Change ogf ownership of the operation, with lille or no cgange of service sdoes not make a different service for answering this question. But here is a hint: One see saw, and through much of the classic period, three different services with Stillwell equipment, with one of these only within the city, plus there were two other services linked to the city but outside.
rcdrye C&O(of I) and EL shared a couple of miles of track east of State Line Crossing in Indiana, including the Hammond Station.
C&O(of I) and EL shared a couple of miles of track east of State Line Crossing in Indiana, including the Hammond Station.
Erie, of course. Meeting up with H&M, but NOT with H&M-PRR joint service (which was Gibbs). Then you could get on BMT equipment, or toddle north on the IRT to the NYW&B. And (later) New Haven. C&EI, C&WI, let me see if I remember any other pre-preservation uses...
You got seven, and there are two more. One associated with Erie, but not Erie, and one a north-south oriented interurban that may be used today as a freight branch of a very large freight railroad system.
Note that the NYW&B MUs were not used by the NYNH&H as MUs out of NYCity, but replaced the last New Haven woods in Boston commuter service and were replaced post-WWII by parlor heavyeweights reseated for commuter service, keeoing their existing air-conditioning. Boston still had plenty of woods on the B&M.
Considering its ownership and location, the interurban, whech always had dreight interchange with steam railroads, went somwhat "far-a-field for a Stillwell design.
I had Susy-Q in there but the Kalmbach site crash took it out!
Does London & Port Stanley count?
Bingo! And i thought you pointed out the one missimng, the 9ith, and its connections (ownership and partisal terminal use and a bus connection) with Erie. Possibly it was RC.
And in addfition, do ask nthe next question.
Possubly you considered the Syusquahana's use of Erie-originated Stillwells as part of the Erie's and did not included it for that reason. Pkease do ask the next questioin.
No, I had Suzy-Q as its own line-item, and it got lost in the sauce somewhere.
Sticking with Stillwells, what was unusual about the wheels on the New Haven cars? (One modeler's article noted that the old Kit Bits 98 Erie-style trucks were the right part to model those cars... but not quite so.)
The "New Haven Stillwells" were originally MU New York Westchester & Bostion cars with motors. Unlike most passenger-car truvks, they employed both coil and leaf springs in the truck, from photos it seems thatb the bolster was connected to each truck frame by a leaf spring and the two frames to fhe four journal-boxes bu coil springs. The motors had been removed. They had the wheel-barrow-suspended AC-commutator type as used on the then-current New Haven MUs.
But what about the wheels?
Either the pictures aren't detailed enough or there isn't any real difference visually from trackside.
In the latter case:
When the NYW&B was built, the CNS&M had the reputatioin of having very advanced technology for an MU electric passenger line, and the NYW&B possibly adopted this feature: Almost cylidrical wheel treads, with only a tiny bit of taper, much less than standard for most passenger rolling stock, which itself is usually a bit less than freight.
There's a BIG difference if you appreciate what you're looking at...
There is at least one elevation drawing of a New Haven Stillwell on the Web that clearly shows the issue with the wheels.
Clearly. With dimensions.
Best I can come up with from photos is maybe 40" diameter (36" was more standard size for MU cars). I haven't found the drawing with dimensions.
Keep looking. Both your implied answers are wrong for these cars.
OK I recall that when the cross-bay Far Rockaway and Rockaway Beach lines were moved from LIRR to NYCTA use, tracks at the stations, all high-platform, had to be raised several inches to match the lower height of subway-car floors. I don't think this was done on the Dyre Avenue Line, just thin wood strips added because of the narrower width of IRT equipment.
So the wheels of the NYW&B cars must have been smaller in diameter. And this was not changed when moved to NYNH&H Boston suburban service, which had no high-plotform stations at the time. Today they do.
Nope... hee hee hee, it's the opposite. But only in part...
I did not think this question would be nearly this fun, or take this long to answer.
The trucks, not obvious from the views I have, were similar to streetcar "maximum-traction" one-motor-per-truck, two-motored cars, with the wheels of the powered axle larger than usual.
No. But you're all around the answer. I'm not sure how you've avoided it so completely in detail!
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter