Passenger Trains > NJ Transit cars to California

Some months back, a number of ex New Jersey Transit coaches were purchased by the State of California for possible use in service on the San Joaquins. Word was they might have gone to Beech Grove for refurb/rebuild.

Anybody know what the current status of those cars is? Thanks in advance.

S_W

I heard that Amtrak is using a unique gravity assist trajectory that will have them swing around the moon on their way to California.

Were still in Beech Grove the last time I checked.

Andy


Stevo_Weimario Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some months back, a number of ex New Jersey
> Transit coaches were purchased by the State of
> California for possible use in service on the San
> Joaquins. Word was they might have gone to Beech
> Grove for refurb/rebuild.
>
> Anybody know what the current status of those cars
> is? Thanks in advance.
>
> S_W

Which ones?
The old stainless EMU's ?

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2861786,2862608#msg-2862608

Why didn't California buy the Rohr Turboliners?

hsr_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why didn't California buy the Rohr Turboliners?


Because they're inefficient to run, expensive to maintain, and generally not desireable to own.

Jaanfo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hsr_fan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why didn't California buy the Rohr Turboliners?
>
>
> Because they're inefficient to run, expensive to
> maintain, and generally not desireable to own.

Inefficient and expensive in CA???? So what, we'll just raise tax rates to cover it..

RayH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jaanfo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > hsr_fan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Why didn't California buy the Rohr
> Turboliners?
> >
> >
> > Because they're inefficient to run, expensive
> to
> > maintain, and generally not desireable to own.
>
> Inefficient and expensive in CA???? So what, we'll
> just raise tax rates to cover it..

Ah! An enthusiastic taxpayer I see! :) :) :)

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RayH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jaanfo Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > hsr_fan Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Why didn't California buy the Rohr
> > Turboliners?
> > >
> > >
> > > Because they're inefficient to run, expensive
> > to
> > > maintain, and generally not desireable to
> own.
> >
> > Inefficient and expensive in CA???? So what,
> we'll
> > just raise tax rates to cover it..
>
> Ah! An enthusiastic taxpayer I see! :) :) :)

While I will miss Cajon and Tehachapi, I am enthusiastic about my move OUT of CA, to escape the ever increasing taxes.

OK let's forget about the Turboliners and Taxes, so why are these cars not in service when we thought it would be last November ?

Takes a long time to get to the moon and back when you're restricted to 79 mph.

RayH Wrote:
... I am enthusiastic about my move OUT of CA, to escape the ever increasing taxes.

Will you please take about 15 million other people with you so we can return to Paradise!!!???

Please????

>Takes a long time to get to the moon and back when you're restricted to 79 mph.

I suppose so. I've been told the SP sold SPrint because you couldn't keep a satellite up there at 40 mph.

NEVER MIND !