Just wondering why some railroads went for streamlined steam with their lightweights, instead for diesel like NYC's 20th Century Limited in 1938. Why didn't they go for the E-4 that was available then, like SAL did.....
Well when the Hiawatha started there were no E-units yet available, they went with streamlined 4-4-2's, but why Milwaukee later added streamlined 4-6-4's instead of diesels then is maybe a bit odd. It could be they had easy access to cheap coal from so. Illinois - Indiana that made it more cost effective to stay with steam. Maybe water played a factor too - one reason western roads like UP and ATSF liked diesels was they had a hard time in the southwest providing enough water for their steam engines. Plus diesel locomotives were a brand new technology in many ways, the early diesel streamliners were "one off" trains like the Burlington Zephyr and UP M-10000 and weren't very powerful, and had some teething issues.
I believe there was a substantial price difference between the new diesels and a state-of-the-art steam locomotive. Labor issues may also have played a role.
But the truth be told, the diesel really didn't prove itself until World War II.
Dan
From the Florida State Archives.
http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/spottswood/sp02115.jpg
They were painted in the same citrus colors as the early E units.
JanOlov wrote: Just wondering why some railroads went for streamlined steam with their lightweights, instead for diesel like NYC's 20th Century Limited in 1938. Why didn't they go for the E-4 that was available then, like SAL did.....
Jan,
I think the likely reason is that at the dawn of the streamliner era (let's say 1938 or thereabouts) many roads were not yet sure that diesels were the way to go in the future and remained comitted to "tried and true" steam. While diesels had been a success in passenger service, they were still an unproven motive power for freight trains. At the time most, fortunately not all, railroad management was ultra-conservative and slow to accept change. Simply put they had a "we've always done it this way" mentality. Most railroads emerged from the Great Depression in a precarious financial condition if not outright bankruptcy. Even if they had the will, most lacked the funds to spend on new engines, support facilities and manpower training required to dieselize just passenger services. Streamling existing engines was the cheap way to "modernize" the passenger fleet.
At the outset of WW2 a few railroads had put some diesel locomotives in freight service. It took the admirable performance and reliability demonstrated during the war by those few freight diesels coupled with the earlier success of pasenger diesels to convince the doubters. Many steam locomotives whose replacement had been deferred first by the Depression then WW2 were simply worn out and ready for retirement. The railroads were flush with profits from wartime traffic, management was finally convinced of the advantages of diesels and the postwar rush to dieselization of all services began in earnest.
Mark
How successful was the Illinois Central's The Green Diamond? Didn't that start its service life in '36?
JanOlov wrote: How successful was the Illinois Central's The Green Diamond? Didn't that start its service life in '36?
Yes, 1936 or possibly a little earlier, I just don't remember for sure. The Green Diamond was a very successful and popular train but beacuse it was made up of permanently coupled articulated cars sharing a set of common trucks it was inflexible and incompatible with conventional equipment. In this respect it was like the Burlington's Pioneer Zephyr and the UP's M-10000. The original GD trainset made a daily roundtrip between Chi-St.Louis until shortly after WW2 when it was replaced by a lightweight streamliner of conventional design that carried on the GD name. Once it was replaced the IC sent the articulated trainset south where it ran between Jackson, MS and New Orleans as the Miss Lou until it finally wore out beyond economical repair and was scrapped in the early 50's.
So, maybe if Milwaukee Road had chosen diesels instead for their famous class A 4-4-2's they wouldn't have experienced the same success as they did? Is it true that the A's speed is still unbeaten to this day in some areas?
Was the Union Pacitic's M-10000's the same with a train that you couldn't split, if needed?
Cheers for your replies fellas!
Edit:
What is the fourth steam locomotive?
jimrice4449 wrote:At some point during WWII the psgr load of the GD began to exceed the capacity of the original train (as per above) and it was replaced w/ a mix of lt wt and hvy wt rebuilt cars. The rebuilt cars had smooth welded sides and streamlined style windows and, except for the 6 wheel trucks and turtle back roofs, were indistinguishable from the lt wts except for the parlor obs (rebuilt from a Harriman car) which retained it's open platform. The interim equipment only lasted until Pullman Standard caught up w/ it's post-WWII backlog so I feel really lucky to have been able to make the trip between 63d t. and St Louis on the rear deck, at least until we got to the Eads Bridge @ St Louis.
Jim,
What you say about the GD running with more conventional cars in place of the articulated trainset to handle heavy wartime passenger loads makes sense. In all honesty I don't remember it but that's probably a function of my faded memory of those long ago times. I guess the substitue wartime consist would have been headed by steam, probably one of the 1100 Pacifics; do you remember from the trip you made on it? At the time, IIRC, the only passenger diesels the IC had were assigned to the Panama Limited and City of Miami and I doubt they would pull one off of those trains to head the GD.
JanOlov wrote: So, maybe if Milwaukee Road had chosen diesels instead for their famous class A 4-4-2's they wouldn't have experienced the same success as they did? Is it true that the A's speed is still unbeaten to this day in some areas?Was the Union Pacitic's M-10000's the same with a train that you couldn't split, if needed?Cheers for your replies fellas!Edit: What is the fourth steam locomotive?
I think the Milw Class A Atlantics were capable of close to 120 mph. I don't think they were credited with an "Official" speed record because to the best of my knowledge they never made an officially timed speed run over a measured mile that was required to get in the record books. Probably the most famous sign on any US railroad was on the Milw Road at the approach to their crossing over the EJ&E at Rondout, IL. The sign read "Slow to 90 mph".
Yes, the UP M-10000 was a permanently coupled trainset and couldn't be split.
The fourth locomotive (the one to the far right in the photo) appears to me to be a Baltimore & Ohio passenger engine, very possibly one of the rare 4-4-4 types that I remember they once ran.
KCS Fan
I checked the equipment section of a couple of Official guides I have and found that in 1945 the GD was still listed as the original train but by 1950 was the ersatz equipment. My memory of the time frame was apparently off, but it was definitely diesel powered, probably around 1946 or '47. I recall that prior to that trip I'd comnsidered diesel fumes as noxious but, after 4 hours or so on the rear platform they entered the nostalgia realm. I could find no train listed as "Miss-Lou" in the 1950 Guide so, apparently the original trainset was history by then.
jimrice4449 wrote: KCS FanI checked the equipment section of a couple of Official guides I have and found that in 1945 the GD was still listed as the original train but by 1950 was the ersatz equipment. My memory of the time frame was apparently off, but it was definitely diesel powered, probably around 1946 or '47. I recall that prior to that trip I'd comnsidered diesel fumes as noxious but, after 4 hours or so on the rear platform they entered the nostalgia realm. I could find no train listed as "Miss-Lou" in the 1950 Guide so, apparently the original trainset was history by then.
Hi Jim,
When you talk of your memory apparently being "off" you're preaching to the choir. I often find that time has dimmed (confused might be a better word) my memory of things as they were so many years ago.
I have really scratched my head over this and honestly can't remember the GD running with the mix of equipment you describe. I lived in Flossmoor only a half block from the IC until 1948 when I would have been 16. I literally could have seen the GD every day but obviously didn't. I probably actually saw it more on the order of once or twice a week. I'd almost be willing to bet money that the original, green, articulated train set ran right up "til the time it was replaced (probably in 1946) with new chocolate brown, orange and yellow lt wt eqpt. Incidentally the Daylight, which had previously run with conventional hvy wts including a brass railed, open platform parlor car pulled by a 1100 series Pacific, recieved new lt wts and diesel power at about the same time.
I can think of scenarios that make both of our recollections correct. A single GD trainset made the daily Chi-StL round trip. It was sure to require repair from time to time and something major like an engine rebuild or replacement might result in it being taken out of service for a day or two, maybe up to a week. In another scenario, the northbound train might be delayed due to a grade crossing accident or minor derailment and might not arr in Chi in time for its scheduled trip south. In either case it would be necessary to substitute equipment for the regular trainset and it is entirely possible you rode the GD on one of those occasions. Maybe neither of our memories are failing us.
At the time of my ride on the GD we lived around Halstead &114th so I didn't get that much of a chance to ogle the IC (although I'd make fairly frrequent hikes to the CWI/C&EI overpass of the IC I didn,t hang around late enough to catch the GD) I went to Mt Carmel Hi at 64th and the IC tracks for the 1949/50 school year and on those days that I got detention I'd get train fare from the good fathers to take the IC electric to 115th St. The non-stop trrain left 63rd st at the same time as the Panama which overtook it en-route...hardly a deterence for punishable behaviour! My father did a lot of traveling (on the co. dime) but the trip to StL was for his uncle's funeral and, since it was family rather than co, he paid our fare and sprang for the parlor car fare going (we took a coach on the Daylight returning) so I could ride the platform. That this equipment was more than occasional might be inferred from the fact that the car (w/ Green Diamond on the drumhead) is pictured in the StL-Chi section of Steam, Steel and Limiteds P 634.
Supposedly nobody knows how fast a Milwaukee "A" could go, since no one ever dared open the throttle beyond about 3/4ths of the way. But I'm guessing the sign at Rondout ("SLOW TO 90 MPH") would indicate they moved pretty fast.
I guess it got to be an issue of the air generated by the train at high speed throwing ballast stones around and such.
Note that some railroads went into streamlining without buying new locomotives, but simply dolled up existing Pacifics, like the Lehigh Valley and the Reading. The CB&Q and AT&SF invested heavily in diesel power but also streamlined existing Pacifics.
The New York Central continued buying nonstreamlined steam power after buying the J3a's for the 20th Century. The PRR committed itself to using existing power with the Harrsiburg and Washington electrification making additional recent power more available elsewhere.
JanOlov wrote:Could they have beaten the LNER speed record for steam? Hmmmm.....now we'll never know. But I believe that they could.
Not only the Milwaukee engines. There was about a dozen other engines which could go faster than the Mallard. Mallard did not have a cast frame, or automatic wedges, or disc wheels and roller bearings, or axle centering devices, etc. Keep in mind that was very nearly completely wrecked during its record run.
daveklepper wrote: Note that some railroads went into streamlining without buying new locomotives, but simply dolled up existing Pacifics, like the Lehigh Valley and the Reading. The CB&Q and AT&SF invested heavily in diesel power but also streamlined existing Pacifics. The New York Central continued buying nonstreamlined steam power after buying the J3a's for the 20th Century. The PRR committed itself to using existing power with the Harrsiburg and Washington electrification making additional recent power more available elsewhere.
Actually the CB&Q operated two streamlined Hudsons one streamlined in their own shops the other done by Baldwin.
The Santa Fe had a single streamlined Hudson the "Blue Goose" built by Baldwin. They latter semi streamlined a couple of Pacifics for the "Valley Flyer" but they were anything but pretty.
A PRR E6s was officially clocked at 126 mph in the early 1930's, and Santa Fe passenger trains running between Topeka and La Junta often posted speeds in the 110-120mph range behind 4-6-4's and 4-8-4's.
Wasn't the LNER Mallard the first engine in the UK to break the 100-mph mark?
BillD53A wrote: From the Florida State Archives.http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/spottswood/sp02115.jpg They were painted in the same citrus colors as the early E units.
Thanks for the link! I'd love to see that one in color, but the only photos I've seen are black & white.
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