So what's the new question?
My information about Pittsburgh's non-PCC cars is from Bill Vigrass, who was the project engineer and later operating manager for the PATCO Philly-Camden-Lindenwald Line, supplimenting my own multiple visits and rides in the 1949-1989 period. In addition to the railroad-roof low-numbered 3700's, there were the deck-roof higher number 3750 and up speeded-up regular lightweight cars. And Pittsburgh did call its lightweight pre-PCC Peter Witt cars low-floor cars. Today the term usually refers to cars with floors only slightly above sidewalk level, 12 - 15 inches above rail hight, permitting entrance without steps from street level. Typical lighweight cars, the single-truck Birney being the first, through PCC's, generally have a floor level of about 26-28 inches above the rail, requiring at least one step.
The arch-roof cars were the 3800's, and the older cars were 3700's, and (this I had forgotten) were railroad-roof, not deck-roof. (The cleristory curved down in typical railroad passenger car fashion, not jus cut short.) I am uncertain whether all the 3700's had the unusual and wonderful seating arrangement, but I know the 3800's did. Now what was it?
While we are on Pittsburgh (the other thread) I should mention that all the double-end Peter Witts that survived WWII were the lightweight variety. But there were some heavyweight single-end Peter Witts that provided rush hours service on specific lines, even after 1700's arrived. Which lines were these? What was the wonderful difference in the seating arrangements (and the seats themselves) of these and cars that made them popular for railfans? (My question) Some were exceptions to the general rule other than PCC's and were arch-roof cars. I don't know the numbers and someone can refresh my memory on them.
Pittsburgh was a pioneer in Peter Witt one-man safety cars, and as far as I know, none were ever two-man. Even Brooklyn started with two-man 8000's and converted to one-man during construction of these cars. This also might help explain why Pittsburgh did not refer to their cars as Peter Witt, because in the early '20's, when the first of the lightweights was built, a "Peter Witt" car refered to a two-man car as described on the other thread.
daveklepper Almost exactly fifty years ago, abandoned in January 1964, new operations started around April. The Rutland abandoned after a strike, and the two new railroads were the Green Mountain (I think the steam and RS-1) and the Vermont Railway (the GE's).
Almost exactly fifty years ago, abandoned in January 1964, new operations started around April. The Rutland abandoned after a strike, and the two new railroads were the Green Mountain (I think the steam and RS-1) and the Vermont Railway (the GE's).
Exactly so. VTR got an ex-Soo Line/DSS&A RS-1 a few months later, Green Mountain eventually bought Rutland 405 and still uses it on home rails.
Green Mountain's steam was tied to Nelson Blount'sSteamtown, which was separated from Green Mountain after his death.
Both companies are now part of the Vermont Rail System, along with Clarendon and Pittsford (ex-Vermont Marble, some ex-D&H lines) and Washington County (ex Montpelierand Barre, B&M Conn River north of White River Jct., ex-CP from WellsRiver to Newport, all owned by the state of Vermont.)
L&N #s 1 and 4 still operated north of Montgomery in 1960. Depending on the amount of stroage mail handled at Montgomery it looks most likely to me that #1's cars were handled by the Pan-American and #4's cars were handled by the Humming Bird between New Orleans and Montgomery.
When a state government bought the right-of-way of a recently abandoned railroad, two new railroad companies were formed to operate it. One opened with 44-tonners, the others with a leased RS-1 and a couple of steam locomotives. Name the state and the railroads. (Yes, it was at least 50 years ago...)
So, doesn't RC get to ask the next question? Le us have it!
Rob, when I rode coach from Pensacola to New Orleans at the end of August in 1960, I ate breakfast in the Mobile-New Orleans diner that was in the consist of the combined Piedmont Limited/Pan-American + one other train that had run from Cincinnati to New Orleans; a trainman told me and some other passengers that the combined train carried the headend cars that had been carried on #1, so it was three trains in one plus the already combined Gulf Wind (so far as I know, it was never a separate train west of Flomaton).
You named two of the three trains that ran as one; that the headend cars of #1 were included in the train is a bit obscure. I do not know how the headend cars that #4 had carried were handled.
Johnny
The five L&N trains from Montgomery to Mobile in 1957 (August 1957 OG):
WB (Montgomery-New Orleans)
33 Piedmont
37 Crescent
5 Humming Bird
1
99 Pan American/Gulf Wind
EB(New Orleans-Montgomery)
4
6 Humming Bird
34 Piedmont/Gulf Wind
98 Pan American
38 Crescent
The 1960 schedules (July 1960 OG):
33/99 Piedmont/Pan-American/Gulf Wind
98/38 Pan-American/Crescent
"no longer run ran " after 1969" I thought I had proofed it--and found I had missed at least two errors.
The Gulf Wind was always combined with either the Piedmont Limited or the Pan-American, so it was a different train that no longer run as a separate train south of Montgomery. This was not a combination of the Crescent and the Hummingbird, which came after 196--which left only two trains south of Montgomery.
Mobile was not the consolidation point. The Gulf Wind ran as a separate train east of Flomaton.
The Piedmont, Gulf Wind and Pan-American were combined west of Mobile. Eastbound the Pan-American was combined with the Crescent.
The only other possible overnight sleeper service that I could think of was that of the C&O of Indiana--and it had been cut back to being a local sleeper between Chicago and Muncie by February of 1917.
Incidentally, the Detroit-Florida West Coast cars on the Southland were carried by the Wabash between Detroit and Fort Wayne--thus the PRR took the Chicago cars via Fort Wayne.
In 1958, the L&N still had five trains from Montgomery to New Orleans, all with through service from points east and north of Montgomery (one of these handled the Gulf Wind cars from Flomaton to New Orleans)--the Piedmont Limited, the Crescent, the Humming Bird, the Pan-American, and #1.. By the summer of 1960, there were only three trains, with essentially the same service: what trains were consolidated?
The four routes I had in mind were: PCC&StL, Big 4, Monon/Cincinnati Hamilton & Dayton connecting at Indianapolis, and the Chicago Cincinnati & Louisville. In 1910, just three years after its construction was completed, The CC&L was purchased by the C&O and became the C&O of Indiana.
I don't know if or how long the C&O of Ind continued to run the Chi - Cincy sleeper but understand it was cut back before long to run just between Chi and Muncie.
Mark
The other Chicago-Cincinnati route must be C&O of Indiana. Entry to Chicago at the time was via the NYC&St. L. connection to the IC from State Linecrossing, and using IC's lakefront station.
While not quite the routes I was looking for, I can't deny that you have come up with four different ones so you will be our winner, Johnny. I had forgotten that the Southland originally ran via Ft. Wayne and was thinking the PRR trains all ran on the Logansport line. Before moving on to the next question see if you (or anyone) can come up with the circa 1910 routes I had in mind.
The January, 1930 issue of the Guide shows four overnight sleeping car routes between Cincinnati and Chicago; two are on the same railroad and one is on a two-road route.
The Pennsylvania had a train through Logansport and the Southland through Fort Wayne (through cars from/to the West Coast of Florida). There is a note on the page with the Chicago-Cincinnati service directing the user to the pages with the equipment of the east-west trains to learn what through car service was offered; however, I could find nothing there about the Southland's equipment. There is information in the timetable itself that tells us that the train through Logansport carried Sleeping Cars.
The Big Four carried an overnight train.
The Chicago Indianapolis & Louisville and the Baltimore and Ohio ran a joint train Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati, with the junction in Indianapolis.
As an 0-6-6-0T McCloud River No. 6 was sure a weird looking engine. With wood racks mounted alongside her boiler firing her and the 0-6-0T's she was split into must have been a challenging job. On to a new question.
At one time there were four different through sleeping car routes between Chicago and Cincinnati. Name the railroads over which these operated and if any of them ran over more than one road what was the junction point(s) between the involved railroads?
KCSfan When originally built as an 0-6-6-0T No.6 is described as being basically two 0-6-0 tank engines "permanently coupled back to back". When split into 0-6-0T's the two resulting engines were numbered 5 and 6. Mark
When originally built as an 0-6-6-0T No.6 is described as being basically two 0-6-0 tank engines "permanently coupled back to back". When split into 0-6-0T's the two resulting engines were numbered 5 and 6.
