ALL:
"Trains", June 1943, Page 14 has a picture of a Philadelphia and Reading MU train.
What was the purpose of the "bar" sticking out over the headlight.
Also, how old was that equipment at that time (1943).
I have read that the Philadelphia and Reading became the Reading Railroad.
Ed Burns
Happily retired NP-BN-BNSF
That bar is part of a "bus bar' system, even on those cars with 'graphs - see: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/89158/rdg803-1.jpg
Also http://www.american-rails.com/images/NorristownRDGMU9124.jpg
Roughly 12 - 15 years - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_electrification_in_the_United_States#Reading_Railroad
P&R did become RDG, through various corporate reincarnations.
- Paul North.
Bus bars were quite uncommon in North American electrifications. I believe that the GN box-cab electrics were equipped with them but I'm not sure of any others.
Almost all EMUs today have some kind of connection to their married pair. A lot of time it is just a cable but still provides power to the no PAN other car . That limits the number of pantographs contacting the CAT. Understand that some CAT gets too much oscillation of the wire ? The MNRR M-8s are one example although it is receiving 25 single units at the end of MNRR's order.
blue streak 1 Almost all EMUs today have some kind of connection to their married pair. A lot of time it is just a cable but still provides power to the no PAN other car . That limits the number of pantographs contacting the CAT. Understand that some CAT gets too much oscillation of the wire ? The MNRR M-8s are one example although it is receiving 25 single units at the end of MNRR's order.
You may have answered something I've been wondering about. I've frequently seen pictures of MU's where both units have pantographs but only one is up, and it seemed to me that if both were up, the current on each would be less rather than having one contact carrying the full load. But if the first one causes the wire to oscillate, will the second one tend to bounce and/or lose contact with the wire?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of CovingtonBut if the first one causes the wire to oscillate, will the second one tend to bounce and/or lose contact with the wire?
Yes, and if anyone remembers high-speed Silverliner operation in the mid-1970s they'll remember the amazing spark shows. I've never looked at this carefully from the 'electrical' side, but it's quite possible that if the cat's going to dance and the pans are going to spark "no matter what", it might make sense to have as many pans sharing the current as possible... even if that made the sparking marginally worse.
Conversely, since each pan will push against and mechanically wear (friction, etc.) both itself and the wire about the same respective amounts - regardless of the amount of current each is carrying - that would be a disincentive to using any more pans than are required by the electrical current flow and resistance, etc. considerations. For example: Why use 4 pans when 1 will do, from that standpoint ?
Overmod Yes, and if anyone remembers high-speed Silverliner operation in the mid-1970s they'll remember the amazing spark shows.
Yes, and if anyone remembers high-speed Silverliner operation in the mid-1970s they'll remember the amazing spark shows.
From the paperback book Electric Trains to Reading Terminal by Wes Coates, published by Railroad Avenue Enterprises, Inc., Flanders, NJ, copyright 1990:
"A noticeable feature of the equipment was the pantograph bus connector on the roof of the multiple unit coach at each end. Equipping with a common power bus allowed a train to operate with only one pantograph in contact with the catenary. This reduced wear on both the trolley and the pantograph shoes. It also stabilized catenary voltage on long trains when more than one pantograph was raised, and in the event of damage to the catenary, involving pantographs, permitted other undamaged pantographs to be used for the train to continue to its final terminal. Roof bus connectors had been previously used in Europe, but the Reading became the first electric railroad in the United States to use this type of apparatus on MU passenger equipment." (pg. 24, middle column)
"A single shoe type pantograph, with steel contact strips, was used to collect power. The Reading would avoid greasing contact wires since steam locomotives would be operating under the catenary wires. The roof-top bus connectors allowed train operation with only one pantograph raised, saving on pantograph and trolley wear, but on longer trains two pantographs would be used. The power bus connectors on the roof of the cars were air activated, so as the train line air hoses were connected and cut in, the contact shoes would be extended to make a connection with adjoining cars." (pg. 25, left column)
The description and tabulation of the equipment on pages 23 - 35 indicates that were approx. 70 to 100 cars of various types with motors (1 truck only, under the pantograph), and about 20 trailer coaches. The trailers were unpowered (though 1, #799, a combination/ RPO, did have a pantograph), but all did have the rooftop bus connectors to facilitate placing them in the middle of a train (Roster on pgs. 34 - 35).
blue streak 1 Overmod Yes, and if anyone remembers high-speed Silverliner operation in the mid-1970s they'll remember the amazing spark shows. [snipped - PDN] . . . During the Penn Central (PC) era sparking was so bad on the NEC that is would cause VHF radios to receive the EM that sounded like a unshielded welder being used. Unknown what effect on AM radios.
Paul, as I recall the custom of using "K" west of the Mississippi and "W" to the east wasn't started until after several stations started broadcasting, hence KDKA in Pittsburg (which I believe was the first in the country) and WOAI in San Antonio. By the way, I'm not that old; I recall reading that.
Links to any photos ?
From 1902 to 1928 (design) or 1931 (operation) is a long time, and a lot of technology evolved during then. Would at least a few other railroads/ interurbans/ trolley lines have done the same, or something similar ?
ndbprrMy understanding is that the old technology (like 1920s) was to have motor generators in the engines.
The old Reading MUs, as well as the PRR MUs and PRR designed Locomotives were all AC. The speed was controlled by changing the secondary tap on the transformer.
http://www.greatthirdrail.org/rollingstock/index.html (activated link)
I gather that these bus jumpers were essentially just cables, that had to be manually plugged-in / connected and disconnected ? I don't see any similar bus bar over the tops of the doors or on the roof. Here are a couple links to more photos of it (neither are mine) to compare and contrast:
http://www.readingrailroad.org/roster/roster_pass_mu_863.html
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3385521
The difference with the Reading cars is that the bus bar connection was automatic - no wires to be plugged in, it just happened when the train line air system was charged. Also, it was a large flat 'bar' or 'horn' shape, kind of like a pantograph on its side, not wires. So while the bus connection concept may not have been an original idea, implementing it by using the overhead bus bar and automatic connection/ disconnection feature appears to be a unique advance in the U.S. at the time by the Reading RR.
P.S. (early Tues. 30 Sept. AM): While 600 volts DC live would lend itself to being connected by mere wires, the 11,000 volts AC of the Reading's electrification would be a lot safer with the 'untouched by human hands' nature of that automatic bus bar arrangement. - PDN.
Paul_D_North_Jr P.S. (early Tues. 30 Sept. AM): While 600 volts DC live would lend itself to being connected by mere wires, the 11,000 volts AC of the Reading's electrification would be a lot safer with the 'untouched by human hands' nature of that automatic bus bar arrangement. - PDN.
My own less than pleasant experience with a 440 volt bus bar suggests that even plugging in a bus line into a live 600 volt line would be quite hazardous to the carman stuck with the task.
CSSHEGEWISCH Bus bars were quite uncommon in North American electrifications. I believe that the GN box-cab electrics were equipped with them but I'm not sure of any others.
He also included a couple photos of the GN class Y-1 box cab electric motors that had them in the chapter entitled "Conquering the Cascades", but I'm under the impression that not all of the 8 such units did. I can't recall whether they were mentioned in the text or a caption, either.
Maybe more on Middleton's comments on these when I have more time. From a brief scan of the book, I did not see any others with the bus bar, and it is not mentioned in the appendices on the technologies of electrification.
Ironically, when the GN electrification was shut down and replaced by diesels, the Y-1's were sold to the PRR - 1 was scrapped/ salvaged for parts, the other 7 went into service, as class FF2. They were mainly used in helper service in eastern Pennsylvania - mostly within a few miles of the Reading MU cars that also had bus bars ! I was not aware of this acquisition, and will take a look at some of my PRR references in the next week or so to see what else they have to add about this transaction (Mike Bezilla's book, and some color photo books, etc.).
PRR removed the bus bars from the ex Great Northern electrics that they bought in 1957. All of the Reading MU motor cars had a pantograph.
Jim, you are correct. All Reading motored cars had pantographs and no traiers except the RPO did.
Another reason for not using all pans in a train. By not raising the pan on the first motor car, the train may be able to move on in case of a wire problem that damages the pantograph, allowing seervice to be restored quicker. Similarly, most electric locomotives have two pans, with the rear used normally.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.