Classic Train Questions Part Deux (50 Years or Older)

736726 views
6899 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:15 AM

Right. Go on if you wish, or do you wish to leave it me?

And of couse ask a new question. 

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:58 AM

Atlantic City had a fair number of standard Brill streetcars.  The streamliners were built by Brill and called "Brilliners".  Washington DC and maybe Baltimore had a few, but they also had PCCs. Red Arrow had some double-enders that were similar.

  The interurban was the "Shore Fast Line", the Atlantic City & Shore,  between Atlantic City and Ocean City, which operated with third rail between the cities.

It looks like PRR acquired the Atlantic City streetcars along with the West Jersey and Seashore, which later became part of PRR's portion of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines.

You'll have to tell me what the PRR designation was for the Brllliner. 

I should have something posted by tomorrow.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 1:18 PM

Brilliners electrically were identicle to PCCs with the same motors, automatic accelerator, etc, but had Brill's own inside-frame trucks, a different body style but still quite streamlined, similar interior lighting and seats.  Baltimore had one sample, Philadelphia two, I believe, and one or two other cities, which ones I have forgotten.  The double-end Red Arrow cars were not Brilliners, although the body was a true double-end version of them, because they had the same trucks and all electrical equipment that the 1931 cars.  (Similarly, the 1948 Red Arrow St. Louis cars were not true PCCs, with outside-frame drop-equalizer solid-wheel trucks and a control system also similar to the 1931 Brill cars.  But that does not seem to stop SF's MUNI, witih Brookfield's help, from making two of them to PCCs for SF's E Line.  A few difficulties have shown themselves, but they should be overcome.)

The 10 Brill Washington DC cars were similar to 10 from St. Louis, and preceded both PCCs and Brilliners.

I think they were carried on PRR books as MP-38s or MP-39s.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 2:45 PM

daveklepper
But that does not seem to stop SF's MUNI, witih Brookfield's help, from making two of them to PCCs for SF's E Line.

MUNI 1007 painted in PST (Red Arrow) colors has been on MUNI as a double-ended PCC since it was built in 1948.  The other "Philadelphia" cars are painted for either Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. or Philadelphia Transportation Co.

1055 in PTC paint was built as PTC 2122

1060 in PRT paint was built as PTC 1060

I was in San Francisco over the weekend.  Nice parade of PCCs on Market and the Embarcadero, with single-end cars covering F (Market and Wharves) and double-enders covering E(Embarcadero).  Also saw a couple of PCCs on J Church on pull-outs.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 14, 2019 8:36 AM

Branford got a gift of an operable Red Arrow St. Louis 1948 car, but needs to reguage the trucks.  Its two inoperable mates at Branford (Shore Line Trolley) were then sold to MUNI to be rebuilt as double-end PCCs, and either one or two will be painted for Red Arrow (possibly one for SEPTA).  The MUNI "Torpedo" PCC now painted for Red Arrow will then be repainted, possibly a MUNI scheme or Illinois Terminal or Dallas.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, November 15, 2019 6:13 AM

This giant western railroad system bought around a dozen interurban-style 60 ton electric locomotives from Baldwin-Westinghouse with the intention of using them on various lines.  At least one of them was delivered lettered for a system component more famous for having eight-wheel steam locomotives than electrics.  Name the big system, the component, and ID where it was supposed to be used.  All of the B-W motors ended up on the same system member.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, November 18, 2019 3:26 AM

Southern Pacific, and possibly one was lettered SP for use on the East Bay SP electrification while it was still SP before renamed Interurban Electric and passenger-only. Or it may have been intended for the Portland suburban electrfication, also labeled SP.   I imagine they all ended up on Pacific Electric, because that was the only one of the four SP subsidiaries with electrifications that had a substantial freight business handled with electric power.    

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, November 18, 2019 6:21 AM

It wasn't labelled SP.  Don't forget a lot of lines that were folded into SP still existed in 1912.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, November 18, 2019 10:48 AM

Were the eight-wheeled steam locomotives 2-6-0s or 4-4-0s?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, November 18, 2019 12:53 PM

daveklepper

Were the eight-wheeled steam locomotives 2-6-0s or 4-4-0s?

 

I'm sure some of both, but the 4-4-0's are better known.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 9:27 AM

Must be the Oregon and California for the Portland-area electrification.  Was not merged into the SP until sometime in the 1920s.  I assume the mus must have been similarly lettered originally.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:13 AM

I'm going to give you this one.  SP bought 10 B-W Class D's for Pacific Electric, one for the Peninsular Railway on the San Francisco peninsula, three for Oregon (which stayed there 'til 1941, when all three went to the Waterloo, Cedar Falls and Northern) and one more identical to the PE units except for a pantograph.  Intended for use on the Oakland Mole as a passenger switcher, it was used for about 18 months on SP's IE lines for freight service before getting sent to Pacific Electric as their 1611.  On the SP it was lettered Southern Pacific, but it was offically the property of the Central Pacific, still existing on paper, and the legal owner of the Oakland Mole.  Big CP initials showed ownership. CP continued to exist until 1959, when it was formally merged into SP along with T&NO, H&TC and other lines that had retained separate IDs to that point.

There's a picture of it on Getty Images, still in SP paint with CP letters, but operating on PE, with a PE pneumatic pole instead of its original pan.  Copyright prevents posting it here.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 3:29 AM

A large Eastern railroad system pioneered a specific type of modern steam lomotive, named and operated in a specific geographical region, and used their until dieselization, when many were used elsewhere on the system where routs had not yet been dieselized.  Identification noted on the tenders, the road name, was usually changed, repainted, when these locomotives were relocated.

There are several examples of this modern type in steam today, but none of these originals.

A much smaller similar system then bought near-duplicates of these originals for the same purpose on a parallel and competitive route, but made one accessory change that dramtically altered the appearance and reminded people of a somewhat controversial person that often made news headlines.

Both lines were among the first to be dieselized on their respective systems despite the success of this modern type of locomotive.

Name the systems and routes and locomotive type and why the repainting of road name on the first example.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 21, 2019 3:07 PM
Hints, not articulated, the real beginning of modern freight power
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, November 22, 2019 6:39 AM

Boston & Albany (New York Central) got the first 2-8-4 Berkshires in 1926 for use in the mountain range of the same name. Eventually a total of 55 in four classes were bought, all from Lima, between 1926 and 1930.  All were initially lettered for B&A.  B&A got NYC's FTs, FA1s and F3s during and immediately after WWII, and the Berkshires were sent off to other NYC districts, where the lettering on the tenders was changed to "New York Central".  B&A's Berkshires had the straight Elesco feedwater heater hung off the front of the boiler.

Neighboring Boston & Maine, also crossing the Berkshires, bought 25 in 1928 and 1929.  Because B&M preferred the arched Coffin feedwater heater, these engines had a distinct appearance.  (I haven't foud out who they were likened to, but I have a few candidates...) B&M's were less successful, partly because B&M used a different frame to accomodate some firebox changes and a different trailing truck booster arrangement.  This left the firebox partly supported by the rear of the trailing truck which resulted in many cracks and a tendency to derail when backing up Ten went to SP, seven to AT&SF in 1945.  B&M also was an early user of FT and F2 diesels.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, November 23, 2019 12:53 PM

John L. Lewis.  You got everything else right, so ask the next question please.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, November 27, 2019 4:07 AM

Still waiting for RC's question

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, November 27, 2019 6:44 AM

After New York Central terminated its contract with Pullman in 1958, it continued to operate sleeping cars until the Penn Central merger.  Timetable notes said "sleeping cars operated by New York Central unless otherwise noted."  NYC had dropped almost all interline operations (P&LE doens't count...) before the pullout.

There remained two Pullman "lines" on NYC trains after 1958, cars carried for connecting lines.  Name the two connecting railroads for Pullman cars.  Both of these were gone by the PC merger.

NYC also operated sleepers to two major cities with connecting railroads, with NYC supplying cars and attendants.  Both of these operations survived into the Penn Central, one of them lasting until Amtrak.  Name the cities and the connecting railroads.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 4,937 posts
Posted by Miningman on Wednesday, November 27, 2019 8:24 AM

Perhaps New York -Montreal connecting with the D&H and New York-Toronto with the TH&B/Canadian Pacific. 

New York Central definitely operated sleeping cars on these routes. Sorry cannot expand at the moment got to go to work.. later.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 4,937 posts
Posted by Miningman on Wednesday, November 27, 2019 8:57 PM
SLEEPING CAR, COACH AND DINING SERVICE
Unless otherwise indicated all cars, including Sleeping and Parlor Cars, are New York Central operated. Trains not shown carry Coaches only.

 

No. 61—(D. & H. No. 9)—Northbound.
No. 62—(D. & H. No. 10)—Southbound.
Montreal Limited—Daily.

 

Lounge Sleeping Car (Beverages)...New York and Montreal—Double Bedrooms. Buffet Breakfast Service.

Sleeping Cars...New York and Montreal—Double Bedrooms.

New York and Montreal—Roomettes, Double Bedrooms.

Dining Car...Whitehall and Montreal.

Coaches...New York and Montreal.

 

(Delaware & Hudson Notes)

EQUIPMENT
Northbound Trains
Coaches on all Passenger Trains

 

Montreal Limited—Daily
(Night trip) N.Y.C. 61—D. & H. 9

 

Coaches...New York to Montreal. Through Reclining Seats (Unreserved).

Sleeping Cars...New York to Montreal. (Open 10:00 p.m.) (Railroad owned)

13 Double Bedroom [610]

10 Roomette, 6 Double Bedroom [611]

10 Roomette, 6 Double Bedroom [612]

Dining Car...Whitehall to Montreal (Breakfast).

Sleeping Cars...New York to Montreal. (Open 10:00 p.m.) (Railroad owned)

6 Double Bedroom—Lounge [613]

10 Roomette, 6 Double Bedroom [614]

13 Double Bedroom (Except Saturday) [615]

 

Southbound Trains
Coaches on all Passenger Trains

 

Montreal Limited—Daily
(Night trip) D. & H. 10—N.Y.C. 62

 

Coaches...Montreal to New York. Through Reclining Seats (Unreserved).

Sleeping Cars...Montreal to New York. (Open 9:45 p.m.) (Railroad owned)

13 Double Bedroom [1033]

10 Roomette, 6 Double Bedroom [1032]

10 Roomette, 6 Double Bedroom [1031]

Dining Car...Montreal to Whitehall (Beverages-Supper).

Sleeping Cars...Montreal to New York. (Open 9:45 p.m.) (Railroad owned)

6 Double Bedroom—Lounge [1030]

10 Roomette, 6 Double Bedroom [1029]

13 Double Bedroom (Except Saturday) [1028]

 

Toronto - New York City

 

Here is the NYC on TH&B Trackage just having left Hamilton in the background and heading to Buffalo.

 

NYC 4042 EMD E8A leads TH&B 372 from Hamilton to Welland and Buffalo enroute to New York City. This equipment ran through from Buffalo to Toronto over the NYC to Welland, TH&B to Hamilton and CPR CNR Joint Section although the diesels were changed at Hamilton. Stoney Creek, Ont. 8/21/1963 Peter Cox

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 28, 2019 3:22 AM

The Central did have a through sleeper at one time Boston North Station to Chicago via the Minute Man B&M Boston - Troy, local NYC train to Albany, and I think the Commodore Vanderbilt to Chicago.  Possibly still running.   The Central carried C&O Pullman-operated sleepers Cincinnati - Chicago.  Possibly Southern sleepers to destinstions north of Cincinnati.

The through sleepers over the CP Chicago - Detroit - Toronto were railroad-operated.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Thursday, November 28, 2019 8:26 AM

The two post-1958 Pullman "lines" on the New York Central were joint with Southern (Chicago-Asheveille) and C&O (Chicago-Huntington WV year-round, others seasonally).  Because both lines got to Chicago via the Big Four, they used Central Station, not LaSalle.  The 6DBR-lounge on the Montreal Limited was the last sleeper-lounge operated out of Grand Central on former NYC routes. There was a seven month gap after 5/1/1971 before sleeping cars returned to Grand Central.

B&M's car was discontinued before WWII.  In fact, B&M passenger service to Troy ended in 1957.

I give it to Miningman for the quick answer, but you guys work it out.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 28, 2019 12:17 PM

Happy to give it to Miningman, unless he wishes to give it to me.

I rode B&M Boston - Troy and return to visit a girlfriend at Skidmore in 1952.  A friend at RPI let me flop in his dorm-room since his roommate was away.  He was also dating a Skidmore girl.  Also a railfan.  

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 4,937 posts
Posted by Miningman on Thursday, November 28, 2019 11:18 PM

The question:

Through service to Buffalo and New York from Toronto ended on a day schedule Apr. 25, 1964.

There was still a night sleeper service from Toronto to Buffalo and New York City but it was replaced by a new day time scheduled train by Canadian Pacific using 2 RDC's each day and to Buffalo only. The first of this new train #321 was on Oct 25, 1970 with RDC-4 # 9251 and RDC-2 #9103. 

Canadian Pacific citied a very specific reason for ending the sleeper car service with the then Penn Central and substituting their own RDC's on a day light run only. 

What was the reason given by Canadian Pacific for the switch over?

(Remarkably this lone train carried on through Penn Central, Conrail, then CP 100% takeover of the TH&B on who's track it ran on and Via Rail. It was discontinued Apr. 25, 1981.)