NOW you have it. The idea seems to have been to provide an engine that would work on a stiff (4%) grade, but wouldn't need to be turned. Less than stellar track, combined with the wierd dynamics of the wheelbases and drawbars, left the engine(s) on the ground more than once before it/they split. It/they were Vauclin compounds with the low-pressure cylinders on top. Baldwin described the engine as a "Duplex". As built, wood fuel was carried on the left side of the boiler, a half-saddle tank on the top and right carried water. Photos from later years show the wood bin replaced with an oil tank, retaining the half-saddle. The link below shows the linkage between cabs so only one crew was required.
http://www.trainweb.org/mccloudrails/LocoImages/Loco-0005-6.html
possibly when an 0-6-6-0T it occasionally pulled an auxiliary tender for longer stays away from water and ciak.
rcdrye KCSfan McCloud River No. 6 was originally an 0-6-6-0 but was rebuilt into two 0-6-0T engines. Mark Really close, but no cigar...
KCSfan McCloud River No. 6 was originally an 0-6-6-0 but was rebuilt into two 0-6-0T engines. Mark
McCloud River No. 6 was originally an 0-6-6-0 but was rebuilt into two 0-6-0T engines.
Really close, but no cigar...
The only thing I can think to add was that No. 6 was originally an 0-6-6-0T.
Choice of simple or compound operation?
McCloud River Railroad engine number 6 had a split personality. What was it that made this possible?
Right as rain. New question please.
Then it must have been Major McNeill. Of course, if not, what? me worry?
William Gibbs McNeill was Whistler's uncle (a much less famous portrait...)
Major XxXxxxx, it might be helpful to know, was the brother of the mother of Alfred E. Neuman.
Excerpt from The Railroad and the State by Robert G. Angevine (2004)
The army officers who worked on early American railroads brought the military management system’s emphasis on hierarchy, accountability, and detailed rules and procedures to several of the lines they surveyed. The first railroad to receive army engineering aid was the Baltimore and Ohio. In 1827, the War Department assigned three topographical engineering brigades, headed by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen H. Long, Captain Xxxxxxx X. XxXxxxx, and Dr. William Howard respectively, to identify potential routes for the railroad. From the start, the surveyors conducted their surveys following military procedures, submitted regular reports to the company’s directors, and transmitted their findings on official army forms. Long and XxXxxxx soon became members of the company’s Board of Engineers.
As the Baltimore and Ohio advanced from survey to construction, the military influence on its organization increased. In June 1828, XxXxxxx drafted formal written regulations to direct the operations of its Engineer Department. XxXxxxx based his rules on [Winfield] Scott’s General Regulations, in some cases copying entire sections verbatim. The new rules established the hierarchy within the department, defined the duties and responsibilities of its members, and created a system of personal and financial accountability. When the first stone for the railroad was laid on July 4, 1828, the twelve army engineers working for the company were operating in a familiar system. XxXxxxx’s regulations continued to govern the activities of the Baltimore and Ohio’s Engineer Department through 1829 as the railroad laid its first track under the supervision of Lieutenant George W. Whistler.
A power struggle from civilian resistance to the army officers’ insistence on adherence to regulations, subordinance to authority, and use of analytically based engineering methods precipitated the end of military assistance to the Baltimore and Ohio in 1830. Long resigned in March and XxXxxxx left in April. The termination of aid to the Baltimore and Ohio did not, however, end the military influence on railroad management and organization. As one of the first and largest railroads in the country, the Baltimore and Ohio served as an organizational model for numerous other early American railroads. Moreover, XxXxxxx and Whistler went on to survey several lines in New England, where they promulgated new regulations governing the railroads’ organizational structure and operations. Anthropologist Frederick C. Gamst calls such operating rules “the sine qua non of railroading.” A set of fourteen operating rules may have been in effect on the Boston and Providence Railroad in 1835, when XxXxxxx was serving as chief engineer. A more detailed version of forty-five rules was in effect in 1839 on the Providence and Stonington Railroad, a continuation of the Boston and Providence. XxXxxxx had served as chief engineer of the Providence and Stonington from 1832 to 1837 and Whistler succeeded him. XxXxxxx and Whistler continued to refine their procedures when they moved on to the Western Railroad in Massachusetts.
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