To provide lounge-obervation car service on both the Miami and St. Peterberg :"legs" of the train south of Wildwood. North of Wildwood the blunt-end obs was a mid-train lounge, south of Wildwood, it was a rear car. I think the round-end went to and from Miami and the flat end to and from St. Pete, but am not sure.
Originally didn't the SM run just between NY and Miami, with the Tampa St. Pete section added a year or so later?
Yes, Dave, you have it! I'm sorry that I cannot send you a cigar, but this internet thingy simply has not been developed to the point that it can handle material things. The original consist ran New York-Miami for one round trip and then New York-St. Pete for a round trip. In December, 1939, enough cars were delivered so that it was daily New York-Miami with through coaches and diner every third day New York-St. Pete. In 1940, the purchase of additional cars (including the flat-end observation cars) made it possible to have daily service, with lounge facilities, to St. Pete.
And, of course, when the train had through cars for both Miami and St. Pete, the train was split at Wildwood. Looking a SAL timetable of the period, the St. Pete cars are listed in the middle of the consist, which made the switching at Wildwood simple.
Johnny
IIt should be noted that when sleepers were added to the Silver Meteor, replacing the heavyweight all-Pullman Orange Blossom Special, in the post-WWII era, the sleepers were always at the front of the train, forward of thediner (two diners in the winter season) and coach passengers could use the observation-lounges. I think the formation than was baggage, baggage-dorm, Miami sleepers, Miami sleeper-lounge, St. Pete and Sarasota sleepers, diner, St. Pete and Sarasota coaches, St. Pete lounge0obs, diner, Miami coaches, Miami lounge-obs.
Two streetcar cities in the USA used conduit currrent collection (as well as overhead wire), New York City and Washington DC. Both cities had more than one streetcar company (and in DC an interurban as well), but there was standardization and joint use of tracks and conduit by more than one company. In addition, theoretically, New York cars could run perffectly well throughout the system in Washington, DC, but not the reverse. WHY?
New York had converted cable conduit and plows that could handle several contact levels. DC Transit's plows had just a single contact pair. DC's conduit was originally converted cable, but later rebuilt to power conduit.
Not the main reason, because the plows could easily have been modified to handle the different depths. And I mean the quesiton to be general, and after 1936, only Third Avenue continiued with Manhattan streetdars and all its (remaining) contact rals were at the same depth. However, you are close to teh answer, just not the correcct dimension (hint).
Neither coiuld operate in London. But possiblyh London's coonduit trams could operate in NY and Washington (hint).
New York had a narrower slot. NY plows would fit DC, but not reverse.
Nope. Again close. The condition in NYC that could not be coped with by Washington DC cars existed only in a few spots and could have been rectified after the lines that had been bought by GM in 1926 and 1934 had been converted to bus by Autumnn 1936. But the condition was not rectified.
A similar condition existed in London, but far more extreme and only where power collection changed between overhead wire and conduit.
The only thing I can think of is that New York's plow pits (spot where plows were attached and detached) were too short for Washington's plows. The DC plows that I have seen are definitely longer than at least the TARS plows fom New York.
Yes, but you could swap plows or modify them. The problem is bigger than that, and again on an x-y-z coordinate system you have already tried one wrong coordinate twice and the other once. Try the third coordinate. Hint: see if you can catch a movie of a London tram going from wire to conduit or the reverse. Keep an eye on the plow, which you will see!
An even stronger hint. In Times Square, NY railways used Third Avenue's conduit and track for its 7th Avenue line from 42nd St to about 44th or 45th Street. Third Avenue used NY Railways (GM-owned) track for a half a block south of 42nd St. through a trailing crossover on 7th Avenue for short-turn reversal of Broadway cars from the North. The only difference in the track north and south of 42nd Street the name on the steel manhole covers spaced along the side of the conduit slot. But the track on 7th Avenue was removed after 1936 and the diamonds at 42nd and 7th were removed, only the switches from 7th Avenue toward the east on 42nd remained for the Third Avenue's Broadway cars, which could no longer short turn at 42nd.
Between 65th Street and 72nd Street, NY Railways 8th and 9th Avenue Railway subsidiary used Third Avenue's Broadway track. The current collection arrangement was different, however.
Between Madison and Park Avenues, in front of Grand Central Terminal, NY Railway's NY&Harlem Street Railway used Third Avenue's 42nd Street with the same arrangement as on Broadway 65-72.
Broadway 59 (Columbus Circel) -65 was planned for both companies, but only one actjally used. The same condition affected Third Avenue's conduit. In a repayving project, 65-72 ended up looking lie 59-65, but 42nd Street Madison - Park did not change its looks after the NY&Harlem streetcars were replaced by buses and remained until after Broadway streetcars stopped using the tracks 31 December 1946.
One big difference between London conduit operation and both Washington and NYC was that Londons' conduit plow carriers were mounted in the middle of the underside of car bodies, while USA'a had them directly below the bolster of one of the two trucks.
