By the way Crosley Field, where the Reds played in Cincinnati until 1970, is two blocks from Cincincati Union Station.
If I remember correctly the New York Central crossed the Harlem River into Manhattan by the Polo Grounds to connect with the elevated. I do not remember off the top of my head when the bridge went to the IRT. After the New York Central discontinued service across the bridge many trains terminated at Sedgewick Av. And the elevated trains were one stop away. This continued until the NYC trains that terminated were discontinued. The remaining elevated train, the Polo Ground shuttle, was itself discontinued six months later.
I'll accept the obvious answer that Philly was unreachable via the New York Central System (becuse it might not have been immediately obvious to everyone that Pittsburgh was...) Cleveland was AL, so Municipal doesn't count, though it would for AL stadiums. I'm looking for the NL team whose stadium was closest to the NYCS tracks.
In response to your objection, I'll drop the other question, but the Polo Grounds (Giants) were farther from Grand Central than Ebbets Field (Dodgers).
Problem is that as the question seems to be worded, it involves NYC terminal cities that have more than one NL team. What city other than "Greater New York" qualified in the '20s? (Perhaps a more interesting question might come out of the years when NYC lost the Giants and Dodgers, but hadn't yet cobbled up those ridiculous Mets...)
If access in the '30s was anything like it is today, it's hard to imagine anything much closer than Cleveland ("Municipal Stadium", now FirstEnergy Field where no few seats appear to be closer to the Amshack than some of the other seats...) But the question is '20s when they played at League Park, and anyway Cleveland is far from being a NYC 'terminal city', no matter what they called their station building.
Hard to imagine the team 'furthest away from the NYC system' -- in more ways than one! -- being anything but the Phillies. (Pittsburgh had the P&LE) But that's too obvious an answer to be right...
I'm talking distance in miles or feet from the stadium to where trains (to other NL cities) could be boarded. As for stadiums near NYCS tracks, one is a clear winner.
Are you counting Brooklyn as a NL city (it was)? It is hard for me to imagine that the Polo Grounds (which was right across the Macombs Dam Bridge from the NYC main) had longer or more onerous access to NYC trains by mass transit than Ebbets Field would... we might be talking 125th St. to reach some of the long-distance trains vs. Grand Central by subway from Flatbush, but I'm by no means certain about how the mass-transit operations from the Polo Grounds actually went close to someplace like Marble Hill.
Access to the American League team was interesting, of course; the NYC ran right around it, and to be honest the high point of going to or coming from Yankees games was not the veal marsala at the Flash, it was watching the trains from in front of the restaurant... and walking over the tracks. But the NYC main might as well have been the moon as far as access from any of its trains to the Stadium was concerned...
In the 1920s there were two National League teams whose named locations could not be directly reached by New York Central System trains. One of those had closer access to the New York Central System than the team whose park was physically closer to the NYC.
Which NL city could not be reached by the NYCS?
Which NL city's park was closest to NYCS tracks?
Of the teams that shared an NYCS terminal, which was closer?
My first trip to New York City was on the CN/ Lehigh Valley. Will never forget that. Also, was on one of the last though the St Clair tunnel passenger trains Sarnia/Port Huron. It was an Amtrak train Toronto to Chicago with superliner coaches. That would have been 2004. Signs were posted on the vestibule doors of the discontinuance at the end of the month. From then on a Via train went to Sarnia and a seperate Amtrak from Port Huron. The border crossing was up to you. US custom agents were driven out to the train and did a walk through asking questions of each passenger. I believe security concerns ended the through trains in the tunnel.
I belonged to the Bluewater N scale club Sarnia/Port Huron and just dreaded going over that Bluewater Bridge for meetings.
I forgot about CN - at least up to the early 1960s. Toronto-New York via LV, Montreal-Boston CV/B&M (no sleepers after 1953 - they ran via CP/B&M) or Rutland/B&M (no sleepers), New York via CV, B&M, NYNH&H. One route common to NYC and CN was Montreal-New York via Rutland, B&M and NYC until around 1950. Detroit was served by ferry (later bus) from Windsor Ontario for trips to Toronto and Montreal, Chicago trains ran via Port Huron/Sarnia.
I'll post a new one later today.
So the cities involved will be Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, Chicago, New York and Boston. Well the Canadian National had service to them all except maybe Boston. Canadian Pacific went to them all except maybe New York. CP must have had a through sleeper/coaches to New York likely with the NYC, CN to Boston via CV.
Pretty sure NYC went to all of them. The Central to Toronto via TH&B. I saw daily NYC through sleepers and coaches through Burlington, usually powered by the ex NYC J1d class. Someone with an official guide from post war to about '63 could look up the train names. The International, Maple Leaf, Detroiter were a few of them.
I recall quite vividly when trains with the NHL teams would come through my hometown of Burlington. Word spread around the playgrounds at recess to be at the station at at specific time, say 5 o'clock, to see the Blackhawks, Maple Leafs, Red Wings or the Canadians. We would go up there and wave to the players at the windows as the train was stopped running from car to car. Sometimes the trains would barrel right on through. Then we would all brag about who waved to us. " Bobby Hull waved at me" or Frank Mahovolich, Gordie Howe, and on it went.
Still plenty of steam in Burlington right up until late 1959, then it was all gone very suddenly. Funny how you know something so darn good just won't last.
Oh gosh, I forgot all about NYC. Yours Rob.
http://streamlinermemories.info/CAN/CN61TT.pdf
Before the 1967 expansion, New York Central. Montreal could be reached via NYC (Adirondack Division), or D&H. Toronto via MC/TH&B/CP from Buffalo, or via CP from Detroit. The other four were on line or on wholly controlled lines (B&A, MC). Of the fifteen city pairs NYC had sleeping car lines between eleven of them, and two of the other four originated or terminated on NYC(MC) track.
