I'm seeing a lot of comments in this thread that bascially say "It's not going to be easy to salvage this train set for operation, so just get rid of it". Am I missing something, or are we bascially arguing that because we can't run it, therefore we should let this fairly historically significant piece of equipment go to scrap? So maybe it can't be operated for train rides. So? Static display is still a huge part of preservation. A cosmetic restoration, inside and out, complete with appropriate signage, will result in a great display as well. Not everything at a train museum has to be operable. Don't get me wrong, operable exhibits are wonderful, but not every exhibit needs to be operable or operated. A well-done static exhibit can make a great addition to a museum as well.

They're not just trains anymore. They're artifacts. Just because they can't make themselves go anymore doesn't mean they're junk.

Weekendrailroader makes a good points. He's young (20s) and relates better to these trains than us older guys who relate to the last few steam engines, first generation diesels, and PCC cars. Here's my take:

We need to have things in our collections that younger people can relate to.

30 years from now they can show their grand children a failed attempt at higher speed rail.

Maybe we would get more younger volunteers out if they could work on something they relate to.

Us old guys probably have no interest spending months cosmetically restoring turbotrains when that stainless steel diner waits out back in the weeds.

Railfan44 wrote;

"30 years from now they can show their grand children a failed attempt at higher speed rail."

Well, they were not EXACTLY a failed attempt at higher speed rail. I rode these in College, my Father was a engineer running these out of Buffalo NY in the mid 1980's. I had a cab ride or two in them.

What most folks don't know is that New York State paid part of the cost to purchase them in the first place. That was about 1977 ? What with some signal improvements and shop buildings in Albany NY they did actually improve the service from NYC to upstate NY.

I think they actually took about 15 minutes off of the normal 8 hour run. So they were "higher speed" rail. Just not that much higher speed ha ha.

Of course not learning from the past our wise government stimulated New York with high speed rail spending again in 2009-10. They put back a few miles of double track near Schnectady NY, thereby taking another 15 minutes off of a 7 hour and 45 minute run.

At this rate you should be able to take high speed rail from NYC to Buffalo in about 2098, give or take a few years. Of course by then Upstate NY is likely to be devoid of people.

Cheers, Kevin

As someone else stated, 'a full sized kit', WITHOUT all the parts and WITHOUT any instructions.

The plant has been sold-and and it is easy to imagine that the documentation went into the trash.

If the completion of the Flying Yankee has been problematic...one can easily imagine the issues involved with assembling just ONE car.

DPK

If someone wanted this to happen, they should have gotten organized (or at least active) in the past few years and made a point of gathering that stuff. what I suspect kills such efforts before they begin is internal naysaying: "I don't have a gold plated guaranteed pledge for every conceivable and inconceivable cost of preserving and operating a Turbotrain trainset ... so why bother saving a single scrap of paper?

I hesitate to post this, as I do not have a solution for NYS Turbo preservation, but...

For those of us who were kids in the 1970's all of the various Turbos that Amtrak used were introductions to what be next in rail passenger service. Many of the advances promoted by the Turbos did revolutionize rail travel, just not in the US. ;-)

I was a regular rider of the NYS service in the early 1990's and quite often I wound up in conversations with other passengers about the comfort level the Turbos provided. The huge windows were the best way to see the Hudson Valley and the seating was decent. All in all, I never met a fellow rider who preferred Amfleet over the Turbo.

I have seen some of the remaining units up close, and I do think they are past the point of restoration for all but the most dedicated and well-funded groups.

It wouldn't surprise me if more people would get behind saving a US turbo rather than one of the units from the Empire Service, but that opportunity was long ago and far away.

Rob

You don't need to have a gold plated solution to make a step in the right direction.
You only need a gold plated solution to naysay LOL!


Fatal mistake: underestimating what can be restored. I hear "can't see restoring it, scrap it!" on a constant basis, notably from the less experienced. I can only imagine what they would have thought of ASL 100, PM 1225 or Sacramento Northern 1005. Getting it under cover really really really helps.


Honestly I'd rather have a French TGV.

$212,000 got them all. All bought by scrappers.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article ... 116188.php

Bolstering the argument against their preservation:

Does that include the rebuilt ones or are those at Bear?

Steve

The ones from Bear, Del. were not part of either the aborted rebuild or the auction.

Before we confuse trains, there were 1) the original six unrebuilt 1973-75 French sets, retired from Chicago-Milwaukee service ca. 1982 or so; 2) the seven sets built under French license by Rohr for Amtrak in 1976, and 3) these, some of the Rohr sets being rebuilt by NY State. My understanding is that the sets stored in Delaware are of the second set, not the third set.

So those cool (though not inside in summer!) rebuilt-with-poor-documentation ones live on. Good.

And of course the hulks in the Indiana scrap yard are probably still there.

Steve