Trains.com

Classic Railroad Quiz (at least 50 years old).

701608 views
7526 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 19,109 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, May 13, 2021 3:33 AM

& still waiting!

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,877 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, May 13, 2021 10:14 AM

I'm out.  It's getting too hard to come up with questions that are interesting and not overly obscure.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 19,109 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, May 14, 2021 10:16 AM

Most readers know that Chicago Motor Coach and NYCity's Fifth Avenue Coach Company operated doiuble-deck buses.  And most British cities had double-deck streetcars (OK, Trams), and Blackpool still has some in heritage regular service.

New York City had one and only one double-deck streetcar.

Who? Where? When? Why? Why not more?

As far as I know, Chicago did not have any, but crrect me if I am wmistaken.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,229 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, May 14, 2021 11:09 AM

Isn't that my favorite streetcar, the New York Railways 'Broadway Battleship' of 1912?  Ran on the Green Line IIRC

Notable for innovating true low-floor convenience for large numbers of passengers long before importance of that was popularly recognized -- it makes those 'two rooms and a bath' attempts look as primitive as they were.

I have not read the account in Trolley Talk 135 completely, but this was to me a highly well-thought-out answer, facilitated by conduit pickup which made the upper level height easy to implement.  I don't really know of the showstopping reasons more of the double-level (or single-level Hedley & Doyle) cars weren't built.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,696 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, May 14, 2021 12:34 PM

Chicago had none (tracks under the "L", tunnels under the Chicago River and low railroad bridges being the major reasons - Chicago Motor Coach had to be VERY careful with theirs).  One city that had quite a few of them (both motors and trailers) found them prone to derail on curves if the top deck was even moderately loaded. 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,618 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, May 14, 2021 12:49 PM

I don't know why, but I found the shrouding on the trucks of the Broadway Battleship very good-looking. Overall the New York Railways #6000 was a very elegant machine. I wonder why no glass window was installed on this streetcar. Looking forward to more information about this beautiful machine!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/76677346@N04/48614429117/in/photostream/

Edit:

New York Railways #6000 with window glazing


  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,877 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, May 14, 2021 2:13 PM

Tight clearances under railroad bridges is a common situation in Chicago.  Years ago, the Bismarck Hotel bought a used London double-decker to ferry guests to Black Hawks games at the Stadium.  The bus was landed at Lake Calumet Harbor and a convoluted routing was required to avoid low clearances under railroad bridges to get the bus to the hotel.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 19,109 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, May 15, 2021 4:22 PM

Overmod and Jones can decide between them for the next quesrtion.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,229 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, May 15, 2021 8:19 PM

Jones always has better ones.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,618 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, May 15, 2021 8:24 PM

That's very kind of you, Overmod. But I think it's your turn. Wink

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,229 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, May 16, 2021 7:31 AM

How much longer is a PRR K4 than a Milwaukee A 4-4-2?

Qualify your answers carefully.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,696 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Sunday, May 16, 2021 12:12 PM

Assuming you meant the 1935 Hiawatha A class, not always safe with your questions, the A is listed at 88' 8" over the tender - a nice size for 90' turntables, still common in 1935.  The K4s with the original tender design is listed at 83' 6", which makes the A with tender 5'2" longer than a K4s with tender.  K4s without tender was 45'3", I still haven't found the length of the A without its tender.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,229 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, May 16, 2021 4:43 PM

Yes, I meant the 1935 A class.

Note that you'll get a different answer comparing K4s in 1935 with the Milwaukee design.  And yes, there's an interesting difference in length between the K4 and A designs... one being a heavy Pacific, and the other a high-speed Atlantic for lightweight trains...

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,696 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, May 17, 2021 6:18 AM

The later K4s with a 130P75 tender and a stoker comes in at 86'11 3/4".

I don't have the lengths of the engine and tender for the A.  The tender is relatively short compared to the engine.  Most listings give the wheelbases, not the overall length.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,618 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, May 24, 2021 3:16 AM

Comparing the size of MILW Class A and PRR K4s:

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,696 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, May 24, 2021 6:06 AM

Well, that answers the question - the A (excluding the tender) was longer than the K4s.  The A class engines weren't considered to be particularly slippery, and they had a fairly long service life in both Chicago-Twin Cities and Chicago-Iowa service.

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,229 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, May 24, 2021 7:00 AM

That's right -- the A was about 5 feet longer,  not shorter as might be expected.  Much of the length could be attributed to the main rods connecting to the lead driver with low enough angularity.

I was hoping someone would pick up on the K4's various tender options, though.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,618 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, May 24, 2021 7:50 AM

I didn't note that MILW Class A was actually longer than a PRR K4s with and without tender before Overmod asked the question! rcdrye you answered this question much better than me, it's your turn! Smile

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,696 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, May 24, 2021 9:56 AM

The original K4s tender was a 70p70d class, used when the engines were hand-fired.  The larger tenders were used when the engines were equipped with stokers. I seem to remember a photo of a K4s with a "lines west" type tender, though no doubt a smaller version than the monsters used on other classes.

The lightest Mountain and Texas types in the US operated regularly in three US states and one Canadian province.  Name all three states and the province. 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,229 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, May 24, 2021 3:49 PM

We just had the thread on BIGGEST TENDERS which covered the ten K4s with coast-to-coast tenders as long as they were... pictures!

We all know Central Vermont had the vest-pocket 2-10-4s, so that ought to be easy-peasy for the first person who pulls up a CV map.  Right next door were the smallest Hudsons.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 19,109 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 5:29 AM

Were not the CP Selkirks even lighter than the Central Vermnt's 2-10-4s?   And did they ever run into the USA?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,696 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 6:13 AM

CP's 2-10-4s were a bit heavier than CV's.  As far as I know they stayed on the main line west of Calgary.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,229 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 9:54 AM

That's pretty interesting.  I had thought CP's Selkirks were much bigger than the CV 2-10-4s.

The late Selkirks had 310,000lb on drivers and 447,000lb engine weight, vs. 285,000/419,000 for CV.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,696 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 11:25 AM

I need to proofread my questions more carefully.  The Texas types regularly operated in two states and a Canadian province.  The Mountains regularly operated in two states on their own rails, reaching the third state and the Canadian province on trackage rights.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,229 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 12:43 PM

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Quebec for the 2-10-4s... but that's one too many.  What's the railroad that flirted around the border of Connecticut but never actually crossed into it?

Maine for the 4-8-2s... but how did the Bangor & Aroostook operate across that  bridge to New Brunswick?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,696 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 12:52 PM

Actually, the CV 2-10-4s did not operate in Connecticut (something about bridge ratings - CV even spaced their 2-8-0s when doubleheading). 

I was not aware of the BAR's extreme lightweights 4-8-2s.  Looking at the tables the ones I was looking for are probably #2 on the lightweight list.  BAR's did not operate into NB, CN came over the border for interchange.

If it's not giving it away entirely, there were two places where both the Texas and Mountains could be seen, one of which is in Canada.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,229 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 8:42 PM

Well, that rules out what I thought were the #1 lightweights (by about 800lb) -- NYO&W.

Surely enough hints for them to get it by now.

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 19,109 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, May 26, 2021 5:31 AM

Were the CV Moutains the lightest? Or did the Rutland also have Mountains?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,696 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, May 26, 2021 6:21 AM

Both CV (600 series) and Rutland (90-93) had mountains.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 19,109 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, May 26, 2021 11:24 AM

I imagine the Rutland's were lighter and ran in Quebec Province, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York.  It would be characteristic of the Rutland to have the very lightest 4-8-2s.

And I do believe the CV's Santa  Fe's were the lightest 2-10-2s and ran in Quebec. Vermont, and Massacusetts.  They did not run in New York or Connecticut.

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter