Trains.com

Classic Railroad Quiz (at least 50 years old).

661261 views
7259 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, October 18, 2020 4:20 AM

daveklepper
Tenders for as-delivered 600s: Were there only eight 600-607?) compared with J1s 5201 and up as delivered?

My understanding was that all 20 J2s were built with 8-wheel tenders, and that all 'production' J1s were built with some version of the 12-wheel design.  I would in fact have mentioned this if the question had not specifically referenced 5200 as the criterion.

The references I have are a bit unclear; they seem to indicate 12-wheelers were indeed used in'later years' on the B&A, but only after the era of green special paint.  There are pictures of 316K tenders, behind J2s, lettered only "Boston and Albany".

Likewise, to my knowledge all the NYC production locomotives had Baker gear.  Whether there were detail differences between 75" and 79" engines I do not know, but I would suspect that the valve travel and other events would be tied to the stroke, which I think was the same.

This is the first I've heard of Mohawks given smaller tenders.  Presumably these were the very early versions, with higher augment, and the smaller tenders were to let them go someplace where the reduced length and weight were advantages, but the loss of fuel bunkerage was less important.  Here specific references from you would be invaluable.  My lagging in purchasing 'Know thy Mohawks' emerges to savage my tail... Embarrassedo

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,517 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, October 18, 2020 9:13 AM

The few Mowhaks that had the small tenders had them to handle Bston - Albany passenger trains of heavyweight equipment too heavy for the Hudsons without double heading (usually a Pacific and a Hudson) and fit the turntables easily (comparitive length of the Mowhawks and Berkshires of interest).  The small tenders for the J2s were upon the idea that they were adequate for Boston - Albany without refieling and hauling unnecessary coal uphill costs money.

I was also told that the reason some J2s got larger tenders was for use west of Albany. Yet I did not experience a through ride without an Albany engine change until the diesel era.  I did ride behind the Boston Mowhawks, but I cannot remember what the tender lettering was.  And  they did not go west of Albany.  Wqs this possibly a quick fix until turntables or their operation was modified and the Mowhawks restored to their proper tenders?

Also, I enderstand that some J2s did have small tenders with New York Central lettering initially.  I think Beacon Park Yard Roundhouse maintenance people must have taken care of that pretty quickly.

Look forward to your comments and the next question.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, October 18, 2020 10:14 AM

Interesting that Mohawk fuel consumption was little greater than Hudson consumption over the run.  Turntable length wasn't something I thought of, precisely because of Berkshires... until I realized that tables in passenger-oriented facilities like South Station might be shorter than those for mainline heavy freight.

Was there sufficient fuel in a 12-wheel tender to take a J2 back across the Berkshires without having to go to Selkirk or wherever to recoal?

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,517 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, October 18, 2020 4:21 PM

I believe the normal practice for B&A passenger power arriving at Alvany was to go to West Albany's facilities, which were older than Selkirk, much closer to the in-city passenger station, and I believe lasted until the end of steam in the area.  I'm not sure there was any attempt to run any steam in any B&A service round-trip without refuling, except Boston-area suburban servicen where it was normal.

But I suspect the 12-wheel tenders could have done that job.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,517 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, October 18, 2020 9:24 PM

Awaiting your question and any further cimments.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,517 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:13 PM

Still awaitimg Overmod;s question.  And when he poses one. it's always a good one!

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, October 24, 2020 9:50 AM

A Midwestern road, which still survives with its own board of directors to this day, succeeded where the PRR failed in reducing dynamic augment on steam locomotives in freight service.  It appears they also solved a major concern with auxiliary locomotives at the same time.

Name the road and describe their approach.  (For extra credit, indicate why the approach was preferred over other means available at the time.)

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,517 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, October 24, 2020 1:18 PM

What is an auxiliary locomotive and whatn was the major concern with them?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, October 24, 2020 7:43 PM

daveklepper
What is an auxiliary locomotive ...

That was Bethlehem's name for a tender booster.
...and what was the major concern with them?
They had a characteristic that trailing-truck boosters lacked.

 

[/quote]

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,517 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, October 25, 2020 4:53 AM

Reduced adhesion and thus reduced tractive effort with reuction in the coal and water supply?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, October 25, 2020 12:10 PM

No, if anything the improvement would permit use of higher adhesive weight, at higher speed, well up to the limit of the wheel arrangement used.

There were other railroads that might have benefited had they retained steam.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,402 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Sunday, October 25, 2020 12:26 PM

Indiana Harbor Belt?  IHB had some 0-8-0s that had auxiliary engines and IHB is still an individual entity even if it's not a high-speed operation.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, October 25, 2020 5:21 PM

rcdrye
Indiana Harbor Belt?

Nifty with three cylinders for augment reduction, too... but only inherently.  And IHB's auxiliaries still had the problem that ones using the approach on the locomotive I have in mind would solve..  Keep looking... Stick out tongue

For a hint ... think of the various ways PRR tried to deal with augment concerns and did not succeed...

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, October 28, 2020 5:55 PM

Further hint: the 'improvement' was related to something concerning ownership of the line.  And was not limited only to running gear...

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,402 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, October 28, 2020 6:28 PM

Wheeling & Lake Erie still has an independent existence - it was leased by the Nickle Plate (and later the N&W) until 1988, when the current incarnation was formed out of the old W&LE and some of the P&WV.

What I can't find is anything W&LE with an auxiliary locomotive...

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, October 28, 2020 11:06 PM

rcdrye
What I can't find is anything W&LE with an auxiliary locomotive...

You won't.  The answer lies elsewhere.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 1, 2020 2:16 PM

If this isn't interesting I'll try something different.

incidentally the other quiz thread question has things in common with this.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,402 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Sunday, November 1, 2020 2:47 PM

Clover Leaf Club  Soda?  That's  a St. Louis brand as well...The Clover Leaf merged into the Nickel Plate in 1922.  while NKP's berkshires didn't have boosters, their Mikes did, and were very respectable fast freight haulers in their own right.  NKP certainly got the fast freight thing down.  Relatively small cylinders with high boiler pressure seems to have been part of the formula.

Though now that I think about it the GrandTrunk Western still has its own corporate existence (At least the Grand Trunk Corporation does) and did some nice work on high-speed steam. And it has a Canada connection.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 1, 2020 8:14 PM

No, the other thing is Canada Dry, but the Bevo was the thing that was close ...

Think ten-coupled with a tender booster...

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,402 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, November 2, 2020 6:27 AM

Not having an encyclopedic knowledge of steam, I did some digging...

CGW had 2-10-4's with Bethlehem tender boosters.  Initially delivered with static counterbalancing, the wheels were later replaced with Baldwin discs that had "triangular sections adjacent to the hub" which allowed the size of of the axle and crank pin hubs to be reduced, lowering the amount of weight to be counterbalanced in the first place.  This reduced dynamic augment greatly, especially at higher speeds.  They were the backbone of CGWs fleet until the F3s and F7s began arriving.  It's notable that they could handle a train in a way that required 6 F units to replace them.

http://steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=2-10-4&railroad=cgw

The connection to Bevo? Corn.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, November 2, 2020 6:37 AM

These are lovely engines, but their improvement is little different from the 'beauty treatment' given the T&P 600s that turned them from virtual pigs to excellent toad locomotives (see the Trains articles on T&P 610 in excursion service).  What I'm looking for is considerably more unusual.  Remember the PRR precedent...

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:16 AM

Last chance for the mavens before I throw the question out and seek something of perhaps greater interest...

The innovation was associated with products from an "affiliated" source.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,517 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 5, 2020 10:43 AM

It's a god question.  Any more hints?

Did the RR  ever provide commn-carrier passenger service?

Were the locomotives used only as pusher, or also road freight?

Mostly coal?  Iron ore?

Locomotives equipped with train-line communication and steam heat for passenger service?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:17 AM

daveklepper
Did the RR  ever provide commn-carrier passenger service?

Not to my knowledge, although it might have transported certain workers during the period of Federal control in WWII.  (That is more of a hint than a cursory reading might indicate!)

During its construction there were three separate versions of its name used within the space of about half a decade.

Were the locomotives used only as pusher, or also road freight?

Actually, not really either, in the senses you mean.

daveklepper
Mostly coal?  Iron ore?

In a sense, you almost couldn't be farther away from one of the principal things initially carried over the line.

Locomotives equipped with train-line communication and steam heat for passenger service?

Most assuredly not.  (Although a number of the 'special features' could be, and were, used on some fairly well-known passenger locomotives...)

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:22 AM

daveklepper
Did the RR  ever provide commn-carrier passenger service?

Not to my knowledge, although it might have transported certain workers during the period of Federal control in WWII.  (That is more of a hint than a cursory reading might indicate!)

During its construction there were three separate versions of its name used within the space of about half a decade.

Were the locomotives used only as pusher, or also road freight?

Actually, not really either, in the senses you mean.

daveklepper
Mostly coal?  Iron ore?

In a sense, you almost couldn't be farther away from one of the principal things initially carried over the line.

Locomotives equipped with train-line communication and steam heat for passenger service?

Most assuredly not.  (Although a number of the 'special features' could be, and were, used on some fairly well-known passenger locomotives...)

Incidentally, the later history of the railroad involved it not being sold to a probable best-fit owner (thanks to the ICC which didn't want it to go to 'just one owner') but it wound up being wholly owned -- but separately administered to this day -- by one owner anyway.  As a big hint: this would likely not have changed if the ICC had ruled differently.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,517 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, November 7, 2020 2:22 PM

Is the railroad the Indiana Harbor Belt?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, November 7, 2020 11:35 PM

No

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,517 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 8, 2020 2:57 AM

Thanks, will keep trying.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,019 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 8, 2020 4:54 AM

The railroad is notable for being built initially to connect a particular shipper to a somewhat unusual other railroad.  Only later was it expanded to connect with other -- ultimately, quite a few other -- railroads, with traffic making the locomotive in the question desirable.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,517 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:08 AM

Is the currently independently-manged railroad regional or a short-line or a switching-terminal?

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