rcdryeThe March 11th answer had to do with NYC's 1960s commuter car purchase. Of course if you meant 1946 intead of 1964...
I got my orders mixed up 'overspecifying' details. It seemed so obvious that it fit NYC-PRR given the details of the traffic expansion that i didn't check exactly what that early-Sixties order consisted of ... although I did wonder what NYC could possibly be doing ordering that many '64-seat coaches' that late...
(Incidentally I believe one of these late NYC things has made its way to the Indiana Railroad Museum in New Haven -- complete with powered trucks of a design that makes it almost impossible to see that they are motored, even when you know what to look for...)
The March 11th answer had to do with NYC's 1960s commuter car purchase. Of course of you meant 1946 intead of 1964...
As far as I'm concerned you can have it; you found the valid cites that I couldn't.
Overmod rcdrye We got a winner! See my post March 11th at 2:37...
rcdrye We got a winner!
See my post March 11th at 2:37...
I found the answer on page 21 of Car Names Numbers and Consists. The purchase from the Rio Grande is also mentioned on that page.
Johnny
rcdryeWe got a winner!
Deggesty rcdrye Just months before their merger, one of the future partners bought 25 64-seat coaches from the other to upgrade its long distance service. The PRR bought the coaches from the NYC.
rcdrye Just months before their merger, one of the future partners bought 25 64-seat coaches from the other to upgrade its long distance service.
Just months before their merger, one of the future partners bought 25 64-seat coaches from the other to upgrade its long distance service.
The PRR bought the coaches from the NYC.
The selling carrier removed the names from all but one of its remaining trains shortly after the sale and before the merger. The two carriers were considered to be rivals in most markets up to the mid 1960s, and some of the trains that lost their names were very well known.
L&N and NC&StL?
If I tell you that the 25 cars purchased came from a group of 153 cars delivered by P-S in 1946, it shouldn't be too hard to find the answer...
Possibly GM&O bought cars from the IC? Later used on the suburban Chicago - Joliet service? The ICG bought UP cars for the Magnoiia Star coach section of the Panama Limited?
Does Detroit to Grand Rapids with the Pere Marquette (using ex-Chessie stuff including, I think, domes) count as 'long distance'?
The cars in question were part of the selling railroad's large postwar order from Pullman-Standard. The purchasing railroad used them to replace functional but aged prewar cars on long-distance trains, including the train that became the flagship of the meerged railroad. The merged railroad then bought some 44-seat coaches from UP to further upgrade the flagship train.
These were not MU cars. All of their service was locomotive-hauled, even in commuter service.
Is it possible that these were cars from that whomping 1964 order for NYC? Many of those were rebuilt to 108-seat cars -- did some of them wind up on LIRR?
The problem is that I can't find a smoking gun for them going to the Pennsylvania (or anywhere else that became part of PC) as 64-seat coaches prior to PC rebuilding them. Does this dig up someone else's memory?
Looking at some of the pictures and models, they seem kinda Congo-ish in style, even if built by PS and not Budd. Could these be fill-ins for delayed Metroliner service?
After UP shifted from C&NW to CMStP&P, CB&Q bought some C&NW lightweight coaches, and I presume may have bought some from GN or possibly NP. Some of the ex-C&NW cars did become commuter cars, so some of the ex-GN ors NP cars may also have been remodled for that service.
Overmod Isn't this B&O and C&O?
Isn't this B&O and C&O?
Besides, B&O/C&O had mostly 52 seat coaches, from the huge C&O 1950 Pullman-Standard order.
Overmod Why did they call these 'flaps'? Aren't they like the gap fillers at a couple of points on the NYC lines, extensible bumpers that slide laterally on some kind of rail arrangement rather than 'hinging'?
Why did they call these 'flaps'? Aren't they like the gap fillers at a couple of points on the NYC lines, extensible bumpers that slide laterally on some kind of rail arrangement rather than 'hinging'?
Since the original stations between Howard and Dempster were built for CRT service, they actually had flaps for the width difference between interchange freight equipment and CRT/North Shore passenger cars. CA&E had a similar arrangement for the stations west of Laramie served by CRT.
Yes, and you got there first!
The SOAC tests in Chicago were in 1975, after interchange freight was gone, but before the freight tracks were removed. From a youtube video of the operation it looks like a slider platform was installed, presumably after cutting back the original platform edge. The crossover used to get the single track to Howard was hand-thrown, with CTA workers stationed at the crossover. The widest vehicles in use at this point were the SOAC cars themselves.
One wonders if these had breakaway linkage, hydraulic compressibility, or some other arrangement that would let them be 'pushed away' should something too wide, like perhaps interchange freight, go through the 'converted' station while the arrangement was extended ...
