Talk:UAC TurboTrain

message: Is the SNCF Turbotrain in any way related to the Turbo used in Canada and the United States? This page was about a specific model of train, not a general concept, and there’s nothing in the new content to suggest that the SNCF train is any more closely related than having a similar name. If this is indeed the case, then the content about it should be moved into a separate article — Turbotrain is currently redirecting here — with disambiguation links connecting the two. David Arthur 01:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are tight links between the two trains, simply both trains are turbotrains, the similarities do not end at the name, they are both gas trains... They are in effect the same train developed in two different countries working in an identical manner. It is because of that that I purposely did not mix data from both trains and instead created a Canadian and a french section to show the subtle differences of both trains. I see no reason to seperate both and believe it is enriching to point out that several countries worked on the same concept. Enjoy the read ! Captain scarlet 10:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both running on gas does not make them the same train; certainly the two should be mentioned in each other’s articles, but unless the Turbo and the Turbotrain (note that VIA’s is not called ‘Turbotrain’) are actually related in technology and history, not merely in concept. The Turbo is not a concept; it is a specific model of train, whereas Turbotrain appears (from its usage in this article) to have been used in France as a general term for the gas turbine electric locomotive, concept. To mix them in one article merely because of technological similarities seems to me to make no more sense than (for example) mixing TGV and InterCity Express. David Arthur 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I view this article as beeing an article concerning trains called 'turbotrains'. It so happens to be called that way and both example used in this article are both turbotrain and have the same mode of propultion, what more do you need ? Perhaps the Canadian counterpart of the Turbotrain should be moved to an appropriatly named article so that a Turbotrain article can be kept for such trains. It is an asset to be able to compare data and have varied articles, demerging articles lightly is something that would benefit the community or the readers. Why not have IC and TGV together, they are both High Speed Trains... Captain scarlet 17:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just had a look at the first paragraph The Turbotrain was an early high-speed train working on gas turbines. There are two distinct models, one in use in Canada, the other in France by the SNCF. Which I think is quite explicit. Captain scarlet 17:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is called Turbo (train), and until you edited it, was about the Turbo (not, except in colloquial usage of the same sort which turns smart into ‘smart car’, ‘Turbotrain’), a train used in Canada and the United States. I would suggest that the content about the French Turbotrain be moved to Turbotrain, which is currently a redirect to this page. Combining the two articles — even while calling them ‘distinct models’ — still suggests that they are variants of the same thing (comparable, for example, to the TGV Réseau and the TGV Duplex), rather than two separately-developed trains which happen to be based on similar principles. David Arthur 21:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm astonished a your lack of understanding. This article is about the Turbo hence my edit and addition of missing data. There are is no excisting conflict in having both models in this article. I sence you are offended there others may think otherwise and find that this article is a lot more coherent, elaborate and thorough. Captain scarlet 01:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: French Turbotrain

message: Thank you David Arthur for spliting both the French and candian Turbotrain articles. I see you clearly had something against both articles beeing together and it will probably be better to have the said articles that both of us favoured to be seperated. If you don't mind me saying, it is funny that an encyclopedia that is open for anyone to modify seems to have so many individuals protective of their work and closed to new ideas. Regards, Captain scarlet 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s not a question of protecting one’s work — indeed, I certainly wouldn’t claim Turbo (train) to be my work. I simply feel that since an encyclopaedia’s goal is to inform, it should not confuse its readers by combining unrelated items in one article. If you want to write about the general concept, rather than specific models of train, you should look at Gas turbine-electric locomotive; though its current name is biased towards the locomotive-drawn operations model, it does a good job of covering the general idea, and leaves articles such as Turbo (train), Turbotrain, and JetTrain to cover specific implementations. David Arthur 21:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed, I certainly wouldn’t claim Turbo (train) to be my work. I simply feel that since an encyclopaedia’s goal is to inform, it should not confuse its readers by combining unrelated items in one article. Which clearly is your point of view and is the reason of witnessing the rise of a dissagreement. Captain scarlet 08:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spliting articles

message: Does anyone know the basic location of the tracks seen in the CN image at the top of the article? IE, are they on the south or north side of downtown? And is the camera looking to the northwest or the southwest?
The reason that I ask is that I believe the caption is wrong. The original caption read that it was "southbound" of Montreal heading to Quebec City. I think the only problem with this statement was that it was "southbound", as opposed to simply "south". The caption has recently changed, assuming "southbound" is correct, to read that it is heading to Toronto. I believe this is in error.
Maury 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CN image 

message: The Turbo never ran to Quebec City. It ran exclusively between Montreal and Toronto, with stops at Dorval Quebec, Kingston Ontario and Guildwood (just east of Toronto) Ontario. The photo was taken between Montreal and Dorval. I'll add the assigned train numbers ASAP.
Aloha27 11:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CN image 

message: The text says "The trip took 3 hours and 59 minutes downtown-to-downtown".  My recollection at the end of the Turbo era was that the trip was 4h 30m.  The 3h 59m came around a bit later when they revamped the schedule.  Or was there another 3h 59m era in the 1960's or 1970s? Nfitz 04:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3h 59m 

message: Why was the service discontinued?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.5.14 (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discontinued 

message: The recent addition of the engine bay description has reminded me of something I recall reading quite a few years ago.
On the US version of the train, wasn't one of these engine bays used to mount a traction motor, driving through the transmission, for 3rd rail operation into Penn Station, and Grand Central Terminal? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine bays  & traction motor ? 

