Talk:Turboliner

Request for expansion
From the RfE page, here's what the problem is (if it's not apparent already...)

The Turboliner was a trainset used by Amtrak on a number of routes from the 1970s up until the 90s. There is a bunch of information already here about its current state of affairs, but the older history sections have absolutely nothing in them. It would be great if a railfan or someone else with knowledge on this topic really filled in the holes. There are also some sites with info provided using HTML comments at the end of the article. lensovet 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Care full
Some were equipped with third rail shoes to enable entry into the underground tunnels approaching Grand Central Terminal and New York Penn Station in New York City. The third rail in these stations is not the same!!! Peter Horn User talk 23:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 23:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Disposition
I understand that the quoted classified ad provides useful information, but it is in fact an advertisement. Also, I could not find the ad in any of the citations. Next time I have a chance, I think I'm going to rewrite this section to be more encyclopedic unless anyone can give me a good reason not to, anyone? Parcanman (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do; I think it's enough to state that Amtrak's trying to unload them. Mackensen (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the whole Disposition section as the reference provided does not show either the quote that was supposed to come from it, or anything like it. I tried searching Google for the quote, and found multiple forum posts which contained the quote using the same site (http://www.progressiverailroading.com/) as the source of the quote, but I did not find any site that looked like a reasonable encyclopedic reference.  I am a member of a few railroad forums and will ask around to see if anyone knows of a site that could be used as a good reference, but until I (or anyone else) can find a credible reference, the quote from the advertisement should stay out of this article.


 * I forgot to describe the edit where I removed the "Disposition" section before I saved the page, the edit was "04:13, 29 July 2010". Parcanman (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed information
I've removed the following information about the RTGs from the article. I've searched in vain for a reliable source to verify it, and these details aren't central to the article. Note that in the case of the headlights I read two NTSB accident reports, one from 1976 and one from 1980, and they didn't mention the headlights as a contributory factor nor did they recommend a change. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"However on the cab ends they were modified with standard knuckle couplers and European buffers were removed at those locations. Bells were also added under each cab. Amtrak later installed oscillating headlights on the cab ends for better grade crossing recognition because motorists would often mistake the Turbos' dual headlights with automobiles on the parallel U.S. Rt. 66 on the St. Louis line, resulting in several grade crossing accidents. The oscillating lights were mounted between the original headlights, later changed to above the windshield. In addition the RTG's original French air horns were modified to blow simultaneously instead of alternating as in typical European practice"

"During the energy crisis of the late 70s, several modifications were performed to reduce fuel consumption, such as the addition of a higher power and more efficient main engine. This allowed the sets to run with only one of the two main engines operating, resulting in saved fuel. The 380V/50 hertz alternator that supplied head-end power to the coaches was driven by a smaller turbo engine, the Astazou."

Locomotive categories
See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_27, which could have some relevance here too. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Linkrot
The link from the Solomon template yields a 404, and it's not available on archive. So the link should be abandoned as the publication data are sufficient. Kablammo (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thanks for the pointer on the ASME proceedings; I'm hoping to read through them soon. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
"The RTL Turboliners were wider than the RTG Turboliners (10 feet (3.0 m) versus 6 feet 1⁄2 inch (1.8 m))": the InfoBox says that RTGs were "9 ft 5 1⁄2 in (2.9 m)" wide which seems more reasonable.

"The RTL Turboliners were capable of third rail operation, allowing them to enter Grand Central Terminal, and, later, Pennsylvania Station in New York City": why does third-real capability allow RTLs to enter GCT and PS? Emissions restrictions maybe?

"permitting a cruising range of 950 mile": does a train really have a "cruising" range? Would "operating" range be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zin92 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The measurement was a transcription error from the source; I've fixed it. Regarding the New York terminals yes, it's an emissions regulation. I changed "cruising" to "operational". Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Does the L in RTL stand for anything?
"RTG" is an initialism for Rame à Turbine à Gaz; how was the name "RTL" arrived at? ("TL" = "Turboliner", perhaps?) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)