PRR Fleet of Modernism (1938-1947) integrated discussion

20354 views
128 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, February 3, 2020 7:47 AM

Feb 2020: Base on information provided by Coach Yard and photo evidence from Hagley internet archive. Updated the total number of betterment cars with individual car numbers provided on the front page of this post.

 

21---PRR-built lightweight and rebuilt cars for the Broadway Limited (1937)

2----Class BM70nb Mail car Nos.6529,8616 (For the Broadway Limited)

2----Class B70 Baggage car Nos.6051,6054 (For the Broadway Limited)

2----D70 Dining car Nos.8018, ? (For the Broadway Limited)

66---P70kr 56 seats coach Nos.4244-4309 (1940)

50---P70gsr 68 seat coach Nos.4194-4243 (Single Windows, May-July 1942)

50---P70gsr 56 seats coach Nos.4310-4359 (Paired Windows, May-July 1942) 

46---Betterment Pullman HW Sleepers (July 1939 – Jan 1940)

3---- *D70dr Dormitory-Kitchen HW Nos.8019,8021,8023,8025

6---- *D70cr Full Dining Car HW Nos.8020,8022,8024,8026, 8028, 8034

2---- *D70er Kitchen-Lunch Counter Car HW Nos.8027,8033

2---- D70asr Nos.4439, 4457

1---- PLC70r Lounge-cafe 

2---- PB70e Baggage-buffet #4931, 4950

9---- POC70r Conversion of P70s to observation cars Nos. 1120-1125,1131,?,?

3---- PB70f Combine Coach-baggage (Nos.5100-5112)

3---- PDB70r, PDB70ar, PDB70a Convert of PB70 to Combine lounge/dormitory/baggage cars Nos.6704-6706

3-----Conversion of PB70 combines to PB36

*Twin Unit Dining Car 

Total: 273 approx.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, February 1, 2020 1:25 AM

Overmod

 

It was pretty clear to me that there were folks at the Central who were 'in tune' with the spirit of that first eastbound run of the second Super Chief consist...

Not only did they cut their little publicity show short about as soon as every seat was filled ... they ran the thing artificially fast en route.  Doubtless to 'make the news' with a timing that would stick in people's minds as what to expect when they took the production train...

Amazing info! I am not familiar with ATSF's streamliner, thus I didn't know that the second lightweight Super Chief's first eastbound run was one year after they entered service. Many say the inauguration of the PRR Trail Blazer caught the management of New York Central off guard, but it seems to me that the leader of the Green Team (well the Pacemaker consist was painted in two tones "Pacemaker Green" in this case) reacted briskly. Maybe they were calculating and manipulative but these are essential characters of outstanding enterprisers. Good game well played, but the Green Team failed to turn the table for the Pacemaker, at least for the first two years.

Imagine how many railfan was actually looking for the 2nd Super Chief consist instead of the "old-school heavyweight" temporary consist of the Pacemaker but the folks were included in the publicity "hype" by the media, including the article in the Railway Age. Let alone we would never know how many patrons were "invited" by both RRs to take the first train (and get off the next station!) for free, how many journalists were "invited" to write an article about both trains and to not mentioning their shortcomings.

Money was tight for both teams, the establishment of the PRR's Fleet of Modernism involved a lot of good looking betterment cars, rebuilt or repainted of heavyweight equipment, which helped PRR to save tons of money. It was a smart investment, and it was smart to not inform NYCRR about the new all-coach train until the last minute. I believe that if NYCRR had enough time, they would have ordered new cars and created something like the Empire State Express; in fact,  NYC assigned about new 6 lightweight coaches constructed by Pressed Steel Car Company once the all-coach streamliner was proven a success.

It seems that the customer didn't really care about how "fast" the Pacemaker was, because it was an overnight train! The schedule of the Trail Blazer actually let the passenger had more time to sleep and have breakfast before getting off the train! Yes, one more hour to have breakfast and dress up! This was a win-win situation for the patron and PRR. IIRC I have seen the menu of breakfast on the 1939 version Trail Blazer but I need to confirm that, if it wasn't available in the dining car (I can't see why not), it should be the lounge car provided it. 

 

 

 

 

D70ER, D70CR, the Twin Unit Diner. 

 

Overmod

Much more likely that it was doubleheaded K4s competing against J3as and Niagaras, a great deal of the time.  It is hard to beat an 80"-drivered twelve-coupled articulated unless your railroad supports very long stretches of sustained high speed...

