Wanting info and/or a pic

[lionelsoni]

Head-end power came along not with the incandescent light but with the Diesel. The early Diesels were normally equipped with steam generators if they were intended for passenger trains. The cars got their electricity (for lighting) from generators powered from the wheels. Only after Diesels became common were steam generators abandoned and HEP became the norm. Trains Magazine has a good history right here on this web site: http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/003/080jnkyi.asp

[Frank53]

I'm just padding my post count.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lionelsoni

Elliot, in the nineteenth century before steam heating, there would have been no need for the passengers to be close to the locomotive and a pretty good incentive to have them as far back as possible, away from smoke, cinders, and noise.

True Bob, the early passenger cars had wood or coal fired stoves in each car for heat. Cabooses had stoves well into the 20th century too.

I'm not sure when the concept of head end power came along. My guess is it would have to be tied to the common use of the lightbulb. I suppose early heavyweight cars were retrofitted for electric lighting. Streamline cars came along late enough to include it from the start.

Don't give the railroads too much credit for wanting to keep their passengers away from the smoke and cinders. Traditional consist on passenger trains had a buffer of only a few cars. Baggage, RPO, crew, coach, diner, and finally sleepers is the norm even today on Amtrak. Of course there is no more RPO, not even postal contracts.

Actually, once diesels became available, the railroads put them on passenger trains first, then expanded their use to freight and phased out steam.

One thing to consider on a steam powered mixed train would be: where is the water tower relative to the station platform? Stopping twice seems like something that they would want to avoid. On the other hand, I have heard of passenger trains that were so long they stopped twice at the same platform.[;)]

[lionelsoni]

Elliot, in the nineteenth century before steam heating, there would have been no need for the passengers to be close to the locomotive and a pretty good incentive to have them as far back as possible, away from smoke, cinders, and noise.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the tip. Now I am scared!!

[darianj]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AydansPop

Please don't make me go over there! That would put me one step closer to having to admit that I'm becoming "one of Y'all" and I'm still trying to deny that![:)][:)][:)]

I'm already freaking out that I'm reading about this stuff and even care what kind of train ever ran here! I'm already in serious trouble with my fishing partner. I fish on the Texas/Mexico boarder and HUGE trains run over the lake transporting parts into Mexico and Burbs back into the US. I've already gotten screamed at for stopping and trying to figure out what kind of engines they are and trying to read the line names off the cars.

The train is "just for the grandkid". As long as I'm sticking to that story I can't go over there and ask.

[:)][:)][:)][:)][:)]

[}:)]Come to the DARK SIDE![}:)]

[Anonymous]

Just yesterday I dropped the wife off at the train station in Rensselaer, NY. When we arrived a passenger train bound for Boston was just leaving and it had a couple box cars trailing behind. Strange looking.

[Big_Boy_4005]

I told you you were hooked when you blamed it on Frank, and here's the proof.[;)]

A "mixed train" would almost have to have the passengers closest to the engine, and the freight running behind that. The reason being, electricity or steam for heat would come from the engine, and freight cars had no connections. The practice of mixed trains was abandoned on most major railroads, probably before 1900. Small railroads or branch lines, running only a few trains per day, could get away with it.

It usually had to do with the priority of what was being shipped, with people and mail having the highest. You don't hear freight complaining about being delayed.[swg]

[jefelectric]

AydansPop,

Welcome to the forum.

Sounds to me like you are hooked, not the fish. You may as well admit the adiction and sit back and enjoy it. They won't bite over on the trains or classic trains forums.

[Anonymous]

Please don't make me go over there! That would put me one step closer to having to admit that I'm becoming "one of Y'all" and I'm still trying to deny that![:)][:)][:)]

I'm already freaking out that I'm reading about this stuff and even care what kind of train ever ran here! I'm already in serious trouble with my fishing partner. I fish on the Texas/Mexico boarder and HUGE trains run over the lake transporting parts into Mexico and Burbs back into the US. I've already gotten screamed at for stopping and trying to figure out what kind of engines they are and trying to read the line names off the cars.

The train is "just for the grandkid". As long as I'm sticking to that story I can't go over there and ask.

[:)][:)][:)][:)][:)]

[FJ and G]

AydansPop,

Welcome to this forum. You might try the "Trains" forum, meaning the real RRs vice the model RR websites. I have sometimes posted on the wrong forum by mistake. I hope you get your sad photo.

Seems that mixed trains were common in the last days. I grew up along the 3rd Ave El and the FJ&G in upstate NY. Those favorite RRs of mine are long deceased. RRing can be a HEARTBREAKING experience. At least with model RRs, we can recreate what was, and pretend that it still IS.

On my railroad, the Santa Fe will run until I take my last breath.

[Anonymous]

I was reading that the last train to run in my area on the San Antonio Aransas Pass RR in the late 60's was a So Pac "combination passenger and freight" train. I was curious if this "combination" was common and what the configuration and probable order of the cars might have been.

Links to pics would be nice!!

thanks