Trains.com

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!

So....tell me about the Pennsy...

7956 views
71 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 7,486 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Friday, March 7, 2008 12:36 PM
I have no problem with those pages.  I'd suggest downloading it again and viewing it before you save it to be sure.
  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Rijeka, Croatia (Europe)
  • 192 posts
Posted by Thommo on Friday, March 7, 2008 4:33 AM

Thanks, Dave, I downloaded "TKM Special Winter 2008 Edition.pdf", but my viewer reports problems fith the file, and does not show pages 10 through 64, they are blank. Other pages are OK.

Is it my viewer, or is the file corrupted? Confused [%-)]

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Friday, March 7, 2008 1:38 AM
Andre, there is some controversy over the interpretation of that report.  For those on the N&W, there was little doubt that the Duplex and Q2 were not indicated for the terrain and work to be done.  In fact, the Y-Class engines, superb as they were, rarely ran above 40 mph.  The Q and the T were high-steppers designed for the Pennsy's grades and work rating.  It would be unfair to rate a 80" drivered T1, for example, against a 72" J in hilly terrain that the Pennsy had not taken into account when designing the T.  The Q's 69" drivers do beg the question, though, I have to admit and wonder.  Perhaps its stroke and pressure ratings were meant for higher speed, where the HP could do its work.  The Class A did it's "thing" between 40 and 60 mph, give or take, and developed it best horsepower nearer to 45 mph if I recall correctly.
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: California & Maine
  • 3,848 posts
Posted by andrechapelon on Thursday, March 6, 2008 10:43 PM

The Q2 was a powerhouse on wheels. Had more than 6000 HP at speed and tractive effort more than the bigboys.

No, what it produced was more horsepower than the Big Boy (over 7500 vs. 6200). As for tractive effort, the Q2 was rated at around 101,000 lbs (sans booster) vs. Big Boy's 135,000 lbs. On test in 1948, the Q2 was found to be inferior to the N&W A, using more coal to do the same amount of work. IIRC, the N&W was owned by the Pennsy. They should have contracted their locomotive design work out to Roanoke.

http://tinyurl.com/3aofjg   (page down)

Andre

 

It's really kind of hard to support your local hobby shop when the nearest hobby shop that's worth the name is a 150 mile roundtrip.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Northfield Center TWP, OH
  • 2,538 posts
Posted by dti406 on Thursday, March 6, 2008 10:24 PM
 Thommo wrote:

And, Strasburg GE 44t makes an appearance (it is mentioned that it is ex-Pennsy unit, only letters are added, color is Pennsy) switching PRR boxcar to main. It was especially interesting to me, because I have Bachmann HO model of PRR GE 44tonner, and I've never known was it fictional or not in PRR colours!

Thanks!

The PRR had a number of GE 44 Tonners.  As usual the numbers were scattered over the numbering system.  One of them was renumbered to 9999.  The Pennsy liked them as, per union rules, they could be operated only by the engineer without the need of a brakeman, which is why the 44 Tonners sold so much better than the 45 Tonners as they needed a fireman.  The GE 44 Tonner replaced the A5 0-4-0's although they could not haul as big a train.

Also, the best engine on the Pennsy was a copy of the C&O T-1 2-10-4 which became the PRR J1-J1a.  

Another set of leased engines were a number of Santa Fe 2-10-4's that were used to haul coal with the J1's from Columbus to the coal docks in Sandusky.  

Regarding the Race Track between Crestline and Chicago, the Pennsy tested the N&W J-1 Northern and the J-1 reached a sustained 112 mph. Not a bad feat for an engine with 70" drivers.

Rick 

Rule 1: This is my railroad.

Rule 2: I make the rules.

Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 7,486 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Thursday, March 6, 2008 10:05 AM
I grew up in Philly near the corridor and was about twelve before I realized there were engines other than GG1s.  Now I live in the Chicago area and regularly visit the mills in NW Indiana.  I have watched the Ft. Wayne division go from two tracks to no tracks in the Gary area. I used to sit at the PRR Gary station (long gone) where the tracks crossed US 20 and wonder what it was like when the Blue Ribbon Fleet came through town westbound.  Twenty six named passenger trains running on each others yellow signals as dawn broke heading for Chicago.  As soon as one cleared the headlight of the next one appeared down the track.  Add extra sections being pulled by double slotted K4s and T1s or the Broadway with the swoosh up front coming off a run from Ft. Wayne that more than not exceeded 100mph for at least part of that run.  I was born too late. 
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Colorado Springs, CO
  • 2,742 posts
Posted by Dave Vollmer on Thursday, March 6, 2008 9:13 AM
 Thommo wrote:

Hello to all, excellent topic.

Few days ago I watched old "All aboard" episode about PRR in transition period. Very few steamers, much more diesels.
Two freight trains are filmed zooming throuh station with three GP9's on point. I didnt know that Pennsy run them long hood front! Two RS3 are also filmed on one freight.

Also Centipedes are presented in helper roles. EMD F and Blw. Shark units are on the freights, E's on passengers.

And, Strasburg GE 44t makes an appearance (it is mentioned that it is ex-Pennsy unit, only letters are added, color is Pennsy) switching PRR boxcar to main. It was especially interesting to me, because I have Bachmann HO model of PRR GE 44tonner, and I've never known was it fictional or not in PRR colours!

Few more questions, can you say a few words about:

- how was 4-track main used (2 pass. tracks, 2 freights, or not?) _Yes, for the most part.  Track asssignments changed depending on where you were, but they generally included 2 passenger and 2 freight tracks.
- Gallitzin tunnel _There were 3 tunnels at Gallitizin; the Gallitzen, the Allegheny, and the Portage
- Strasburg - railroad or museum? _The Strasburg Rail Road is just that; a fully-functioning steam passenger railroad.  Across the street is the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, not directly affiliated.
- Baldwin Centipedes on PRR _Originally designed for passeneger service, then re-geared for freight; eventually used as helpers (snapppers in Pennsy-talk) at Horseshoe Curve - also saw serviceout of Thorndale, PA under the wires.
- Did Pennsy had 0-6-0T steamers that Bachmann had in Spectrum lines?  _Yes, they did.  Similar, anyway.  Most were gone by WWII, although this one was photographed in Wilmington, DE in 1948

Thanks!

Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Colorado Springs, CO
  • 2,742 posts
Posted by Dave Vollmer on Thursday, March 6, 2008 9:03 AM

Brakie's right on the maintenance point.  I've argued that we don't model mismanagement in general, but an obvious point where we must is when deferred maintenance is the result.

Of course bad maintenance must be reflected in our models...  If I were modeling the Pennsy in the 60s, I'd have a lot more weathering and a lot more weeds on the mains.  Photographic evidence from the 50s shows that the Middle Division was still well maintained, although lines like the Northern Central through York, PA, were already mostly gardens with rails through them.

And Lee, I'm not disagreeing at all.  The NYC had done an awesome job streamlining itself prior to PC merger.  They'd done the track reductions, eliminated rider humps, clearned up the beuracracy, installed CTC, etc.  It was sad to see the 20th Century Limited go, but it had to.  Merging w/ the PRR was like hanging a boat anchor around their neck.

Maybe merger with N&W would have been better for Pennsy...  who knows?  But much like the Roman Empire, by the 60s it had rotted through-and-through at the management level and had failed to look to the future.  It would likely have dragged any merger partner under.

The Pennsy did most of its innovating in the first two decades of the 20th century, and then was content to sit back with what by the 50s had become antiquated practices (rider humps, manual interlockings each with a dedicated tower, etc.).

But the Pennsy mains of the 50s (which I model) at least appeared outwardly to prosper, much moreso than the 60s...  But if I continue with plans to expand my era to span 1956-1968, I will certainly need to keep this all in mind.

Clearly were the PRR perfect, she'd still be here.  Maybe she'd be one of the Big Class I lines...  But no, she's gone.

