:09 2020. If by "advanced" you mean filled with electronic junk, then I guess so. And there's that sound barrier thingy, so how are you going to fly faster? |
|
|
| (1558472) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 25 00:17:35 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by 3-9 on Thu Sep 24 21:38:30 2020. By the FRA, yes.Unpowered cab cars too, apparently. |
|
|
| (1558479) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Fri Sep 25 00:54:52 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 24 22:43:39 2020. I can see the maintenance aspect being a big consideration. As for weight, I was thinking of an ACS-64, iirc they’re about all the weight the RR allows on 4 axles.As for power cans, hmmm, I think I prefer two because they’re fully duplicative. So when one dies, my train still moves. It’s probably not cost effective, but when there’s an era of ‘deferred maintenance’ machines that don’t care to have their maintenance deferred start deferring their motion. |
|
|
| (1558484) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Sep 25 03:23:27 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Dave on Thu Sep 24 19:10:09 2020. Given that the French, Japanese, Chinese, Germans, all have much faster HSR,the 707 example does not apply. Further, IINM the "slowing" of jets is essentially a fuel savings maneuver--sorta like the 55mph speed limit for cars decades back. |
|
|
| (1558498) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Sep 25 09:20:35 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 24 22:50:22 2020. Electronic junk...LOL! Yeah...junk to keep aircraft from flying into each other (TCAS); junk to allow more aircraft to fly in the same airspace corridors (RNAV and GPS); junk to keep aircraft from flying too low and inadvertently hitting the ground (E-GPWS); etc. |
|
|
| (1558499) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Sep 25 09:22:30 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Sep 25 03:23:27 2020. Airliners no longer slow down to save fuel. They haven't done that for years. All modern passenger jets fly in the 525 - 550 mph range, just like the 707 did back in the late 1950's. |
|
|
| (1558509) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 11:24:11 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Steamdriven on Thu Sep 24 16:17:57 2020. Sorry, but it was Greatest vs. Boomers. The millennials are just now going to take over the world that the Boomers destroyed. |
|
|
| (1558510) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 11:26:08 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 24 17:23:51 2020. And remember that it's not like train technology has reached a wall: Other countries have made better use of technology in those same decades. |
|
|
| (1558511) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 11:26:52 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Dave on Fri Sep 25 09:20:35 2020. PWN3D!Don't forget fuel efficiency! |
|
|
| (1558512) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 11:28:18 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Dave on Thu Sep 24 19:10:09 2020. And they did invent a significantly faster plane for passengers, it's just that the economics of it never really took off and it had various negative externalities (most notably noise). |
|
|
| (1558519) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Fri Sep 25 11:47:39 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 11:26:52 2020. The geared turbofan's improvements in noise, efficiency, and emissions alone are so insane the numbers don't seem to be real. I flew on an A320 with the new Pratt's a few years ago. The takeoff was unreal, it never seemed loud enough to be making any power, (and I was BEHIND) the wing), but it took off normally.I've been on 787s too. The loudest part of those flights are the spoilers out to get the fucking thing down from 30,000 feet. |
|
|
| (1558530) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Fri Sep 25 14:11:22 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 11:24:11 2020. Give them time ;-) |
|
|
| (1558531) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Fri Sep 25 14:27:59 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 11:28:18 2020. I’d love to hear and see the Concorde twice a day. I don’t like ordinary aircraft noise, there was nothing ordinary about the Concorde. That thing was glorious, almost a B1 you could hop a ride on. Fighter jets couldn’t stay on track with it, they burn too much fuel while supersonic.Meanwhile, the fighter pilot has to wear a full pressure suit with a diaper and pee bottle. The suit gets itchy, the unstable fighter plane wants to kill and and it’s gone one big honkin’ engine and that’s all. Supersonic planes were done in the ‘50s, an ocean-crossing supersonic plane with tea service was science fiction. The Concords settled into a not-too-inefficent cruise at Mach 2 and could have flown higher and faster, using less fuel per mile if they did not have to carry passengers with weak heart and lung function. But the Concord’s altitude was artificially capped: Airliners are required to be able to dive to 10,000 feet in a short time, but people in decent health can handle 20K for a some minutes, 15K for hours. Anyone who doesn’t want a ride in a plane that climbs on afterburner is missing their red blood cells. |
|
|
| (1558532) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Fri Sep 25 14:31:51 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 11:28:18 2020. I’d love to hear and see the Concorde takeoff twice a day. I don’t like ordinary aircraft noise, but there was nothing ordinary about the Concorde. That thing was glorious, almost a B1 you could hop a ride on. Fighter jets couldn’t stay on track with it, once they go sonic they burn their fuel too fast.Meanwhile, the fighter pilot has to wear a full pressure suit with a diaper and pee bottle. The suit gets itchy, the unstable fighter plane wants to kill you, it’s gone one engine and when you and the ground have an unfriendly meeting. Supersonic planes were done in the ‘50s, but an ocean-crossing supersonic plane with tea service was science fiction. The Concords settled into a not-too-inefficent cruise at Mach 2 and could have flown higher and faster, using less fuel per mile if they did not have to carry passengers with weak heart and lung function. But the Concord’s altitude was artificially capped: Airliners are required to be able to dive to 10,000 feet in a short time, but people in decent health can handle 20K for a some minutes, 15K for hours. Anyone who doesn’t want a ride in a plane that climbs on afterburner is missing their red blood cells. |
|
|
| (1558538) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Fri Sep 25 14:50:44 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 24 22:50:22 2020. 🙄Here's something for you, Mr.  |
|
|
| (1558543) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 15:19:12 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Steamdriven on Fri Sep 25 14:27:59 2020. Me too, but that was just the engines. It wasn't the sonic boom. I also always thought of it as the sound of progress. I know that the Concorde had already been flying for decades by then, but I always figured they'd eventually be replaced. 😞 |
|
|
| (1558547) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 25 16:14:10 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Fri Sep 25 14:50:44 2020. Nonsequitur. |
|
|
| (1558555) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Sep 25 19:33:06 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Steamdriven on Fri Sep 25 14:27:59 2020. if they did not have to carry passengers with weak heart and lung functionAh, never realized that. |
|
|
| (1558577) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 26 01:25:35 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Dave on Fri Sep 25 09:20:35 2020. As if there were so many mid-air collisions before that. Come on. Never mind after that; forgot about Sully?And to think (returning to the topic) that we could have had trains fill that role instead. One thing about this thread is that it really shows who hates trains on here (ain't me). |
|
|
| (1558578) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 26 01:27:20 2020, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 11:28:18 2020. If you mean supersonic, you can't fly those over land unless you want to smash out windows at 60,000 feet. |
|
|
| (1581752) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jul 30 14:33:00 2021, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 25 11:26:52 2020. Lies aren't pwn4g3.And you hate trains; I see the proof right here. |
|
|
| (1581755) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Jul 30 15:00:59 2021, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Sep 25 03:23:27 2020. Fuel saving measures were the primary reason the SST Concord was grounded. |
|
|
| (1581761) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Fri Jul 30 16:05:06 2021, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Dave on Fri Sep 25 09:22:30 2020. Thanks, Dave |
|
|
| (1581764) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jul 30 17:55:42 2021, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jul 30 14:33:00 2021. Stalker. |
|
|
| (1581814) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Sat Jul 31 15:24:22 2021, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Aug 22 15:17:20 2012. That was back when the USA had a future. |
|
|
| (1604831) | |
Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 20 18:46:50 2022, in response to Re: Penn Central Post, March 1969: Metroliner article, posted by nasadowsk on Fri Sep 25 11:47:39 2020. Why would they use spoilers to descend from cruising altitude? That would put them in danger of stalling. |
|
|
