Classic Train Questions Part Deux (50 Years or Older)

750625 views
7148 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,411 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 8:13 AM

Correct, except that "extension routes from the Shaker...." (Shaker mostly mu PCC operated) should be intended for the east-west rapid transit lines operated similarly to Shaker Rapid Transit and including some rapid-transot-surface operation with some surface lines reaching dowtown via the rapid transit line.  The mu operation was never implemented because the east-west rapid transit line was built as a high-floor high-platform quasi-heavy rapid transit line instead.  But it does share some track with Shaker, and East 55th has both low platorms for Shaker and high for the "Rapid."   The MU operation in Toronto was a success, as it was on Shaker, Boston, and Pac.El., and was a stopgap until the Bloor-Danforth subway was build, just as much earlier Peter Witts with trailers were a stopgap until the Yong St. Subway, Toronto's 1st, was opened.

I cannot agree that trailer and/or mu operation does not increase capacity.  But often it does not increase capacity enough to rule-out real rapid transit and a dedicated RoW (and the gigantic expense of the needed construction!)..

Most modern light rail operations have some mu operation, and most try for as much dedicated RoW as psosible.

Your question, please.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,102 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:57 AM

Before UP's "City" trains moved from C&NW to Milwakee Road in 1955, only two of the through sleeping car routes between the east and west coast via Chicago used the same Chicago station for arrival and departure.  Name the railroad pairs.  One of the routes was among the first discontinued not long after the UP move.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, December 5, 2019 10:06 AM

rcdrye

Before UP's "City" trains moved from C&NW to Milwakee Road in 1955, only two of the through sleeping car routes between the east and west coast via Chicago used the same Chicago station for arrival and departure.  Name the railroad pairs.  One of the routes was among the first discontinued not long after the UP move.

 

One was PRR-CB&Q; the other one was, I believe, NYC-CR&P.

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,102 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Thursday, December 5, 2019 12:17 PM

Got them both. The NYC <-> Golden State cars were initially handled in the Chicagoan westbound and the Commodore Vanderbilt eastbound.The Broadway/CZ car lasted until 1958.

The other "coast-to-coast" route ran through New Orleans, where the "in" and "out" stations were a mile and a half apart, so different cars were used for each segment, with luggage transfer handled by a special representative.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, December 5, 2019 1:42 PM

The way I read the question, Chicago was the only intercahnge point. In the sixties, through New York-Los Angeles service through New Orleans was begun, using, of course, the NOUPT station in New Orleans. I took advantage of this service in 1968, riding in an SP car from Houston to Tuscaloosa. In 1980, I rode from New Orleans to Los Angeles in a Southern car that was in this service.

New question: The Southern Railway System had many miles of road with ATS, and almost all of the lines with ATS were connected at various points. But--there was a 40.3 mile section that was not connected to any other Southern ATS equipped section. Where was this section, and why was ATS installed there?

In 1966, the maximum speed allowed on this line was 45 mph.

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,102 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, December 6, 2019 9:04 AM

Was that the section between Hayleyville and Jasper Alabama used by the IC to get to Birmingham?  From what I can see on a map it's a pretty curve-heavy piece of railroad.  IC used ATS which I think was basically compatible with Southern's system.  The MAS there may be due to the "clear or restricting" characteristic of some ATS systems, where a penalty application could result in really bad train handling on curved or hilly stretches.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Friday, December 6, 2019 10:45 AM

Yes, I have long had the impression that ATS was installed there because the IC had trackage rights; I could see no other reason.

 

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,102 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, December 6, 2019 6:23 PM

IC's ATS was similar to C&NW's - in fact Amtrak used ex-IC locomotives to lead on Zephyr detours out of Chicago in the 1970s.  Eventually the "Cab Signal from Hell" was developed that could be used on a variety of ATS, ATC and cab signal systems.  PTC hasn't made things any simpler.

In the early 1960s this western railroad cut back the route of its longest-running name train by several miles, because a turntable was no longer needed for a steam locomotive.  Name the railroad and the train, which lasted until Amtrak.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,411 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, December 7, 2019 12:32 PM

Poassibly the SP Overland Lmtd, Oakland Mole to Oakland diwntown? 