Now, I am tempted to wonder what two K4s rebuilt by Lima with poppets and vastly-improved superheaters might have done if balanced and suspension-modified to make T1-comparable (or at least N&W J-comparable) speed.  Of course we know that would rapidly become self-defeating with the great majority of PRR's coaches...

 

There is a video on YouTube showing the Jeffersonian powered by streamlined K4s doubleheaded with the unstreamlined one, very cool to see the doubleheaded K4s traveling at 90mph with 14 heavyweight betterment cars behind. 

Doubleheaded K4s ("4-6-2-4-6-2"?) was common even after all T1s were put into service but I did find some photos of the "poppet valve geared" #5399 hauling the Trail Blazer alone in different time period, maybe she was handling the sections of Trail Blazer (Could be as short as 9 cars).IIRC the #5399 could handle 1000 tons train alone and hit 93mph.  But outside the PRR race track between Crestline and Fort Wayne, the average speed of the trains was slow enough to let the passenger sleep, until the passenger saw the GG1 or sunlight...

Other guests including the PRR S2 direct-drive steam turbine and T1 prototype. I almost forgot that the PRR S2 was also another engine that could replace doubleheaded K4s on heavy trains! 1945 was the best year for me, S1, S2, T1 prototype could be found powering Chicago's crack trains. 

K4s leading the Trail Blazer:
 
 
 
 

Eastbound was 15hrs 25mins in 1952, the Pacemaker was the same, thanks to the magic power of diesel. EMC promised a solid 15 hours schedule for the proposed dieselized Broadway Limited as early as 1936. I have heard that if NYCRR pushing the limit of the diesel, 14 hours is possible on the Water Level Route.

If parallel universe is a fact not theory, PRR accepted the offer from EMC and operated the Broadway Limited with EMC E units in at least one "alternative universe". That might have boosted the ridership dramatically but we probably will never know! I think EMC's rendering of PRR's diesel engine was quite attractive...

   

We got the "Train of Tomorrow", but how about the "Track of Tomorrow"?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,499 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, January 31, 2020 11:51 AM

Jones1945
Compelling indeed! Not only the Pacemaker of NYC leaving earlier but the total running time was at least one hour shorter than the Trail Blazer of PRR,,,

It was pretty clear to me that there were folks at the Central who were 'in tune' with the spirit of that first eastbound run of the second Super Chief consist...

Not only did they cut their little publicity show short about as soon as every seat was filled ... they ran the thing artificially fast en route.  Doubtless to 'make the news' with a timing that would stick in people's minds as what to expect when they took the production train...

... In the early postwar years, it was the PRR T1, streamlined or poppet valve-geared K4s #5399 "fighting against" NYC's S-1/S-2 or destreamlined Hudsons.

Much more likely that it was doubleheaded K4s competing against J3as and Niagaras, a great deal of the time.  It is hard to beat an 80"-drivered twelve-coupled articulated unless your railroad supports very long stretches of sustained high speed...

Now, I am tempted to wonder what two K4s rebuilt by Lima with poppets and vastly-improved superheaters might have done if balanced and suspension-modified to make T1-comparable (or at least N&W J-comparable) speed.  Of course we know that would rapidly become self-defeating with the great majority of PRR's coaches...

Very romantic in American railroading history when the countries best or newest machine competing for the same market.

Except that everyone by that point knew true high speed was essentially synonymous with Diesels and motor trains by that point.  NYC recognized this very early, first with Dieseliners and then with the time reductions that only diesels made possible -- even a C1a with no fuel stop would find a 15h45' carding difficult.  PRR recognized it too, but had trouble getting diesels that would stand the required pace on the existing ROW.  And by the time they did... it was essentially 'game over' as the game was worth playing.  The 1958 Broadway proved that dramatically if it had not been fully clear before.

The westbound schedule of Trail Blazer shortened to 15hrs 30mins in the early 1950s. 

Remember that this would include an hour for the time change; what was the eastbound carding?  Even so, you'd likely only achieve this practically with diesels or the equivalent.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:44 PM

Overmod

Highly amused at the relative time of the two trains, and the very different approach to handling them.

NYC sends the train out early -- really, as early as possible given the fixed time of the Century's departure -- and runs the thing on accelerated Century time (compare the number of stops and dwell involved for the coach train vs. the Century, and the added time doubtless involved in transiting Cleveland with a couple of engine changes) to get in with under-16-hour running (net of the time change).  

Then look how carefully the prose is crafted to draw the eye away from how slow the PRR train was, both as carded and as run.  It would be interesting to see what power PRR used west of Harrisburg on this train ... and I note that even with the longer time, PRR was carrying substantially fewer passengers, by what looks suspiciously like a full coach-load or more.

Compelling indeed! Not only the Pacemaker of NYC leaving earlier but the total running time was at least one hour shorter than the Trail Blazer of PRR, but surprisingly the Trail Blazer carried about 10% more passenger than the Pacemaker at least in the first two years (132000:114000 in 1st Year, 175000:167000 in 2nd Year) in contrast to the maiden run (July 28, 1939) of both trains (385:350 Westbound, 285:240 Eastbound)!

The NYC used heavyweight/betterment cars on the Pacemaker but provide a faster schedule. The PRR exclusively constructed at least two completely "new" consists for the Trail Blazer with rebuilt betterment cars but a little bit slower schedule compared to the NYC all-coach train. I think both trains were doing great during WWII but I do want to know which one carried more passengers after July 1941. I have seen 14-car consist of Trail Blazer in photographs but hardly can find a photo of the Pacemaker. I probably need to spend more time on NYCRR's book or people put more focus on the Century train.

Overmod
Anyone have the comparison timings for the two trains in the postwar years from late 1945 to about mid-1947?  Or any west-end timing splits using the S1 or S2 as power?

I want to know as well! In the early postwar years, it was the PRR T1, streamlined or poppet valve-geared K4s #5399 "fighting against" NYC's S-1/S-2 or destreamlined Hudsons. Very romantic in American railroading history when the countries best or newest machine competing for the same market. The westbound schedule of Trail Blazer shortened to 15hrs 30mins in the early 1950s. 

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,499 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:59 AM

Highly amused at the relative time of the two trains, and the very different approach to handling them.

NYC sends the train out early -- really, as early as possible given the fixed time of the Century's departure -- and runs the thing on accelerated Century time (compare the number of stops and dwell involved for the coach train vs. the Century, and the added time doubtless involved in transiting Cleveland with a couple of engine changes) to get in with under-16-hour running (net of the time change).  

Then look how carefully the prose is crafted to draw the eye away from how slow the PRR train was, both as carded and as run.  It would be interesting to see what power PRR used west of Harrisburg on this train ... and I note that even with the longer time, PRR was carrying substantially fewer passengers, by what looks suspiciously like a full coach-load or more.

Anyone have the comparison timings for the two trains in the postwar years from late 1945 to about mid-1947?  Or any west-end timing splits using the S1 or S2 as power?

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 8:11 PM

1


 

 

 

2


 

 

3


 

 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 12:58 AM

daveklepper

Jones1945, way back on this thread you gave the 1946 total number of passenger service cars for the PRR as 3416.   Did that include MU electrics and doodlebugs?

Dave, this is the only source of that figure I can find:

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, October 27, 2019 11:51 PM

daveklepper

Jones1945, way back on this thread you gave the 1946 total number of passenger service cars for the PRR as 3416.   Did that include MU electrics and doodlebugs? 

daveklepper, I am going to post the source if I can find it in my archive. IIRC it is a chart will brief detail.  

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,861 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, October 27, 2019 3:18 AM

Jones1945, way back on this thread you gave the 1946 total number of passenger service cars for the PRR as 3416.   Did that include MU electrics and doodlebugs?

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, October 20, 2019 12:15 PM

Overmod

I believe you will find there'd be no reason for 'Pullman' to provide such a thing; a number of railroads (wasn't New Haven one of them?) provided parlor-car service quite happily thenselves.  This might be thought of as an early kind of 'business class' amenity upgrade ... but note that Pullman could have demanded 'space charge' of some kind for coach passengers to use the thing, and coach passengers... would all camp out in there ASAP if there were no protection to keep them out (or at least move them out if they were getting drinks or snacks in there).  (I think this also clarifies somewhat why Pullman had so little 'chair' service...)

Yes, that why I think PRR made of wise decision to not allow Pullman Company took a share of the spoils. This probably explained why there wasn't any Parlor-car service on the Trail Blazer. Besides, the passenger who wanted better service than a reclining seat could take the General, Broadway, Admiral, Manhattan Limited and named train of NYCRR and B&O...

 

Overmod

So in order for two-class travel to work, you'd need the same sort of Chinese-wall protection between the main part of the coach train and the 'parlor car' that you'd have with a combination coach-and-Pullman setup.  That implies either careful vigilance at the vestibule of a 'parlor-obs' at the rear (so that the parlor folks could get to the food facilities, etc.) or placing the parlor near the front where it might 'feel' more surge and other effects if present.

We can take the Southern Pacific Coast Daylight as reference, the parlor coach and parlor-obs were always attached at the end of the consist. First-class, tourist and coach tickets are all honored on the train, but parlor cars are restricted to first-class tickets, plus a nominal seat charge. So the whole consist was divided into 5 sections: coaches, triple unit diner in the middle, coaches, the tavern bar, parlor car + parlor-obs. As a railfan, I wish the Trail Blazer had a fabulous consist like the SP Coast Daylight, especially the tavern bar. But in reality, there were many other choices provided service better than any type of seats for the Chicago to New York LD trains market.

Overmod

Jones: something that comes to mind is Yourkevitch's nearly-built proposal to put the equivalent of a Trail Blazer on the North Atlantic run in the mid-Fifties.  That had much the same opportunity to add 'luxury' -- hell, the original White Star economic model for the three 'big ships' wasn't really all that far from it -- but note that it didn't happen, in part because the DH Comets showed us how the future was roaring up on us, and American aircraft then clinched it.

MInd you, I'm still bitter we never got supersonic transport aircraft, so I'm one of the wrong people to ask about substitutes for luxury transportation commanding all the extra luxury prices.  Think of a 20th-Century Red Carpet service for a 2707, which is entirely thinkable, and you'd never go back to even water-level sleepers again.

Now, back to the combinooses.  (Hint.)

I remember we discussed the Yourkevitch's proposed "Sea Coach" transatlantic ocean liner, and many other proposed liner that never built! When I was a kid, I drew a lot of fantasy huge 4-stack oceanliner, many of them had Axe Bow or Plumb Bow, I just found ships with plumb bow looks cool.  We still have many Cruiseliner around us but I don't like modern styling.

The Boeing 2707 was probably the only airplane that I am really interested in...... 2071.63mph! Traveling from New York to Chicago would have been like downloading an app or watching a TV commercial breaks. Supersonic travel can be romantic for a longer route, like the US to the EU, India, Asia. To cut the expenses for both sides, Airline and the passenger, airline meal wouldn't have provided, but we could have made it up with Supersonic airplane stunt or airplane race for our passenger's amusement. No?

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 7:09 PM

 

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=5117235

RR Picture Archives updated some photos of the "streamlined PRR K4s (simplified version) by Raymond Loewy himself" or "Raymond Loewy Streamlined K4s V2.0" from the 40-page booklet "A Picture Study Of The K-4S" by Harry P. Albrecht issued Sep 1976. (43 years ago!), check it out if you like. Smile

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, September 23, 2019 4:28 PM

P70kr and P70r Lounge-cafe car used on the East Wind

 

Source: Divison Point

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, September 14, 2019 1:57 PM

Overmod

Why have we not mentioned what is probably the most famous example of the principle, the ATSF Turquoise Room?  Admittedly this is a bit different in being installed on the lower deck of a car where limited windows can be provided, so makes something of an advantage out of a necessity: personally, I like having full windows with passing scenery to one side or another and would have to get used to diner booths, but from what I've read the layout and not just the high service level of the Turquoise Room were advantages.  

Wayne's criticism is valid: the Turquoise Room got around it by being the equivalent of 'a private dining room' where everyone more or less entered and left together, or at least didn't mind shuffling around to let someone in or out dinette-style.

While we are on the subject of dinettes, you will notice sections of them in many fine restaurants, as they remove many of the problems of 'open' seating with chairs.  This would be true of contemporary (early '30s and on) dining cars to a significant extent, but at the expense of substantially fixing the 'track' of the seating and the table size.  I would think the arrangement particularly well suited to buffet or 'hotel' car service.

