The UAC Turbo Train

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Sep 2, 2021
Messages
2,050
Location
The Real Maine (East of Ellsworth)
This topic could have gone in the Amtrak forum, but since the turbo train started before Amtrak and was also used in Canada I thought it might go better in this forum.
The video below gives a nice summary of the history of this interesting train.



I had the opportunity to ride it a few times in the Penn Central days between Boston and New York Grand Central Terminal, and once later under Amtrak when it operated out of Penn Station NY. One notable feature were the domes in each power car where you could sit behind the engineers seat for a great railfan view.

The train only lasted a couple of years under Amtrak but lasted a bit longer in Canada, the last run by VIA being in 1982, eventually doomed by rising fuel costs for the voracious appetites' of the turbine engines.
 
I rode it too, in the Penn Central era between GCT and its then terminus at Back Bay. It did the trip in as little as 3:39…😎
Yes for some reason they ran it out of Back Bay rather than South Station. IIRC it had to do with South Station having terminal charges which they didn't want to pay. I believe they stored the trains overnight at the UAC Providence maintenance base and deadheaded them there each morning. I usually got the train from Back Bay anyway since my Dad who would give me a ride worked in Cambridge and BBY was more convenient on his drive to work, just shoot up Mass Ave.
 
I remember seeing it deadhead overtaking the Congressional at PHL in May1969. It was canceled from NYP due to mechanical defects, which they had apparently fixed.
How did it get through Penn Station to get on the NEC south? I thought it only had third-rail electric capability for Grand Central, and they only allowed electric operation in the New York tunnels..
 
How did it get through Penn Station to get on the NEC south? I thought it only had third-rail electric capability for Grand Central, and they only allowed electric operation in the New York tunnels..
Diesels can operate through Penn Station. It just has to get permission from the operations office or some such. I have seen the Lake Shore Limited arrive powered only by a P42 into Penn Station. I suppose some special procedures have to be followed, but that is pretty much it. Diesel operation in tunnels are avoided but are not outright banned. It is Steam operation that is banned specifically in the Park Avenue Tunnels.
 
Last edited:
I recall the dual mode FL-9’s in their twilight years, more often than not, ran on diesel power into GCT, on both Amtrak and Metro North traIns.
As for the Turbo Trains, even the later design RTL Turboliner’s ran on turbine power into and out of Penn Station…
 
How did it get through Penn Station to get on the NEC south? I thought it only had third-rail electric capability for Grand Central, and they only allowed electric operation in the New York tunnels..
I don't believe they ran south of Penn Station on regular service. I believe they had connections at NYP to Metroliner trips. I had one trip booked from PHL to BOS via Metroliner and Turbo train in the early 70s don't recall exactly which year. Unfortunately my Metroliner was delayed by a PC derailment at Frankford Jct. so I missed the turbo and had to take a regular train 😕
 
I'm not a reliable witness in this case. In checking the history, the first Metroliner schedule was in effect four months before I passed through the NEC. The Turbo had started a month before I got there, running Boston<>New York. So, either the Turbo had been pulled off for a special run that day or it was the Metroliner that lapped us at Philadelphia. I was absorbing a lot of info fast during the time before reporting to Fort Dix. My camera had just lost a screw so I've no pix.
 
Curious why they skipped Bridgeport westbound, but New London eastbound?
Understandable sometimes with conventional trains, but this was the only Turbo trip at the time…🤔
That Bridgeport stop was receive only so not terribly useful as it would only pick up passengers heading East. The one way New London stop is more puzzling. Maybe since this was more of a demonstration project they wanted to touch base as many places as possible yet still keep a fast run time?
 
Some details:
  • It started at Back Bay Station to shorten the city to city time. for publicity purposes.
  • Turbo trains were abandoned because the maintenance was airplane level compared to diesel mechanics level (This I got from a personal friend employed as an AMTRAK executive at the time it was taken out of service.)
 
I rode the Sikorsky UAC more or less a dozen times between June 1969 and August 1971. I got to ride it almost new, since Penn Central put it in revenue service only 2 months before I first rode it (contrary to what some sources have published as having been 1968). Back then I lived in the Greater Boston area and would ride it to visit relatives in Queens, so since it terminated at GTC through June or July 1971, I had to take the IRT (NYCMTA) 42nd Street Shuttle and transfer to the 7th Ave local to 34th St. at NYPenn ─ then take the LIRR to Queens. For an 18,19-yr-old that was a cakewalk.

