LastspikemikeIs there another type of hockey?
Field Hockey, floor hockey.
Well, it's been more than a few days, but here is a link to a scanned 1941 CPR tonnage ratings book (sent to me by a friend who is good at finding these sort of things).
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/chung/chungtext/items/1.0356958
While CP's engines are rated in % in the book, it does not appear as though that notation was ever written on the locomotive's exterior.
Tonnage ratings for the Kettle Valley Division are found starting on page 53 of the book, which is on page 28 of the scan. Note that even the largest engines used there are only rated for less than 700 tons out of Pentiction, this area having grades approaching 2.5% in both directions out of the Okanagan valley.
Being from 1941, this book is from before the CPR started purchasing diesels. But if the % rating system saw continued use it is quite possible that a 3 or 4 unit set of diesel electrics (perhaps considered a single locomotive) would be rated in the 200 or 300% range.
Did CP renumber any of their remaining steam locomotives to make way for the large numbers of new diesels? Multiple other railroads (including CN) did this.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I played my last floor hockey game at 49 while peace-keeping in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This would be about May, 2001. The average age of the players was probably 29-33 as a guess.
I scored twice.
selectorYour range of experience is showing. That version of hockey is very popular in the Armed Forces as a form of morning PT.
Lastspikemike doctorwayne Lastspikemike Is there another type of hockey? Wayne I never knew that.
doctorwayne
Lastspikemike
Is there another type of hockey?
Lastspikemike You guys can be so funny at times. Floot hockey is for kids. ...
You guys can be so funny at times.
Floot hockey is for kids.
...
Your range of experience is showing. That version of hockey is very popular in the Armed Forces as a form of morning PT.
doctorwaynemust be dozens more, too.
Horse hockey! (Also known as 'puckey' which may have some tie-in with more familiar hockey...)
In the 1970s, field hockey was THE pre-eminent girl's varsity sport at the la-di-dah schools I attended. If it was a boy's sport somewhere, we certainly didn't hear of it.
A parody song about the club next to Cottage, which had a 'certain type' of sportswomen in it, sung to the tune of Billy Joel's "Still Rock and Roll to Me", contained the memorable lyric "too stocky, no knockies, field hockey, real cocky, still Cap and Gown to me" -- there, too, it was decidedly NOT a male sport.
On the other hand, it was not a prim and proper Miss Florence's Dancing School sort of gameplay, either. No Highlanders going into battle kilted were more aggressive than our high-school girls in skirts. You would never guess from their normal deportment what warrior spirit lurked within.
We called the other kind of hockey "street hockey" and it was the proletarian version of a beastly game played by gentlemen. I would have had no place in a typical street hockey game in any of the communities in the northern New Jersey area. Strangely, in the days before inline skates became common, I do not remember whether the games were played skated or on foot.
SD70DudeThe only thing I remember about field hockey (we played it for one day in high school phys-ed)
I also have only played one game of field hockey, also in a High School PE class.
The kids that moved down from up North had their day. Good for them.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
The only thing I remember about field hockey (we played it for one day in high school phys-ed) is that all the sticks are right-handed. I shoot left, so it was no fun for me.
BEER HOCKEY!
Lastspikemike Is there another type of hockey?
LastspikemikeStill leaves the question unanswered, on both sides of the border.
LastspikemikeThat's nothing compared to a 4-4-0 with a 70% number.
It would seem the Haulage Rating for a 4-4-0 would be 14,000 lbs.
CNR_b-11-a by Edmund, on Flickr
Warm Regards, Ed
LastspikemikeSpeaking of imponderable acronyms (who was?) I wonder what the second "I" in IIHF stands for?
International Ice Hockey Federation
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
Lastspikemike ... http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/cnr_steam2/three.htm Scroll down to the photo of the CV Texas T-3-a underneath which there is a reference to t.e. 77%. Not an original source but likely a reliable secondary source (although this webpage claims a t.e. for this locomotive of 82,620 a pretty stunning number all things considered. Maybe if you turned up the heat.....?) ...
http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/cnr_steam2/three.htm
Scroll down to the photo of the CV Texas T-3-a underneath which there is a reference to t.e. 77%.
Not an original source but likely a reliable secondary source (although this webpage claims a t.e. for this locomotive of 82,620 a pretty stunning number all things considered. Maybe if you turned up the heat.....?)
The Texas type, 2-10-4, were large and heavy steamers, many of which produced TE much higher than 82K. The earlier Pennsy I1sa 2-10-0, an older design, produced more tractive effort than a Union Pacific Challenger, and considerably more than any Texas type, except that 2-10-4's like the PRR's J1 had boosters for lifting heavy tonnages.
So, the TE for the Texas & Pacific 'Texas type' was on the low side for that configuration when you consider that the 5011 series ATSF version had well over 100K of tractive effort, and the highest piston thrust of any 2 cylinder steam locomotive on record (219+K lbs. if I recall correctly).
[Edited to correct last figure]
Lastspikemike... and come up with a simalcrum of statistical proof of this association.
LastspikemikeWonder when these graphics were added
It goes back to at least 1935, the date of this photograph:
CNR_6029_crop by Edmund, on Flickr
Lastspikemikeand by whom?
Going out on a limb here, but the guy with the brush looks guilty:
CNR_3552_crop by Edmund, on Flickr
Apparently CNR used a method called "Power Class" or "Haulage Rating" to indicate tractive effort using the % symbol for recognition. You can see it on any of their classification book details.
http://www.trainweb.org/j.dimech/roster/rosnotes.html Scroll down to calculation of Haulage Rating.
Good Luck, Ed
wjstix I know several used a fraction as part of it (like "24/32"), and a fraction is another way of expressing a percentage, so could be another way of saying the same thing?
I know several used a fraction as part of it (like "24/32"), and a fraction is another way of expressing a percentage, so could be another way of saying the same thing?
Except if you've read through this thread at all, it's NOT a percentage of anything. The "%" symbol in CN's usage is a placeholder for 000 lbs tractive effort.
Lastspikemike The OP questioned whether this was a Canadian practice.
The OP questioned whether this was a Canadian practice.
Actually he just said he was watching a "Canadian" video and noticed the markings, and wondered what they meant.
wjstix That wasn't a Canadian-only thing; some US railroads (U.P. for one IIRC) did it too.
That wasn't a Canadian-only thing; some US railroads (U.P. for one IIRC) did it too.
Overmod Now the thing to do is review pictures of Grand Trunk Western steam on the Internet and in books and see if they carried these numbers ... or if GTW engines acquired them if renumbered for a Canadian system.
Now the thing to do is review pictures of Grand Trunk Western steam on the Internet and in books and see if they carried these numbers ... or if GTW engines acquired them if renumbered for a Canadian system.
GTW was a subsidiary of CN and generally followed a lot of CN practices, and also fit into CN's locomotive numbering system.
I checked my Morning Sun books of CP and CN, which contain pictures taken mostly in the late 50s. The vast majority of CN engines had these markings on their cabs, below the number. CPR did not seem to have these markings, at least not on the cab.
Simon
Lastspikemike As far as the graphics on 4070 I noticed there were no such graphics on any of the photos available on the Internet. For me this begs the question: who added them and when. The why has been asked and it is suggested it originated in Canada. If so, it would be some time after the renumbering in 1957 (or whenever) and the graphics were not common practice up here judging by the complete absence of photos of same on any CPR locomotive, for example. It is intriguing that such numbers exist. For what purpose they would be lettered on the cab is interesting.
As far as the graphics on 4070 I noticed there were no such graphics on any of the photos available on the Internet. For me this begs the question: who added them and when. The why has been asked and it is suggested it originated in Canada. If so, it would be some time after the renumbering in 1957 (or whenever) and the graphics were not common practice up here judging by the complete absence of photos of same on any CPR locomotive, for example.
It is intriguing that such numbers exist. For what purpose they would be lettered on the cab is interesting.
You keep talking about CPR when it was CNR that did this as a regular practice.
And yeah as said by several above, the "%" marking is x1000lbs tractive effort, not "percentage" of anything.
The "S-3-g" is CN's locomotive class.
Lastspikemike In the Kettle Valley Railway book, pages 30-31, in the locomotive roster there's a column headed up "Cap." "%" with numbers varying from a low of 27 for a 4-4-4 to a high of 210 for a 4-6-2. None of the photos in any of the CPR related books I have show the % number on the cab.
In the Kettle Valley Railway book, pages 30-31, in the locomotive roster there's a column headed up "Cap." "%" with numbers varying from a low of 27 for a 4-4-4 to a high of 210 for a 4-6-2.
None of the photos in any of the CPR related books I have show the % number on the cab.
Which book?
selectorApparently, for CNR at least, each 1k of TE was designated as a percentage. So, maybe in the case above, 55% = Total TE for the locomotive.
I am told we will have expert confirmation of details of the CP system on the Kettle Valley in a few days also, from a pretty definitive source.
I was beginning to think 'percentage of weight on drivers' but that 210% threw that idea out the window.
Stix -- see what you can find for 'them other railroads'. Perhaps one of them uses the percent sign a different way, or lists locomotive performance more directly as it would affect determining consist for a given train factor.
LastspikemikeWonder when these graphics were added and by whom?
What, exactly, are you trying to say?
6218_Chatham-cab by Edmund, on Flickr
LastspikemikeThe internet says 4070 was assigned to this CN Mikado
The 4070 was the former 3734 and, as I mentioned in my first reply, was a Grand Trunk western locomotive.
Cheers, Ed
OvermodStix, what UP classes did that?
I was just saying that I've seen several railroads that put a lot of "fine print" on the engine cab, often with a "%" in there representing...something. Maybe I'm thinking of one of the other "Pacifics" (Northern, Southern)?