Had no idea this service existed.
GTR 1 International Bridge steam car operated between Fort Erie, Ontario and Black Rock, New York over the International Bridge. Built GTR 1911. Became CNR 15901, later 15704 Rule Instruction car.
NOTE: The steam engine is difficult to see (right truck). A better photo of similar car CPR 88 is here
You Canadians are certainly secretive; I had never heard of these before.
Johnny
Not the only type of steam car, the British built a number of them.
British rail historian and photographer Colin Garrett back in the '80s of one lying derelict in (I believe) the Sudan. It didn't look like the one in the picture Miningman posted, it looked more like a bus on steroids.
Kind of like this...
https://www.lner.info/locos/Railcar/clayton.php
OK, got the link fixed. Anyone who tried it before without success go ahead and try it again.
They had 5 of them in Newfoundland
Newfoundland Railway
Government of Newfoundland took over Reid Newfoundland Company's railway July 1, 1923.
Many of these cars were built in England where they were successful for years.However, they proved unsuitable for the rugged winters of Newfoundland. In addition they required a three man crew of engineer, fireman and conductor which did not result in the anticipated operational savings.
Rail Coach E the last of five. Built by Sentinel-Cammell 1925. Therefore it is likely they were designated A, B, C, D and E.
Deggesty--- Louisville and Nashville had at least one of them because CN bought it and converted it.
CN 15006 Air Brake Instruction Car. Cochrane, ON 7/12/1954 Julian Bernard
Built 1907 by Louisville and Nashville as a self-propelled steam car (combine) seating 54 passengers. Acquired 1912 GTR 3. Became CNR 15902. April 1926 became Instruction Car 15006.
When you said "steam cars", I thought Stanley or maybe something that looks like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOjnujDhea8
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
Miningman They had 5 of them in Newfoundland Newfoundland Railway Government of Newfoundland took over Reid Newfoundland Company's railway July 1, 1923. Many of these cars were built in England where they were successful for years.However, they proved unsuitable for the rugged winters of Newfoundland. In addition they required a three man crew of engineer, fireman and conductor which did not result in the anticipated operational savings. Rail Coach E the last of five. Built by Sentinel-Cammell 1925. Therefore it is likely they were designated A, B, C, D and E. Deggesty--- Louisville and Nashville had at least one of them because CN bought it and converted it. CN 15006 Air Brake Instruction Car. Cochrane, ON 7/12/1954 Julian Bernard Built 1907 by Louisville and Nashville as a self-propelled steam car (combine) seating 54 passengers. Acquired 1912 GTR 3. Became CNR 15902. April 1926 became Instruction Car 15006.
As to that streamlined bus, I did not see much room for checked baggage and parcels, what with the two levels of seats. The picture reminded me of an overnight trip I took by Trailways from Reform, Ala., to Atlanta in February of 1971--most of the upper body of the bus was devoted to packages, and there were a few seats available for passengers.
Newfoundland? Holy jeez, I've got six books on the Newfoundland Railway courtesy of my brother-in-law "Big B" and don't remember seeing anything like that in them.
Oh well, time to hit the books again.
Firelock-- I was quite surprised to find this out myself. Seems they didn't hold up very well in the winter.
You know, looking at that "Tom Thumb" sized vertical boiler in the cab I'm guessing it could make enough steam to drive the car, or enough steam to heat it, but not both.
The car probably worked well in the "Mother Country," but the hellish winter climate of the "Senior Colony" was just too much for it.
As an aside, Lady Firestorms dad, a Yonkers native, married a Newfoundland girl, loved the place, and wanted to retire there. Mom said, "Uh-huh, I'll give him one winter. He doesn't remember what it's like!"
Steam-powered Daleks Becky? Well, they'd be easy enough for Doctor Who to deal with, all he'd have to do is wreck their injectors so there wasn't enough water over the crown sheets, and "BOOM!" No more Daleks!
Then the evil little buggers would probably dieselize and then it's back to square one.
The Newfoundland cars are Sentinels:
https://www.lner.info/locos/Railcar/sentinel.php
These appear to be based on Diagram 93 or similar cars at the link above...
The boiler, though small was a water tube boiler operating at up to 300psi.
A very similar railcar had been used on the North Australia Railway.
It was too complex for the local mechanics and despite the lack of cold weather it was soon out of service.
In 1942, the US Army converted it to diesel using an engine they had to hand, but after some discussion they were persuaded not to use it since the local railway authorities had enough problems without soldiers running their own trains.
Peter
This one reminds me of New Haven's "Besler High Pressure" Streamliner No. 9610, "The Blue Goose."
https://www.classicstreamliners.com/lo-bessler.html
If a single train or railcar using three Besler Power Truck under its body, can I call it a "Triplex" ? ( Update: I just found out that the Besler Power Truck had 8 cylinders on one Power truck......)
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Stanley did build a steam "Unit Rail Car", tested on the White River Railroad between Bethel and Rochester VT in 1916. There may have been others, but since the brothers sold the company in 1917 there can't have been many. Ironically, one of the Stanley brothers was killed in a collision with a Boston and Maine gas-electric.
I'm surprised the New Havens "Blue Goose" was steam powered, especially as late as 1935 when there were other technologies available. I suppose the NH didn't trust the new techs 100%, at least not yet.
I'm also struck by how similar in appearance the "Blue Goose" was to the "Streamliner" gas-electrics built for the Susquehanna by American Car and Foundry in 1940.
https://www.classicstreamliners.com/rr-nys-w.html
Firelock76 I'm surprised the New Havens "Blue Goose" was steam powered, especially as late as 1935 when there were other technologies available. I suppose the NH didn't trust the new techs 100%, at least not yet. I'm also struck by how similar in appearance the "Blue Goose" was to the "Streamliner" gas-electrics built for the Susquehanna by American Car and Foundry in 1940. https://www.classicstreamliners.com/rr-nys-w.html
Ok now I'm stunned.
The Beslers built a steam powered airplane! A Travel Air 2000 Bi-plane, successfully flown out of Oakland, California.
Not only that I find out the Doble brothers built steam powered speedboats, buses and trucks all over the world.
Annnnnnd.. not only that but General Motors, of all things, introduced 2 steam powered cars in 1969!!!! Whaaaat? A converted Chevy Chevelle using a Besler engine and a Pontiac Grand Prix in consultation with the Beslers. Can someone tell me what that was all about?
I'm not even certain that I woke up in the same world this morning. Alternate universe stuff.
Welcome to the alternate universe #6100, Miningman, but no worries the evil Axis didn't win the war in this one...... But Mr. Oil won and controlling everything right now.
I checked out the steam powered Chevy Chevelle and California Steam Bus Project on YouTube, these are some extremely underrated projects, talking about free energy fuel! I guess these ideas didn't make Mr. Oil happy...... Anyway, lets watch a video of the GWR Steam Railcar #93 from UK:
All that nice restoration and they forgot to put in cup holders!
......or a tiny table under the espresso maker? By the way, Earl Grey tea taste and smell so good...... too bad that I can't drink any tea since 9 years ago......
According to the "Streamliners" website the "Blue Goose" was a maintanance headache, so the concept was never repeated.
Interesting you brought up those Illinois Central "Motorailers," four of them wound up on the Susquehanna who found them perfectly adequate for their purposes. Aside from the first Suzie-Q streamliner which was destroyed by fire in 1946, the five remaining gas-electrics lasted until 1950 when they were replaced by Budd RDC's.
Time to do the "Wanswheel" thing. I found a film of that Besler steam engine powered TravelAir 2000, and here it is...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yowX1_1sEg
If you're a fan of World War One aviation, you might have noticed that TravelAir has a marked resemblence to this distinguished fighter plane...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlpPXW6BsP8
Yep! The Fokker D-7! Hollywood filmmakers of the 20's and 30's noticed it too, so the TravelAir was a favored stand-in for the D-7 in the aviation films of the time, so much so the TravelAir got the nickname of "The Wichita Fokker."
A steam engine in an airplane? Why? Unless it was a case of "Why the hell not?" Anyway you look at it it was a remarkable achievement to design a steam engine who's power-to-weight ratio made it adaptable to aircraft use.
I wonder if it had a whistle?
Firelock76 A steam engine in an airplane? Why? Unless it was a case of "Why the hell not?" Anyway you look at it it was a remarkable achievement to design a steam engine who's power-to-weight ratio made it adaptable to aircraft use.
Maxim, of the Maxim machine gun fame, was working on a steam powered airplane ca 1894. The steam engine had more than sufficient power to weight ratio, but IIRC the plane was not controllable.
OTOH, several electric planes have flown recently, and there are plans for electric airliners. Electric helicopters are also becoming a reality - shades of Heinlein's first novel "For Us the Living" (FWIW, that novel was first published after 2000).
- Erik
Miningman Ok now I'm stunned. The Beslers built a steam powered airplane! A Travel Air 2000 Bi-plane, successfully flown out of Oakland, California. Not only that I find out the Doble brothers built steam powered speedboats, buses and trucks all over the world. Annnnnnd.. not only that but General Motors, of all things, introduced 2 steam powered cars in 1969!!!! Whaaaat? A converted Chevy Chevelle using a Besler engine and a Pontiac Grand Prix in consultation with the Beslers. Can someone tell me what that was all about? I'm not even certain that I woke up in the same world this morning. Alternate universe stuff.
For anyone who hasn't done so, check out the rest of Douglas Self's truly amazing site,
http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/steamplane/steamplane.htm
The Besler brother built some truly amazing machine.
The B&O Class W-1 Besler Type proposal was discussed here a few years ago, if its performance could beat the diesel, it might rewrote the history.
Here's a story about and photo of the Stanley "Unit Rail Car".
http://theoldmotor.com/?p=17461
Firelock76 Interesting you brought up those Illinois Central "Motorailers," four of them wound up on the Susquehanna who found them perfectly adequate for their purposes. Aside from the first Suzie-Q streamliner which was destroyed by fire in 1946, the five remaining gas-electrics lasted until 1950 when they were replaced by Budd RDC's.
I love the ACF Motorailer since the first time I saw a Motorailers color advertisment, it was such a shame that such beautiful railcar didn't become popular. Maybe their size was a little too big as a railcar for many railroads.
If I run a Class 1 railroad, I would request ACF to build some 3-4 unit Railcars base on the Motorailers design with improved engine and stuffs and replace some long distance named trains with it in mid-50s. IIRC, I saw in the book that IC's Land O' Corn had a tiny "lunch corner" offer 8 to 10 seats for light meal or drinks which was a very nice feature for medium distance trains service. Budd RDC was a practical and flexible choice but it was not my cup of tea.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3227192
The steam boom starting in the late 1960s (of which the best emergent practitioner was Ted Pritchard) was almost entirely related to upcoming air-pollution legislation. In those pre-cheap-electronics days, any IC engine with throttle response quicker than about 30sec was not likely to satisfy pollution without great cost and performance loss. Hence the interest in clean low-pressure combustion even at a nominal additional fuel and working-fluid cost. Leverage this for larger vehicles.
One interesting part of the Besler airplane engine was that it was fully reversible - hence landing runs could be remarkably short for taildraggers. Be interesting to see one of Maxim's steam generators finished for test; in my opinion they were a good design. Another fun Besler project was the steam outboard motor (for Navy covert ops; it made very little noise or distinctive signature) for which many of the drawings still exist.
In my opinion the motor and drive system for the Besler W-1 would have proven an operational disaster - no compliance in the gearing, motors poorly suspended and located in an area where contact with dirt and thrown ballast would be high and maintenance accessibility low, etc. if there were a functional anti slip system I have not yet found it. Many of the issues could have been fixed, but it's a bit telling that even with testable built motors and the boiler done, the whole project was abandoned as soon as Emerson was out of the picture. (And of course the Rosen war-booty Locomotive couldn't find any takers here, or even the price of shipping anywhere else in the world, even to enthusiasts, before Korea-era politics made it politically expedient to scrap
http://www.marklinfan.net/loco11/br19-1001costruzione1940.jpg
A single power unit of a DRG BR 19 1001, consist of 2 cylinders already looked so complicated, it is not hard to imagine the maintenance cost required for one single power unit like this would be as expensive as a single booster engine which was a thing that many Class I railroad avoided to use if possible. Imagine a Steam engine with 8 units of such thing like the proposed W-1 of B&O.....it is like using 4 booster engines to run 4 pairs of drivers at a wide speed range. I don't think it would work neither.
