Century and Hiawatha questions

[robscaboose]

The Niagra's were so efficient that on the 20th Century limited, one engine could go from Harmon all the way through Chicago.  The Century bypassed Cleveland as electric's were required to reach the station, thus requiring multiple engine changes.

Rob

[robscaboose]

The NYC had multiple track pans which they could scoop water at speeds up to 80mph.  The centipede tenders carried enough coal that the train only had to stop once for coal between Harmon & Cleveland (Wayneport NY).  No other RR could scoop water like the NYC.  The Centipede tenders only held 15 thousand gals of water so they had to be filled often.  The tenders had devices that allowed for air to escape the tank as the water was scooped at track speed.  In the winter the pans were heated.  Speed was important to the NYC & I believe that at one point in time the running time for the 20th Century Limited was 16 hrs New York - Chicago.

Rob

[daveklepper]

I assure you that on the name east-west trains, Albany was NOT an engine change point except for those trains that switched lots of cars, eastbound for a Boston section and westbound for the D&H Laurential and Montreal Limited and the two Rutland trains.   I saw the Century go through Albany and rode the Empire State Express, Detroit Limited, Wolverine, Southwest LImited, and New England States.

For most years, the Empire State Express ran as one train NY - Buffalo and then had sections go to both Cleveland and Detroit.

Correction:   Interchange for all Rutland passengers service was at Troy, not Albany, and the Rutland trains did not enter Albany.   On the D&H, the usual practice was for the overnight Montreal Limited to run through Albany, but the daytime Laurentian to run through Troy.

 I rode the Century only in the diesel era.

There was also the Minuteman, which if I remember correctly was a full coach and Pullman train from Boston's NORTH STATION to Chicago via the B&M to Troy, engine and crew change there, of course, and then throuigh Albany and on to Chicago without engine change at Albany.

[J. Edgar]

i think the big tenders would make the run service stop to service stop....Buffalo to Cleveland maybe

Think they'd burn 40 tons in ... what is it, 133 miles or something?

Before they got the big tenders (circa 1943?) they had to recoal ... maybe 12 times NY to Chicago?

Gotta hand it to the L&N-- you remember they scheduled (tried to, anyway) a 4-6-2 to run 490? miles on one load of coal. (30 tons, as I recall.)

Oh no - that is greatly incorrect! The source of that bullshit would be nice to know. They used to reFUEL - which meant water - about 12 times on that trip, but never, NEVER recoaling! One ton of coal developed about 7 tons of steam - imagine the masses of water they had to take during that trip if 12x40 = 480 tons of coal would have been burnt...

so..............the Central had not 1 track pan for scooping water between Hammond and Chicago???? and hadda make 12 stops???? with the premier trains of the Great Steel Fleet???? wow no wonder the Pennsy always out did 'em...

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

i think the big tenders would make the run service stop to service stop....Buffalo to Cleveland maybe

Think they'd burn 40 tons in ... what is it, 133 miles or something?

Before they got the big tenders (circa 1943?) they had to recoal ... maybe 12 times NY to Chicago?

Gotta hand it to the L&N-- you remember they scheduled (tried to, anyway) a 4-6-2 to run 490? miles on one load of coal. (30 tons, as I recall.)

Oh no - that is greatly incorrect! The source of that bullshit would be nice to know. They used to reFUEL - which meant water - about 12 times on that trip, but never, NEVER recoaling! One ton of coal developed about 7 tons of steam - imagine the masses of water they had to take during that trip if 12x40 = 480 tons of coal would have been burnt...

[timz]

i think the big tenders would make the run service stop to service stop....Buffalo to Cleveland maybe

Think they'd burn 40 tons in ... what is it, 133 miles or something?

Before they got the big tenders (circa 1943?) they had to recoal ... maybe 12 times NY to Chicago?

Gotta hand it to the L&N-- you remember they scheduled (tried to, anyway) a 4-6-2 to run 490? miles on one load of coal. (30 tons, as I recall.)

[J. Edgar]

 

So what was the point of the big tenders, with 40+ tons of coal?

why to carry 40 tons of coal of course....

            i think the big tenders would make the run service stop to service stop....Buffalo to Cleveland maybe....with scooping water on the way....coaling was a dirty thing and ya cant be gettin dust all over that shiny stainless

[timz]

...were changed at division points: Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Cleveland (Collinwood) and Toledo.