Dempster Street was equipped with movable flaps for the test. See www.chicago-l.org/trains/gallery/SOAC01.html
daveklepperWhat did they do on Skokie and at Howard Street, run only on the gauntlet freight tracks to avoid the high platforms fitted for the narrower CTA and North Shore cars?
From what I remember there was a temporary platform at Dempster Street. Howard Street was served in non-rush hours only - as you thought, by using the freight gauntlet - on track 1 through a crossover north of Howard. The CTA/Milwaukee Road freight service wasn't in service too long after the SOAC test.
The problem with the 1970s electronics is that many of the components used were commercial dead ends, so replacement parts would have to be reverse-engineered from modern components. The guys who created this stuff are long retired. The cars also have limited value as operational artefacts (they have never run at Seashore). Potentially usable 1970s cars like Boston Boeing-Vertol LRVs and Toronto CLRVs suffer from the same component problems.
I'll post something new later today.
rcdryeThe legendary SOAC cars, built by St. Louis Car on a UMTA order in 1972.
This is one of the great unsung and unloved technical things in preservation, like the high-speed Leyland railbus that the English keep raising funds to repatriate. It deserves to be carefully rebuilt and restored -- the problem being that almost no one has any idea how to do the electronics, let alone keep them running for any length of time. (The same problem is looming for many locomotives of '80s vintage, but those aren't yet well-represented in 'operable' preservation...
These cars are the analogue of a 120mph SPV2000 set (which of course never formally existed as such except, briefly, as mocked-up demonstrators) -- it's a tremendous pity that there were no 'motored' versions saved in America, and all the 'conversion kits' to make them eight-wheel-drive were scrapped for pennies on the dollar -- much like all the equipment for the Turboliner IIIs, something else destroyed rather than sent for preservation as significant tech approaches.
At least all the ugly RTG trains haven't been destroyed completely! Not that I expect to see some form of them 'preserved' in reasonably complete form, operable or otherwise!)
Correct. What did they do on Skokie and at Howard Street, run only on the gauntlet freight tracks to avoid the high platforms fitted for the narrower CTA and North Shore cars?
The problem in DC was not gauge but too-low tunnel height.
SOAC stands for State Of the Art Car.
Glad to know they are alive and well.
Ahh... The legendary SOAC cars, built by St. Louis Car on a UMTA order in 1972.
The cars ran in Boston on the Red Line, in New York on various lines, and in Cleveland on what is today's Red line, and on Philadelphia's Market-Frankford line. The DC Metro wasn't very far along, but the biggest issue was a non-standard track gauge, which also stopped BART testing. The cars did run in Chicago on the Skokie Swift using bridge plates for boarding, and clamp-on pantographs. Other Chicago lines wouldn't clear them, especially on curves.
Car bodies were essentially New York R44s with molded ends and a different seating arrangement in each car. They were equipeed initially with chopper controls made by Garret, but other types were tried as well. I think one of the cars has a GE MCM control now. After a period of further testing at the Pueblo DOT research site, they ended up at Seashore Trolley Museum in Maine, where they are open to the public on regular operating days.
https://collection.trolleymuseum.org/browse.php?id=SOAC1RDC
After seeing this thread dormant for several days, finally figured out it's up to me to ask the next question, based on my comment on the Williamsburg Bridge and R1-9s. So:
A specific train ran in New York City and in Philadelphia and in Boston. It did not (could not) operate in Chicago or in Washington, DC. It may have operated in Cleveland, and my memory is not clear on that.
I did ride it in NYC. One feature not, to my knowledge, that it had, was the operator's ability to choose a speed, and the train would hold that speed regardless of grade and curveture. This made keeping the speed just right crossing the Manhattan Bridge much easier. Today's rapid transit PTC does this, but I have noit seen it for manuel control on other equipment.
What train was this, what was its intention, what carbody design employed in fleet production did it use?
R1-9 numbers never got as high as 1900. But they started at 100, not1 or 01.
Just out of curiosity I looked up the Pacific Electric car numbers just to see if the filmmakers borrowed one of the cars for the elevated interior sequence. I don't think they did, from what I can find PE's car numbers never went as high as 4778.
I'm guessing that interior is a set, and a pretty good one too.
Jessica Lange from the 1976 "King Kong?" Here ya' go...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2wuTBrkBpU
Lady F and I saw the 1976 film and NEVER thought Jessica would go as far as she did. Lucky for Ms. Lange we were wrong. We didn't think the '76 film was as good as the one from '33 either. That superb special effects Kong they had in the remake didn't save the film.
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