message: Sikorsky had absolutely nothing to do with TurboTrain until January 1, 1968, when the program was transferred from Corporate Systems Center Division (CSC) of UAC, the people who designed, oversaw the construction, and did the development testing of the TurboTrains. How do I know this? I was directly involved in the TurboTrain program from its inception to the time that it went into revenue service. Until January 1, 1968 I was an employee of CSC and was transferred to Sikorsky on that date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.149.13 to the article page, and moved to the talk page by Iain Bell (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Manufacturer

message: United Aircraft Turboliner Notes:
	
The original demonstration project in the US had 2 - three car sets. (That's two power cars and one intermediate.) CN purchased 5 - seven car sets. Therefore a total of 7 sets were built. The US sets were subsequently expanded to 5 cars each. CN rearranged their equipment into 3 - nine car sets. (Two power cars and seven intermediates.) They were going to sell a remaining pair of power cars and four? intermediates to Amtrak to give them a total of three sets, but on a test run the train sideswiped a freight train near Montreal, and half the TurboTrain was written off in the ensuing fire.
	
CN and later VIA Rail suffered exhaust stack fires in two of the power cars, that forced them to be scrapped. They were replaced by the spare cars from the original order which were not being used. At the time the TurboTrains were scrapped, the bugs had been worked out of them and they were quite reliable. Fuel and maintenance cost drove the decision to retire them, along with the introduction of the LRC trains. - Per James Robinson
::Comments moved by: WuhWuzDat 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk comments, moved from article 12/1/2009 

message: Under the "C&O Design Study" sub-heading it reads:
"One major limitation to the evolution of existing trainsets to higher speeds was the centrifugal forces generated when rounding corners at high speeds. The rails and cars could be strengthened to handle these stresses, but the passengers onboard could not. This limited speeds on many portions of the mainline routes, where it would be difficult to lay new track with gentler curves.
The solution to this problem was the tilting train."
This reads as if it was the only solution; but there may have been others - for example: super-elevation (canting) of the trackbed to tilt the train into the curve.  
I do accept of course that canting has its limits, especially on rail routes shared with slower trains, but though it might be worth mentioning and asking: would it be more accurate to change 'The solution' to 'A solution'?
Also 'One major limitation' is stated - are there others?
Andywebby (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tilting train reference 

message: RE:
Initial commercial service started soon after. On its first westbound run the Turbo hit  only 10 minutes outside of Dorval, and topped out at  near Gananoque, Ontario.
I am suspicious of the statement that the train reached 167 mph, because 167 km/h is 104 mph. Although a 3-car TurboTrain did exceed 170 mph in US testing, I don't know if the longer Canadian configuration could have reached that speed, multiple engines notwithstanding. I suspect someone saw the 167 km/h number reported and thought it was 167 mph.
Tetsuo (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although the Turbo was designed for a top speed of 170 mph, the Canadian speed record held by Turbo is 140.55 mph or 226.2 kM/h. Article has been edited. Aloha27 (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed 167 mph Canadian speed achieved in service 

message: Where did this come from? I realize he's a respected model manufacturer, but I'd love for him to cite one example of a locomotive or passenger car design (Or an integrated train like the Turbo Train) that ever got 10 years of testing before going into revenue service. Even the first TGV didn't get 10 years of testing and the only reason it took nearly as long as it did before it entered service was the line simply wasn't ready for it. An extremely lengthy development process on something like a modern high speed train might be 7-8 years from the inuguration of development until the equipment enters revenue service. No piece of rail equipment gets 10 years of testing before entering revenue service.
http://www.thestar.com/business/smallbusiness/article/549947  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.6.240 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most passenger trains get 10 years of testing? 

message: I don't doubt that Bachmann produces an N-scale model of this train. The original modeling section, however, was written like an advertisement: . The new section is better, but it still amounts to an affirmation that there's a model. Is this noteworthy? A model can be had of just about any type of rolling stock. Most train articles on Wikipedia don't mention this kind of information at all. Unless there's something especially noteworthy about the model itself I don't think we should mention it. Mackensen (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modeling section 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :UAC TurboTrain's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Stover":
From Penn Central Transportation Company: 
From Amtrak: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:UAC TurboTrain]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion