daveklepperIt would be characteristic of the Rutland to have the very lightest 4-8-2s.
BUT he's already said neither of those are it... so I'd be lookin' for a place where the Rutland and the CV came together...
O&W had ten heavier and ten lighter than the Rutland's four.
Only checked one source that claimed the only mountains lighter than the Rutland's were NdeM's... My bad for not fact-checking.
Hasn't this been answered 'enough'? If not... what remains to be given?
I'll give this one up.
The Rutland's 90-class mountains ran in New York, Vermont and New Hampshire, and Quebec, though they tended to turn back at Alburgh when used on the Green Mountain Flyer or Mount Royal during the brief period while they were active and the trains still ran to Montreal. New Hampshire mileage was at North Walpole, where Rutland delivered freight cars to the B&M yard.
Central Vermont's 700 class Texas types ran regularly in Vermont and New Hampshire, plus in Quebec and a short stab into Ontario to connect with parent CN. They were too heavy for the bridges in Massachusets and Connecticut.
All of the New Hampshire mileage for both classes were on B&M trackage rights. Their paths crossed at Bellows Falls VT and Cantic QC.
Note the article in the recent Classic Trains did not show the B&M line on the New Hampshire side of the Connecticut between Brattleboro VT and East Northfield MA, which was still in service when the Montrealer and Washingtonian were discontinued. (CV southbound B&M northbound) The bridge at East Northfield was taken out of service in 1969 after one of the abutments failed, since which both northbound and southbound traffic have used the CV line on the west side of the river.
Overmod got most of the details, so he gets the next one.
Waiting for one of Overmod's usually brilliant and puzzling questions.
Trying to develop a proper puzzler that is more interesting than the usual locomotive tech stuff I put up.
Still working. I have been out of town and unable to think of something interesting enough. I suspect I just doubled my workload...
We've recently discussed the wonders of low-floor double-deck streetcars like the Broadway Battleship. But at the opposite extreme...
Name an American system that ran a four-wheel full double-deck streetcar.
"American" can include Canadian. Was it Halifax?
Among other cities San Diego and Oakland both had single truck double-deck cars. There were a couple of them on the Beebe Syndicate lines serving Syracuse NY as well. The Syracuse cars had a roof, both San Diego and some of the Oakland cars had the turret for the pole on the upper deck more or less within reach of passengers. This is not quite as dangerous as it sounds, since the cars were made out of wood.
Those are all three I knew about.
Next question is yours!
Late additions to EMD's 1966 catalog, its most powerful passenger locomotives were sold to four railroads, two for each model. Name the models, the owning railroads, and the railroad where they were last used in passenger service.
Well, two were ATSF and Milwaukee for the FP45s, and two were SP and Great Northern for the SDP45s.
ATSF's were famously for the El Cap and Super Chief, Milwaukee's for the 'taken over' City of God-knows-where last-mile into Chicago.
I always assumed GN's were for the Builder for the few years before Amtrak.
SP's were for general mail and express, but the mail contracts disappeared nearly when the units arrived and they then got used in commute service. The two surviving units with steam generators for business-train use have to count as the 'last' units to run a passenger service. I think 3201 slightly outlasted 3207 in service... I still can't believe they scrapped them both!
I believe that GN's SDP45's were pooled with the SDP40's for the "Empire Builder" and the "Western Star". SP's SDP45's wound up in general passenger service, often running solo. They didn't wind up on the Peninsula commute until sometime after May 1, 1971.
Overmod got the railroads and models right. SP's SDP45s served on all types of passenger trains and were around early enough to haul the Lark before it was discontinued. Amtrak leased them, along with FP7s and F7Bs, until Amtrak's SDP40Fs took over some time in 1973. By that time 3200 and 3205 had already been in the Commute Pool for over a year. The remaining eight were transferred to the Commute Pool to replace the Fairbanks-Morse Trainmasters. SP also bought three GP40P-2s, and rebuilt a pair of boiler SD9s to go with the eleven remaining boiler GP9s.
Was it Illinois Central that wanted to order Es, or units with E style nose, and was 'too late' to get an order in when passenger unit production changed (IIRC sometime in 1964?)
As noted about a 'turbocharged FL-9' there might have been interest in an E unit with the guts of a GP-40... or even a GP-38. Heaven knows the idea worked later for Amtrak!
Milwaukee's were the only FP45's not equipped with dynamic braking. IC's probably would have been the same, considering their motive power philosophy, and they would have looked terrific in IC passenger colours.
Erie-Lackawanna bought SDP45's without steam generators, they wanted the greater fuel capacity that a longer frame afforded. I guess you could say they were SD45's on SDP45 frames.
I guess no one at EMD or IC realized that the tooling to make the noses still existed Down Under into the early 1970s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Railways_CL_class
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeErie-Lackawanna bought SDP45's without steam generators, they wanted the greater fuel capacity that a longer frame afforded. I guess you could say they were SD45's on SDP45 frames.
I was glad to be part of the effort to preserve one of those CLs a couple of years ago. They are almost precisely what I'd expect IC to have wanted: the bulldog nose on the angular 'cowl' carbody structure.
Milwaukee's decision to forego dynamics was surprising, even considering that the FP45s were expected to run with FP7s and Es that weren't equipped with dynamics. More surprising was the failure to fit them with ATS, which was still in service when the FP45s were delivered. This initially left them as trailing units on the Chicago-Twin Cities trains, though they did lead on the "City of Everywhere". The end of ATS and the end of the FP45s on passenger trains allowed MILW only a short time to use them as leaders on the "Hi", "Pioneer Limited" and "Fast Mail".
In the 1920s, a railroad got some new steam locomotives that proved to be somewhat inadequate in tractive effort for them, and chose to supplement them with tender boosters. The experiment did not last, but the engines proved more useful elsewhere. Name the railroad and builder. Extra points (but not many) for where they went.
Very good question
I intentionally kept it cryptic for reasons that I think will be clear when the answer comes in.
I haven't found the answer yet but reading some interesting material about Bethlehem auxiliary locomotive.
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Jones1945...reading some interesting material about Bethlehem auxiliary locomotive.
Overmod Be sure to read the discussion in the court case between Franklin and Bethlehem. There is more history there than you'll find in all the railfan publications...
Be sure to read the discussion in the court case between Franklin and Bethlehem. There is more history there than you'll find in all the railfan publications...
Will do it if I can find the document. I am just reading some articles from Google Books.
Original railroad in the Northwest, and not particularly familiar to most. The engines, shorn of tender boosters, and the railroad they wound up on, more so.
One last try: not a wheel arrangement anyone would likely associate with a booster.
I'm going to take a wild guess, two alternatives involving the Butte Anaconda and Pacific:
First guess: They were buit for the BA&P, who used them with tender boosters, up to electrification, when they were sold to the CMStP&P to replace older branch-line powerl, mostly 4-4-0s.
Second guess: They were buit for the Mesaabe, sold to the BA&P as temporary power for use up to electrication.
My guess in both cases is that they were 4-6-0s.
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