I respectfully appreciate your input as always, Prof. Overmod. I was thinking quite a lot of successful dining cars of various railroads before I created the first post that with a drawings of PRR #4501 attached; my list including the Lark Club of the Southern Pacific, the twin-unit dining car and the lounge car "The Century Club" on the 20th Century Limited of NYCRR and the fabled B&O's dining facilities. That's was why I reviewed the dining cars of PRR in the Fleet of Modernism era. The dinette is one of the first few things that a passenger has visual and physical contact with it after entering the dining car, and we know the importance of the first impression. 

Glad to see you mention the legendary ATSF Turquoise Room in this thread because all these renowned dining facilities you and I mentioned had a common point, they were all superior to any dining facilities the PRR, "The Standard Railroad of the World", could ever offer. As a PRR fan, I am still feeling regret that when people discuss dining cars and services in the golden age of America railroading, Pennsy's dining amenities are always ignored or even mocked by many. Even the trump card of PRR, the Broadway Limited, offered decent food and service in its single dining car, it is always considered not as excellent as the dining facilities and services on NYC, B&O's trains. I do wish the Turquoise Room was a PRR thing, instead of a railroad that I have no chemistry with it. Pennsy had more than enough resources to provide outstanding dining service which could have outshined every single railroad in the world, but it wasn't the case. 

When I studying the history of the Southern Pacific Daylight train, the deep involvement, passion and professionalism of President Angus D. McDonald and his development team, including his wife who did the color matching for the interior of the train really impressed me. I wish the PRR Trail Blazer had a three-unit dining car like the SP Daylight, the Broadway Limited had a famous club on the rail like SP The Lark (Club), which had plenty of room for Raymond Loewy to show off his talent. 

 

Overmod

I should probably mention that in the early '70s I did some Amfleet full diner designs 'on spec', one of which not only had fold-down tables but fold-up banquettes (complete with cushions that inflated with reservoir air!) so that the car could easily 'double' as a disco -- remember those? -- after hours, with theatre lighting in the roof panels.  Ah, those were the days when more seemed possible than today!

Speaking of possibilities of limited space, I guess you would find this video interesting:

24 Rooms in 1 (344 square feet apartment)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB2-2j9e4co#t=01m11s

Still have plenty of space to place the foldable mirror ball in this room. Foldable seats for a private concert. But where to store my cello? Coffee

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,499 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 13, 2019 11:24 AM

Jones1945
New York Central used a similar layout since the Mercury train, I think it worked well o

Why have we not mentioned what is probably the most famous example of the principle, the ATSF Turquoise Room?  Admittedly this is a bit different in being installed on the lower deck of a car where limited windows can be provided, so makes something of an advantage out of a necessity: personally, I like having full windows with passing scenery to one side or another and would have to get used to diner booths, but from what I've read the layout and not just the high service level of the Turquoise Room were advantages.  

Wayne's criticism is valid: the Turquoise Room got around it by being the equivalent of 'a private dining room' where everyone more or less entered and left together, or at least didn't mind shuffling around to let someone in or out dinette-style.

While we are on the subject of dinettes, you will notice sections of them in many fine restaurants, as they remove many of the problems of 'open' seating with chairs.  This would be true of contemporary (early '30s and on) dining cars to a significant extent, but at the expense of substantially fixing the 'track' of the seating and the table size.  I would think the arrangement particularly well suited to buffet or 'hotel' car service.

I should probably mention that in the early '70s I did some Amfleet full diner designs 'on spec', one of which not only had fold-down tables but fold-up banquettes (complete with cushions that inflated with reservoir air!) so that the car could easily 'double' as a disco -- remember those? -- after hours, with theatre lighting in the roof panels.  Ah, those were the days when more seemed possible than today!

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, September 13, 2019 9:11 AM

Flintlock76

Interesting, but the photo of the dining car doesn't seem to match the diagrams.

At any rate, the seating arrangement of the diner in the photo looks pretty unworkable.  While it seems easier for the waitstaff it's not so good for the passengers.  Look at how many people would have to leave their seats for one (or two) to leave the car.  Maybe three on a bench seat maximum, but not for the five (or more) pictured. 

The table in the diagrams is probably too small for two passengers, suitable for a lounge car but not a diner. Maybe that was the reason why the table was extended in the pics. New York Central used a similar layout since the Mercury train, I think it worked well on the 20th Century Limited as well. 

 

More personal space, legroom, more room to avoid eye contact. ConfusedWink

 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 3,691 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, September 12, 2019 1:12 PM

Interesting, but the photo of the dining car doesn't seem to match the diagrams.

