Early Alco-GE boxcab - Penn Central

[Lyon_Wonder]

Here’s a 1970s pic of an Alco-GE boxcab in Penn Central paint. 

http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=107005

This looks like an electric boxcab that was built sometime prior to WW2.  The photo contributor says this is an Alco-GE P-2b boxcab built in 1930.  It’s amazing this boxcab was kept in service for so long, and this photo was taken only a couple of years before Conrail.  I assume this boxcab was originally built for either NYC or Pennsy?

[creepycrank]

Lyon_Wonder

Here’s a 1970s pic of an Alco-GE boxcab in Penn Central paint. 

http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=107005

This looks like an electric boxcab that was built sometime prior to WW2.  The photo contributor says this is an Alco-GE P-2b boxcab built in 1930.  It’s amazing this boxcab was kept in service for so long, and this photo was taken only a couple of years before Conrail.  I assume this boxcab was originally built for either NYC or Pennsy?

These units were used exclusively for the NYC passenger service from Grand Central Terminal to Harmon where the locomotives where changed to (originally) steam or diesel road locomotives. They operated mostly from third rail but there is a small pantograph for getting through the gaps in GCT.

[creepycrank]

Lyon_Wonder

Here’s a 1970s pic of an Alco-GE boxcab in Penn Central paint. 

http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=107005

This looks like an electric boxcab that was built sometime prior to WW2.  The photo contributor says this is an Alco-GE P-2b boxcab built in 1930.  It’s amazing this boxcab was kept in service for so long, and this photo was taken only a couple of years before Conrail.  I assume this boxcab was originally built for either NYC or Pennsy?

These units were used exclusively for the NYC passenger service from Grand Central Terminal to Harmon where the locomotives where changed to (originally) steam or diesel road locomotives. They operated mostly from third rail but there is a small pantograph for getting through the gaps in GCT.

[locoi1sa]

 It does have the 2-C-C-2 wheel arrangement as the GG1. I am not into the Electrics but I admire their longevity. If only we could build most things to last as long.

        Pete

[BaltACD]

locoi1sa

 It does have the 2-C-C-2 wheel arrangement as the GG1. I am not into the Electrics but I admire their longevity. If only we could build most things to last as long.

        Pete

Lack of investable capital to obtain new equipment generally results in antiques continuing to operate long after their need for replacement.  NYC and Penn Central both lacked investable capital.

[Lyon_Wonder]

locoi1sa

 It does have the 2-C-C-2 wheel arrangement as the GG1. I am not into the Electrics but I admire their longevity. If only we could build most things to last as long.

        Pete

 

As for diesels, I'd count first generation EMD GP/SDs in the longevity category too, even though those still in service are used by shortlines and industrials, and many GP 7s and 9s were rebuilt in the 1970s by IC, ATSF and other roads.. Some first gen GPs and SDs still have their original high-short hoods too though.  Here in central Illinois, a shortline called the Illinois & Midland (former CI&M) has a 4 axle EMD called the RS1325, which looks like a cross between a SW long hood with a GP18-20 style short-hood cab.  Only 2 were built in 1960s and are still used.  It can be argued that  38/40-series locos and even Dash-2s have a lot of longevity too, even though some of these have been through upgrades or rebuilds too.  Still, the 38 and 40-series is at or near it's 4th decade of service, and I don't see GP38-2s fading away from Class 1s like the SD40-2s are now.  As for non EMDs, several shortlines still use Alco RS and Century-series locos that are just as old now as when that Alco-GE electric was in 1974. 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The P2b electrics were originally built for Cleveland Union Terminal and ran off of overhead with conventional pantographs.  When that operation was de-electrified in the 1950's, the motors were rebuilt for third-rail pickup and transferred to the New York operations.  They lasted as long as they did because it would have been prohibitively expensive to replace them in kind (custom design, short production run, etc.)

[nanaimo73]

BaltACD

Lack of investable capital to obtain new equipment generally results in antiques continuing to operate long after their need for replacement.  NYC and Penn Central both lacked investable capital.

CN operated electrics through the Mount Royal Tunnel that were even older. I'd say that was a case of "Why fix it if it isn't broke?".

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Weren't they a 'T'-class in one of those location or the other ?  Or was that another locomotive ?  I always thought they looked very classy in NYC's 'lightning stripe' paint scheme. 

They were contemporaries with the New Haven's 2-C+C-2 units, one of which was borrowed by the PRR for the tests that led to the GG1 with the same wheel arrangement.

That's quite the massive and heavy-looking frame for that comparatively little box-cab on top, isn't it ?

- Paul North.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The T-motors were B-B+B-B electrics that worked passenger trains in the New York terminal area only.  One was fitted with footboards to serve as a switcher at Harmon.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Ahh - OK, thanks for the clarification. 

Here's a link to a photo of a P2-b in better = NYC livery days -

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=154099 

[oltmannd]

CSSHEGEWISCH

The T-motors were B-B+B-B electrics that worked passenger trains in the New York terminal area only.  One was fitted with footboards to serve as a switcher at Harmon.

First came the S motors. They were later augmented/replaced with T motors. Finally, they were joined by the Cleveland refugees (P motors). I believe an S or two have been saved and one T that I know of. I think all the P motors went to scrap. I saw them moving white-lined thru Selkirk in 1975 or there abouts.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

oltmannd

CSSHEGEWISCH

The T-motors were B-B+B-B electrics that worked passenger trains in the New York terminal area only.  One was fitted with footboards to serve as a switcher at Harmon.

First came the S motors. They were later augmented/replaced with T motors. Finally, they were joined by the Cleveland refugees (P motors). I believe an S or two have been saved and one T that I know of. I think all the P motors went to scrap. I saw them moving white-lined thru Selkirk in 1975 or there abouts.

There were also Q and R motors.  The R motors operated in freight service on the West Side Freight line.  Some of the R motors went to South Shore Line in the 1950's.  Also keep in mind the various tri-powers which also operated in the New York area.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

oltmannd

  [snip] I believe an S or two have been saved and one T that I know of. I think all the P motors went to scrap. I saw them moving white-lined thru Selkirk in 1975 or there abouts. 

Bummer    - they were classy machines.  Do you know offhand where the S- and T-motors are preserved ?  I would presume somewhere in the New York City area . . . . ?  Thanks.

- Paul North.

[oltmannd]

I think they are upstate somewhere west of Albany. An NRHS chapter owns (owned?) them. In the late 80s they were stored inside what was the D&H's Colonie shop along with an Alco Mexican Northern (now at NH&I). I heard they were later moved to an old power plant building just west of Schenectady along the Mohawk River somewhere. Don't know if that's where they are now or not.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Don -

Thanks for the hint.  With a little more time to research this, it seems that there are 3 S-motors preserved, per S. Berliner, III's "NEW YORK CENTRAL (and HARLEM RIVER) RAILROAD BOXCAB Locomotives" at - http://home.att.net/~berliner-Ultrasonics/boxcabny.html - as follows:

1906 NYC S-2 #113 - National Museum of Transport, St. Louis, Missouri

"1906 NYC S-2 #115 (the last of her class, decorated as Penn Central #4715) - Illinois Railway Museum in Union, Illinois (between Chicago and Rockford)"

"1904 NYC S-1 #6000 - the original S-motor - was being stored in the Schenectady, New York, area by the Mohawk-Hudson Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society, preserved as NYC #100." 

But on another website, Otto M Vondrak posted this in Sept. 2009:

"The Mohawk & Hudson Chapter has no museum facility and no preservation efforts, so there's nothing to volunteer at. I've also been told they are no longer an active chapter, according to the NRHS."

Back to info from S. Berliner, III's website:    

"Unfortunately, as of late Sep 07, NYC S-motor #6000-***-100, in the sad company of T-motor T-3 #278, is rotting away on an abandoned industrial siding in a swampy area south of Albany." [emphasis in original - PDN]

"A group of RPI (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) students is trying to stabilize the locos."  [emphasis added - PDN]

"Ex-NYC P-motors on the CUT appear on Don Ross's fantastic NYC Electrics (and CUT) page* new URL Jan 07), so here's one as a teaser (with a whole slew of P-motors):   (17 Jan 08)"

* http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr085.htm [PDN].

S. Berliner, III has included a great collection of photos - I highly recommend it for anyone with an interest in this.

- Paul North.

 

[wjstix]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Weren't they a 'T'-class in one of those location or the other ?  Or was that another locomotive ?  I always thought they looked very classy in NYC's 'lightning stripe' paint scheme. 

They were contemporaries with the New Haven's 2-C+C-2 units, one of which was borrowed by the PRR for the tests that led to the GG1 with the same wheel arrangement.

That's quite the massive and heavy-looking frame for that comparatively little box-cab on top, isn't it ?

- Paul North.

They were P-2 engines I believe. I wouldn't call the body "little". Remember the trucks are articulated to go around sharp curves, the front and rear trucks swing out separate from the drive wheel trucks which also pivot.

In general, unless a railroad de-electrified for some reason, electric locomotives seemed to be able to last forever. As noted, the Mount Royal electrics up in Montreal worked for something like 80 years or so.

http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/nyc227.jpg

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

I did a little reading on these last night in William D. Middleton's When the Steam Railroads Electrified (Kalmbach Publishing Co., 1974 or so).  They were the first with the 2-C+C-2 wheel arrangement, which led to the New Haven EP-3a that was borrowed for the PRR tests and in turn led to the GG1.  22 of them were built, and all went to New York City, except for 1 that was destroyed in a fire. 

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

There are a couple of deep ironies lurking in the history of these ex-NYC P-2 electric locomotives, as follows:

The 22 P-2's were developed and built for the New York Central by GE in 1929-1930 for CUT, albeit with only 1 traction motor per axle. 

GE then peddled the design to the New Haven circa 1931, which adopted the basic articulated wheel arrangement layout for its 6 EP-3a's, but with twin traction motors via 'quill drive' instead.

One or more of the NH EP-3a's was then borrowed by the Pennsylvania RR circa 1933 for extensive testing at Claymont, Delaware, in comparison with other PRR electric locomotive designs.  The result was the GG1 - also with twin traction motors per axle, via a quill drive - starting in 1934, and ultimately ending with 139 locomotives.

So the first irony is that it was a smallish NYC locomotive fleet of 22 units that led - just slightly indirectly, with only a single intermediary, the NH - to the development of its rival PRR's greatest electric locomotive, in a fleet over 6 times larger !  (This would be just like a popular and technically proven Ford car design leading to a best-selling General Motors model as well.) 

Moreover, the PRR was having a lot of problems developing its own satisfactory electric passenger locomotives - the P5's and P5a's were not living up to performance expectations, and the PRR had experienced much difficulty in that regard since it adopted mainline electrification in 1915.  This is well-chronicled in Michael Bezilla's book, Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania Railroad: 1895 - 1968 (Pennsylvania University Press, 1980).  So it was essentially the NYC design that bailed out its arch-rival in the competition for New York City - Chicago passenger traffic - the PRR - from this dilemma.  (The same automotive industry analogy would apply here as well.)

Finally, both locomotive designs - the P-2, and the GG1 - wound up working for the same railroad, the merged successor to the PRR and NYC, the Penn Central.  Further, had the EP-3a's survived that long, they too would have been PC locomotives, when the ICC ordered the New Haven to be included in the merged roads a year or two later.

The moral of this story, I suppose, is to be careful with how far technical innovations are publicized and spread in the same industry or business.  There's a reason for patents and 'non-competition' clauses and the like - otherwise, a later competitor may obtain a greater advantage than the originator or innovator does - and perhaps we're more attuned and sensitive to that risk in this day and age of common 'software' than business was generally 'back in the day' when these locomotives were being developed.  Bezilla notes in the Preface or Introduction to his book that it is partially about the management of the risk of technological development, and that is tru and well-done.  But I don't believe or recall that he realized or commented on this irony of one railroad competitor inadvertently aiding another railroad competitor with the development of essential technology - kind of like MicroSoft getting hold of an Apple Mac computer and then using it to improve MS's Windows software to beat Apple at its own game, to draw another analogy.

- Paul North.

[BaltACD]

Paul_D_North_Jr

The moral of this story, I suppose, is to be careful with how far technical innovations are publicized and spread in the same industry or business.  There's a reason for patents and 'non-competition' clauses and the like - otherwise, a later competitor may obtain a greater advantage than the originator or innovator does - and perhaps we're more attuned and sensitive to that risk in this day and age of common 'software' than business was generally 'back in the day' when these locomotives were being developed.  Bezilla notes in the Preface or Introduction to his book that it is partially about the management of the risk of technological development, and that is tru and well-done.  But I don't believe or recall that he realized or commented on this irony of one railroad competitor inadvertently aiding another railroad competitor with the development of essential technology - kind of like MicroSoft getting hold of an Apple Mac computer and then using it to improve MS's Windows software to beat Apple at its own game, to draw another analogy.

- Paul North.

Rememeber that the railroads were just customers for these engines....The manufacturer (GE) had to solve the problems as the developed.  Same things still happen today.  First user of a new locomotive or a new sub assembly on a locomotive runs into some problems with it, the manufacturer solves the problems and the next purchaser gets the benefits of the problem solving.