But the glory of model railroading is that we don't have to suffer the mismanagement and corporate short-sightedness; we can enjoy the accomplishments instead.

Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,574 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Thursday, March 6, 2008 8:50 AM

Speaking as former PRR brakeman I will tell you up front it was anything but "The Standard Railroad Of The World" unless you want to call grimy,poor running locomotives(many had rust holes in the carbody) "standard" or cabin cars with rusted out holes in the floor,corners and by the doors "standard".

Then there was the miles of main line track that seen years of "deferred maintenance".How about passenger cars that had mechanical problems to include heat and A/C failure?

What does this have to do with modeling the mighty PRR? A lot when it comes to modeling the locomotives and track since our model PRR should reflect the PRR as it was.

 

Larry

Conductor.

Summerset Ry.


"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt  Safety First!"

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Rijeka, Croatia (Europe)
  • 192 posts
Posted by Thommo on Thursday, March 6, 2008 7:46 AM

Hello to all, excellent topic.

Few days ago I watched old "All aboard" episode about PRR in transition period. Very few steamers, much more diesels.
Two freight trains are filmed zooming throuh station with three GP9's on point. I didnt know that Pennsy run them long hood front! Two RS3 are also filmed on one freight.

Also Centipedes are presented in helper roles. EMD F and Blw. Shark units are on the freights, E's on passengers.

And, Strasburg GE 44t makes an appearance (it is mentioned that it is ex-Pennsy unit, only letters are added, color is Pennsy) switching PRR boxcar to main. It was especially interesting to me, because I have Bachmann HO model of PRR GE 44tonner, and I've never known was it fictional or not in PRR colours!

Few more questions, can you say a few words about:

- how was 4-track main used (2 pass. tracks, 2 freights, or not?)
- Gallitzin tunnel
- Strasburg - railroad or museum?
- Baldwin Centipedes on PRR
- Did Pennsy had 0-6-0T steamers that Bachmann had in Spectrum lines?

Thanks!

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: On the Banks of the Great Choptank
  • 2,916 posts
Posted by wm3798 on Thursday, March 6, 2008 6:43 AM

Devil's advocate time...

The Penn Central was a disaster more because of the Penn than the Central.  It was all the Pennsy's side hustles that diverted them from running the railroad, and it's Red Team/Green Team mentality that kept the company from ever fully integrating.  They pushed out Perlman, whose career shines with the exception of his days as a pawn at the PC, leaving Stuart Saunders in charge, who ultimately killed himself over his collossal failure.

The Central was in trouble by 1968, but if it had been allowed to merge with the C&O in 1960 like it wanted to, those troubles would likely have been avoided.  The fact is, by 1964, when the N&W swallowed the NKP and Wabash, all the "good" mergers were done, leaving the PRR and Central as the only wall flowers left at the dance.  So they held their noses, and embraced each other on their way to oblivion.

Lee 

Route of the Alpha Jets  www.wmrywesternlines.net

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,312 posts
Posted by locoi1sa on Thursday, March 6, 2008 4:09 AM

  Hey Dave

 You forgot to mention that the PRR had the second largest navey in the world. Only the US owned more boats than them. And you cant forget about the airplane. If the ICC didnt stop them they would have had trucking, Pan Am, and most cruise ships on the water. The PRR had fingers in a lot of cookie jars. I havnt heard in a while but Executive airline had a fleet of lear jets that had keystone markings just a few years ago.

  And while were on it someone mentioned the T1. Although a failure by some acounts dont foget the freight sister to it. The Q2 was a powerhouse on wheels. Had more than 6000 HP at speed and tractive effort more than the bigboys. Too bad high maintenance cost put her out to pasture when the diesels started roaming the rails. T1 failure, I remember reading about a highspeed brake test done around crestline that had a T1 doing 140 MPH with the dyno car attached to test some new brake shoes. Unofficial speed record.

      Pete
 

 I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!

 I started with nothing and still have most of it left!