At any rate, the seating arrangement of the diner in the photo looks pretty unworkable.  While it seems easier for the waitstaff it's not so good for the passengers.  Look at how many people would have to leave their seats for one (or two) to leave the car.  Maybe three on a bench seat maximum, but not for the five (or more) pictured.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:47 AM

I saw this photo of the "state of the art" D85R dining car of 1939, PRR 4501, in a back issue of the Keystone Magazine which shows the unique interior design of this Budd built dining car:

Chuck Blardone Collection

 

 

 www.Railfan.net

 

 

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net

The dining car layout of D82R (#4500,#4501), with two rolls of  horizontal dining table seats separated by the corridor in the middle, was probably an early attempt of PRR to increase the number of tables for passengers who didn't want to din with strangers on the same table, an idea suggested by the traveler during marketing research, but I forgot which RR conducted that research. It kinds of reminds me of the betterment (HW) diner that Raymond Loewy designed for the Broadway Limited. A similar layout could be found on the Tavern Cars of Southern Pacific Daylight trains built by Pullman Standard in 1937-1939, some B&O's 12-wheel betterment dining cars with interior designed by Olive Dennis and NYCRR's crack superstar trains. I wonder which RR was the first to adopt such a design? Hmm

This style of  layout slightly increased the area of each table seat; On #4501, partitions that separated the three sections of the dining car improved privacy for the passenger (It was a PRR dining car, so I don't think it was designed for anything related to racial segregation) Sound like a distinguished design, no wonder they were seen in the consist of the "General". 

However, Pennsy's post-war new dining car order didn't use the same design anymore (except some coffee shop/lounge car), more modern dining car like the D85C, D85R were using the traditional "classroom" layout again. Was there an exact reason for the change? (or it was merely because the post-war management was too busy to order something that beautiful which could have added values to overnight LD train service? 

Please enlighten me!please!CoffeeSmile, Wink & Grin

 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, March 1, 2019 4:50 AM

Those comments on IMDb about this movie are mostly right, watching the original film is like eating a pizza baked in the microwave oven in the next morning after an overnight party. Pizza 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 18,114 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, February 28, 2019 1:33 PM

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:53 AM

Dear all,

According to "The Car of Pullman" by Joe Welsh. P121-122, Mr. Welsh mentioned that public reaction to the lightweight equipment of 1938 of both PRR and NYC were so positive and successful that, quote from P.121:

" ...PRR take delivery of 84 new Pullman through mid-1939, with some variation of the floor plan...".

Another quote from P.122 "... So successful were the 1938 re-equipping that both railroads (NYC & PRR) ordered an additional car for delivery in 1939 and 1940. NYC augmented its lightweight fleet with 82 more sleeping cars in this period, while PRR added 56 cars to its 1938 Fleet of Modernism by the end of 1940." (quote end)

In Joe Welsh another book, he didn't mention the additional order, but 52 Pullman built lightweight cars plus 4 Budd built Diners (Total=56 cars). So I thought the total number of prewar Pullman, ACF, Budd built lightweight cars were only 56, but according to the additional information provided by Joe himself, there were at least 84+56 (=140) lightweight cars being purchased by PRR before 1941!

Could someone please confirm that if this is correct? Thank you very much! Bow

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:53 AM

PRR #1188 "Skyline" was leading a train consisted of an ACF made FoM lightweight Pullman 4-4-2 sleeper (Please correct me if I am wrong, thanks!)

After 80 years, the Coach Yard finally releases the HO scale PRR betterment car set including P70gsr paired window and the twin-unit dining car ( inspired by SP Daylight's dining car). Without these cars, a collector cannot create a complete consist of many FoM trains which was using betterment cars.

Tags: P70gsr , Coach Yard
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, February 15, 2019 7:28 AM

These pics were taken in 1938-39 (80 years ago) but mirrored. I would like to share them with our forumer after some touch-up and adjustment of them. 

===

At least one of the pic was taken at Fort Wayne and the rest of them were taken in the electrified section of PRR's network.

In this photo, it is probably an all-coach train consist leading by the PRR 4?10, a PB70 Passenger-baggage car which was seen in the consist of the Jeffersonian. Note more than half of the consist had no skirting under the car but carrying the new FOM livery.

Is that a P70 arch roof coach after the coach-baggage? I have never seen a modernized P70 with FOM livery but without skirting when new. 