Jones1945 http://www.marklinfan.net/loco11/br19-1001costruzione1940.jpg A single power unit of a DRG BR 19 1001, consist of 2 cylinders already looked so complicated, it is not hard to imagine the maintenance cost required for one single power unit like this would be as expensive as a single booster engine which was a thing that many Class I railroad avoided to use if possible...
A single power unit of a DRG BR 19 1001, consist of 2 cylinders already looked so complicated, it is not hard to imagine the maintenance cost required for one single power unit like this would be as expensive as a single booster engine which was a thing that many Class I railroad avoided to use if possible...
Look a bit more carefully and you will see the arrangements for lifting and aligning the engine from the top either by crane or by fork -- the idea being that the motor unit would be pulled and replaced, keeping the locomotive in service, but would be worked on in a controlled shop environment with appropriate jigs (and clean working conditions). The mechanical throttle/slip control arrangement was, I think, easily unlinked and then easily adjusted on reassembly. I suspect you can find and provide a good section view that shows the drive arrangement between a motor and its adjacent wheel; this permitted good suspension action in all appropriate planes while cushioning some of the shock from wheel back up to engine crankshaft. Roosen et al. did a good job on these and the idea deserved better than it ultimately got.
Likewise the Besler W-1 was designed so that the individual driving-axle units would be serviced via drop table, with very little tinkering aside from inspection and line maintenance being done with the motor in the chassis. Whether this resulted in access problems when drop was not convenient for any reason, I don't know.
Boosters (and auxiliary locomotives) were a problem because they were inherently simplistic machines (most had no cutoff adjustment, even of the 'circumstantial' kind that forms the operating principle of Franklin type D as installed) that were not intended to be run at high speed for any sustained period. Even the latter generation of high-speed reversible booster was not designed for cutout much above 30mph, at which speed range of course it was consuming way more steam than the engine's own cylinders could put to increasingly better use. Gearing was crude and steam-supply 'streamlining' essentially absent ... many of these exhausted up near the stack (but not providing front-end draft!) and the twists, turns, and flexible joints in the piping tell their own story. All this was to be avoided in the Lewty booster by providing only a comparatively simple and light motor for the driven axle(s) and putting the prime mover (in Lewty's original version, a small triple-expansion steam engine) in a safe and relatively clean location on the locomotive. If you consider that power for many of the locomotive's auxiliaries can be sourced from this engine also, much of the objection to the booster's cost and relatively infrequent utility can be relieved.
Imagine a Steam engine with 8 units of such thing like the proposed W-1 of B&O.....it is like using 4 booster engines to run 4 pairs of drivers at a wide speed range. I don't think it would work neither
Note that these are not the crude engines of a Franklin booster, but the kind of high-speed engine used in Doble automobiles. I will grant you that much more shock protection in a number of respects would be required for the design as I have seen it to survive long-term, but that is not unachievable detail design with contemporary technology.
A slightly different approach would be the sets of cylinders used in the Paget locomotive (see the Douglas Self site) with some appropriate form of valve gear. This has the advantage of extremely short stroke (9", the throws essentially formed into the cranked axle rather than requiring separate components or throws) which in part produces low augment force, and the multiplicity of cylinders gives the capacity of very even torque rise even at starting.
The Besler design is made to minimize augment forces in direct drive, and was intended to reduce momentum augment from the two piston and rod assemblies. The thrust is applied inside the frame, very close to the centerline of the locomotive, so the momentum augment of outside connecting rods (as on the PRR S2) is absent, and the (single-acting) thrust is mostly in the vertical plane. It is less ridiculous than you think.
