Classic Railroad Quiz (at least 50 years old).

631691 views
6862 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,820 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, September 23, 2019 8:52 AM

You risked it, so where is your question?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: FEC MP334
  • 864 posts
Posted by ZephyrOverland on Friday, October 25, 2019 4:16 PM

Bumping this up since there has been no activity for over a month. 

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,037 posts
Posted by narig01 on Thursday, October 31, 2019 11:17 PM

rcdrye

 

 
narig01

At the risk of having the correct answer,  Central Vermont.  

 

 

 

Exactly.  Central Vermont and Grand Trunk had a working relationship extending back into the 1880s, with Grand Trunk acquiring a financial interest as well, but not control.  Both railroads had track in southern Quebec, with overlapping trackage rights arrangements.  In 1923 GT became CN, which retained the interest in CV.  The October 1927 flood washed out most of CV's main line across Vermont.  CN stepped up big time to help CV rebuild, as discussed elsewhere in the forum, with Grand Trunk Corporation getting corporate control in the process.  GT controlled CV until 1995, though CV's operations retained some local autonomy.  Today's New England Central still fulfills CV's role in the CN system.  The NECR main line was badly damaged in 2011 by tropical storm Irene.

 

 

   My great apologies I hadn't been paying attention. If I'm still on tap I'll post a question tommorrow.

Thx IGN

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,037 posts
Posted by narig01 on Sunday, November 3, 2019 11:18 PM

A question. This will be either easy or hard.

The Sacramento Northern ran a carfloat across Suisun Bay to Chipps Island. 

There was one other carfloat used by an interurban, for passenger cars.  Can anyone name the interurban, the river and the location.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,456 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, November 4, 2019 5:41 AM

Evansville & Ohio Valley, over the Ohio River?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,967 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, November 4, 2019 6:27 AM

http://digitalarchives.usi.edu/digital/collection/Transport/id/2590/

The Toledo Port Clinton and Lakeside got as far as proposing one to connect with Sandusky streetcars, but never built the proposed ferry slip.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,456 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, November 4, 2019 6:38 AM

That's a very nifty ferry!  Do we know the arrangements, if any, to line up the wire at the slips, and to ensure good return contact at the rails?

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,037 posts
Posted by narig01 on Monday, November 4, 2019 11:05 AM

Overmod you got it. 

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,037 posts
Posted by narig01 on Monday, November 4, 2019 11:11 AM

Overmod

That's a very nifty ferry!  Do we know the arrangements, if any, to line up the wire at the slips, and to ensure good return contact at the rails?

 

I think they had some problems initially with the ground connections between the rails. 

Here is can article that caught my attention on the line. 

http://archive.courierpress.com/news/bad-timing-doomed-interurban-streetcar-system-to-evansville-ep-444197092-324887961.html/

 

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,967 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, November 4, 2019 12:28 PM

OA&E/SN used cables to get the ground solid on the aprons and the boats, and a contact system on the overhead - particulary interesting since both poles and pans were used.  The article suggest that the E&OV had an incline bridge, used where water level varies a lot.  Probably ended up using cables to bond the rails on the slip to ground.  The photo of the ferry shows an overhead contact system similar to SN's.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,820 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 10, 2019 9:29 AM

Waiting for Overemod's question!

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,456 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, November 15, 2019 10:59 AM

Give me a little longer -- everything I come up with is either too hokey or the picture would give it away...

Someone can ask another question in the meantime to keep the thread going.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,519 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, November 15, 2019 11:47 AM

Looking forward to it!

Have this Q laying around so here goes.

For what Railroad and when were the last domestic ( in North America) 2-8-0's built from new.

... long after the 2-8-2 was the more preferred choice of everyone.  

 

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,456 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, November 16, 2019 10:38 AM

I assume you're not counting any S160s that were used here.

I'll throw out Great Western 60, built by Alco in 1937... no, that won't work, it'll be something Canadian, I just know it...

Roberval & Sanguenay,1940?