 

Pullman heavyweight 12-1 sleeper "Potter Palmer" was carrying the Fleet of Modernism livery. The train is powered by a GG1.

Taken at Fort Wayne, the Pullman Harbour series 2 bedroom bar-lounge car can be seen on the right-hand side. All streamlined equipment looks fresh and clean. one of the trains could be the Broadway Limited. 

 ===

Pre-war Pullman Observation car of The Spirit of St. Louis, the consist mixed with different pre-war PRR cars and liveries. 

 

Better option to hauling the Broadway?... The golden strips on the PRR #1120, with simplified streamlining design by Raymond Loewy, matched the position of golden strips of the entire consist, unlike #3768.

There was a photo of #3768 hauling the Trail Blazer, but I can't find it in my HD anymore... :- ( 

Thank you for watching.

 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, February 10, 2019 12:12 PM

Jones1945

 My favorite PRR FOM car was the heavyweight betterment Pullman sleeper:



When the party was over...

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:01 AM

Another pic of a "semi-streamliner". A good old K4s hauling a full consist of streamlined heavyweight betterment car, the Trail Blazer.

Some HD and adjusted photo of Fleet of Modernism hauling by non-streamlined engines:

The "South Wind" hauling by a K4s.

PRR S2 powered the Trail Blazer since mid-1945

A comment was made on the Facebook by a gentleman who is the son of an engineer of Franklin that Pennsy gave utmost attention to the NYCentral who inaugurated the Empire State Express before the attack of Pearl Harbour changed everything.

PRR did purchases at least 30 P85R coaches from Budd by 1940 (in the 2nd lot of new lightweight equipment) and streamlined (only) four K4s for the "South Wind" and  "The Jeffersonian" to expand the scale of Fleet of Modernism. We know which train became a legend in the history of American railroads. 

 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:08 PM

Flintlock76

I'd suspect that K4 smoke lifter installation may be a "one-time, what-if" experiment.  From what I've read how well smoke lifters worked depended on the locomotive configuration and how fast it went, among other things.

I suppose the PRR tried them and decided they weren't worth it. 

That makes sense, Wayne. I believe it was some sort of research and experiment for Pennsy to understand the effect of smoke deflectors in different shape and form. The Classes that really needed to equip smoke deflector were probably the S2 and T1s, not the K4s, but as Overmod stated that the effect and usefulness of the smoke deflector are inconclusive. 

PRR S2 #6200 a.k.a the "Volcano" and the "Big Whoosh", the engine that made me become a Pennsy Fan Shy:

 

Tags: PRR S2
  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 3,691 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Tuesday, February 5, 2019 9:12 AM

I'd suspect that K4 smoke lifter installation may be a "one-time, what-if" experiment.  From what I've read how well smoke lifters worked depended on the locomotive configuration and how fast it went, among other things.

I suppose the PRR tried them and decided they weren't worth it. 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:03 AM

Flintlock76

Is that a K4 with smoke lifters in photo one?  That's unusual, it's the first time I've ever seen one fitted up like that.

Yes, that is a K4; PRR #3876 with an oddball smoke lifter! I believe it was the reason why this photo was taken. Beside #3876, #3380 was equipped a smaller smoke lifter and #5038 was equipped an "NYCentral" style smoke lifter. According to Pennsy Power I, all of these smoke lifter were removed from the engine post-war. 

There was no official record about why Pennsy never install smoke lifter on their steam engine post-war but our forumer thought that it was a money problem. 

Speaking of #5038, it was seen (in photo and video) double headed with streamlined K4s hauling long consist. 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 3,691 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Monday, February 4, 2019 2:01 PM

Is that a K4 with smoke lifters in photo one?  That's unusual, it's the first time I've ever seen one fitted up like that.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, February 4, 2019 1:54 PM

The Trail Blazer joined PRR's Fleet of Modernism in 1939. It was arguably the most successful Fleet of Modernism train, popular and highly profitable. K4s was the trains prime power before S1 was put into revenue service in 1941. Streamlined coaches towed by the best Pacific in the world, should I can it a "semi-streamliner"? 

Standard consist was 9 cars, like the Broadway. It was increased to 14 cars when S1 and T1 prototype were available during the peak of wartime traffic.  

Source: http://digital.denverlibrary.org

Source: http://digital.denverlibrary.org

If patrons thought a ticket of the Broadway and the 20th Century wasn't worth it, this was the train for them. 

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