So as not to mess up the steam inventive design thread anymore, here is a new one.
Note that the 2-6-6T that was the last posted was not a Boston suburban locomotive. Look on the road name on the coal bunker. I think it may have been power for the Segewick Avenue - Gettys Square Putnam Division service and, also operating out of High Bridge yard, the pre-electrication, pre-oil-electric twice-daily West Side Line local service.
I admit memories can dim, and the locomotive that I remember as a 4-6-4T may have indeed been a 4-4-6T. Can anyone post a picture of either with Boston and Albany on the bunker?
The only B&A steam power that got New York Central on tenders were the 600-class Hudsons when new, and some of the Birkshires in later shopping and repainting. Some of both classes did see service elsewhere on the NYC system after the B&A was 100% diesel in 1952.
The Locomotive Cyclopedia has a builders photo of a B&A 4-6-6T. I believe these were the last suburban tank engines built for the B&A. Quite the handsome brute!
I've often wondered why US railroads, particularely in the northeast, didn't embrace tank engines to a greater degree. The railways in Europe went for them in a big way. Seems like they would have been a great match for B&M's Boston commuter runs or Pennsy's pre-electrification Philadelphia network or Pittsburgh short turnaround commuter hauls.
THANK YOU Dave.
I only posted the J-class engine because it showed the six-wheel truck a bit more clearly. NYC 'counterpart' of the D class.
According to one site I read, Whyte (yes, that Whyte) noted that crews on NYC didn't like operating the tanks tender-first, and would routinely get them turned or wye'd, which took away much of the rationale for using tank engines operationally. Then, as it turned out, the D class did not have sufficient water to make Harmon without a stop, so the equivalent of an A-tank was put on to increase the range (I have not yet found a picture of this arrangement in service). The sight restrictions from a tank engine were generally worse than on a conventional engine, the driving position tender-first not exactly the best (even in the presence of duplicated controls as on the German 61s) and the maintenance problems (including corrosion in the bunkers) more involved.
rfpjohnI've often wondered why US railroads, particularly in the northeast, didn't embrace tank engines to a greater degree. The railways in Europe went for them in a big way. Seems like they would have been a great match
LOTS of railroads in the Northeast used them -- just on commuter services. And most of the services with adequate density were electrified just as quickly as possible. There is a picture of, I think, Chestnut Hill station in Alexander's 'Down by the Depot' that mentions that steam tanks required a layover yard, water and fuel facilities, and no doubt a great deal of steam, smoke, and waste. And, of course, tax on all the real estate and business property used -- in most places, at crippling rates. All that went when a system adopted multiple-unit cars...
Of course, when commuter trains became a bit longer and heavier, the size and sophistication of tank to pull them changed, too... and almost always the solution was to use locomotive and tender when things got to that state (compare the operations on CNJ, which had some of the most capable American tank engines). And commuter service is largely limited to restricted times and days. A light conventional locomotive might be useful in other service.
Meanwhile, we didn't have the kinds of little branch line services where the English, for example, would use tank engines. For that sort of thing we'd mostly use older locomotives and contrive some way to turn them if necessary. Or --very early -- started experimenting with steam cars and then gas cars, Here, too, though, with any particular rise in patronage, the situation went to bigger trains, with bigger locomotives, and I suspect the cost of a table or wye was less than the opportunity cost of having a general-service locomotive rather than a 'single-purpose' tank fleet. (I haven't brought up full-crew laws yet, and I don't know to what extent this factored into tank-engine operation -- but I suspect labor reduction was NOT part of the possible economy of tank-engine operation...
If you look at John White's history of the American railroad car, you can get an interesting idea of just how far back the principle of the purpose-built railcar was understood. That would limit the adoption of tank engines at the 'light' end of services, too. Later would come a variety of experiments into more powerful cars that could handle trailers -- the Unit Car and the International Harvester 8-cylinder car being two particularly well-detailed ideas.
Mtosf IC suburban trains used tank engines before electrifcation, plus nearly alll Chicago Elevated and Manhattan Elevated, and most but not all Brooklyn Elevated trains. Lots of Long Island pre-electrification also.
The Boston and Maine and the New Haven simply had lots of surplus older main-line locomoties still suitable for suburban service but too light and slow for mainline service,
Boston and Maine also had dozens of armstrong turntables at suburban locations. On a few lines the suburban RS3s and GP7s got turned regularly until the turntables wore out or service ended. RDCs didn't ride the turntables so much.
Southern Pacific had eleven dual-control GP9s in San Francisco-San Jose commuter service (along with a bunch of single-ended FM Trainmasters). Despite the dual controls the only trains that regularly drew an engine long hood forward were 126 and 141, the Del Monte, after it was cut back to Monterey where there was no turntable (the turntable was in Pacific Grove).
I realize that there is no substitue for electric MU's in intence frequency commuter service. PRR,Reading and IC all reached the point where it was the only acceptable solution. I guess the question I posed earlier was borne more from a personal fascination with the galaxy of tank locomotives, some not so small, used across the pond.
I know crews have always objected to running in reverse. But Pennsy, PRSL, Reading, CNJ, etc all did it on a regular basis with conventional tender locomotives. Maybe they kept a team of chiropracters on call for cricks in the necks of engine crews.
I suppose the answer does lie more in the economy of using older power in service that was already losing money, even shortly after the first world war, rather than invest in some cool, modern tank engines to satisfy quirky railfans!
As for diesels, on the RF&P they went nuts with dual control. We had it on our GP-7's GP-35's, GP-40's (NOT the -2's) and even on the SW-1200's and the dreaded 91 (SW-1500). The 7's were all out of service by the time I hired, the 101 was later reserrected with a single control stand from a retired GP-35. The SW-1200's lost theirs in the mid-80's, but the rest of the fleet kept the arrangement. Towards the end of RF&P days and in the begining of CSX we started running long-hood-first more frequently. There was alot of grumbling from some of the hogheads. Didn't bother me , I got my start on the Southern where we were used to looking past the long snout. The B&O crews squeeled when they got our "motors" in the lead for ATC. Of course they missed their dynamic brake, but long-hood-forward was just wrong. Claims were filed,and complaints were lodged, but to no avail. Dual control meant there was no descernable front!
I have to modify my statement regarding older power with regard to the PRR. When the LIRR came into their fold, they got plenty of experience with tank engines. But they selected the G6 4-6-0 as their "modern" standard for steam commuter trains, built lots of them well into the 1920's, and they became the largers class of steam power on the LIRR. And many if not most were equipped with tender reverse-running headlightss.
i think the IC had some suburban tank engines as well in Chicago, but CSSSB
Hegewisch would know.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
IC had generations of tanks on its suburban service -- one of the big reasons for electrification in the '20s IIRC.
I'd thought CSS&SB was built as an 'interurban' and always operated under wire. Of course I stand ready to be corrected if that wasn't so (too lazy to fact-check it ;-} )
According to the Summer 2013 issue of "Classic Trains", the CSS&SB was an interurban and was part of the Samuel Insull empire.
Mike
Overmod I'd thought CSS&SB was built as an 'interurban' and always operated under wire. Of course I stand ready to be corrected if that wasn't so (too lazy to fact-check it ;-} )
Schlimm was referring to a forum member, not the interurban.
Well, shut my mouth! I never made the connection as to what the CSS in Hegewisch's monicker meant!
I stand corrected. And will know better next time. (At least I see I am not quite alone... ;-} )
schlimm i think the IC had some suburban tank engines as well in Chicago, but CSSSB Hegewisch would know.
I do know a little bit about it. Based on some photos from 1908 that ran in the July 1965 TRAINS (the first issue of TRAINS that I ever purchased), IC did have some tank engines in suburban service prior to 1926. I would guess that they would be especially useful for quick turnarounds on the South Chicago Branch, which maintained tight headways into the 1960's.
As an aside, when South Shore began through service to downtown Chicago, its trains were pulled intact by IC steam locomotives north of Kensington. This even continued briefly into the Insull era.
LIRR had a bunch of ex-Chicago South Side Rapid Transit. 0-4-4T tanks for a couple of years, used in joint service with some "El" (not "L") lines near the Atlantic Avenue line. The SSRT was the only one of the Chicago "L" companies to use steam on the Loop.
According to a 1904 list, IC had 21 2-4-4T, 10 2-4-6T, 2 2-6-4T and 7 4-6-4T on hand. Not sure when the last one left suburban service, but at least one was serviceable for the ceremonial final steam runs.
The steam "rapid transit" LIRR trains that ran out as far as Valley Stream and Far Rockaway did not end runs to downtown Brooklyn at the Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue terminal. There was a ramp up to the Fifth Avenue elevated tracks on Flatbush Avnue, and these LIRR trains continued to either the Sand Street Loop (platforms for trains to and from Park Row, Manhattan, via Brooklyn Bridge directly above) or to the Fulton Ferry terminal. They neve did run over the Brooklynn Bridge, and the LIRR emplyees' timetable cautioned engineers never to "take the signal" showing the route to the Brooklyn Bridge. This steam LIRR sevice continued for about a year after the 5th Avenue elevated itself was electrified and operated with gate-mu cars. LIRR tanks were the motive power.
The other joint LIRR-BRT service was summer only first from the Broadway Ferry, then from Essex and Delancy Street, Manhattan, and then from Chambers Street and Park Row subway station, over the Williamsburg Bridge, and out the Broadway-Brooklyn-Jamaica elevated to a ramp connection to the Atlantic Avenue LIRR line and then to the cross-bay line to Rockaway Park. Tanks and gate cars for both BRT and LIRR alternated, then with electrification 1904 and opening of the Wiliiamsburg Bridge elevated-subway line gate mu cars for the BRT and original MP47 (MP-48?) Gibbs mu's for the LIRR. The opening of direct LIRR service to Penn Sation removed patronage from this service which ended a few years before WWI. Gate cars in the subway to Chambers Street continued for the Jamaica service into the 1920's, when the BMT finally had enough steel cars to replace them. The gate cars were the most "modern," the 1300's composites, considerable steel, convertables, with side panels replaced by screens for summer use. The steel replacements were the large "B-types."
The original Gibbs mu's for the LIRR were basically the same design as the original steel IRT cars, which got their center doors much later. They predated Penn Station service, built about the same time as the IRT cars. I think that by the time Penn opened, the LIRR already had some MP-54's.
Overmod Well, shut my mouth! I never made the connection as to what the CSS in Hegewisch's monicker meant! I stand corrected. And will know better next time. (At least I see I am not quite alone... ;-} )
I the other elevated lines, other than then the Southside, waited until they were electrified before operating on the Loop. The Southside electrified with mu's, the first to use Spague's first mu control sysem (1899). Did the others electrify earlier with one power car hauling trailers?
The Met opened up in 1895 as an electrified operation. Northwestern Elevated also began service as an electrified operation, not sure of the starting date. The Lake Street L may have operated steam into Market Street Terminal.
The South Side L used MU cars as we commonly think of them. The other three operators used one or two power cars with trailers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.