I really lost my faith and confidence on the craftsmanship or design sense of the States in 30s. Remember the “quality problem” of the Franklin Poppet Valve Gear on the 50 production T1?
There was nothing wrong with the craftsmanship on the parts of the W-1 that were built; it just wasn't an answer that B&O needed (in part for the reason you gave). Likewise, most of the 'problems' with the Franklin System were conceptual (including what I consider to be a substantial amount of BS misdesign) and the ones relating to Franklin B-2 specifically including the breaking valves and seat wear were solved by 1948, not a long time in private railroad-industry development.
A fun piece of historiography is to look into Baldwin's fascination with Caprotti poppet valves starting in the '20s (they even built them on some narrow-gauge power) -- none of which succeeded. This using European technology of a goodness at least comparable to that Henschel used on 19 1001. It's not for want of trying that none of these succeeded ... but Franklin took up the Lentz system and at least made a good stab at adapting it to American performance and maintenance requirements. It would have been interesting to see at least one type C engine built with the full variable cams and spherical followers as pictured in the '47 Cyc. to see if that system could be made to hold up in long-term fast service. It will be more interesting to see if modern materials and processing make it practical now.
Overmod ...... Likewise, most of the 'problems' with the Franklin System were conceptual (including what I consider to be a substantial amount of BS mis design) and the ones relating to Franklin B-2 specifically including the breaking valves and seat wear were solved by 1948, not a long time in private railroad-industry development.
...... Likewise, most of the 'problems' with the Franklin System were conceptual (including what I consider to be a substantial amount of BS mis design) and the ones relating to Franklin B-2 specifically including the breaking valves and seat wear were solved by 1948, not a long time in private railroad-industry development.
Did PRR buy the valves which had metallurgy issues, or the issues were caused by constantly speeding of T1 so that the valves needed to use higher strength alloy to replace the mild steel provided by Franklin? If it was PRR’s fault, Franklin didn’t need to compensate for it, vice versa. The following info is from the FAQ page of T1 Trust:
13.Q: It's said that the poppet valves had some metallurgy issues that made them a real problem to use at speeds above 100mph but yet at the same time that crews would routinely bring the locomotives up to very high speeds to make up for lost time resulting in very expensive maintenance bills. Would you plans involve fixing those issues?
A: From what we've seen, the PRR solved this problem by 1947, by changing the valves from mild steel to a higher strength alloy that was better able to cope with the fatigue issues at service speeds. We will run durability and fatigue simulations for speeds in excess of the T1's rumored top speed, and select alloys and manufacturing processes to maximize reliability.
Overmod Franklin took up the Lentz system and at least made a good stab at adapting it to American performance and maintenance requirements. I believe this is the essential factor to achieve success when adapting foreign railroad technology apply to the States, especially when globalization or standardization was not a common thing in the past. LMS Turbomotive was built about 10 years before PRR S2, it was working fine in UK, probably because she only needed to handle passenger stock loads which was equal to merely 30% of loads in America. PRR S2 was about 300% more powerful than LMS Tubomotive but she only lasted 4 years with cracks all over the firebox, leaking steam pipes, leaking turbine casting etc. I am not saying the concept of S2 had no chance to success, I believe it just needed more time and effort, but "copy and paste" a foreign concept to America wasn't as smooth as imagine.
Overmod Franklin took up the Lentz system and at least made a good stab at adapting it to American performance and maintenance requirements.
Franklin took up the Lentz system and at least made a good stab at adapting it to American performance and maintenance requirements.
I believe this is the essential factor to achieve success when adapting foreign railroad technology apply to the States, especially when globalization or standardization was not a common thing in the past.
LMS Turbomotive was built about 10 years before PRR S2, it was working fine in UK, probably because she only needed to handle passenger stock loads which was equal to merely 30% of loads in America. PRR S2 was about 300% more powerful than LMS Tubomotive but she only lasted 4 years with cracks all over the firebox, leaking steam pipes, leaking turbine casting etc. I am not saying the concept of S2 had no chance to success, I believe it just needed more time and effort, but "copy and paste" a foreign concept to America wasn't as smooth as imagine.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter