Hi,
Let's pretend for the moment that it is 1910. You are taking a passenger train from Rock Island, Geneva, Beloit, or Peoria, to Chicago. You could be on one of several different railroads. How long would the passenger cars be and typically how many cars? What locomotive would likely pull said train? Same question but it is now 1930. I'm sure I could dig around and find the answer but I am wondering if any midwestern aficiondos might know the answer. Thanks so much.
Bruno
Man, you have an imagination! 1910. Wow! Halley’s comet came that year and the heavenly spectacle was spectacular! It came in 1986 too but was a total dud! Some here at the forums may know the answers to your questions, but it is questionable. As for car lengths, many, many cars back then were wood, so likely not very long!
There were wood cars that lated well after WWII! The B&M had open=platform wood cars into the diesel era until McGinnis had them all replaced by (more) Budd RDCs. I rode a wood car on the RF&P Washington - Richmond in 1942. And there were many 70+ foot long wood cars.
Before I give you specific answers, Is your passenger going 1st class (parlor) or coach?
Pullman began building 80' wood "Palace Cars" in the early 1890s; these included sleepers, dining cars, parlor cars and observation cars. Similar to the old HO "Pullman Palace Cars" kits once offered by MDC/Roundhouse.
Generally speaking other cars (coaches, baggage, RPOs, combines) would be shorter, like 70' coaches and 60-67' for baggage or RPOs. This continued to be true for heavyweight cars; lightweight streamliner cars introduced in the mid-late 1930s were often all 80' long.
Not sure about the exact date, but 1910 is about the time the US Postal Service required that all Railway Post Office cars be all steel. Before that for a time they required that wood cars have a steel underframe. This meant that a train could often have a steel RPO with all other cars being wood.
Since the RPOs had to be steel because steel was safer in a wreck, passengers started to complain that they wanted the added safety afforded to RPO clerks, so railroads began buying heavyweight all-steel passenger cars (and rebuilding some woodsided cars that had steel underframes to being all-steel).
As Dave points out, some wood cars continued for some time after 1930 on commuter trains, as emergency fill-ins, and as "Jim Crow" cars in the South. But when the Depression hit, and rail traffic declined, railroads primarily used their most recently purchased equipment, so you'd usually see only heavyweight cars on a train during the 1930s.
Heavier all steel cars required heavier engines. In 1910 a 4-4-2 or 4-6-0 could generally pull a train of wood cars, but a train of heavyweight steel cars the same length would be too heavy. Railroads shifted mainline passenger trains to using 4-6-2s, 4-8-2s, and then 4-6-4s and 4-8-4s.
For example, Great Northern's wooden-car Oriental Limited used 4-6-0s and later 4-6-2s to pull the train in the 1910's-20s. But the all-heavyweight Empire Builder used 4-8-2 and 4-8-4 engines from it's start in 1929 until it dieselized in 1945 (and acquired lightweight streamlined cars in 1947).
Thanks. Beyond general curiousity, I am planning a small switching layout circa 1980s. I have been giving a little thought to backdating to the 1920s with maybe a 2-8-0 and/or 4-6-0 and 36' or 40' boxcars. Tight turns and I suspect a 80' passenger car would not fit well. Thanks again.
Bruce Frierdich:
A “small switching layout”! I found that could mean a whole lot of things! (Hahaha)
Over thirty years ago in the Inland Empire of Southern California I put two eight foot long boards end to end, maybe ten inches wide, and made a nice ‘switch layout’ for my garage, and I still could park my car in it. It is unknown if you are thinking of something like that or maybe a 4 x 6 board for a layout. A few years later, we moved to the High Desert, and the property owner had a nice, empty 10 x 20 shed on the it, so I made a two-track mainline around the shed, and a switching area. Sometimes I looked out the door and watched a real train pass two or three miles away! All that was fun until I went in the hospital for three and a half months!
It is not clear what railroad you plan on modeling, but if you plan on any photography, I suggest Norfolk Southern (NS), or black steam engines. Colors don’t do well in color photography and unorthodox lighting, like fluorescent. The new digital cameras work wonders, however.
As far as passenger cars, they look unnatural on model railroad curves, unless they are on big, swooping curves. But, you mentioned having a “small switching layout.”
Hope you find success in your modelling efforts!
Bruce FrierdichBeyond general curiousity, I am planning a small switching layout circa 1980s.
You could do both - with two sets of rolling stock you can do your work with steam or Diesel, depending on your mood. The only real issue might come from spotting cars at industries based on 40' or 50' boxcars (warehouse door spacing).
Consider including John Allen's "Timesaver" puzzle as part of your "industrial" trackage. It offers a nice challenge either to yourself, or to visitors. There are plenty of references on-line. Adding a few buildings and other scenery will make it look less like a puzzle and more like an industrial area.
Depending on the scope of your layout, passenger cars may or may not fit your operating schema. But it's your operating schema, so you can do as you like, of course.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I was born in Wisconsin in '54 and lived there until '79, then lived in several states, but have lived in Illinois since '85. I am a fan of CNW, Soo, WC, and GBW. Not so much Milwaukee Road. So.... I could go with any of those lines or my own line. I have an unfinished basement that looks like an episode of horders. I also have a roughly 10' by 10' office off the first floor. I am thinking a "U" shape 18" wide on two walls and 32" on middle third wall. Other wall is a closet and door. Probably industrial buildings. That's what I am thinking today anyway....... Thanks.
Bruce FrierdichI have been giving a little thought to backdating to the 1920s with maybe a 2-8-0 and/or 4-6-0 and 36' or 40' boxcars.
One thing to keep in mind is the ubiquitous 10'-6" high 40' boxcar didn't come along until the mid-late 1930s. 40' House cars (boxcars, reefers, stock cars) built before that were normally 8'-6" high. Walthers made a large number of those type of cars in the 1980s-90s after they bought the old TrainMiniatures line. They have done some of them more recently, but the old ones turn up online and at RR fleamarkets (as do the old TM ones).
Bruce FrierdichTight turns and I suspect a 80' passenger car would not fit well.
Depends more on the coupler connections. An 80' Athearn or AHM/Rivarossi car with truck mounted couplers will do an 18"R curve, a 60' car with body mounted couplers might have trouble going below 24"R. Plus, heavyweight coaches often were 70' long; RPOs and baggage cars were often a bit shorter than that.
Bruce Frierdichbut have lived in Illinois since '85. I am a fan of CNW, Soo, WC, and GBW.
Prior to 1956, the C&NW ran commuter trains (scoots) with 4-6-2 and 4-4-2 steam power often pulling short 60' monitor (clerestory) roof coaches and combines. I recall Rivarossi offered some of the latter.
Let's not forget the original dimensions of South Shore's coaches and combines. They had a standard steam road cross-section but were 60 and 61 feet long.
Bruno: YYou need to figure out the end goal of your layout. Space limitations, environment (Heating or cooling). Your comfort level.... your carpentery skills, and budget. Next your GAGE, and area of interests. Gauge depeendsd on your personal skill lkeve, and your manual dexterity. Do you build, or BUY (OTC, ready-made, orwhat?) Most important issuye will be BUDGET! Model rairoiading will cost, more so these days. IMHO. [Married, bhow close to divorce are ouy? Single, keep your checkbook, and wallet at high port.
Through the years, UI've built and run several layouts, from American Flyer to HO, O, and TT. Lots of fun, but these days, I read.
Back in the day, John ALLEN, was my muse; and MR was goal...Not so much now.
Good Luck, and Success to you, Bruno! :-)
Bruce FrierdichLet's pretend for the moment that it is 1910. You are taking a passenger train from Rock Island, Geneva, Beloit, or Peoria, to Chicago.
Rock Island is across the state, on the Mississippi river. It's not not really close enough to be served by Chicago commuter trains. The other three, OK. So it kinda depends which one exactly.
Thanks Guys!
I had acquired a ton of HO Scale locomotives, rolling stock, buildings, vehicles, etc. with an emphasis on '50s era and 80-90s era. I am in the process of selling off all of the '50s era stuff and thinning the rest. I have skills and $ to build a medium sized layout in the basement at some point but I am leaning toward a smaller layout in our spare bedroom/office. If I had it to do over again, I'd probably go with N scale but even after selling a bunch of '50s era stuff and thinning my more modern stuff, I still have well-more than I need. (I am selling through Midwest Rail Junction in Rockford and am not trying to sell through this forum.). I really like Lance Mindheim's models and hope to do something along those lines. (Yes, pun intended.). I was also impressed by the Washington Northern. So, net is no early steam - fires dampened -- and most likely some industries, a small downtown area, and a few 4 axle locomotives in my own proto-freelanced scheme. No passenger service. Thanks again.
Hi Stix,
Was not thinking commuter trains - was thinking intercity trains when trains were still a good option for travel. (And yes, having lived most of my life in northern IL, I know where Rock Island is.... :). Thanks.
croteaudd Man, you have an imagination! 1910. Wow! Halley’s comet came that year and the heavenly spectacle was spectacular! It came in 1986 too but was a total dud! Some here at the forums may know the answers to your questions, but it is questionable. As for car lengths, many, many cars back then were wood, so likely not very long!
I clearly remember my mother telling me that Halley's Comet was not as impressive in 1986 as in 1910, while she was actually looking at it in 1986!
Peter
M636C croteaudd Man, you have an imagination! 1910. Wow! Halley’s comet came that year and the heavenly spectacle was spectacular! It came in 1986 too but was a total dud! Some here at the forums may know the answers to your questions, but it is questionable. As for car lengths, many, many cars back then were wood, so likely not very long! I clearly remember my mother telling me that Halley's Comet was not as impressive in 1986 as in 1910, while she was actually looking at it in 1986! Peter
Feature that world wide background light around the Earth was a primary cause of 1986 being lackluster compared to 1910. As well as a world population that had grown accustomed to various kinds of 'light shows' that were of higher intensity that what the comet could provide.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD M636C croteaudd Man, you have an imagination! 1910. Wow! Halley’s comet came that year and the heavenly spectacle was spectacular! It came in 1986 too but was a total dud! Some here at the forums may know the answers to your questions, but it is questionable. As for car lengths, many, many cars back then were wood, so likely not very long! I clearly remember my mother telling me that Halley's Comet was not as impressive in 1986 as in 1910, while she was actually looking at it in 1986! Peter Feature that world wide background light around the Earth was a primary cause of 1986 being lackluster compared to 1910. As well as a world population that had grown accustomed to various kinds of 'light shows' that were of higher intensity that what the comet could provide.
