"Fast Trains" Special Edition No. 7 2009 - Hudsons Article

[Paul3]

From the recent article by Neil Carlson in Classic Trains Special Edition No. 7 2009, "Fast Trains in the Golden Years of Railroading":

"The year 1937 saw the introduction of three new Hudson designs.  The first were 10 streamlined 4-6-4's delivered to the New Haven by Baldwin.  Dubbed Shoreliners, the class I-5's went into service between New Haven and Boston on NH's finest trains.  While the locomotives were an economic success, they gained considerable notoriety because of their high speed wheel slips.  It was determined that if the drivers slipped at speeds above 81 mph, there was significant dynamic augment to lift the driving wheels from the rails.  The resulting hammer-like blows when the wheels came back down kinked the rails.  The problem was never completely solved, and the locomotives were restricted to 70 mph.  The Shoreliners were also early casualties of the diesel, being retired by 1951."

There are mistakes in the article.  There was a PR attempt by the New Haven to call these locos "Shore Line type", but it didn't stick.  They were called "Hudsons" by most ("1400's" by the crews, "I-5's" by the mechanical dept.), probably as soon as the ink was dry in the introductory newspapers.  "Shoreliners" were the NH's name for the RDC's delivered in 1952.  It was never used for the I-5's. 

In rebuttle to the high speed slipping issue, I present the following exerpt from "The New Haven Railroad: A Fond Look Back" by Andrew J. Pavlucik, page 15:

The "Slippery" Myth

...the I-5's drivers have been unfairly criticized, as if the driver-imbalance problem had been the result of a basic design defect.  The fact was, the I-5 was "big steam," and the scale of its forces and masses had crossed a threshold: certain basic laws of physics had simply caught up with it.  Soon after the rail damage had been reported, the Mechanical Department sent an I-5 to Danbury to be slipped on a test track, and it was shortly concluded that removing 100 pounds of mass from the center drivers without changing the angle of balance would allay the problem.  The prognosis was correct, and the spirited I-5's settled right down, becoming favorite power of the operating crews (and restored to the good graces of the Maintenance-of-Way foreman).

The I-5's were no slipperier than most other modern 4-6-4 types were, but though the Shore Line had some fast track, it was no Water Level Route, either:

"Providence was a tough place to start a heavy 16-car passenger train because the station is on a long curve...  ...New London was another tought spot.  There, eastbound, you had to go around a 90 degree curve and up a grade leading to the drawbridge... 

"They didn't give us helpers engines like the New York Central gave its 4-6-4's at Albany, you know..."

Amen.

Also, on page 12 & 13, they talk about how the I-5's would move at 100 mph:

"...I've been on 1400's doing 100 miles an hour between Kingston and Boston, where you could really walk 'em along...and how you could walk 'em.  And we'd really roll 'em out there on the flats below Providence.

"A lot of things were on your mind at once at 100 miles an hour.  First, you were violating the rules - the speed restriction...  In those days, they really maintained the Shore Line.  You picked your place to violate.  In other words, you didn't pick a place where there was a speed restriction and a curve.  You didn't pick a place where you could roll the 1400 down a bank.  You picked the long straights where you knew the track to be in good shape..."

I also own a NH Employes Time Table No. 156 for 5/21/44.  The maxium authorized speed on the entire railroad was 70 mph.  So were the I-5's really restricted to 70mph because of the wheel slip, or was that the maxium speed anyways no matter the loco type?  Even so, the crews would apparently ignore that limit from time to time.

Also, in the photo caption of the I-5, it says: "With their "whitewall" drivers and chrome trim, New Haven's I-5 Shoreliners were truly striking machines.  Alas, high-speed slipping and Alco diesels shortened their lives."

They aren't truly "whitewalls".  They were painted aluminum.  The trim wasn't "chrome", it was stainless steel.  And the high speed slipping had nothing to do with their early demise.  Dieselization did them in, just like every other Hudson.

Just trying to straighten things out...

Paul A. Cutler III
*******************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*******************

[Daniel1975]

 Thanks a lot for your post - it is much appreciated!

[wjstix]

One problem with rail history (and any history I guess) is things get jumbled together over time, and the same errors or misunderstandings get repeated over and over.

For example, I grew up next to the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern on the "high line" where the tracks ran on a center grass section between East Pleasant Ave. and West Pleasant Avenue. Because this resembled what was sometimes found in streetcar or interurban railroading, inevitably mention will be made in an article (as in a recent edition of Classic Trains) that this is an example of the railroad's interurban beginnings - since it was originally projected to be an electric line. The problem with that is that the tracks were laid c.1910, the streets in Richfield weren't there until after WW2. Before that the tracks just ran between farm fields.

I remember reading somewhere that the ATSF "blue goose" steam engine type was actually called "blue birds" at the time, and that the name "blue goose" was put on retroactively by railfans who were confusing the name with the nickname of a blue/gray diesel demonstrator from the forties. 

[erikem]

wjstix

I remember reading somewhere that the ATSF "blue goose" steam engine type was actually called "blue birds" at the time, and that the name "blue goose" was put on retroactively by railfans who were confusing the name with the nickname of a blue/gray diesel demonstrator from the forties. 

 

The Blue Goose was a Westinghouse gas turbine electric demonstrator from 1952.