DC cars had the plows hung from a hanger in front off the rear truck, at least on PCCs. WB&A cars operating in DC had a single hanger, by preference at the rear of the car, especially after the new terminal was built with a loop. Were the NY turns too sharp for the off-truck location?
You are correct about the PCC's because there was insufficient ground clearance for a PCC truck, but I believe the ex-Providence lightweights, the center door cars, and the deck-roof cars all followed NYC practice for the conduit carrier. You have got the right dimension this time, but it was not the curves themselves that made it impossible for Washinton cars to run over the complete system. The places where they could not run were specifically 42nd Street between Madison and Park, and from Columbus Circle (59th Street) to 72 on Broadway. Washington's cars may also have a bit too wide to run on the 59th Street crosstown, or rather they wold be restricted from passing another car at 59th and 10th Avenue at the curve, but that is not the issue at hand, not related to the conduit question. I think they could have run on the 3rd & Amsterdam ("T") line, on the 125St-Amsterdam-Broadway (Kingsbridge "K") line and on the 125th Street and 149th St. crosstown lines, which may have had shared track with NY Railways and its subsidiaries at one time or another, but when they did, the Third Avenue's conduit was used by both companies. Again, this was not the situation on the shared track Broadway 65-72 and 42nd St Madison-Park.
Ahh - belated memory bearing fruit. NYC cars were narrow because tracks were too close together. TARS wanted PCCs in the 1930s but had to settle for home-built rebuilds because a) NY wouldn't give up the nickel fare, so TARS couldn't generate the cash and b) because TARS PCCs would have had to be quite narrow. TARS 600 series homebuilts are about 6 inches narrower than cars built for a standard 48" devil strip. Oddly enough when the TARS 600 series cars were sent to Vienna Austria under the Marshall plan, they were restricted from various lines because they were too large. The plow hanger on the 600s is behind the truck on the #1 end.
All TARS cars were double-ended, of course. The series was as follows: 551 (1935) was the Huffliner, double-end Peter Witt sample car, aluminum, with exit doors opposite, 552-600 (1936-1937) were similar, but a slightly flatter roof, and doors staggered. 601-625 (1938) were similar, but lightweight steel instead of aluminum, and two shallow corrigations on each side for stiffness compensation for the thin steel. 625- 645 (1939) reverted to the traditional end-door format and like the previous were only conduit cars, built for 59th Street crosstown, with rubber replacing steel springs in critical locations in the truck for quieter operation past several hospitals. These cars did get trolley poles and saw service in the Bronx latter 1947 and 1948 to end of Bronx streetcar service. 646-685 (1939) were the last cars built, with trolley poles and without provision for conduit and saw service in the Bronx to the end of service. I remember the conduit carrier as under the bolster, but I may be wrong, since memories do perform tricks.
Can you read the hints and come up with the answer? Should be obvious.
I thought by stating that two companies shared track and conduit in some cases but shared track with a different conduit condition that you would conclude that there must have been two conduits in the same track, thus the conduits were off-center, and all New York conduit cars had conduit carriers that allowed a longer sidewise travel than Washington cars, and this was, indeed, the case. My memory is from visiting the conduit pits at 145th Street and Lennox Avenue, used by the 149th Street crosstown, the last New York City streetcar line using both poles and conduit, and also the pit on the Cabin John line in Washington. I also visited the Third Avenue 65th Street shops of what was then Third Avenue Transit.
So, the new question: Name the city and the streetcar line, not an interurban line, that was modernized by the introduction of the only fleet of built-new 3-truck, 2-body articulatged streetcars, not interurban or subway cars, replacing motor cars and trailers that required a 3-man crew (one motorman and a conductor on each car, with two-man crews, the entire area behind the second door of three being the "already paid' area. Well before WWII, even before PCC's. These cars operated for some time after WWII. What other streetcar innovation was this city and system known for?
Cleveland 5000 series by GC Kuhlmann, used on the Euclid Avenue line. 5000s lasted to the end of Euclid service in 1953.
The 5000s had a large front entrance and a split pair of doors on the front half, with the conductor sitting between the rear pair of doors. There was another split pair of doors and conductor's station in the rear half which was not used when the rear doors were set up as exit only and the cars were run as two-man.
Cleveland innovation was the Peter Witt, named after the Cleveland Transit Commissioner who designed the traffic flow, and also invented the paper clip (he got tired of spiking his hand along with memoes). PWs were front entrance, unpaid area between front entrance and conductor's station just forward of rear doors. Passengers either paid and got off or paid and sat down. Most PWs had nicer seating in the rear, paid, half. Peter Witt also designed the earlier two door center entrance car (CTS 1100-1299) some of which ran on the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit into the 1960s. PWs were found all over the US and even the world, with Milan Italy PWs running on San Francisco's F line today.
100% accurate. Next question please.