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,820 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, November 16, 2019 11:34 AM

Delaware and Hudson in their own Colonie Shops?

Domestic?  Lots of Military 2-8-0s were built by all three during WWII and some remained within the USA at military insallations.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,519 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, November 16, 2019 11:49 AM

Oh boy this is getting complicated and now I'm sweatin' and frettin'.

Here is my answer, which Overmod correctly corrected to.

16 looking pretty nice at Arvida. CLC #1923 6/1937 
Cyl. 23x30 Drv. 57" 200# 47300 t.e. 201 tons working order. 
Courtesy of Rio Tinto Alcan, Ian Stronach Collection 

16 and 17 were two 2-8-0's built for Roberval Saguenay long after other railways had turned to 2-8-2's, 
these modern looking engines were equipped with vestibule cabs and stoker. 
They were the last domestic 2-8-0's built in North America.

Now Great Western #60 was also built in 1937 so it's a matter of which month.

So Overmod wins.

Except Dave Klepper says D&H built some in their Colonie Shops but I don't have a date.

Also some military 2-8-0's built during the war years for service  overseas remained on bases here.

So it's possible David is the winner.

What year were the D&H 2-8-0's built? 

Did the WWII builds stay and remain in service? 

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,416 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, November 16, 2019 3:16 PM

Miningman

Oh boy this is getting complicated and now I'm sweatin' and frettin'.

Here is my answer, which Overmod correctly corrected to.

16 looking pretty nice at Arvida. CLC #1923 6/1937 
Cyl. 23x30 Drv. 57" 200# 47300 t.e. 201 tons working order. 
Courtesy of Rio Tinto Alcan, Ian Stronach Collection 

16 and 17 were two 2-8-0's built for Roberval Saguenay long after other railways had turned to 2-8-2's, 
these modern looking engines were equipped with vestibule cabs and stoker. 
They were the last domestic 2-8-0's built in North America.

Now Great Western #60 was also built in 1937 so it's a matter of which month. 

Interesting beauty treatment on this 2-8-0. The whitewall tire, the "skirt" and the light color smokebox door remind me of SP Daylight engines, the tender reminds me of Canadian Pacific's steam engine.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,456 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, November 16, 2019 3:32 PM

By 1940 the D&H had long since committed to Pacifics, Northerns, and Challengers (I believe sourced from 'builders outside') for its mainline traffic.  I can't imagine them buying 2-8-0s new, let alone building them 'from scratch' as new power.  In less than five years, one of the anthracite railroads relying heavily on the enormous D&H-style Consolidation ... not at all the sort of thing most people think about when discussing this wheel arrangement ... would add one course to its boiler and put a modern 4-8-4 underneath, to produce one of the very best of that wheel arrangement seen.

If I had to hazard a guess as to the last "2-8-0" out of Colonie, it would be the last of the high-pressure experimentals with that wheel arrangement, in the early '30s.  

Roberval & Sanguenay wins hands down, as the 'military' engines were not built at the request of railroads, which was what the 'new for their owner' part of the question means.

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 364 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Saturday, November 16, 2019 11:00 PM

The last high pressure 2-8-0, the 1402, was delivered in 1930. The 1403 was a 4-8-0 was delivered in 1933, and was the only new steam locomotive sold to a Class 1 railroad that year.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,820 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 17, 2019 2:55 PM

You should have specified common-carrier owner, because the US Army did get new 2-8-0s and did use them for many years at such railroads as the one servicing Fprt Eustice.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,519 posts
Posted by Miningman on Sunday, November 17, 2019 4:08 PM

Fine. Why don't you go ahead and ask the next question. Overmod still owes us one anyway and we must wait in the interim so knock one out of the park. 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,456 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 17, 2019 6:27 PM

Yes, do so.  I'm traveling and won't be worth much for days.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,820 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, November 18, 2019 3:11 AM

Name the two USA cities that had rail operations in three gauges, one well into the 1930s, and the one city that has rail operations in three gauges currently.  Describe the different gauges and to whom they belonged.

Do not count funiculars.  But in all cases revenue passenger service was provided and is in the current case.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,967 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 6:35 AM

Historic:  Pittsburg(h) had/has standard gauge railways, broad gauge 5'2.5" street railways (Pittsburgh Railways).  The line from the south portal of the Mount Washington Tunnel was originally three foot gauge (Pittsburg & Castle Shannon Rwy). Steam freight operation contimued on dual gauge track after Pittsburg Railways began operating the line in 1909. (The "h" on the end isn't added until 1918.

Cincinnati had broad gauge streetcars, standard gauge railways (and an interurban) and a narrow-gauge line that lasted into the 1890s- the Cincinnati Lebanon & Northern.

But I think you were really looking for Denver, with 3' D&RG(W) and DSP&P(C&S) lasting until 1937. Denver Tramways (and Denver & Intermountain, its interurban) had 3'6" gauge track, inherited from the cable car system.

Modern Day: San Francisco has 5' BART, standard Muni and SP/Caltrain, and 3'6" on the remaining cable car lines.  Historically there were also some standard and broad gauge cable lines, one of the 5' lines lasting until 1929.

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,820 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 9:06 AM

 I had forgotten the Pittsburgh narrow-gauge operation.  You discussed correctly and completely the three cities I remembered, and hats off to you.  Look forward to your question.

But then maybe not so absolutely completely.  Cincinnati had more than one standard-gauge interurban.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,967 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 1:58 PM

daveklepper
Cincinnati had more than one standard-gauge interurban.

None that made it into the city center.  Most of the radial interurbans were broad gauge. The never-used subway was supposed to be a home for the C&LE.

Cincinnati, Lawrenceburg & Aurora ran from Anderson's Ferry

The C&LE and its predecessors required a change at Winton Place.

Cincinnati & Columbus ran from Norwood

Cincinnati Georgetown & Portsmouth did have downtown cars, but they were broad gauge.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,820 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 3:13 AM

Was not Winton place within Cincinnati?  In any case, waiting for your question.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,967 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 6:43 AM

In the 1948 Pullman breakup, cars were assigned to various railroads.  Many railroad systems took all of the cars and assigned them to the parent company, but several had the cars spread around to subsidiaries as well.  Most of those involved pairs like C&NW/CStPM&O or MStP&SSM/WC.

Three systems (that used either "System" or "Lines" as part of their marketing names) were particularly notable, with 5, 3 and 3 subsidiaries respectively.  Name the three systems listing the subsidiaries that had cars assigned.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,820 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, November 23, 2019 1:01 PM

I don't know the names of all the subsidiaries, but I believe the three systems included the Southern, with Southern, Central of Georgia, and Cincinnati Southern and possibly others;  the Southern Pacific, with the Cotton Belt, the SP itseslf, and others, and the Burlington system, including the CB&Q itself, the Fort Worth and Denver City, the Colorado Southern,  and possibly others.

The New York Central System cannot be included, because it took over sleeper operatons at an earlier time.

I was hoping to read a complete answer, and post only because the question was not ansered in a timely fashion.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,967 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:45 AM

Surprisingly, SP did not have Pullman equipment assigned to T&NO, at least not by 1948.  Pullman did not consider Cotton Belt part of SP as it had a separate contract.

Southern is one of them, though  Cincinnati Northern was the wrong name for that component.  The other two components still have passenger service. CofG was considered separate at the time and wasn't counted.

NYC was still a Pullman customer until 1958, and in fact one of the biggest.  It also advertised as "Lines" and "System, depending on the era. It had several major subsidiaries, most of which weren't merged into the NYC itself until 1961.

The system with the most pieces had complicated, even international operation, though the component companies were mostly in the same state. 

Burlingtom had only the two subsidiaries.

Almost all of the cars distributed in the breakup were heavyweights and only one of the component companies had lightweights assigned as built.

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