RDC-2 9115 and RDC-4 92?? Central Terminal Buffalo November 1971 Mike Harrington

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, November 29, 2019 1:53 AM

I believe the end of the use of Mott Haven as comisary and passenger-car cleaning and servicing had something to do with it.  PC transfered all this to the limited storage tracks at GCT.  This meant that servicing there was not up to CP standards, and cars would be returned to CP requiring more work.  Also turn-around time in NY was not reliably short enough for only two sleepers to handle the service.  It had been one Central and on CP.  Even two Centrals and one CP might have problems.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, November 29, 2019 8:09 AM

CP's decision came on the heels of PC's rebuildng of two ex-PRR Budd 10-6's specifically for the Toronto service, renaming Sturgeon Rapids and Scioto Rapids to Toronto Islands and Toronto Harbour (yes, with the "u").  The cars were released for service in September 1970.  I don't know if they were ever used for as intended.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 4,937 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, November 29, 2019 7:09 PM

Thats very interesting rcdrye. I think it may be a case of too little too late but surely Canadian Pacific was informed of this decision to re-outfit and rebuild 2 Sleepers for this service. Even added the 'u' eh? Now CP looks like a bunch of stinkers to me. 

The REAL and actual reason probably will never surface in public. CPR simply cut ALL passenger services as money losing troublesome nonsense by 1960. They gave it a good effort previous to that but handed over everything with glee to CN. 

The CPR had over 60 trains a day just on the Toronto big board and virtually overnight it went to 3, across the whole country coast to coast.

The Canadian was one of them that survived because killing that would have caused a public meltdown, wailing and knashing of teeth and pitchforks and torches crowds at corporate HQ. The government would audit them in and out for eternity and never allow its discontinuance. 

The seriously overcrowded train to Havelock, a local that became a commuter train without the commuter equipment was another. They tried and tried but to no avail to kill that one. Today it is a GO Train with proper equipment.

The third was that train to Buffalo/New York City. I suspect being International in nature there were some tricky legal issues involved. Apparently when it was sleepers it was well patronized but CP wanted out but couldn't get out all the way. So they tricked everyone with the RDC replacement, a daytime run, and leave the sleepers to its connection in Buffalo. This fulfilled any agreements at much less cost but was a dirty move. I rode that train and there were less than 8 people aboard the whole way and that on a weekend. I hear tell it ran empty many times arriving in Buffalo.

Anyway... the reason CP gave to the world and the people that decide these things was that Penn Central's equipment was "decrepit". 

This was probably very true and not in dispute as David K. has well given the reasons. Amazing how it fit their real agenda though. Seems Penn Central was in a race to make it right and lost the race.  

The "Buffalo" is much reduced in importance as depicted here leaving 
Toronto Union with a single A unit 4095 with REA express on the headend and old heavweights behind. 
6/1968 Mike Schafer/Joseph Testagrose Collection

Doesn't sound or look as if the CPR's equipment was much better. 

2857 rapidly accelerating eastbound from Sunnyside with "Buffalo". (No. 324 Sunday Only due at Sunnyside 9.04 A.M. which is 30 minutes later than No. 322 Daily ex Sunday. These trains carried sleepers originating in New York, Boston, Pittsburg and Cleveland). Note the lack of traffic on Lake Shore Boulevard West in "Toronto The Good" on this Sunday morning in November 1959. Dave Page

Above: Just before the great cull of all passenger service by the CPR.

So David Klepper  gets the answer correct as far as the 'official' story goes. 

Thanks big time to rcdrye for supplying the information that Penn Central tried in vain to fix this situation. Including the 'u', imagine that. That alone should have kept the service. Canadian Pacific gets a big black mark in my book for this snub. 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, November 30, 2019 8:48 PM

A large transit system bought PCC cars equipped for MU operation except for the couplers themselves.  Why?  They were never used for their intended mu opeation.  Why?  But they were equipped with couplers and used as mus when sold to a different system.  Where, what route and why, and what ended mu operation there?

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:07 AM

Big hints:  For their second ownder, the PCCs had to cross a border and have the gauge changed.  And the reason that actual mu operation ended was very similar to why the first never started.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 3,832 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:26 AM

Toronto (4' 10 7/8" gauge") got two groups of standard gauge PCCs from Cleveland.  The first group was built for Louisville was not originally wired for MU (all PCCs were MU capable, not all had the wiring).  Toronto added MU wiring, cut away the end skirsts, but did not install couplers at first.  The second group was built for Cleveland and was wired for MU, but did not have couplers.  The original intent was that the cars be used for extension routes from the Shaker Rapid Transit line, but the planned downtown connection was never completed.  The original Cleveland cars received couplers first, then the ex-Louisville cars.

Both Cleveland and Toronto, despite a long history of trailer operation, found the use of trains in postwar mixed street traffic added little to capacity, and led to more accidents and delays.  Toronto's MU operation was displaced by the Blair-Danforth subway.  The postwar MU streetcars were split up to replace prewar cars on remaining surface routes.

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