In London, at wire to and from conduit change points, the inbound and outbound conduits crossed the inner running rails to join in a Y in the devils strip, The momentum of the outbound car cause the plow to travel through the wye to the storage area. The plowman was not in a pit, but simply hand guided the plow to the carrier at the side of the inbound car.
I wasn't aware of dual-slot operation in New York. New one for me.
The South Shore Line shared two streets (but not tracks) in two cities with local streetcar operations. It no longer operates on either of the two streets. I'll accept cities and streets, with bonus points for the streetcar companies.
The streets escape me, but the companies must be Northern Indiana Traction and Gary Railways. I know the CSS&SB once had street tracjage in Gary and in South Bend, indeed I rode the South Bend track, a single track leaqding to an offstreet yard east of downtown, with a store-front station like Michigan City's downtown..
Dave is definitely on the right track.
The South Shore ran on Chicago Ave in East Chicago, IN and IIRC the Gary Rys also ran on this street. I don't think it ran on city streets in Gary itself. In Michigan City it ran on 11th Ave and I believe a local streetcar line also operated on that street but I don't offhand remember its name.
In South Bend, the South Shore ran on LaSalle St to its downtown station. I believe it also ran on Orange St, Bendix Dr and Wertmoor (sp?) St. I suspect there was streetcar service on at least some of these streets.
Mark
I did not include Michigan City because the CSS&SB still runs on the street there and the question was wwith regard to streets not used by the railroad now. Msrk can ask the next question if our joint answer is correct.
Mark has the correct streets and cities. East Chicago's Chicago Ave was shared with the Hammond Whiting and East Chicago (Later Chicago and Calumet Transit District) and South Bend's LaSalle was shared with the Chicago South Bend and Northern Indiana. Since the company names were optional, Mark answered the entire question.
An interesting note is that it was physically possible for a brief period around 1918 to go from South Bend to East Chicago both via the South Shore directly or the following patchwork path:
CSB&NI South Bend - La Porte
Track connection between CSB&NI and GSB&C in LaPorte apparently only used once, but they shared the LaPorte station and the street out front.
Goshen South Bend and Chicago (AKA Chicago New York Air Line) LaPorte - Goodrum Junction IN
Valparaiso and Northern Railway Goodrum Jct - Woodville Jct
Gary and Interurban Railway Woodville Jct - Gary
East Chicago Rwy Gary - East Chicago (EC Rwy part of Gary Rwys, as were G&I and V&N)
At East Chicago you could transfer to the through cars of the HW&EC and CSL to 63rd and Dorchester in Chicago.
Pretty sure CSB&NI was merged into Northern Indiana Traction, because of the description of how the Pullman-built high speed cars were delivered in 1931 (in the CERA's "Magic Interurban). CSS&SB delivered them to the NIT, where they sere run under their own power to Goshen, then over the Winona to Fort Wayne, then finally on Indiana Railroad's own tracks to Anderson shops.
The NIT did compete with CSS&SB for South Bend - Michigan City trade according to that book.
In the 1950's only one US Class1 railroad still operated this once popular type of steam locomotive. what was the railroad, the classification of these locomotives and the route of the trains which they headed?
Chicago & Illinois Midland 4-4-0 Springfield to Peoria
rcdrye Chicago & Illinois Midland 4-4-0 Springfield to Peoria
Correct. The C&IM had three of them built by Baldwin in 1927-8 and unfortunately all were scrapped when passenger service was discontinued in 1953. For photos of these interesting engines go to http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?id=CIM scroll down and click on CIM 500, 501 or 502. I believe these were the last American Standards built for any US railroad and were well suited to handle the roads two and three car passenger trains. They made quite a contrast when compared with one of the 20 heavy 2-10-2's which the C&IM ran in freight service.
So we'll move a little back in the train... This eastern carrier used open-platform wooden coaches on mainline trains well into the 1940s, not retiring the last of them until 1953.
rcdrye So we'll move a little back in the train... This eastern carrier used open-platform wooden coaches on mainline trains well into the 1940s, not retiring the last of them until 1953.
I think it was the Rutland which had some open platform combines that probably ran on their milk trains and possibly others as well. Passenger service ended in 1953 when an employee strike shut down the railroad.
You might also want to point at B&M, MEC, and even NYO&W!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Henry is correct in naming the B&M. Even the Rutland had bought a couple of A/C coaches from the Pere Marquette by 1949, and the milk train combines had steel underframes and vestibules. MEC may have had a car or two on branch lines, but B&M persisted in running open platform cars on Conn River line locals until at least 1949. B&M also operated them on Boston-Portsmouth trains and other main lines commuter runs until the RDCs arrived. This on a railroad with lightweight equipment since the 1930s!
The reason I thought of the B&M as the answer was because I recently found a wooden, open platform B&M car displayed on a short piece of track at a former railroad station without a railroad in sight. Soooo, that leads to my question: name the location and two railroads which used the station and the real star of the display.
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