All,
When IC bought the seven car City of Miami, they only bought one E unit (4000) to pull it between Chicago and Jacksonville, with the FEC handling the remainder of the trip to Miami. Does anyone know why they purchased only one unit for this train? Was the dispatch reliability of the Es with their two 567s high enough not to worry about it? Did they use a steam locomotive as a backup? Was one engine enough to carry the train if the other failed?
Thanks,
IC EC
This was considered standard practice for that era, and this practice was done on almost all the prewar streamliners. The IC Green Diamond was only delivered 4 years earlier and had the powerplant integrated with the rest of the train. Steam substituted for failures.
I was recently looking through old Trains "All Diesel Issues" and they indicated that one B&O loco, 56 (and 56x) worked the Capitol Limited from Washington to Chicago and return (alternate days in each direction) for a full year without missing a run. This was two units with four engines, but they were the older 12-201A type. Santa Fe carried travelling maintainers who could work on an engine while the train continued on the other three, and I assume B&O had a similar arrangement.
Even so, 56 must have been a "good" locomotive where everything worked as intended. No similar claim was made for the locomotives on the "other" Capitol Limited, that ran the matching service on alternate days for example.
Peter
That's pretty impressive for the relatively unproven technology at the time. The book "Illinois Central Streamliners" has a picture of one of the later delivered Panama Limited E6As pulling the seven car City of Miami, so it must have broken down once. When did the railroads ever plan to do maintenance/overhauls?
M636CI was recently looking through old Trains "All Diesel Issues" and they indicated that one B&O loco, 56 (and 56x) worked the Capitol Limited from Washington to Chicago and return (alternate days in each direction) for a full year without missing a run. This was two units with four engines, but they were the older 12-201A type. Santa Fe carried travelling maintainers who could work on an engine while the train continued on the other three, and I assume B&O had a similar arrangement. Even so, 56 must have been a "good" locomotive where everything worked as intended. No similar claim was made for the locomotives on the "other" Capitol Limited, that ran the matching service on alternate days for example. Peter
I read somewhere that it wasn't unusual for the mechanics to change a power unit or two (piston & head assembly) at the terminals during the layovers of the Capitol Limited's power. The B&O during that period did have 'Diesel Attendents' ride with the power to take care of any issues.
The thing to remember, B&O steam power would not have made the complete run and would have been changed at locations during the trip.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
That last point is one to remember. While long steam locomotive runs did occur (see NYC and ATSF), they were the exception rather than the rule.
CSSHEGEWISCH That last point is one to remember. While long steam locomotive runs did occur (see NYC and ATSF), they were the exception rather than the rule.
ROBERT WILLISON CSSHEGEWISCH That last point is one to remember. While long steam locomotive runs did occur (see NYC and ATSF), they were the exception rather than the rule. the new diesel must have look like incredible machines. They did the job of many steamers on a typical run. Just another reason for the rush to dieselize.
the new diesel must have look like incredible machines. They did the job of many steamers on a typical run. Just another reason for the rush to dieselize.
Well, it's been said the steam vs diesel war really wasn't won out on the roads, it was won in the backshops.
+ 1
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.