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 10:05 PM
 2-8-8-0 wrote:
By the way, what is the purpose for the Belpaire firebox? Did it just fill a specific niche on the PRR for ease of maintenance or something, or did it provide a performance gain?

The railway I work for here in Australia used Belpaire fireboxes on the majority of it's steam locos, so they are very familiar to me as an ex-boilermaker.

The PRR used what I would call a modified Belpaire firebox. Structurally, it was a better design than the typical radial-stay firebox used by most US railroads, as it had a better arrangement of the stays. It had a greater evaporative surface than a comparable radial-stay box, so the steaming was improved - although not by great margin. The downside is that they are more complicated/expensive to build, and require a bit more maintenance.

Cheers,

Mark.
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Ashtabula, Ohio
  • 158 posts
Posted by 2-8-8-0 on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 9:53 PM
hehe, thats ok. B&O and Pennsy interchanged a lot. I have some real pics of B&O trains with well over half the cars belonging to PRR. Im sure a lot of B&O cars wound up on the PennsySmile [:)]
  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: Sandusky, Ohio
  • 537 posts
Posted by NSlover92 on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 9:50 PM
Also don't feel bad cause there are not little computer drawings of PRR hoppers, look at my sig, two alco PRR, with a train of B&O hoppers. Mike
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket Modeling PRR transition era operations in northern Ohio
  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: Sandusky, Ohio
  • 537 posts
Posted by NSlover92 on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 9:49 PM
Well, I guess we have it ok...I model HO scale and my main problem is I dont have enough money with my high school part time summer job to buy it all...Sad [:(]. Mike
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket Modeling PRR transition era operations in northern Ohio
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Westcentral Pennsylvania (Johnstown)
  • 1,496 posts
Posted by tgindy on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 9:29 PM
 2-8-8-0 wrote:

Off i go, to read more PRR stuff. Maybe the PRR, not the B&O, would obtain control over the Western Maryland. PRR on one side of the Potomac, B&O on the other....Cool [8D]

North East Rails is my favorite picture site for the majority of noteworthy Northeastern railroads operating in your neck of the woods...

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/home.html 

The B&O, Pennsy, and Western Maryland is among them.  Also, don't overlook the  links on the lefthand side to the Gallitzin Tunnels and the Horseshoe Curve.  Truly a great resource for motive power and rolling stock to include on your pike.

Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Colorado Springs, CO
  • 2,742 posts
Posted by Dave Vollmer on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 8:55 PM

Paul,

I may have misread you; if I did, I'm sorry.  I understand your point about fair and balanced.  But again, I think when we are fans of a prototype, we prefer not to think about the bad, and to perhaps over-emphasize the good.  All the superlatives I've passed along about Pennsy are from print; granted, not all that is printed is truth.  Many of the histories I've read about the Pennsy were from former employees...  not exactly unbiased.

I didn't get to see Pennsy; when I was a tiny tot it was a dying Penn Central and then a rainbow Conrail struggling to realize the potential the PC merger never did.

My grandfather told stories of riding behind double-headed K4s around The Curve on his way to Pittsburgh.  Man, if only...Sigh [sigh]

Penn Central sucked, but as a prototype to model I think it's neat.  The crumbling infrastructure and patch jobs make for neat models.  That nuclear vomit green just looks so awesome on freight cars when streaked with rust.  So classless as to be cool.

Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Ashtabula, Ohio
  • 158 posts
Posted by 2-8-8-0 on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 8:00 PM

25 mph is decent speed for coal drags during the late 40s....B&O's coal drags crept along at single digit speeds over much of the west end, albeit over a route that would make most locomotives chant quietly, "no way i can, no way i can". The B&O had to use articulateds, as the curves were too sharp for the long rigid wheelbase of their excellent S1 2-10-2s, which they had about 125 of.....and i once thought that was a huge class. YIKES, 600 decapods on the PRR?!