One seemingly insignificant but intriguing feature that most probably paid no attention to was the boarding doors. They were motorized doors that fit flush with the contour of the sides when secured closed. When being opened, they would plug inward and slide into a pocket to totally clear the opening ─ similar to the vestibule door operation of the then-new Budd Metroliners, except for the fact that the Metroliner doors didn't have the aircraft-like plug-flush feature. With the UAC doors in the open position at station stops with low platforms, such as at Back Bay and Providence, motorized steps would be deployed ─ the step assembly would be partially lowered (hinged outward) with two flanking tubular support arms, then unfold with rather elegantly engineered mechanical linkage, and finally land against the platform surface ─ all with a single button.

What I didn't particularly care for was the ride along the jointed-rail Shoreline of the former New Haven (Penn Central) at slow speeds, as the single-axle configuration and the pendulum struts between cars would annoyingly jerk the car ends back and forth when striking those staggered and depressed rail joints ─ worse than the norm with trucks on standard equipment and spring-load equalization. The lateral jolting would tend to harmonically dampen out at speed however. One thing that I recall most that at times would put me "on edge" was riding in the head-end mini-dome of the Sikorsky. The rapid approach at high speed to typically low-clearance bridges of New England induced a "head chopper" illusion that made me feel as if I should duck. I didn't get that feeling as much when riding the rear UAC dome, and when riding convention domes like Vista-domes, Pleasure-domes, Strata-domes, etc. at much lower speeds. I recall on my first round trip ─ a June Sunday return GCT to Back Bay, passengers in the forward mini-dome were watching ahead, when we narrowly avoided hitting a teenage girl crossing the tracks at Niantic Bay Beach. Just as with many other pedestrians, she likely hadn't stopped first and looked as we approached on a right-hand sweeping curve (northbound). I think the horn startled her, then becoming confused on split-second decision to dash forward or retreat, and either way she had almost no reaction time.

Other than being plagued with obviously crippling engine fires, the most frequent sources of trouble were the trainsets' gearboxes and cardan shafts (propeller shafts), which were prone to early failure. Lubrication had been a major issue with both USDOT-PC turbos and particularly with low-oil triggers in the Pratt &Whitney turbine engines and gear boxes, but fortunately before summer 1971, only one of the trainsets at a time was deployed for scheduled daily service. I always preferred the first revenue-service exterior livery in red, silver, and blue with black stripes, whereas Amtrak's schemes just weren't my "cup of tea". The acceleration was reduced a bit, once Amtrak added two intermediate cars to each set.

[photo - © Donald Haskel]
 

Attachments

  • Sikorky_UAC_USDOT_PC_Turbo ©Donald Haskel.jpg
    Sikorky_UAC_USDOT_PC_Turbo ©Donald Haskel.jpg
    32 KB · Views: 1
Curious why they skipped Bridgeport westbound, but New London eastbound?
Understandable sometimes with conventional trains, but this was the only Turbo trip at the time…🤔
I rode from Boston to New London on the Turbo Train, my only time to ever ride it.

As AmtrakManiac said, I believe it was for Time Keeping purposes that the Northbound from NYP to Boston didn't stop there.
 
I rode it a few times in the early Amtrak days between NYP and New London. By then, it was stopping in New London both directions and Amtrak had moved it and everything else from the New Haven to NYP. I was lucky in that I was always able to snag a seat in the front forward-facing dome; I was unlucky in that on at least one occasion, it was down and replaced by a conventional train.
 
Anyone ride both the UA turbos and the later Rohr turbos and would like to compare them? I rode a Rohr turboliner once in 2003 (one of the Super Steel rebuilds) when my Empire Service train died on the tracks somewhere between Rhinecliff and Hudson. We were rescued by the Turboliner, which was the next train coming up the line. What I remembered was that the seats didn't recline, it was noisy, and there was a reek of diesel fumes permeating the car. But it did get us up to Albany, where they had a regular Amfleet train waiting for those of us going beyond. (I was going to Syracuse.))
 