So what was the point of the big tenders, with 40+ tons of coal?

[Anonymous]

Don't necessarily have back-up for this, but my general understanding was that the Century's locomotives in steam days were changed at division points: Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Cleveland (Collinwood) and Toledo.  By the time of the streamlined Century one locomotive may indeed have run through to Buffalo, but I have read accounts of a change there.

Again - not sure of the above - just drawing from years of general reading on NYC. 

 

[daveklepper]

In latter years of steam, of course Niagras replaced Hudson on many of premier name trains, especially as consists were increased with  the combining of trains.   The Empire State Express generally had a Niagra from Harmon to Buffalo and then the Detroit and the Cleveland sections each had a Hudson.   On the B&A, Mowhawks were often used instead of J-2's.

[wjstix]

NYC decided to unveil it's new streamlined Empire State Express with a special press train on Dec 7,1941 since it was a Sunday which is usually a slow news day, so the unveiling would get a lot of press coverage.

[J. Edgar]

was a cleveland to NYC train at first later extended to detroit....i think....i have reference of the inaugural run having its starting point changed from cleveland to buffalo for ..."unexplained reasons"  the date was december 7th 1941....reference is in Don Ball Jr. book Decade of the Trains the 1940's....a local museum has period pictures captioned  ..." NYC Empire State Express leaving MC Station Detroit"....the picture may be wrong but i trust Don Ball Jr.

[wjstix]

...for instance the engines that ran the Empire State Express to Detroit would be serviced at the end of the run while a similar enigine headed out...

I thought the Empire State Express only ran in New York state (New York City to Buffalo maybe)??

I know the Twentieth Century went New York - Chicago. 

[DMUinCT]

I understand the Northeast alone, has the population, cities close enough together, and the speed point to point that justify Rail Passenger Service. Between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Batimore, and Washington Rail carries more passengers than Air and Bus combined.

SPEED!  In the northeast we have trains, Passenger Trains.  Boston Commuter Rail operates at 80 mph throughout the system.  Amtrak Regional Trains run at 110 mph.  Amtrak's "Downester" to Portland Maine runs at 80 mph.  Amtrak's hourly "Acela" service reaches 150 mph (during testing in southern Rhode Island it reached over 170 mph).  Metro North runs commuter trains into New York City at 80 mph.

In the "old days" The New Haven was an 80 mph road, but the I-5 Hudsons often exceeded 100 mph to make up time.  The Penn Central "Metroliners" were carded at 120 mph, and under Amtrak 125 mph.

[DMUinCT]

The NYC "Hudson" was a joint effort of Paul Kiefer (NYC Supt. of Motive Power) and ALCO (American Locomotive Company).   Tunnels along the Hudson River were dug in the 1830s and would not fit a "fat boiler" locomotive.  This locomotive must have a long/low boiler, a design that made it VERY graceful.   The "Hudson" had to develop the power to haul up to 18 cars (heavy weight Pullmans) on any NYC train timetable. They were used on all name trains.

 275 were built in three classes, J1, J2, J3, between 1927 and 1938 for general passenger service throughout the system. The 205 J1s were improved during production resulting having a letter added as in "J1e".  The 20 special J2s were built with smaller drivers to climb the Berkshire Mountains between Albany and Boston.  Everything came togeather with the building of 50, J3, "Super Hudsons".

As for the "Century's J1s", taking water from pans between the rails, a run of 691 miles from Harmon, NY to Toledo, Ohio was normal (14 hours) for the east end locomotive.  From Toledo to Chicago a second (west end) locomotive took over, often #5344.  5344 was always a West End (west of Buffalo) locomotive.  In the later J3 days, an On-Main Line Coaling station at Wayneport, NY was built, and finally the "Centiped Trenders".

[timz]

and 99 MPH for ABS track w/ automatic train stop.

You remember SFe had 100 mph limits in their timetables until 1959 or so, and IC had 100 until ... after 1970, wasn't it? So what do you think SFe and IC had that the alleged 99-mph railroads didn't have?

For that matter, what about Penn Central's 120-mph limit, after 1969?

[jimrice4449]

In response to a couple of fatal accidents on the CB&Q on the Chi-Aurora racetrack (only one of which had anything to do w/ signals) and a couple on the LIRR, the ICC in 1947 (I think) established 60MPH limits for unsignalled track, 79 MPH for track w/ automatic block signals and 99 MPH for ABS track w/ automatic train stop.   Those RRs already having ATS or equivelant either reduced speed limits (as milwaukee's famous"Reduce to 90", which pre-dated this) or added ATS.

[timz]

the ICC set the max at 99 for ATC/cab signal track around 1947

So what did the SFe and IC have to have, to retain their 100-mph limits?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

One addition regarding the change of power on NYC in Cleveland.  Except for those trains that ran on the Lakefront line, passenger trains changed to electric power for the run into and out of Cleveland Union Terminal.

[jimrice4449]

The Milw engines ran through from Chicago to Minneapolis.   The 84" drivered As and F-7s didn't run west of minneapoilis because the max permissible speed was 79 MPH as opposed to 99MPH Chi-Minn. (or more until the ICC set the max at 99 for ATC/cab signal track around 1947)

Driver diameter wasn't a factor in the K-4 vs J-1/J-3 competion since the "Water Level Route" Hudson had 79" drivers as opposed to the ""up and over" PRR K-4s 80"

After the NYC equiped the Hudsons w/ long distance pedestal bed tenders the practice was to run an engine from Chi to Collinswood Yard in Cleveland (scooping water on the fly) and then trade engines for a fully coaled one for the reamainder of the trip to Harmon.   Took less time than cutting off the power, running it to the coaling tower and coupling back up.

[J. Edgar]

 i would venture to say that engines like the J3 class of hudsons were just good engines for the NYC.....streamlining for individual named trains is mostly what set certian engines apart from others in a given class.....as far as servicing again i would guess that the named train streamlined enigines would have at least a couple in pool service....for instance the engines that ran the Empire State Express to Detroit would be serviced at the end of the run while a similar enigine headed out...at least on trains that would run daily.....of course mechanical failure or heavytraffic periods would almost guarantee a substitute enigine with something other than a "Empire State Express" streamlined hudson......

[wjstix]

Well I'm not sure if the steam engines for the Century were really designed only for that train. The Hudson's high wheels were certainly geared towards the NYC's "Water Level Route". Someone once said that NYC's Hudson's wouldn't have worked out on the Pennsy, just as the PRR K4's wouldn't work on the NYC, since both were made to fit their particular railroad's needs. But Hudsons were an extension of previous engines like the NYC's Pacifics, and AFAIK from the start worked on trains other than the 20th C. across the NYC from New York to Chicago and St.Louis. Same would be true for the Mohawks.

The NYC's streamlined Hudsons - the 'Roman Helmet' ones - wore gray streamlined casings specifically designed for the Century, but they were otherwise "normal" J-3 Hudsons with streamlining added. Some like the 5344 of Lionel fame started out unstreamlined, spent it's middle years streamlined, and I believe finished it's career unstreamlined again.

I do believe the Milwaukee 4-4-2's were specifically designed for Hiawatha use, although of course later they found their way on to lesser trains like fast mail trains as diesels took over the big name trains.

 

[Anonymous]

A question on another forum started this train of thought, and like an underpowered way freight on Sherman Hill, has now stalled me into idle wonder.

The steam locomotives for the 20th Century Limited and the Hiawatha were built for the train, not for general service on any particular division of their roads.  Did the NYC and Milwaukee switch out steam engines during the run of the Century or Hiawatha to meet any particular division standards?  I know that electric locomotives pulled the Century out of Grand Central station to Harmon, NY, where "main line power" was put on, but were the Hudsons and Niagaras switched out anywhere else?

The other question I had concerned turnaround maintenance.  Steam locomotives appear to be tempermental beasts that require some fairly extensive daily maintenance to keep moving.  How long did it take to turn around a Hiawatha Pacific or a Hudson at the end of a run?  What did the railroads do in terms of maintenance on turnarounds?

Erik