I see the Kato mike being used as a foundation for a lot of scratchbuilds in N, including apparently at least 2 classes of 10 coupled engines (B&O S1As and apparently Pennsy 2-10-0s) Im going to build at least one L1 with the GHQ kit, as they seem to make a nice model when they are done. This engine wouldnt be out of place on a mine run would it?

By the way, what is the purpose for the Belpaire firebox? Did it just fill a specific niche on the PRR for ease of maintenance or something, or did it provide a performance gain, or did they just do it to make their locos stand out? The squared off boiler and overhanging cab combine to make a intimidating looking loco, kind of in contrast to B&O's "classic and simple" designs. PRR and B&O both home built (or extensively modified) most of their engines. Odd how they look so very different.

My wallet will soon plot to kill me at this rate.

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • From: Massachusetts
  • 2,899 posts
Posted by Paul3 on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 7:58 PM

Dave V.,
I don't like the Pennsy?  News to me.  Dunce [D)]  I know I don't like the Penn Central, but I think we both agree on that.  Smile [:)]  I don't know what previous threads you're talking about where I've indicated a real dislike for the PRR, honestly.  I admire the PRR.  It's service was top-notch, it's trains were impeccable by all accounts, and lordy was it big.  Bow [bow]  There's a heckuva lot to like about the Pennsy, and I admire anyone who trys to model that beastie (it must be a quick way to go broke!).

The only thing I don't like is the associated hubris and the failure to give much credit to other RR's.  For example, in the Altoona museum, there is a PC display.  It grudgingly mentions the NYC...and there's no mention of the New Haven at all.  Considering that the NH was the third RR of the PC merger, and it's inclusion was a condition set by the ICC, one would think it would get at least a mention somewhere in a museum display about the creation of the PC.

I really don't want to come off here as all argumentative.  Honest.  If you just read my words in a neutral tone or in a lighthearted manner (at the smilies), and I hope you'll understand that I'm trying to debate the facts and my opinions based on them.  I'm more than willing to be proved wrong (won't be the first time I've had crow for dinner).  I do admit I tend to be defensive of the NH's achievements, so take it for what it's worth.

Sorry if I ticked you off.

Paul A. Cutler III
************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
************

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Colorado Springs, CO
  • 2,742 posts
Posted by Dave Vollmer on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 5:04 PM
 Paul3 wrote:

Dave V.,
I'm not getting into a contest, either (of any sort).  But part of the Pennsy story (like any RR) is it's failures as well as it's successes.  To gloss over one to focus on the other is unfair to those asking the question, "So....tell me about the Pennsy..."  Getting the facts straight should be our goal, with opinions based upon them.

The Pennsy was big...really big.  But was it actually as innovative or pioneering as some claim?

Paul A. Cutler III
************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
************

Okay, I deleted a long dissertation I'd written in reply where I'd defended my statements in this thread.  Pointless, probably.  Paul, you don't like Pennsy.  I know that from previous threads.

I stand by all of my assertions (except for the B28 USRA 0-6-0 goof)...  including my honest assesment of PRR's corporate ineptitude.

But when we model a railroad, we usually chose our prototype based on what we admire about it, which is essentially what's being asked here.  We don't usually model the labor disputes, the poor customer service, or the slow management.

We who love the Pennsy do so because it truly was a giant in the US railroad scene for its 120 year existance.  That's something no one can deny.

Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • From: Massachusetts
  • 2,899 posts
Posted by Paul3 on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 4:56 PM

Dave V.,
I'm not getting into a contest, either (of any sort).  But part of the Pennsy story (like any RR) is it's failures as well as it's successes.  To gloss over one to focus on the other is unfair to those asking the question, "So....tell me about the Pennsy..."  Getting the facts straight should be our goal, with opinions based upon them.

The Pennsy was big...really big.  But was it actually as innovative or pioneering as some claim?

Paul A. Cutler III
************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
************

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Indiana
  • 3,549 posts
Posted by Flashwave on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 3:38 PM
Hey! where's the 4-4-4-4? I don't see any mention of her.

-Morgan

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Pittsburgh, PA
  • 1,261 posts
Posted by emdgp92 on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 3:37 PM
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Waynesburg & Washington RR...a narrow-gauge PRR branch in SW PA. It ran from 1870 to 1929...and was more-or-less a railroad "on paper" until the 1970s. Service had nearly stopped by then, and the line was abandoned. All that's left is the last steam engine, known as "Second" #4. That's been cosmetically restored, and was last steamed up in 1978.
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Colorado Springs, CO
  • 2,742 posts
Posted by Dave Vollmer on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 3:13 PM

Paul,

You can try, but I won't bite!

Not gonna get in a peeing contest...!

Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]

Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Northfield Center TWP, OH
  • 2,538 posts
Posted by dti406 on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 11:45 AM
 Dave Vollmer wrote:

 outdoorsfellar wrote:
No 2-10-0s produced, even in N scale ?

Bowser offers a metal kit of same in HO.

The only problem is the Bowser 2-10-0 boiler dimensions are too small in diameter (from using the K4 boiler molds I assume), the same thing applies to the early PFM imports, the latter imports were of the correct diameter.

Rick 

Rule 1: This is my railroad.

Rule 2: I make the rules.

Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: THE FAR, FAR REACHES OF THE WILD, WILD WEST!
  • 3,672 posts
Posted by R. T. POTEET on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 11:29 AM

Dave V., that Minitrix 2-10-0 is my candidate for the most bizarre and bare-you-know-what ugly model locomotive ever offered in the marketplace.

From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: The mystic shores of Lake Eerie
  • 1,329 posts
Posted by Autobus Prime on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 11:23 AM
 Dave Vollmer wrote:

 outdoorsfellar wrote:
No 2-10-0s produced, even in N scale ?

PCM is supposedly working on an HO scale I1sa 2-10-0.  There's actually a pilot model (unlike the N scale M1a/b), so there's some hope there.

Bowser offers a metal kit of same in HO.

N scale, nope.  None.  Gotta do what Max did in RMC and build your own.  O rre-motor a Minitrix 2-10-0 and have a foobie.  The Minitrix engine needs the firebox shortened so the steam pipes line up with the cylinders.

DV:

Jim Kelly built the same Minitrix engine into an N1, described in the Oct '79 MR.  Neat engine, the N1, if aNomalous on the PRR.  It did fill a Niche.

 Currently president of: a slowly upgrading trainset fleet o'doom.
  • Member since
    May 2002
  • From: Massachusetts
  • 2,899 posts
Posted by Paul3 on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 11:11 AM

R. T. POTEET,
Good point.  Revise my statement above accordingly (tho' I think it may apply anyways...).

Dave V.,
Well, the info came from Wikipedia, so take it for what's it's worth.  According to this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailer-Train_Company the agreement with Rail-Trailer Company was signed in Nov. 1954, however TrucTrain service didn't begin until Feb. 1955.  BTW, that page also has a rather large error on it when it states that TrucTrain was a "radical departure" by handling trailers from trucking co.'s in addition to RR owned trailers.  Um, sorry, but both CGW and NH hauled privately owned trailers from Day 1 in 1937.

What I will give credit for PRR for is the innovation of the interchange of TOFC cars among other RR's.  Other TOFC RR's ran "captured" service cars that didn't venture away from home rails (CGW, NH, SP, etc.), which lead to a hodge-podge of TOFC practices (NH cars had only one large ramp at one end of the flat, for example).

IMHO, PRR didn't "innovate" all that well.  What they did was make existing techology bigger and better.  They weren't the ones to create AC overhead, but they made theirs faster and longer than anyone.  They weren't the ones to invent TOFC, but they made it interchangable and massive.  The didn't come up with the 2-C+C-2 electric, but they made it into an instant success that lasted for decades.  And so on.  When the PRR did try to invent things, that's when it got into trouble (6-8-6 Turbine, 4-4-4-4, Penn Central, etc.).  Big Smile [:D]

Paul A. Cutler III
************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
************

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!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!