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,102 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Saturday, December 7, 2019 7:37 PM

Oakland Mole is only a bit more than a mile from 16th St.  Oakland Mole was dropped in 1957 anf never had a turntable.  If it's any help, the train involved was merged with a commuter schedule.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,411 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 8, 2019 9:10 AM

Oh, the SP's Del Mar, if my menory of the name is correct.  South from the 3rd and Townsend San Francisco terminal to some point toward Los Angeles, possibly on a branch to the Pacific Ocean coast where the main line is still somewhat inland, and the cutback would have been at the southern endpoint, since 3rd and Townsend remained until after the early 1960s.  It served as a commuter run even before merged into the commuter schedules, and was particularly well-patornized in the summer.  Was Gilroy the revised southern end-point?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,102 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Sunday, December 8, 2019 1:02 PM

SP's Del Monte was cut back to Monterey (from Pacific Grove) in 1963.  Pacific Grove was where the turntable was, along with a small storage yard where Lucius Beebe's private car stayed during his visits to the Del Monte resort in Pebble Beach. By 1963 the likelihood of steam subbing for the regularly assigned dual-ended GP9s was zero.  At the same time, 77 and 78 were merged with Commute schedules 126 and 141, dropping and picking up cars in San Jose.  I paid 50 cents for the privilege of riding the last run of 126 from Castroville to Monterey on April 30, 1971.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,411 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 8, 2019 3:12 PM

When the B&O owned the suburbsn mu-electric opeerated railway on Staten Island, New York City's Borough of Richmond, three passenger lines operated out of the St. George Ferry Terminal, of which only the line to Totenville, across the harbor's bay from New Jersey's Perth Amboy.  (Is a passenger ferry still operated?)  The end of one of the other lines had as a terminal station a very unique one, the only one of its kind ever, combining two charactersitics that made it unique.  Name the line, the station name, and the two characteristics that made it unique.

An other information about SIRT will be welcome.  What made their commuter mus unique among railroad-owned mus?

Where else did some of these mus end up running?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,659 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 8, 2019 8:06 PM

Is this the station with one platform only about 20' long, built so that the railroad wouldn't run across a Vanderbilt-owned farm?  With electric lights, but no switch for them (it was located in the next station up)  Put in as part of the electrification project, very late as these things go, mid-Twenties.

I'll leave it for others to fill in the simple blanks if this is it.

I still think it is one of the great failures of railroading that B&O/PRR did not get this line extended across the Narrows, either via the original bridge idea or the tunnel that the electrification would facilitate.  Everything else needed for heavy freight transportation around the New York bottlenecks was in place, and a direct connection from Bay Ridge to 'all points south' across the Narrows and the Arthur Kill would be greatly and definitively used, probably in preference to any Poughkeepsie Bridge route going to the parts of New England generating profitable traffic or demand.

With proper clearance it is also a pretty interesting option for Auto-Train service to either the New York area or 'through' to New England gathering points well outside the New York congestion and the New York geography that makes for so many bridges and tolls...

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,411 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:17 PM

If my memory is correct, it was only ten feet long, long enoiugh for just one door, at the end of the head inbound car to load and unload.  High platform.  You hsve not named the station, and you or someone else might answer.  I actually used the statin once.  Also the name of the route.  Hint:  The name of the route was the next station, which far more people used.

I agree with you about a bridge or a tunnel between st. George and Bay Ridge.  It's a sensible idea today.  It could have both third rail dc and overhead catenary and be used both for freight and to connect the Totenville line to the Forth Avenue subway, which does have the capacity to handle the additonal service.  Freight Midnight - 6AM, subway service otherwise.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,659 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, December 9, 2019 2:55 AM

Dave, I'm purposely leaving the station names and route 'on the beach' as it were for others to find and take.  They'll have more fun and will know better questions to ask in turn.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,659 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, December 9, 2019 2:57 AM

Dave, I'm purposely leaving the station names and route 'on the beach' as it were for others to find and take.  They'll have more fun and will know better questions to ask in turn.

I will say this: when I found that Robin Road overpass in satellite imagery a couple of years ago, I started thinking of ways to get a house built on it...

And the stuff with rail across the Narrows is still far more relevant than it was even in the Nineties.  The Arthur Kill bridge was heavily renovated and put back in service only a little more than a decade ago.  Stops along the route in New Jersey, I think as far as connection with NJT at Cranfird, were fairly recently proposed (although heaven knows how seriously).  As you note a subway connection offers all sorts of interesting possibilities although I think it would still be wise to have something that capital-intensive be fully stack-compatible (in no small part to give the Port of Elizabeth direct intermodal access to and from the extended regions to the east and north via an otherwise in-place and relatively underutilized (by freight at least) connection up and out of the whole New York bottleneck...

