Classic Railroad Quiz (at least 50 years old).

595455 views
6489 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,366 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:51 PM

The one I'm thinking of was definitely a Class I at the time.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:41 PM

Overmod,since no one else has come up with an answer, I'll try two "educated guesses."

The D&H had some open-platform cars definitely with roller bearing in Scranton - Carbondale service.  I don't know if the trucks were wood, though.

The Canadian National took over the Quebec - St. Joaquim interurban from Quebec Railway Light and Power, which was the only connection between its line from St. Joaquim to Murrey Bey and the rest of its system at Quebec.  It may have put roller bearings in the duck-bill roofed Jackson and Sharp open-platform trailers, with wood trucks.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,366 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, September 29, 2018 2:43 PM

To move this along, the road I had in mind was Rock Island. And now I can't find the source that documented it.

Time we gave Jones 1945 a seat in Puzzler Tower.  (And if he does not know the other details of that Scranton-Carbondale service, he has a treat in store...)

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 634 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, September 29, 2018 4:51 PM

Does that mean I need to provide more detail on Overmod's answer or I can ask the next question now? Blindfold Smile, Wink & Grin

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,366 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, September 29, 2018 5:46 PM

Both, if you want.   But just a question of your own was what I was thinking.  You did, after all, have a better right answer.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 634 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, September 29, 2018 6:10 PM

Ok noted! I will post my question here asap Smile, Wink & Grin

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, September 30, 2018 5:20 AM

And the D&H Scranton - Carbondale passenger service was handled by the same class of 2-8-0s that handled the local freights!

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 634 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, October 01, 2018 12:16 PM

Speaking of D&H, their L. F. Loree, "the first four outside cylinder, triple expansion, non-articulated locomotive." was an interesting experiment.

Before I post my question here, I would like to thank you everyone in this forum who shared your ideas, precious knowledge or experiences with me during the hardest times of my life! Thumbs Up

My question is:

After the Great Depression, a Class I Railroad tried to conduct a research about the possibilities of a trans-continental passenger service with its rival, but they couldn’t reach consensus thus the research was stopped. Please provide Question the names of  Railroads participated in this research, Question the year they conducted this research, Question the destinations of the trans-continental trains in this research (e.g Norfolk to Seattle) and Question at least one reason of why RRs couldn’t reach consensus.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, October 05, 2018 9:42 AM

My guess is that it was the AT&SF that initiated the idea, and contacted the PRR and NYCentral, and that differing ideas about equipment, the PRR and NYCentral more conservative, ended the research.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 634 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, October 05, 2018 6:58 PM

On the right track, Dave! I think I should reveal the answer by Sunday 11 pm EST (Oct 6,2018)  to see if there is any other forum member provide other answer.

Please feel free to take a guess, even a wild guess if you like. Coffee Thumbs Up

Welcome

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 3,385 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, October 05, 2018 8:06 PM

OK ...WAGuess.... using some thinking that somewhat seems logical and likely but will almost certainly be wrong and cause great ROFL as the illuminated ones say (and for far too long now). First off Jones1945 is a big Pennsy fan. So Pennsy it is. Eastern terminus/origin will have to be the late great Pennsylvania Station, so it's the Big Apple or else what's the point.

Western connection has to be in Chicago for the same reasons, anything else is small potatoes. That gives us plenty of big deal Railroads to make a deal with. So who has a like mind with the Pennsy, at least on the surface and goes to places like LA, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle. That would be Union Pacific. How do you get to the Union Pacific trains?...via UP's Bro,  Chicago and North Western. 

So that's my WAG, ...Pennsy, C&NW, UP. 

Perhaps the reason it did not pan out is because Pennsy used Chicago Union Station and C&NW used their own North Western Station and the whole thing fell apart on who's gonna move their Chicago operations to make this work. 

OK everyone begin the ROFL.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 634 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, October 05, 2018 11:11 PM
Very logical and creative answer, Miningman. I won't ROFL to any forum members who participated in this quiz, even though laughing is good for health.  CoffeeSmile, Wink & Grin
  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, October 06, 2018 2:41 PM

 The other railroad that was very forward looking was of course the CB&Q.  They could convince either the GN or NP to be partners.  And they shared Union Sta. with the PRR, no problem.   For AT&SF with either PRR or NYCentral, NY and LA would have been the end-points.  PRR-CB&Q - NY and both Seattle and Portland.

 But the PRR, and perhaps also GN and NP, more conservative regarding equipment, not ready for lighweights, stopped implementation.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 634 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, October 07, 2018 6:53 PM

Ok ladies and gentlemen, it's time to reveal the answer and ROFL to my "Very Shaky English"

In  June 1937, PRR and NYC prepare studies for a New York-Los Angeles  passenger train on a 56:45 schedule running via Chicago and either the Santa Fe or Overland Route; railroads involved are unable to reach agreement; prior to the advent of air-conditioned cars and diesel locomotives, it was not considered practicable to run equipment for such long distances without cleaning inside and out because of soot. 

Dave accurately provided the names of RR's involved (PRR and NYC) and the reason of why both parties couldn't reach agreement (use of equipment) though without detailed specification on his first post, but in Dave's second post, the destinations of the trans-continental trains in this research was accurately, firmly provided (Los Angles and New York City) and the route was considered to take ATSF’s or UP’s Overland route.

Miningman correctly mentioned PRR was involved in the research but didn’t mention about NYCRR which is a very important part of the answer, on the other hand, the answer he provided about the reason it did not pan out was also different from the answer I have in hand, though Miningman correctly provided the route would be New York to Los Angles via Chicago, but he didn’t mention that ATSF’s route was also considered, even though the Overland route was provided in his answer.

Overall, I think Dave’s answer is more accurate and firmer, so I think Dave earned the right to ask the next question. Any objection? CoffeeShy

 

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 3,385 posts
Posted by Miningman on Sunday, October 07, 2018 8:51 PM

Fine fine fine. Just as long as we don't get another New York City Subway system question. My head will 'splode.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 634 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, October 08, 2018 3:18 AM

Congrats, Dave, it's your turn!Thumbs Up

Before Dave post his question, I would like to share my thoughts about this “research” which was probably stuck at management of both sides “exchange thoughts and documents stage”. IIRC the first air-conditioned named train was B&O’s The Columbian in 1931, PRR and NYC started equip air-conditioner on their equipment sines mid-30s, most of them are H/W rebuilt car until lightweight passenger with air-con system was available around 1937. Moreover, Santa Fe's new nine-car Budd lightweight streamlined Super Chief made record run from Los Angeles to Chicago in 36 hours 49 mins on May 1937 and entered revenue service the next day. so, the reason of why they ended the research is not very convincing to me. IF Penny and NYC successfully conducted this research, it would have set up a good example, a good start for more cooperation which seldom happened.
 
 
 
Although my short-term memories are slipping on and off, but I remember there is one source mentioned more details about this research or maybe it was another similar plans (by PRR) which RRs wanted a 15-car (or more) lightweight fixed consist specially design and build for the NY to LA service instead of one single sleeper belongs to one RR attached to another RR's trains.
 
 
 
 
A new named train proposed to connect the financial center of the States and the capital of global entertainment industry, sounds very sexy to me! Note that Raymond Loewy designed the interior of Trans World Airlines' "Skysleeper" which was a service between New York and Los Angeles with its first Douglas DST/DC3's in 1937 as well, the planes were fitted with eight Pullman-type berths and nine reclining seats and four times faster than the train. 
 

 

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:34 AM

In the 1970's a railroad that still has a reputation for wanting passengers and providing good service ran a basically overnight and part of the next morning name-train that had been downgraded smewhat and handled mainly head-end business, witih considerable switching in and out of head-end cars around the midpoint for interchanage with other trains.  The train was carried between its origine and a joint interchange passenger station by another railroad, doing the same as for the first railroad's premium trains.  The train carried one 14-roomette lightweight slteeper in addition to air-conditioned coaches, the latter lightweight outside the railroad's heavy traffice period.   At the time, the train served nearly all local stations, and its passenger traffic was local, not end-to-end.  It ran either daily or  daily except Sat. night, Sun. morning.  E-units were regular power.

Raiilroads, train name, end-points, place where head-end cars were switched in and out.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,366 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:25 PM

Jones1945
a Class I Railroad tried to conduct a research about the possibilities of a trans-continental passenger service with its rival, but they couldn’t reach consensus thus the research was stopped.

The question then becomes, though, whether this research was a direct predecessor of the various through-car services that provided much of the functional advantages of full transcontinental trains without the obvious pre-Diesel drawbacks.

I for one have always wondered a bit at why, in a regulated environment, there was so much confusing rotation of the through cars among the various trains -- it would seem logical to me that providing cars rather than whole dedicated trains represented a relatively cheap and fair way to provide 'transcontinental' one-seat (or bed) rides without fantastic amounts of capital and operating expense.

(And it answered, in a way, Young's comment about the hog: it would seem that any particular desire to run full passenger trains from coast to coast died out somewhere between the late '40s and the end of the '50s.  Even today, Amtrak doesn't have a through-car service -- perhaps an artifact of sleeper clearances in the East, but I suspect more than that an absence of sustainable volume.)

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, October 10, 2018 1:12 PM

Good analysis.  And you should be able to answer the question.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 634 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:38 PM

Overmod

it would seem logical to me that providing cars rather than whole dedicated trains represented a relatively cheap and fair way to provide 'transcontinental' one-seat (or bed) rides without fantastic amounts of capital and operating expense...

...Even today, Amtrak doesn't have a through-car service -- perhaps an artifact of sleeper clearances in the East, but I suspect more than that an absence of sustainable volume.)

I agree entirely with your point of view. By the way I doubt that there was a strong demand for a 2000-miles-plus 'transcontinental' train service, I note such service provided by RRs in late-40s always involved only one sleeper attached to different RRs trains, like the Santé Fe sleeper attached to PRR's Broadway Limited, usually only needed one single sleeper and probably not fully occupied. Even railfans would feel bored travel on the trains for four days long. But if RR from the past or Amtrak could provide service like Venice-Simplon Orient Express, it might work. 
 
Ok lets move on and searching the answer of Dave’s question!  Thumbs Up

 

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, October 15, 2018 9:49 AM

Hints:  The route of the train is covered by one popular Amtrak train today which goes beyond the specific train's endpoints.  The name of the train did not describe it during the period of operation but was applicable before it was downgraded and applciagle when it interlined with railroad that directly served the area of the descriptive name.  It interchanged passengers and head=end cars wiith another train at its midpoint crew-change and refulling station.

The sleeper may have come off in the early 70s.

No meal service.

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 9,604 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, October 15, 2018 3:38 PM

So far as I know, the only road that did not go into Amtrak and still operated sleeper service after 4/30/71 was the Southern, which then operated 10-6 cars only. It did have interline service with Amtrak, and for a time operated a Boston-Los Angeles car on the Southern Crescent.. 

In 1970, it was operating a 10-6 car between New York City and Greenville, S.C. on the Piedmont--but I believe that this car was discontinued aafter 4/30/71. It may have continued headend interchange in Washington. Also, I have the impression that there was no headend interchange with the N&W after 4/30/71 (the crew change point for the trains that ran through Bristol was Monroe, Virginia).

Johnny

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:07 AM

Dislexia working again, with a time-warp.  I really should have written early 1960s, not 1970's, and I am sure the sleeper was removed before 1971's May 1 Amtrak Day.  Apologies.  Possibly the train also came off ealier with the loss of mail.   Again, apologies.

1960s, not 1970s!

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:31 AM

And the two cars assigned were probably 16-roomette cars with one reserved for company business and one for the porter.

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 9,604 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, October 17, 2018 8:12 AM

daveklepper

And the two cars assigned were probably 16-roomette cars with one reserved for company business and one for the porter.

 

I know of no cars built with just 14 or 16 roomettes; if such were built, there would have had to be something else in the car or else it would have been a short car.

The Southern did have a few 14 roomette 6 double bedroom cars, but they were not ordinarily used on the trains out of Washingotn.

 

Johnny

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, October 18, 2018 2:26 AM

Not the Southern.   Did any other railroad have sleepers with that configuration?   My memory may be way off on this, but I think the public timetable did say 14 roometes.  A normal all-roomette car has 22 roomettes?  Thanks in  advance for any answer.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,483 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, October 19, 2018 6:34 AM

Still working on the 14 roomette cars. 

The New Haven at one time owned most of the electric streetcar and interurban systems in southern New England.  The last one owned by the New Haven wasn't sold until long after bus substitution.  Give the decade the New Haven unloaded it.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,366 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, October 19, 2018 8:50 AM

NYC had a bunch of cars (I think built starting 1948) that had 22 roomettes.  B&O had some 16/4 but they were duplex.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,366 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, October 19, 2018 8:56 AM

If you mean the Connecticut Company, the answer is 'Seventies' (bicentennial year to be more precise).  But I don't know if the "New Haven" was still its own corporate entity, perhaps especially after Conrail Day that year...

Bridgeport, Waterbury, and New Britain were the areas being subsidized after 1973, but I'm not sure if "Connecticut Transit" took those divisions over in toto in 1976.  Only the latter two are still operated by that entity, I think.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,296 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, October 19, 2018 9:27 AM

The Connecticut Comany operated streetcars and buses in many Connecticut towns and cities, and by 1951 was an all-bus system.  It became a Gos.vernment run operation in the 1970s.   Hartford streetcars were replaced with buses just before WWII, but New Haven's lasted through the war, with bustitution starting in 1947.  The Mechnics Railroad continued to use some tracks for freight service.

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