Classic Railroad Quiz (at least 50 years old).

533636 views
5907 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 1,742 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, April 28, 2017 11:46 AM

Just to backtrack a wee bit as things went kind of fast.

Here is a picture of the original Jubilee F1a. All the original one's with the larger drivers, were scrapped, owing to the often heard excuse/story "I thought the other roundhouse was saving one". 

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 1,742 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, April 28, 2017 9:54 PM

This answers a few questions.

This revealing photograph shows a CPR Jubilee 4-4-4 type with its semi-streamlining removed. 
CLC/Marine Museum of the Great Lakes at Kingston

A modern steam locomotive hauling two ancient wooden passenger cars on a branchline train.
CPR Jubilee 2928 ( #1942 3/38) backs train #637 from Hamilton into Guelph Junction, May 24, 1954.
It will wait for a meet with Montreal-Chicago #21 Chicago Express before continuing on to Goderich. 
J.F.Beveridge/Collection of F.D.Shaw

CPR 2910-2929 Cyl. 16 ½ x 28 Drv. 75" pressure 300 pounds and only 25,900 t.e. weigh only 212 ½ tons in working order and are hand-fired. This single order of 20 small, lightweight locomotives were unique to the CPR where they were used on local passenger and branchline freight trains. #1924-1943 11/37 to 3/38 

These twenty modern, semi-streamlined 4-4-4 Jubilee type engines were hand-fired due to their small size. Designed for light passenger trains and branchline freights they were unique to say the least. No other Canadian and few American railways used this wheel arrangement. 

It was the earlier 3000-3004 with 80" drivers and stokers built 8/36 by MLW that became famous for their record making high speed, 112 ½ mph. Cyl.17 ¼"x28 Drv. 80" 300# 26600 t.e. 231 tons.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 12,889 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, April 29, 2017 3:54 PM

Yes, th eIndiana Railroad had quit lpmg befpre the PCCs were oprdered, but the Daisy Interurban across the bridge ran throuogh WWII and I believe quite between the time the PCCs wsere ordered and when they were delivered.

One of the cities with broad gauge streetcars had a location where electric cars oeprated on three-gauge tracks, broad, narrow, and standard.  Which city?   But electric cars did not operate on all three gauges.  One gauge was steam only.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 12,889 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:39 AM

I am posting this question a second time because of the long delay in posting it the first time and the possibility the first posting has been lost.

My quesiton is, which of the cities with broad-gauge streetcar systems had a yard where there were three gauges, inlcuding three-gauge track, broad, standard, and narrow, even though only steam operated on the narrow gauge.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,054 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, May 01, 2017 6:57 AM

Dave Klepper, you are up!

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,054 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, May 09, 2017 1:00 PM

Cincinnati.  I know Cincinnati had a broad gauge streetcar system, but standard gauge interurbans also ran there. There was also a narrow gauge steam suburban line (Cincinnati, Georgetown and Portsmouth).  Cincinnati Traction comany's Carrel Street yard was laid with track of all three gauges, as the CG&P was transitioning from narrow to standard gauge.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 12,889 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:45 AM

This will be my last posting until (if ever) the Edit Button is restored.  I am 85 years old, have Dislexia, and do not wish to be suprised by making a statement the opposite of what I intended to make!  I need the Edit Button like handicapped and elderly Americans need long-distance train service.

You are entirely correct, described the situation perfectly.

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 10,122 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 10:03 AM

TRAINS had a picture of this yard in "Would You Believe It" in an issue in the late 1960's.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June, 2011
  • 607 posts
Posted by NP Eddie on Thursday, May 11, 2017 11:26 AM

Rob and All:

The following is from Dave Klepper: "his Cincinnati answer is 100% correct".

Dave is have trouble with computer access to "Classic Trains".

Ed Burns

  • Member since
    November, 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 1,934 posts
Posted by narig01 on Friday, May 12, 2017 3:16 AM

rcdrye

Dave Klepper, you are up!

 

Mr Klepper is having problems, and emailed me.

Klepper David-Lloyd

to me, enburns@comcast.net

2 days agoDetails

Thanks.     Do me a favor and on the Classic Trains Forum let "rc" know that his Cincinnati answer is 100% correct.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,054 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, May 12, 2017 7:03 AM

Thank you, Dave.  I hope you get your access problems cleared up.  As much as I like posting questions I really like digging to find answers to the questions posted.

Like the more famous Sacramento Northern out west, this interurban had 600 and 1200 volt divisions as the result of an early merger (unlike SN, there was no through operation).  It was more successful as a freight carrier than a passenger carrier, became an important diesel operated switching line owned by two connecting railroads, and is still active today.

  • Member since
    June, 2011
  • 607 posts
Posted by NP Eddie on Sunday, May 14, 2017 12:56 PM

Rob and All:

The following is from Dave Klepper: " ....the freight swiching railroad is the Piedmont and Northern. And the reason there ws no thru service is that there was a gap between the two divisions requiring of the Southern Railroad between them."

Ed Burns

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,054 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Sunday, May 14, 2017 3:15 PM

Not the P&N (1500V on both divisions anyway).  This railroad's two divisions connected.  1200V cars operated on half voltage in the middle city, with no through cars.  The successor line painted its locomotives in a scheme that included the colors of two of the owners.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,054 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, May 15, 2017 6:49 AM

I need to correct the description of the part that bacame the switching road.  The switching road bought the line from the interurban's receivers.  The switching line also owned the (steam railroad) Union Station in the city that marked the boundary between the 600 and 1200v divisions

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 10,122 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:07 AM

I would think that the interurban was Terre Haute, Indianapolis & Eastern and the switching road was picked up by Indianapolis Union Ry.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,054 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:23 PM

THI&E was all 600V.  Successor Indiana RR did have a 1200V section on the former Interstate Public Service line to Louisville, but IRR's 1200V equipment worked at 600 or 1200.  The line I'm looking for was in an area where steam road interchange with interurbans was more common.  The middle city on the line's streetcar company was named for a well-known group of small cities, but the streetcar company's name counted one less than the more commonly known number.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,054 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 9:43 AM

Based on no response in 6 days, I'm replacing the question.  I was looking for the Clinton Davenport and Muscatine, which rand between its namesake cities, 600V above Davenport, 1200V below.  Part of the line went to the CB&Q/MILW controlled Davenport Rock Island and Northwestern, whcih also controlled Davenport's Union Station, used most heavily used by non-owner CRI&P.  The CD&M used the Tri-Cities Railway in Davenport, ironic since Davenport is part of the Quad Cities (Davenport and Bettendorf IA, Moline and Rock Island IL).

The new question:

This railroad, which had a well known fleet in the New York Harbor, had a smaller one in another major city, the only one of its kind in that city.  The fleet was in service from the teens to the mid-thirties, with almost all of the equipment heading to New York Harbor after the operation shut down.

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 10,122 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:12 AM

That would be the Erie, which had a carfloat operation on the Chicago River, allowing it to serve the North Side.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,054 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:19 PM

Two tugs and three two track floats made up Erie's Chicago fleet.  Original float bridge at 18th street, the operation started with two New York-sytle "station floats" with center unloading platforms.  Float station was at Erie and Kingsbury near Montgomery Ward's huge warehouse, with a later float station at Webster Avenue, both on the North Branch of the Chicago River.  Both sites later got float bridges serving small yard and team track areas, and could handle both carload and LCL traffic.  Before 1915, the floats were also used to tend Erie's lake boats.  The yards were handled by 23-ton Baldwin gasoline locomotives.

Dropped by USRA in 1918, Erie restarted it in 1923, adding float-only service to Navy Pier in 1924.  Fairly successful until the depression, the service ended in 1936, lasting through the straightening of the Chicago River.  Both tugs were sent to New York, one lasting into the Erie Lackawanna era.

  • Member since
    March, 2013
  • 596 posts
Posted by SD70M-2Dude on Tuesday, May 30, 2017 3:59 PM

Been a week, time to bump this thread.  It would seem that CSSHEGEWISCH has the next question.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    November, 2005
  • 3,923 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:50 PM

rcdrye

Tri-Cities Railway in Davenport, ironic since Davenport is part of the Quad Cities

https://archive.org/stream/threecitiestheir00till#page/n5/mode/2up

RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Tuesday, June 06, 2017 9:21 AM

rcdrye
The CD&M used the Tri-Cities Railway in Davenport, ironic since Davenport is part of the Quad Cities (Davenport and Bettendorf IA, Moline and Rock Island IL).

Interestingly enough, the introduction of "Quad Cities" (to replace Tri-Cities) involved Davenport, Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline.  Bettendorf's growth led to some agitation for "Quint Cities" -- I can see how that might be one step too many, especially around the Dionne era.  With the general Rust Belt dying-back East Moline gave way to Bettendorf as the official 'fourth city'.

Now ... what is CSSHEGEWISCH's question?

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 10,122 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, June 07, 2017 10:04 AM

And away we go!! (with apologies to Jackie Gleason).  This week marks the 125th anniversary of the opening of the L.  A large percentage of the L was built over its own land rather than public rights-of-way (streets or alleys).  What was the name of the Illinois statute that led to this situation and what the provision involved?

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Wednesday, June 07, 2017 11:02 AM

Wasn't this the Cities and Villages Act of 1872, the law that said neighboring property owners had to give permission to build over adjacent public streets (shades of A.T Stewart's vaults in NYC subway history) ... as so imaginatively and cleverly surmounted by the inimitable Mr. Yerkes?

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,054 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, June 07, 2017 6:06 PM

Mr. Yerkes built most of his L properties over city streets - one of them (the Lake Street L, started by Yerkes' friend Michael Cassius McDonald) entirely over a city street, though later extended on the ground (on a city street ROW) after he sold his interest.  His "imaginative use" was to propose extending the Union Consolidated Elevated Railway west to Halsted St. through an industrial area.  By making it clear he was going to get signatures whatever way it took, he was able to build the UCER (better known as the Met's connection to the Loop along Van Buren and Market (Wacker)) with just the local Van Buren Street frontage signatures.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,054 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:21 AM

Nice Video of 4271-4272 on the Trains newswire yesterday 6/7/2017.  You can see the conductor standing between the cars, ready to operate the door controls.

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 10,122 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, June 08, 2017 10:08 AM

RME got it right and is entitled to the next question.  It's interesting to note that except for the subways, none of the newer L routes (after 1939) are built over or under city streets.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Wednesday, June 14, 2017 6:43 AM

How fast could an Electroliner be made to go?  And what was involved technologically in making this happen?

(I have always wondered, with the various claims that the Liners 'weren't the fastest cars on the property', whether there was some characteristic of the right-angle drive they used (hypoid gearing? ratios?) that led to the nominal 85mph restriction.  Ah, for the halcyon pre-1950 days again!)

  • Member since
    December, 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,638 posts
Posted by erikem on Thursday, June 15, 2017 1:30 AM

111 MPH achieved on December 21, 1950 with the installation of field shunts. This so unnerved the North Shore lines master mechanic that he ordered the removal of the shunts. Information from William D Middleton's Traction Classics, volume 2.

Field shunting became fairly common after the development of the interpole motor as it allowed for a higher peak running speed while keeping accelerating current under control.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • From: California
  • 3,946 posts
Posted by DSchmitt on Thursday, June 15, 2017 2:12 AM

Deleted 12:17 AM

I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.

I don't have a leg to stand on.

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

Search the Community