As I recall, the deepest part of the Ambrose Channel, nearly 100', is right at the bridge, in the region of the Narrows where the historical tunnel crossing from The Line I Do Not Name would go.  This is supposed to be dredged to facilitate container ships with 60' draft, so a tube with adequate safety clearance and what would probably be pushing 30' tube diameter with track in the bottom 5'-6' height of chord, might be needed.  Question is whether that part could be laid in sections like some of the BART tunnels in a dredged cross trench and anchored like one of the 'inverted-bridge' designs instead of needing to be so deep it wouldn't 'breathe' with tidal action as the PRR tunnels did.  Then Alameda Corridor trenching at nominal low-grade profile from there to Bay Ridge?  Following some of the 'elevated' expressway footprints as much of the way as possible?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,102 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, December 9, 2019 7:35 AM

The South Beach line ended at the Wentworth Avenue station. There appear to have been two tracks there, but only one had third rail, with the short platform on the east side of the tracks.  South Beach station was a short ways north of Wentworth Avenue.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,659 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, December 9, 2019 9:31 AM

The thing I still want to know is the point of extending service like this in 1925, at the time of electrification.  Was this some kind of layover track for equipment that got a convenience platform?  Doesn't seem like a first step toward a Narrows approach but if I recall correctly there was a road and rail bridge proposal around this time, and setting up ROW for it is precisely the sort of thing that Vanderbilts might impede eminent domain on...

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,102 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, December 9, 2019 10:11 AM

It was the stub "change ends" track for the South Beach line.  Not clear to me if the station was open to the public.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,411 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, December 9, 2019 2:01 PM

It was used by the public, including regular commuters.  The station even had a sign with its name. The stairs from the platform led to a street for which the station was named.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,659 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, December 9, 2019 6:12 PM

daveklepper
It was used by the public, including regular commuters.

Think of it as being 'just a little further along' than South Beach station, for those commuters who'd find that valuable.  No need for a full platform, or even platform both sides.

Remember the electric lights?  The little platform had them, but the physical switch was all the way back in South Beach.

The thing I always thought presaged the 'intended purpose' of the line was that there was a second track at Wentworth, but it wasn't electrified.  I never thought to look, though, to see if it had periodic longer ties ... if I'm right in speculating, it would.  The only conceivable reason to engage in expensive electrification of the South Beach branch first would be relatively quick follow-on to a Narrows crossing of some electrified kind, with all the advantages that have been discussed.

Not quite the magnitude of the 'lost opportunities' to bridge the Sound at Orient Point or the Straits between the pieces of Michigan, both of which were within the realm of possibility even in 1893.  But still a big one.  And without the silliness involved with the 1834 compact and all that in bridging from New Jersey to New York!

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,411 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, December 9, 2019 10:38 PM

The entire B&O eletrification of the SIRT was with the intent of a St. George - Bay Ridge tunnel, to be built at NYCity's expense, to connect the SIRT with the BMT.  In fact, the tunnel stubs leading to such a tunnel were included in the construction of the 4th Avenue subway and still exist today, just south of those leading to the Sea Beach line, the N, where it leaves the 4th Avenue Subway south of 69th Street Station.

The SIRT MUs were based on the BMT steel standards, and some ended up to end a B-Division car shortage on the Culver line before it was replaced by the 9th Avenue - Ditmas shuttle some time after the D began running south of Church Avenue to Coney Island.  (The D was first extended to Brooklyn on the Culver, now served by the F, then the Brighton, now the B, and then the West End, whcih had been the B and before Chryste Street, 1968, the T and before that the 3.)

You named the street, Wentworth Avenue, so you ask the next question.

The SIRT cars differed from the BMT standards in that they had the dooir configurations of the IRT low-Vs, end vestibutes with engineer's controls, typical railroad mu practdice, and center doors.   But the dimensions, and electrical and mechancial equipment were similar if not identical.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,450 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 1:53 AM

Source: http://www.gretschviking.net/GOSIRTPagePartTwo.htm

The station was probably one of the smallest of its kind, but still there was a bench inside the tiny waiting room. Very considerate!

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,659 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 2:12 AM

rcdrye, that means YOU.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,411 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 5:44 AM

No, unless the Moderator overrules me, I say Jones now gets the award, with that wonderful photograph that shows just what the Wentworth Avenue station was, really refresing my memory.  And yes, most South Beach trains were single cars, weekday rush hour being the exceptions.  Even on sunny summer  Sundays, when the beach traffic would almost fill the single car.

Seats were walkover two-and-two, like most commuter cars, but the upholstery was the yellow rattan as typical for New York City subway cars of the period.  Engineer and conductor on the single car.

That picture is a wonderful holiday present for me.  Of course maybe someday I'll find one that I may have taken.  Sill possible.

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,411 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:09 AM

That whole website is a wonderful present.  Everthing you could possibly want to know and see about the South Beach branch.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,102 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:14 AM

Go, Overmod!

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,659 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 8:48 AM

OH no, I was careful.  Go back and look.  You actually typed the word 'Wentworth' first.

if you don't want it then yes, I say let Jones1945 have it for the picture...

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,102 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 9:20 AM

Overmod
Home » Classic Trains » Forums » General Discussion (Classic Trains) New Reply Fill out the form below to create a new reply to the thread RE: Classic Train Questions Part Deux (50 Years or Older). Overmod wrote the following post 31 minutes ago:

Good Idea - we haven't had one from Jones1945 in a while... Jones1945?

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