In Gordie Howe’s ehday, what railroad had trains, or through trains partly over other railroads, to all of the cities in the NHL?
Great read Wanswheel.
MiningmanQuick query ...so if that T1 Trust thing actually gets to real construction then avoiding the Type A oscillating cam system would be a sure thing? Certainly relocating the gearbox mechanism would be a necessity.
In the interest of avoiding any further OCD accusations -- PM me for more detail.
5550 will have type B-2 Franklin gear (which is type B, external shaft, driving transverse camboxes optimized for the 8 valves per cylinder of the as-built T1 cylinder blocks), basically replicating the arrangement used on the T1 with outside poppet drive. However, this will probably be done using the ligher-weight 'drive-arm' shaft arrangement used on the type D Vulcan "conversion kits" made up for the Army 2-8-0s, instead of the heavy frame seen on the C&O and PRR type B installations.
There will be no heavy and complex inside gearboxes. There is a bit of compromise here, because it's more difficult to achieve proportional cutoff adjustment on external type B unless it uses a continuous-contour cam (and even then, it's something of an approximation). However, I think the benefits of proportional opening and closing of poppets are overexaggerated, despite what the early Franklin System 'conversion' approach said about using Walschaerts or Baker to drive the gear. (It is appropriate to work the poppets following the accelerations in long-lap long-travel gear during the time the port is open to steam, but I think this is a very different thing from what the converted gear was actually doing at the gear's camshaft...)
[/quote]
rcdrye had the right idea, but wasn't specific enough. wanswheel, on the other hand, nailed the whole thing with one picture. It's his question.
http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/topics/homefront/p_troop_train.htm
Also to Overmod-- boiler steel problems with the Q2...you alluded to the problems with the lagging But what were the "air quality" issues you speak of? 3/4 inch corrosion is very severe.
Quick query ...so if that T1 trust thing actually gets to real construction then avoiding the Type A oscillating cam system would be a sure thing? Certainly relocating the gearbox mechanism would be a necessity.
Was 5774 involved in a wreck and repaired at Juniata?
A number of BP-20 were rebuilt at Janiata and reclassified as RF-16z , being down rated from 2,000hp to 1600hp and used in freight service, however the 5774 is not amoung thAt bunch. There is a picture of 5774 being reconstructed on the Hagley site but I cannot get it to download and read the text. Was the rebuild done by Alco by any chance? Does Alco appear on the builders plate?
wanswheelHagley Digital Archives has 2 photos titled “Baldwin diesel engine #5774 under reconstruction” on Jan. 4, 1951 and 4 photos of #5774 on Jan. 30, 1951.
For those who say restoring diesel-electrics has to take a long time (and for those who say the BL-20s were unsuccessful) think about what these pictures and their dates show you.
That explains why Juniata was (justly!) proud of their work. Now why did they do it?
As a hint, my father grew up in Wilkes-Barre and was in the First Armor Division after med school in the early '50s.
Hagley Digital Archives has 2 photos titled “Baldwin diesel engine #5774 under reconstruction” on Jan. 4, 1951 and 4 photos of #5774 on Jan. 30, 1951.
http://cdm16038.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/searchterm/baldwin%20diesel%20engine%20%235774/field/all/mode/exact/conn/and/order/nosort
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/282716/
MiningmanNo doubt vainly searching for the Type A oscillating cam system that operates the poppet valves .. Cut off controlled by the gearbox mechanism ...the rear set somewhere around there but way inside...
Its actual location of the nightmare box is far more weird -- it is up at the front of that rear engine, set into the engine bed, tipped up on end.
Yet another reason to ditch the type A oscillating-cam mechanism is that the conjugating shaft on Deem's approach needs to go neatly through that area. With type B it's a cinch ... in fact there is a nice 12" hole in the transom to guide you.
Wanswheel- We need your help with the "unit number" thing BP-20 5774.
No doubt vainly searching for the Type A oscillating cam system that operates the poppet valves .. Cut off controlled by the gearbox mechanism ...the rear set somewhere around there but way inside...either that or raccoons have moved in.
Fun aside, what we would not give to be right there next to that fellow and incredible piece of machinery. Not one saved. Nothing. J3a as well. Not good for the mind, difficult to understand.
MiningmanThis was all abondoned very quickly and left us all with a "what the..?" to ponder. In a post years ago a knowledgable fellow put forth that somewhere between 55-70 million dollars was wasted on duplex drives. I too believe the T!'s were "fixable" and perhaps they should have "used them up" as they say on the farm
An amusingly evocative image is the picture that is on the last page of the postwar 'modern locomotives' booklet that wanswheel just posted. When I first saw it many years ago, it summed up many things about the PRR and its approach to modern power in general and to the T1 in particular. Compare it to the triumph inherent in Rolling Power:
rcdryeDid PRR put the stripes and decals on the body? UP got units in primer gray, or just unlettered for many years.
Here's a hint: The answer to the first sentence is "yes ... technically"; the answer to the second is 'no, not at all like that'.
The unit number is significant. (This is probably all wanswheel needs to figure it out.)
https://archive.org/stream/ModernLocomotivesAndCars1939PennsylvaniaRailroad/albany00alba#page/n0/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/ModernPowerForTodaysTrainPennsylvaniaRailroad/albany00alba#page/n0/mode/2up
My '69 Chevy Malibu ( bench seat up front, AM radio only, nothing fancy, but it's a convertable with real white leather interior) ,,owned and used since 1972 by myself has well over a million miles on it, and I never babied it until very recently last 5 years...pretty sure I beat all those T1's and such total mileage wise.
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