There is a fellow with an incredible website at Canada Southern.com .It would take you a year to go through it all. Lots of pics, lots of detailed information.
Did not know the Fontaine contraption was published in Scientific American.
The question is Overmods.
What was the heaviest locomotive/motor with trolley poles?
That's kind of a trick question. SP equipped some steam locomotives that came in at around 100 tons to trip PE's Nachod signals. CM&StP's boxcabs had "stingers" that were conventional trolley poles used to allow the compressor to pump up so the pantographs could be raised. North Shore's ex-Oregon Electric motors were around 100 tons each (458 over, 459 under) and IT's Class D motors weighed in at 108 tons each.
We need a referee. The one I'm thinking of is heavier ... if we take one 'unit' of the Milwaukee boxcab. Not, if not.
Each unit had its own "stinger". Originally they were in pairs, later in combinations of up to four units, with drawbars and couplers. I'm OK saying they were single units.
I'm tempted to give it to you if no one else answers, as you're on the right track. As a hint, my 'correct' answer is related materially to a locomotive that has been discussed in another post recently.
I think you are looking for a 600V dc third-rail locomotive that at one time was tested on track with trolley wire, where no third rail was available, before being located in the area where it was to operate. This may have been the Pennsy DD-1, or one of the Pennsy experimentals that led to the DD-1, all in the 1900-1907 time-frame.
I'm not sure you could get enough current to run a DD1 across a pole/wheel for any length of time. It would have to be a shoe of some kind, wouldn't it? And any of the odd D's or test 'half engines' are smaller than the engine I'm thinking of.
rcdrye was on the right track, just not large enough. We agreed to limit the question to 'single units' as the stingers on MILW electrics did qualify. If the Little Joes had stingers they would 'take the prize', but
The stinger pole [goes] up to run the compressor so they can build enough pressure in the main reservoir to raise the pantograph. The [motor] cannot move using power from the stinger and in fact it is pulled down before the pan goes up ... the Joes had welded reservoirs which held air better and generally retained enough air to raise a pan.
So we are still waiting for the magic number, or rather the magic alphanumeric, that I think is the (at least a little surprising) answer.
Hint: the locomotive apparently survived into preservation. It does not have its poles today, but there is at least one model of it that prominently featured them.
Well, the SP had some GP-7's and/or GP9's that had poles to operate Pacific Electric Nashod signals, and they may have had some larger diesel power as well. I should know but do not know the weight of these locomotives, but perhaps this is what you want. This was regular, normal operaiton, and there are lots of photos of these frieght trains alongside PE electric cars. The fouir-track rout through Watts to Long Beach often saw these trains.
Unlike the Milwaukee single units, which could run separately and often did as switchers, the DD-1's never ran at the head end or a train when split in half. My understanding is that the two halves were connected by an ariticulated joint and not by a drawbar or coupler. And I am prettgy sure a DD-1 did operate with trolley pole in a test. And there were some other experimentals.
Had a long comment ready to go, and just as I reached for 'Submit Your Reply' the house power went down hard and has only just come back on...
daveklepperWell, the SP had some GP-7's and/or GP9's that had poles to operate Pacific Electric Nashod signals, and they may have had some larger diesel power as well. I should know but do not know the weight of these locomotives, but perhaps this is what you want.
Let's put it this way: Geeps are too light -- way too light.
Unlike the Milwaukee single units, which could run separately and often did as switchers, the DD-1's never ran at the head end of a train when split in half.
So, unlike the GG1 that ran split in half as a switcher... <ducks for cover>
More seriously, I can't find any reference to DD1s operating with poles -- it's unlikely they would be tested where overhead rail (to suit their little dwarf pans) wouldn't do the job third rail couldn't. Neither the swing nor the vertical accommodation of a trolley pole would be particularly useful, even in testing.
With regard to separation of the units, it seems clear from this drawing that in shops at least this would pose little trouble:
However, if you look at this early picture of the underframes, there appears to be a much more involved connection, possibly involving a horizontal pivot, between the two 'back ends'.
I am not an expert on this early power, so I encourage someone more familiar with the design and evolution of the DD1 to comment.
Great Northern's original 3 phase boxcab electrics weighed in at 115 tons each. These were equipped with 3 poles one for each phase.
Thought I'd throw that out their.
narig01These were equipped with 3 poles one for each phase.
THREE poles? I've only ever seen pictures of them equipped with two. (The rails were the third phase, as wretched as that idea turned out to be electrically...)
Thought they just had two pans, not poles . But if poles, only two.
Yes, the track was the third phase conductor.
Also italy Tirano -Sondreo, Via Alpina Railway. rode 1960 throuogh coach Tirano-Milan, two pans, not three.
daveklepper ... twi oabsm bot three.
jag pratar inte svenska
Seriously, here is a short article from 1919 that mentions the trolley poles and a concern about their operation. I thought it was interesting that some pains were taken to establish that 'all the problems with pantographs were solved' but GN stuck with the poles. I'd be interested to see the precise reasons why.
I was incorrect in the number of poles. I may have been thinking of another three phase system.
The problems with pantographs on overhead wires was one of the wire would cut a groove in the sliding shoe. An early solution was to try rollers. Then someone had the bright idea of having the wire do a zigzag so that the wire would not be contacting the same spot on the shoe.
This did not make for a solution on Great Northern's three phase operation as 2 wires were still needed. The contact points being too close( IIRC ) to use pans and necessitating poles. The main problem I think was when they had dewirements and the poles would bridge the two phases. I do remember reading this somewhere, it escapes me where. The eventual solution was to go to a single phase system. In addition the original electrification didn't have a lot of power. When they used all four locomotives they had to cut the maximum speed in half.
By the way did I just correctly answer the question?
narig01I was incorrect in the number of poles. I may have been thinking of another three phase system.
If you can find a three-phase system with three poles, let me know. The closest thing to it I know is the AEG arrangement used on the high-speed railcar testing (which used three horizontal contactors at different heights, working on three wires separated in the vertical plane)
The bright idea was making the sliding shoe out of hard conductive carbon, which provided graphitic lubrication as well as good conductivity. Wiggling the wire equalized the wear across the width of the shoe (and compensated for the effect of arc pitting when the pans bounced.)
This did not make for a solution on Great Northern's three phase operation as 2 wires were still needed. The contact points being too close( IIRC ) to use pans and necessitating poles.
Pans could be, and were, used on three-phase operations (they just used two, side by side). Obviously this required more careful alignment and maintenance of the wire relative to the track, and better control of locomotive body movement, to keep a pan from contacting the other phase, and I suspect on GN the poles were used at least in part to simplify this for them; a pole can follow variations in both vertical and lateral alignment of a double-trolley system, and accommodate differences in cross-level, better than pans.
The main problem I think was when they had dewirements and the poles would bridge the two phases. I do remember reading this somewhere, it escapes me where.
Interesting to find this, if you can. I wouldn't even have thought the probability would be significant that a pole would bounce off one phase, swing to the other, and track on it. (Or that, knowing it could happen, they couldn't put a fast-acting switch controlled relative to cross-phase reference that would isolate a pole picking up a 'wrong' phase relative to that expected for motor rotation.)
The eventual solution was to go to a single phase system.
Or a single-phase trolley with rotary (or later, static) conversion to three-phase for use in robust induction motors.
Just as a note, here is a link to the 1947 GN operations manual for the electrification, including the details of those marvelous Z-1 locomotives.
In addition the original electrification didn't have a lot of power. When they used all four locomotives they had to cut the maximum speed in half.
There was a similar problem on the early Milwaukee electrification, as I dimly remember; their (DC) plant was initially sized with the assumption that the regenerative-braking scam was factual and at least some of the power requirements for ascending trains would be met with regenerated power from descending ones. When that proved a bad assumption, they increased the capacity of the various parts of the system to provide all the power needed. Someone here (perhaps Michael Sol, if he is watching) can confirm all the details much better than I can.
Not even close. You're in the wrong corner of the country, with too few axles. But you do have the right number of poles on a unit.
GN's biggest issue was that the insulated frogs where the wires (and phases) crossed had to be passed with the power shut off to avoid having one phase drop out. With two engines in multiple, it required careful train handling. GN and GE later also worked out "Cascade" control to allow a third, lower speed which reduced the jerkiness of the original operation and allowed handling of heavier trains. The "Cascade" name had to do with the way the motors were connected, not the tunnel.
Was it a Piedmont and Northern frieght locomotive, with two poles up to insure adequate current-carrying capacity, possibly four poles, two eadh end, carried?
No. But that might be an interesting future question (what was the locomotive unit that carried the most trolley poles or pantographs?)
Or, while we're on this subject, what locomotives had both poles and pans?
My answer to the question is just about 200,000lb heavier than one of the P&N four-truck motors. But it doesn't have as many axles.
If it is that heavy and only has six or fewer axles, the poles might be for signal operation and not for current collection. So it migiht be a steamer or diesel with poles.
Possibly the Butt Anaconda and Pacific had a steam locomotive that occasionally was used, not only on the main line with 2200V DC, which used regular
rr signals, but on the streetcar line with 600V and Nashod signals.
Or possibly it was a heavy diesel? Or even a two-voltage electric freight motor, also BA&P?
daveklepperIf it is that heavy and only has six or fewer axles, the poles might be for signal operation and not for current collection. So it might be a steamer or diesel with poles.
rcdrye already noted this -- and I acknowledged it. What we are waiting for is a specific ID ... including number or type.
Possibly the Butte, Anaconda and Pacific had a steam locomotive that occasionally was used, not only on the main line with 2200V DC, which used regular rr signals, but on the streetcar line with 600V and Nashod signals.
I'd be interested to find out if this was so, as I know nothing about steam power on that line.
You have noted already that the GP-7's of the SP with poles for signal contact were not heavy enough to be the answer. Possibly the WP had an SD-7 oir SD-9 with poles for operation with signal contact on Central California Traction and/or on SN when required, and possibly this locomotive is heavy enough to meet your requirements.
The only western interurban other than PE to mount poles on diesels was the Bamberger, which had poles on its RS1. Union Pacific retained the poles for use on ex-Bamberger trackage for a while after it bought the railroad.
daveklepperossibly the WP had an SD-7 oir SD-9 with poles for operation with signal contact on Central California Traction and/or on SN when required,
I don't know of one, but if there were, the SD7 would be a little under ten tons too light. I don't really know how much heavier a WP SD9 would be, but find one with poles first -- catch the rabbit before we start deciding on spicing the hasenpfeffer.
Guys, there is a brass model -- factory-painted, I believe -- of the prototype.
Was ti a Missouri Pacific locomotive? Occasionally used on t=he Houston North Shore?
daveklepperWas it a Missouri Pacific locomotive? Occasionally used on the Houston North Shore?
rcdrye nearly nailed both the context and the type of service, in a much earlier post. All we are finding at this point is the (rather surprising, I thought) type and size of the locomotive involved.
If I remember correctly, Trains Magazine branded this model or one very much like it an 'honorary steam locomotive' many years ago.
There were apparently up to eight (!) of these, and one survives in thoroughly restorable condition (in different paint).
Then it must be an Alco PA. Probably SP. Possibly during the Korean War, some SP passenger equipment, most likely Harriman coaches, were regularly used for troop-train service, possibly even also including flatcars with military vehicles, tanks, artillary, to a military camp located on the PE, and one SP PA-1 was equipped with a trolley pole (or two so it could run in reverse) to handle this specific train.
Dave, the only PAs that survive in North America are ex-ATSF. And none of them have six powered axles unless something amazing has changed when I wasn't looking.
Although I do have a certain 'iste mirant stella' admiration for that Korean War train idea -- it's almost worth building a model to see how others will react as they take in more and more of the details.
BTW, some of Milwaukee's other engines (EP-2 Bipolars, 265 tons) also had "stingers", at least as built. The 1919 BLW-Westinghouse EP-2 units were the first ones that came without them.
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