Classic Railroad Quiz (at least 50 years old).

632129 views
6876 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, November 25, 2019 10:21 AM

Well then, Texas Pacific and New York Central migh be the other two.  Central certainly had Michigan Central and the Big Four (Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis & Chicago?) as operating subsidiaries.  Perhaps the main componant was still New York Central and Hudsdon River?  Boston and Albany was not an operating subsidiary but a leased line, notwithstanding the Boston and Albany on the tenders. (But not on the J2 Hudson tenders!)

As to what the original componants of the Texas Pacific are, I'm unsure I have the time to do the research. All of five, also!  One name that comes to mind, and I may have seen T&NO in small letter on a letterboard next to the door, is Texas and New Orleans.  Or was that a Missouri Pacific subsidiary.  Or was Texas Pacific by then a subsidiary of Missouri Pacific, in which case T&P and T&NO would be two, with MP, Southern, and NYC the three systems.

As for the Southern, did the Atanta and Danville still exist?   I tried to find the correct name of the line south from Cincinnati, but still have not located it.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, November 25, 2019 10:34 AM

Previous post has a whapping mistake.  Might still be SP, as I suggested originally, not MP or TP.  With T&NO an SP subsidiary, its line between Houston and N. O.  Another subsiidiary would be the line from Houston to Dallas.

But, at the time, was T&P an MP subsidiary?  What about "Iron  Mountain?"

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,975 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, November 25, 2019 1:24 PM

T&P was considered independent in 1948, though operationally very integrated with MP.  Not SP, Neither T&NO nor Houston and Texas Central had Pullmans assigned.  On the other hand, think about why H&TC and T&NO still existed then, and apply it to MP.  Still waiting for the Southern Railway System and New York Central System members.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 10,716 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, November 25, 2019 2:16 PM

For the Southern: CNO&TP, AGS, and NO&NE (former Queen and Crescent roads)? 

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,975 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, November 25, 2019 5:18 PM

Deggesty

For the Southern: CNO&TP, AGS, and NO&NE (former Queen and Crescent roads)? 

 

Correct.  Though other railroads made up part of the Southern Railway System, only those three got Pullman cars assigned.  As far as I know, Southern Railway owned all of the lightweight sleepers.

Still looking for the three members of the New York Central System.  The other system used a coastal description and "Lines" for four of the five component railroads.  The fifth made up the part of its main stem that ran in a particular large state.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 10,716 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, November 25, 2019 7:21 PM

Ir may be of interest to know that these three components still had heavyweight sleepers into the fifties, but there was no through heavyweight sleeper running Cincinnati-New Orleans in the fifties.

Johnny

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 28, 2019 3:28 AM

The reason for the five must have the Texas law requiring all railroads opeating in the State to have their headquarters in the state.

I think the railroad with the five is the AT&SF, and one componant might be the Atlantic and Pacific, and another Texas Sante Fe. 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 28, 2019 3:55 AM

But that may not be right either, since you said "apply it to the MP"

And as far at the New York Central:

Michigan Central

Lale Shore and Michigan Southern

Cleveland Cincinnati Chicago and St Louis

Canada Southern

New York Central (and Hudson River?)

Pittsburgh and Lake Erie

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,975 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Thursday, November 28, 2019 8:29 AM

The Santa Fe had two subsidiaries in Texas, neither got cars in the Pullman breakup.  The railroad I'm looking for was a heavy participant in through service to Texas, and even Mexico.

In the NYC list, two of the three are there (MC and Big Four).  The other had steam locomotives mentioned recently.

 

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 10,716 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, November 28, 2019 10:52 AM

The Missouri Pacfic Lines was composed of many railroads, some large, some short. However, in the listing of the component railroads in the February, 1953, Guide, none of the components has "Line" in its name. 

The International Great Northern had the largest representation in Texas. The map shows the GCL between New Orleans and Brownsville--but that name is not in the list of component roads, and the NOT&M, and BSL&W, and San Antonio Uvalde & Gulf (which are in the list) are on the map.

