E. S. Hart photo of E-6 Atlantic on PRSL Atlantic City train at 30th St.

469 views
10 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,201 posts
E. S. Hart photo of E-6 Atlantic on PRSL Atlantic City train at 30th St.
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, October 26, 2018 2:46 AM
Regarding the photo of an E-6 Atlantic leading a 1937 Pennsylvania-Reading-Seashore Lines Atlantic City train on the upper level of the 30th Street Station, a lot more should be said:
 
.1.  The train originated under the old trainshed of the historic Broad Street Station.  Eventually headed east to Atlantic City, it first ran west on the old "Chines Wall" and existing Schuylkill River Bridge to 30th Street, under the wire of the mu suburban trains.  Except for New York bound "Clockers," other trains out of Broad Street were then steam-powered, until  electrification was extended from Paoli to Harrisburg, when trains to Pittsburgh drew electric power.  So in the photo the train is still pointed west.
 
2.  After leaving 30th Street, the train would turn north at Zoo, stop at North Philadelphia and divert at Frankfort Junction, much as NJT Atlantic City trains do, to cross the Delaware River, except that the NJTs originate on the lower level of 30th Street headed north.  This was true of PRSL after Broad Street was taken out of service, with suburban electric trains usinghe the newer Broad Street Suburban underground station.  Because Lower-Level 30th Street was not planned for steam operation, PRSL engines on departing trains were always north of the platform.  I recall seeing a Reading Pacific on such a train in the early 1950's.  Today, NJT trains are push-pull, and the diesel is always north of the platform.
 
3.  In 1937, all trains on the lower-level  were electric.  All service there was NY – Washington and connections at each end.  The upper level  saw a mixture of electric and steam trains.  Today, the situation is reversed.  The upper level  sees only electrics, mus and  push-pulls, while the lower level sees a mixture of diesel and electric.

4.  The grey-scale in the photo makes the upper level poorer lit than my memory indicates.  I copied the photo, modified with MS Photo Editor "Automatic" balance, and find it far better in my computer screen.  I can now post it since I'm at a wide-band server.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 520 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, October 26, 2018 8:34 AM
Note the "tiny" gap between the cylinder, engine and the platform! Coffee Speaking of E-6, I remember Overmod said Pennsy considered to streamline them in 1930s for express train service (like the Milwaukee Hiawatha Class A.) 
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,233 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, October 26, 2018 3:53 PM

Jones1945
Speaking of E-6, I remember Overmod said Pennsy considered to streamline them in 1930s for express train service (like the Milwaukee Hiawatha Class A.)

While that could have been done, and probably done quite well, what the PRR was developing was an E8 class, looking (and acting!) far more like a true Hiawatha A than an E6 could possibly be made to be.  Oil firing, drive on the leading coupled axle, probably even more modern lightweight rods and running gear, probably poppet valves at some point.  In my opinion what happened to this idea can be seen in the Trail Blazer when it appeared: a very long lightweight train hauled fast by a large locomotive with one crew, rather than several separate lightweight trains spaced out.  Of course the T1 is the 'best of both worlds' for passenger power if you want the high speed available easily... and, in fact, want Atlantic speed and close-to-doubleheaded-K4 power.

Now, why didn't they coach their crews better?

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 3,280 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, October 26, 2018 9:35 PM

'Cause by the time they were delivered the fix was in. 

At least at a key level among a few of the powerful. 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 520 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, October 27, 2018 2:59 AM
A single order involved 50 innovative engines (T1) was not a common thing at the time, I believe it was not common in American railroad history neither. It was a very strong (and expensive) statement made by the largest railroad in the world, telling the whole world that diesel was not their cup of tea. But there were diesel friendly railroaders in the management as well as the board of PRR. I suspect there was some struggles between the "Coal-burning Party" and the "Diesel-friendly Party" since the first day EMC offered their dieselization plan to Pennsy in 1930s. Some people in power, inside or outside PRR’s management who had different intentions wanted the T1 fail and they successfully made it looks like a failure by different means (Overmod found some evidences to support this point). Once T1 and the whole idea of Duplexes as well as steam turbine became something Pennsy wanted to get rid of asap, the only option available for new prime power was diesel electric.
 
 Once Martin W. Clement and his folks became some figures in a "management eclipse", lost their power and influence in the board, the largest railroad in the world was no longer the strongest resistance to diesel power. It was the beginning of the collapse of the Coal-burning Empire. The new management thrown all duplexes under the bus like trashes. (Also note how NYCRR treat their famed 4-8-4s after the war) It was all happened not long after the World War was over, when the US gov had more time to foster EMD, GE etc. (just as Vince stated in another post)
 
I believe there was even more complicated plots and twists within this struggle. I am not judging which party was right or wrong base on an assumption. But I do believe that economical consideration wasn’t the only factor leaded the demise of T1s and Q2; as well as the demise of Pennsy. 
So, no training for the crews to handle 50 T1 properly…”just let them mess the engines up…” CoffeeConfused   
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 3,280 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:21 AM

...and give them garbage 3rd rate coal, purposefully, to further degrade performance, likability and a grimy appearance. Maintenance became ad hoc cutting holes and tearing things off. Their appearance started going downhill within a year. 

Most crews didn't like them and a group think took over. Certainly there must have been some sympathizers shaking their heads, a scattered small minority against the tide. 

My real fantasy for them would be the extremely unlikely scenario whereby the NYC picks them up at a good discount for use exclusively on the CASO, captive between Windsor and Fort Erie/Niagara hauling fast fast fast passenger and express/mail  Detroit-Buffalo aka Chicago/New York. 

Keifer could have fine tuned and optimized these with HQ for them  at the St. Thomas facilities, mid point on the curve free, flat as a pancake speedway across Southern Ontario. 

Perhaps haul some Pacemaker freight and Piggyback as well. No problem! 

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,201 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, October 28, 2018 5:43 AM

I have to modify my initial post's statements.  In addition to NY - Wash. service in the all-electric 30th St. Lower Level of 1937, there were the NY - Cape Charles trains, which changed power at Wilmington, I think two day trains each way and one overighter with one or more sleepers. 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,233 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, October 28, 2018 6:27 AM

Miningman
My real fantasy for them would be the extremely unlikely scenario whereby the NYC picks them up at a good discount for use exclusively on the CASO ...

We might speculate further: NYC would perform the T1a cylinder conversion, and think about reboilering (at the same time as the Niagaras) using the C1a "Niagara-derived" boiler and firebox design.

There is a problem here: the cast engine bed will require extensive rework to take the larger firebox.  Probably not showstopping; GSC would know the configuration for the C1a and be able to supply new rear 'correction' with prep and welding done as for the T1a cylinders.  I'd like to see magnetorheological conjugation at least tried when the Baker conversions are done, together with modification of the independent brake for 'traction control' as I expect the T1 Trust to do.

Question is whether the window of time would have remained open for these longer than for other big steam; one very obvious alternative would be to use the Niagaras preferentially on the CASO instead of slaughtering them in Indiana as Haas reported. 

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,201 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, October 28, 2018 8:18 AM

Regarding the "tiny Gap," it looka like the upper part of the cylinder is sctually is above some edge area of the platform.  This may have been true of much of Pennsy steam power. 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 520 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, October 28, 2018 9:39 AM

 

Miningman
...and give them garbage 3rd rate coal, purposefully, to further degrade performance, likability and a grimy appearance. Maintenance became ad hoc cutting holes and tearing things off. Their appearance started going downhill within a year. 
 
Exactly. Just compare how NYC treated their Dreyfuss Hudsons with PRR’s T1s. Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon (6110,6111) was the luckiest pair amongst all T1s but they also looked so beaten up long before the front end modification of 1947. I don't mind "de-streamlining" or modification though. I like your fantasy about T1s because I also want to see how NYC or other RRs like B&O, N&W or even C&O would have treated them.
 

Overmod
one very obvious alternative would be to use the Niagaras preferentially on the CASO instead of slaughtering them in Indiana as Haas reported. 

I agree that it was almost impossible for NYC to purchases second-hand T1s even though the ridership of passenger service wasn’t rapidly declining. Before NYC jumped on the same diesel-powered boat with PRR, they were so proud of the performance of their Niagara and put them in an important position, hauling crack trains in the system. But c’mon, everything could happen inside someone’s fantasy, so let’s jump on the 156mph S1 + Trail Blazer and fly to the moon! Drinks

 
daveklepper
Regarding the "tiny Gap," it looks like the upper part of the cylinder is actually is above some edge area of the platform.  This may have been true of much of Pennsy steam power.  
Good catch, Dave! I bet every engineer needed to handle the speed very carefully when entry and leaving this station. But no worries, Pennsy didn’t really care if the engine was heavily scratched. Smile, Wink & Grin
 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • 1,745 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, October 28, 2018 3:41 PM

Offhand guess: an E6 wasn't more than 10 ft wide at platform level, so probably the same 6+ inches between the train and the platform then and now.

(The April 1911 Rwy Age Gazette article shows E6 width as 10 ft 1-7/8 inches. That's an E6, not an E6s.)

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter