First of all I'm assuming Hudson Steamers pulled Freights. Current diesel freights that I encounter at crossings in my area pull about 60 Plus cars. I got to wondering how were the freights pulled by steamers such as the Hudsons? And did they lash up multiple engines? How many could one steamer pull. Finally, what years are we talking about.
I haven't been on this forum, I mostly post at Classic Toy Trains. Any info appreciated.
runtime
New York Central Hudsons and most other railroads' Hudsons were designed for fast passenger service and hauled freights only rarely. This was also true of many railroads' Pacifics, including the Pennsy K-4. I would predict that a K-4 or New York Central J-1 or J-3 could handle a 50or 60 car train easily on fairly level track, but would drop to 20 or so on a 1.5% grade. A J-2 Hudson with its smaller drivers could probably handle five or ten cars more. Freight power on the NYC was Mikados and Mowhawks, 2-8-2's and 4-8-2's in general. 2-8-4 Birkshires on the Boston and Albany.
BY the time the NYC started running the fast Pacemaker frieght, diesels had taken over.
Thank you both for your replies.
Interestingly enough, Lionel's toy Santa Fe Hudson and Berkshire share the same boiler castings. While the Hudson is a 4-6-4 and the Berkshire is a 4-8-4. Were the real ones as similar as their toy counterparts, differing primarily in gearing rather than power??
While I'm more familiar with the toys than their real counterparts, I'm interested in their antecedants. While I'm currently pulling a 19 car mixed freight with a Hudson, I can easily switch a Berkshire. But I will need to know what kind of passanger cars to pursue for the the Hudson.
Thanks,
Further feedback will be appreciated.
Hi Runtime,
A Berkshire is a 2-8-4 not a 4-8-4 (which is a NORTHERN type). I am curious about your Hudson having the same boiler casting as your Berk, how old are they? I have one of my nephews started in Lionel, Santa Fe and his first Locomotive was the Berk, I haven't actually seen one of the Santa Fe Hudsons yet but the catalog pics are definitely different boilers, as are my UP Hudson Jr and my UP Berkshire Jr. Both are different castings from the Pacific also.
The Hudsons and Berkshires used different boilers, the toy versions if they are the same is just to get more use out of a mold that is already paid for, rather than spending the money for a new mold.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
New York Central Hudsons hauled a variaty of passenger equipment. I cannot recall a Hudson in personal experience pulling a train of the remaining wood coaches that were still in use on the West Shore during WWII and my youth, but after that, anything the NYC owned applies: 4-wheel truck starndard heavyweight long distance coaches, six-wheel-truck heavy Pullman sleepers and parlor cars, stainless steel coaches, flat sided two-tone grey coaches and sleepers, and more including both open-platform observation cars and round end lightwieght observation cars, both smooth and stainless-Budd.
What era, and what location do you wish to model?
Thanks for the responses guys.
Doug, I miscounted; Lionel's Berkshire is a 2-8-4. Lionel did however use the same boiler castings for the Berkshire and SF Hudson. A good site for this is www.postwarlionel.com. My Lionel Berkshire is a 736, and my SF Hudson (it's not a NYC, though I'm unsure if there is a diff.) is a 646.
Dave, I just want to pick up some passenger cars which would be appropriate with the SF Hudson in both style and roadname, from any time or location where they ran. Perhaps you could give me the time span overwhich these engines were used?
thanks,
I'd be interested in the specifics of general use on fast freights in their last days. I rode the NYC frequently, and toward the end of steam, I saw the Birkshires displaced from the Boston and Albany and relocated to the Big Four and Michigan Central. I saw freights pulled by Mowhaks and Mikados, I saw Hudsons on local passenger trains on the West Shore and the evening commuter train to Elkhart from Chicago, while the Century and the "Steel Fleet" in general were diesel hauled with E-units. I do not doubt that on occasion, throughout their lives, Hudsons were occasionally used on freights, but not as a regular practice. The Mikados and Mowhawks were also booster equipped and could start longer and heavier trains. And the Mowhawks had all the speed necessary. The Birkshires could start even heavier trains.
I think the first Hudsons were built about 1927, and use of Hudsons continued until about 1951 or 1952. If your model railroad is before WWII in period, then the only lightweight train would be the Century (with Hudsons), and the rest would be heavywieght. At the end of their career heavyweight coaches were still use on the NYC in local passenger service, including the West Shore. Around 1947-1948 they handled a lot of lightweight equipment, including Budd stainless steel. So you have a lot of freedom in the type of train you wish to model.
daveklepper wrote:I think the first Hudsons were built about 1927, and use of Hudsons continued until about 1951 or 1952.
I think the first Hudsons were built about 1927, and use of Hudsons continued until about 1951 or 1952.
I don't know exactly how many, but more than a hand full of them were used until 1956.
I believe the last Hudsons were retired early in 1952, Jan or Feb.
In Alvin Stauffer's "Thoroughbreds" NYC engineer Arnold H. Ainsworth said this about Hudsons:
"They had lots of power and could do a nice job on a freight train. And used as a helper double heading with a freight hog you couldn't beat them."
George Drury's "New York Central in the Hudson Valley" has several pics of Hudsons being used on mainline passenger trains and later on mail trains, milk trains, freights and commuter trains. (Oops!! I think in a post a while back on Hudsons I said I didn't think they were used on commuter trains. O well.... )
I've seen other references to Hudsons serving well on freights in their latter years...but of course couldn't find them now that I'm looking for them!!
Greg Scholl's DVD on the New York Central's final steam days in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois (in film shot by his Dad) shows unstreamlined Hudsons pulling heavyweight, two-tone gray, and stainless steel passenger cars trains in the fifties, so indeed there is a lot of latitude on what you could pull with a Hudson.
Again, I said I didn't doubt that it was done on occasion, but not regularly. Not as scheduled regular power. I road a D&H Scranton - Carbondale train pulled by a 2-8-0. But I didn't doubt at the time that if the regular 4-6-0 or 4-6-2 had been available, that is what would have been at the head end. Some railroads did regularly schedule passenger power of frieghts, specifically the Illinois Central and the Atlantic Coast Line. Both regularly used Pacifics to haul southern produce to northern markets, in the case of the ACL, oranges. This was not true of the New York Central . Milk trains, well OK I guess they are freight. Head end stuff, normally considered as part of the passenger operation. Oh yes, also the Northen Pacific silk trains.
Possibly the most beautiful train you could model is the immediate post-WWII Buffalo - Cleveland section of the Empire State Express. A J3a non-streamlined was scheduled power, with a J1a occasionally substituted. All stainless steel, with round-end observation.
A Niagra handled the train Harmon - Buffalo, and then both the Detroit and the Cleveland sections rated Hudsons. The obs regularly went to Cleveland.
I agree Hudsons - even late in their careers - wouldn't be regular freight engines. They were still being used on commuter runs and local trains etc. But that being said, based on what I've seen, it wasn't unusual for them to pull freight late in their careers. I guess my main point was just that in the situations where they did haul freight, they did well.
Oddly enough, NYC had some Pacifics they built specifically for freight service by the way.
wjstix wrote:I believe the last Hudsons were retired early in 1952, Jan or Feb.
Even only a quick look at
rr-fallenflags.org
showed plenty of photos of NYC 4-6-4s dated after 1953, at least ten of them 1955. I don't mean photos of stored engines, but with plenty of coal and under steam. Currently I don't have access to my library, but I remember several books stating 1956 as the year the last 4-6-4s ran their last miles.
Wow, what a lively and rich discussion I started!
My view into the period ('27 - '56?) is greatly enriched by all your input.
It seems I could pull nearly anything with my toy SF Hudson and it could be considered appropriate. For passenger cars, seems almost anything Lionel or the other mfgrs have produced could be considered appropriate, except perhaps some of the real late stuff which may be form the diesel era.
I understand the Pennsylvania RR GG1s, which ran in the '30s and '40s were primarily developed for passenger service. Were the same cars pulled by them as by the Hudsons and K-4s?. Or were specific cars used with the electrics?
My interest in this era just keeps expanding as I find time to reflect on how much the world has changed in my lifetime. Thanks again.
Oops, I also meant to ask: how many cars made up a typical long haul passenger train, say between NY and Chicago or such? Thanks.
GG-1's were in schedules freight service use, and a group had lower speed gearing, supposedly only 90, not 100 mph, for freight service.
A typical Pennsy long distance or Washington - NY train would be anything berween 10 and 26 cars, New York Central similar. Other than the difference in designs of steam and electric locomotives (but not the diesels where models common to both lines predominated), the biggest visual difference between the PRR and the NYC is the paint.
In the GG1 era, cars on NY -Washington trains were not much different than many E-W trains.
VAPEURCHAPELON wrote: wjstix wrote: I believe the last Hudsons were retired early in 1952, Jan or Feb. Even only a quick look atrr-fallenflags.orgshowed plenty of photos of NYC 4-6-4s dated after 1953, at least ten of them 1955. I don't mean photos of stored engines, but with plenty of coal and under steam. Currently I don't have access to my library, but I remember several books stating 1956 as the year the last 4-6-4s ran their last miles.
wjstix wrote: I believe the last Hudsons were retired early in 1952, Jan or Feb.
Ya that was a typo, I was typing kinda quick before going to bed. I'd just watched the NYC DVD that mentioned the last Hudson running in 1956, but typed in 1952 by mistake.
runtime wrote: Oops, I also meant to ask: how many cars made up a typical long haul passenger train, say between NY and Chicago or such? Thanks.runtime
Walthers' "Passenger Car Diagram Book" lists typical consists for a number of top (usually heavyweight) passenger trains. IIRC for the 20th century it shows 14 cars as a 'typical consist' (all Pullman except the NYC diner in the middle). I've seen pics of Hudsons running with 20 cars. At some point if there were too many passengers a second (or third or fourth...) section of the train would be added. Of course there was a regularly scheduled "Advance 20th Century" that ran ahead of the "regular" Century.
More great info! I didn't realize that GG1s were that fast. The pass. trains were also longer than I had imagined, but when I think about it, it's logical - there was no interstate highway system, and air travel was not yet near what it is today.
Too bad trains now are so much slower (typically 40-60, except for the Accella on the east coast?). Is it just due to poorly maintained track? And is that just due to the lack of demand for pass. service? Now there is something useful that the Gov't could do. Which brings up the cost question. Anyone know what a NYC - Chicago or similar ticket from the '30s or late '40s cost in todays dollars?
' been enjoying the discussion,
runtimeb
Don't have any proof but I read somewhere that dome cars couldn't clear some of the tunnels around NYC and/or Washington, DC. There was also concern about overhead wires and dome cars. The AutoTrain terminated south of Washington.
So, if you're modeling an eastern road, dome cars would be absent from the consist.
But the Santa Fe had no problem with tall cars as evidenced by the high level El Capitan. I enjoyed riding in the lead car and watching the signals turn to red as you whizzed by.
Art
Part of the speed issue is that (except for the electrified "Northeast corridor" which is very fast) Amtrak doesn't own the tracks it's operating on, they're using freight railroad trackage. In the heyday of passenger trains, the private railroads often maintained their mainlines to high standards to allow their passenger trains to run fast. Once Amtrak took over, they only needed to keep the mainlines 'good enough' for freights, so the quality of the track suffered. Amtrak does have deals with some railroads now where the railroad gets a bonus if they keep their track maintained to a certain level so Amtrak isn't delayed more than a certain percent of the time.
I'd have to try to track down some pricing information. One thing to consider is that your railroad ticket only paid for your travel provided by the railroad, on a NY-Chicago trip if you chose to ride in a sleeper you'd also have to pay a separate fare to Pullman for your sleeping accomodations. Obviously the more luxurious your Pullman setting (whether you were in an open berth, or a private roomette, etc.) the Pullman fare could be more than the railroad fare.
On a guess I'd say if you were going NY-Chicago c. 1940 on the 20th Century (which didn't carry coach passengers, only first class Pullman passengers) you'd be looking at a total of maybe $40-60, with more than half of that being the Pullman charge.
My father worked for the C&O in Walbridge, Gramps worked at NYC at Airline Junction. Dad said that the NYC Hudsons did pull freight trains. Now it is possible that he was refering to the many M&E trains that ran on the Central. We grew up in Tolded Ohio, which at one point in time was the second busiest railroad city in the US. (I'm sure I will get heat on that statement, but I think I read that in an early 50s Railroad magazine, think coal and iron ore.) There was plenty of traffic, most of the eastern roads traffic between say NY City and Chicago, much of it fast freight and M&E. My father said that they pulled freight then it is so (or his memory from 50 years ago is faulty. I am sure that any freight miles on a Hudson would be very small compared to how many passanger miles they ticked off.
I also recall the C&O having dome cars on the front line passanger trains, but the dome part of the car was not as high as the domes on the cars that opperated in the western part of the US. Perhaps C&O is not considered eastern because they do not go to NY City or Phillidelphia. I think as far north east they went was Washington DC, but I am no C&O expert, and Dad recently passed away so I can't refer to his knowledge any longer.
I'm thinking the reason you don't see to many pictures of Hudsons on freight runs, (even though many would say it is the most beautiful steamer that existed, and I would agree), is that by the time they were used on freight the newfangled diesels were pulling freights, and bigger steam like the Berkshires and Niagras. Why use precious film, motion or still on a Hudson of less current vintage, probably bumped from a more important roll. I have many NYC books and vidoes, and very few of them have Hudsons pulling freights. That is my theory of why there is not more pictures of it and I am sticking to it. I believe this is true of much of the later large steam on the railroads that held out white lining their steam engines until the last. Most railroads tried to wring out as much use of something that was paid for as possible.
Paul
Dayton and Mad River (Model) Railroad
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