I cannot determine more than the above.

Johnny

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 28, 2019 12:11 PM

I did not think that the Boston and Albany could have passener equpment lettered for it.  But I was wrong.  In fact, most of the Boston-area   commuter cars were lettered for it , and i had forgotton that fact.   So for the sleepers, I would imagine, just for the initials adjacent to the door on the letterboad.  The other system musr ve the MP, because of your stipulatioin of through service to Mexico City.  You are still refering to 1948.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,975 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Saturday, November 30, 2019 7:42 AM

The Gulf Coast Lines roads were the ones I was looking for.  All of them had Pullmans assigned in the breakup, mostly MP's favored 10 section, 2 Cpt, 1 DR cars.

New Orleans, Texas & Mexico

Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western

San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf

St. Louis Brownsville & Mexico

and, the I-GN, which made up the main stem of the MP in Texas.  

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, November 30, 2019 8:32 PM

Because I explained the Texas law and got the NY Cenjtral's right and the three railroads, do you wish me to ask the next?

 

But RC was first with the correct Southern System railiroads, so perhaps he should be the acknowledged winner?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,975 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, December 2, 2019 6:46 PM

daveklepper
But RC was first with the correct Southern System railiroads, so perhaps he should be the acknowledged winner?

Not quite... It was my question. 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:04 AM

So, do you wish me to ask?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,975 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 6:39 AM

daveklepper

So, do you wish me to ask?

 

Sure, go ahead.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 8:16 AM

Why were the older cars of many streetcar lines equipped with curved sides?  Like the older Third Avenue Railways cars on the thread?

And what was the reason for curved sides of the Cincinnati lightwieghts?

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 11,798 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 10:14 AM

The curved sides of the Cincinnati lightweights were a way of adding strength to the sides without adding weight.  See the article in July 1965 TRAINS.

Older cars had curved sides to provide additional seatroom without widening the frame.  All postwar rapid transit equipment on the CTA has this feature.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,975 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 6:55 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH
Older cars had curved sides to provide additional seatroom without widening the frame.

The feature also allowed cars to clear the hubs of passing wagons.  You can still experience this a bit on San Francisco's cable cars.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, December 5, 2019 10:42 AM

RC's reason is correct for older streetcars, and CSS's for the Cincinnati lightweights.

The two of you can decide.

When the curve-side Third Avenue Railways convertables were built, horse-drawn wagons were still a familiar sight on Manhattan and The Bronx streets.  By the time the later straight-sides were built, autos had largely replaced them, and the curve-sides served no purpose and were more expensive, despite the slightly large base frame for the striaghts.

CSS's reason for curves-sides, independent of strength, is correct for many modern light rail and rapid transit cars, not only CTA.  Boston's Blue and Orange lines are good examples.  The floor frame has to conform with existing high platforms, and the bulge at the seated passenger waistline gives more room.  PATH's equipment is another good example.

 

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,975 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Thursday, December 5, 2019 1:25 PM

All yours, CSS.  Even for the older cars, the curved sides were an effective stiffener, requiring much less underframing than cars with flat sides.  Watching some recent restoration work on an 1894 car ahows that strength may have been as important as clearance.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, December 7, 2019 12:37 PM

The sub-floor frames of the 3rd AV. straight-side convertables did not appear appreciably different than the earlier curved-siders, only slightly wider.  Of course you may be right with steel instead of iron or a better grade of steel?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,506 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, December 7, 2019 4:17 PM

It occurs to me that a great many of these curved-side cars are made so entirely to allow wider seating for a given frame.  You'll see many early autobuses made with similar curved sides that allow seating to be pushed out above 'wheel' or 'hub' clearance lower down.

I do expect this construction did save both weight and overall cost, net of the added tooling and fabrication expertise needed for the carpentry/joinery.