I rode the Sikorsky UAC more or less a dozen times between June 1969 and August 1971. I got to ride it almost new, since Penn Central put it in revenue service only 2 months before I first rode it (contrary to what some sources have published as having been 1968). Back then I lived in the Greater Boston area and would ride it to visit relatives in Queens, so since it terminated at GTC through June or July 1971, I had to take the IRT (NYCMTA) 42nd Street Shuttle and transfer to the 7th Ave local to 34th St. at NYPenn ─ then take the LIRR to Queens. For an 18,19-yr-old that was a cakewalk.

One seemingly insignificant but intriguing feature that most probably paid no attention to was the boarding doors. They were motorized doors that fit flush with the contour of the sides when secured closed. When being opened, they would plug inward and slide into a pocket to totally clear the opening ─ similar to the vestibule door operation of the then-new Budd Metroliners, except for the fact that the Metroliner doors didn't have the aircraft-like plug-flush feature. With the UAC doors in the open position at station stops with low platforms, such as at Back Bay and Providence, motorized steps would be deployed ─ the step assembly would be partially lowered (hinged outward) with two flanking tubular support arms, then unfold with rather elegantly engineered mechanical linkage, and finally land against the platform surface ─ all with a single button.

What I didn't particularly care for was the ride along the jointed-rail Shoreline of the former New Haven (Penn Central) at slow speeds, as the single-axle configuration and the pendulum struts between cars would annoyingly jerk the car ends back and forth when striking those staggered and depressed rail joints ─ worse than the norm with trucks on standard equipment and spring-load equalization. The lateral jolting would tend to harmonically dampen out at speed however. One thing that I recall most that at times would put me "on edge" was riding in the head-end mini-dome of the Sikorsky. The rapid approach at high speed to typically low-clearance bridges of New England induced a "head chopper" illusion that made me feel as if I should duck. I didn't get that feeling as much when riding the rear UAC dome, and when riding convention domes like Vista-domes, Pleasure-domes, Strata-domes, etc. at much lower speeds. I recall on my first round trip ─ a June Sunday return GCT to Back Bay, passengers in the forward mini-dome were watching ahead, when we narrowly avoided hitting a teenage girl crossing the tracks at Niantic Bay Beach. Just as with many other pedestrians, she likely hadn't stopped first and looked as we approached on a right-hand sweeping curve (northbound). I think the horn startled her, then becoming confused on split-second decision to dash forward or retreat, and either way she had almost no reaction time.

Other than being plagued with obviously crippling engine fires, the most frequent sources of trouble were the trainsets' gearboxes and cardan shafts (propeller shafts), which were prone to early failure. Lubrication had been a major issue with both USDOT-PC turbos and particularly with low-oil triggers in the Pratt &Whitney turbine engines and gear boxes, but fortunately before summer 1971, only one of the trainsets at a time was deployed for scheduled daily service. I always preferred the first revenue-service exterior livery in red, silver, and blue with black stripes, whereas Amtrak's schemes just weren't my "cup of tea". The acceleration was reduced a bit, once Amtrak added two intermediate cars to each set.

[photo - © Donald Haskel]
Yes…the UA Turbo Trains were of aluminum structure, and did seem to emulate an airliner fuselage even more so than the fluted and corrugated stainless steel tubular car bodies of the Budd Metroliners did.

Even the seats in the Turbo Trains looked like they were lifted right out of a TWA 707.
 
Anyone ride both the UA turbos and the later Rohr turbos and would like to compare them? I rode a Rohr turboliner once in 2003 (one of the Super Steel rebuilds) when my Empire Service train died on the tracks somewhere between Rhinecliff and Hudson. We were rescued by the Turboliner, which was the next train coming up the line. What I remembered was that the seats didn't recline, it was noisy, and there was a reek of diesel fumes permeating the car. But it did get us up to Albany, where they had a regular Amfleet train waiting for those of us going beyond. (I was going to Syracuse.))
Besides the UAC Turbo rides I did ride the Rohr turbo once from Croton Harmon to NYP (I could do this as I had a through ticket to PHL) I recall the Rohr turbos had nice big windows to view the Hudson River scenery. No dome seating though like the UAC train. I recall we were delayed just before entering the tunnel due to issues with the third rail shoes. So the Rohr turbos had their problems too.
 
Back
Top