If I remember correctly, there were two comets in 1910. The first one was unpredicted and could be seen in bright daylight. Months later, Halley's Comet came, but was not as bright. Many older people refer to the brightness of Halley's Comet when they actually are referring to the earlier one.
I may check online about those comets. I don't know if there are any photos.
Don't shoot me if I'm wrong about this.
York1 John
Found it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_January_Comet_of_1910
How off-topic am I?
I think I remember a comet or two from my younger days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_182#/media/File:WendtPSA.jpg
I remember Comets from my younger days, too: whole strings of them were pulled by U34CHs.
The Earth was so close to Halley's Comet in 1910 that, I believe, it passed through the gas tail (leading to the pathetic cyanogen business). In 1986 as I recall we were on the far side of the orbit from the track of the Comet both in and out.
The even more miserable disappointment that this silly diversion has reminded me of was Comet Kouhoutek. What a dud that was. (That statement doesn't even deserve a semantic exclamation point!)
I do remember an otherwise unnotable comet, in the 1980s, because it was quite clear and visible as such in peripheral vision, but dim enough that foveal vision at night made it 'disappear' when you tried to look directly at it.
None of this astrophysical diversion has anything to do with the topic at all.
CMStPnP I think I remember a comet or two from my younger days.
My oldest sister was six blocks away from where the 727 (PSA flight 182) hit the ground, when it hit the ground (she heard the boom). I've also known a number of former PSA pilots.
The reporting of the accident was a hot mess, with almost nobody paying attention to the number of little details that led to the accident, such as Lindbergh Field having the only civil ILS in the area, the lack of an ATC radar display at the control tower and the fact that the Cessna was in contact with ATC (flying IFR) while the PSA was in contact with Lindbergh tower (flying VFR).
[more comments] My biggest beef with the reporting on the accident was the pile-on blaming the Cessna pilot when he was flying where ATC told him to fly along with he was practicing iLS approaches at Lindbergh Field, because that was the only civil ILS in San Diego at that time. What didn't get reported was that the Aviation trust fund had been running a surplus for a number of years and there was more than enough money to fund installation of an ILS at a general aviation field. Also rarely reported was that the establishment of a Terminal Control Area prohibited the short VFR approach used by PSA Flight 182 as well as all the other airlines flying into Lindbergh.
PSA?
(And I know of at least one 727 accident that was actually worse for the passengers...)
You could provide commuter passenger service and be thoroughly prototype for a fictional indudstrisl railroad. The Chicago and Western Indiana bought Erie 60-foot Stillwells for their Chicago commuter service, and these lasted well into the diesel era. They would look fine behind light steam, Pacifics, Atlantics, ten-wheelers, or behind passenger-equipped dual-purpose RS-2s or RS-3s or GP-7s. No reason why your fictional railroad could not have bought some. As far as looks go, these passenger cars are among my favorites, especially those that escaped letter-board modernization and kept their opennable paired-with-arch windows. Someone should be making these in HO..
Overmod PSA? (And I know of at least one 727 accident that was actually worse for the passengers...)
Pacific Southwest Airlines. It avoided Civil Aeronautics Board jurisdiction by operating intrastate within California only. It did have to comply with FAA safety regs.
CSSHEGEWISCHPacific Southwest Airlines. It avoided Civil Aeronautics Board jurisdiction by operating intrastate within California only. It did have to comply with FAA safety regs.
The cause of the crash specifically above was pitch up of the nose of the specific aircraft model when on landing approach. The crew of the PSA plane only could see the Cessna for less than 3 or 5 seconds via visual flight rules at the time in controlled airspace before they rear ended it in mid-air. That was the primary cause determined by the Feds. The other ancillary issues mentioned I think most were addressed by now.
Anyhoo, wasn't my intent to start a whole new tangent on airliners not sure how we got diverted on comets.
CMStPnPAnyhoo, wasn't my intent to start a whole new tangent on airliners not sure how we got diverted on comets.
Comet cars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_(railcar)
tree68 CMStPnP Anyhoo, wasn't my intent to start a whole new tangent on airliners not sure how we got diverted on comets. Comet cars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_(railcar)
CMStPnP Anyhoo, wasn't my intent to start a whole new tangent on airliners not sure how we got diverted on comets.
Or this?
Don't forget the "Silver Comet" between New York and Birmingham.
Bruce Frierdich Hi Stix, Was not thinking commuter trains - was thinking intercity trains when trains were still a good option for travel. (And yes, having lived most of my life in northern IL, I know where Rock Island is.... :). Thanks. Bruno
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.