No doubt that the later Cincinnati cars were curved for plate stiffness; you see this in the Brill Bullets (I believe) and in the early Union Pacific streamliners which went further with tying carlines and purlins together to better approximate a tubular 'fuselage'.  A better example of this curved-side construction, of course, is the Metroliner shell, and its follow-on designs for the SPV2000 (which would have made an excellent RDC-like vehicle if implemented as a lightweight structure rather than a 125mph-strong one) and, of course, the Amfleet series.  Those also have the characteristic of increasing seating and elbow room somewhat, although I suspect most of the 'appeal' was in the aircraft-like appearance. 

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,975 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Saturday, December 7, 2019 7:44 PM

The wooden curved-sided cars almost all had wooden frames.  The "bow" in the lower side was usually fixed quite firmly to the frame.  Convertibles such as the BMT 4500 series had stiffer frames than open cars, which were notorious for racking while in motion.  The Cincinnati curved-side design was specifically for side stiffness, and the cars are very reistant to flexing.  Contemporary Boston Type 5's have very little side stiffness, relying on a heavier underframe.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 8, 2019 8:07 AM

You are absolutely correct about 19th Century wood cars, but the convertables used in New York City, Brooklyn's 4000s and up, all straight sides, and Third Avenue's 951 - 1150 curve-side and later 01-100 and 201 -300 straight side, curve siders, both conduit only and conduit and overhead, straight siders all with poles and some also for conduit; all had iron or steel under the floor, and you can check TARS 886 and B&QT (BRT-BMT) 4573 at Shore Line (Branford) to confirm this.

Why Third Avenue convertables still had rudimentry truss rods is a mystery to me.  None of the convertables showed any signs of racking.  And Brooklyn's did not have truss rods.

I don't know about Brill Semi-Convertables, neve been under one.  I imagine they have steel or iron also.  Baltimore's did not have any truss rods that show up in photographs.

The curve side might contribute to strenth on these cars, but that was not the primary reason, or the practice would have been continued after autos replaced wagons; and, at least in New York and Brooklyn, it was not continued.  And where were real convertables with removable one-window side panels used, outside of Brooklyn and New York?  Most convertable streetcars in New York and Brooklyn were built simultaneous with or after the first all-steel Gibbs-designed cars were under construction for the IRT, the LIRR, and the PRR, and the Stillwell-designed Hudson and Manhattan cars.  They certainly would not have had all-wood under-floor frames.

The 1300-series open-platform "gate cars," built for the BRT in 1905 and 1906, 1300 - 1399, all motors with cabs at both ends, usually used in three-car sets with an ex-steam-hauled trailer between two motors, were convertables, the only elevated convertables that I know.  Chicago didn't have any.  Europe?  Definitely steel frames.   And I think the BRT did rebuild many wood elevated cars with steel frames.  Not certain about the 2500-series wood streetcars, and probably not the 1100-series.

Notice that there is no "racking" of any of New York City's convertables.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 8, 2019 9:03 AM

Anyway, waiting for CSS's question.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 11,798 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, December 9, 2019 10:11 AM

The Pere Marquette RR entered Chicago by trackage rights but had its own Chicago yard.  Where was this yard located and what was distinctive about it?

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,868 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, December 9, 2019 10:21 AM

Did the C&O continue to use it?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,975 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, December 9, 2019 1:11 PM

It's still there, Near 71st and Kedzie in Chicago.  Its distinctive shape with a ladder at both ends is a result of having the Belt Railway/C&WI lines more or less split around it, so through trains can go by on either side.  PM had trackage rights over a bit of the C&WI and the BRC to get there from the joint B&O/CRI&P line (B&O/C&O(PM) passenger trains, CRI&P freights). C&WI (now UP) had rights over BRC.  C&O of Indiana shared a yard and engine terminal with the Nickel Plate on the South Side, and NKP's freight house on the IC along the lakefront.  PM also had a freight house near Grand Central, reached over the B&OCT.  I'll have to check my old "Tribune Chicagoland map" to be sure of track ownership...

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 11,798 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 10:05 AM

You're getting close.  Ownership is the issue.  FYI, BRC had trackage rights over CWI, not the other way around.  CWI's owners also had shares in BRC, so they didn't have trackage rights issues.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul

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