I did not know about the Arlington Park specials, if such were run. The North Shore train was similar, ran only in summer, and (the hint to give it away) ran with a regularly scheduled cultural event, which I was able to enjoy once, and which still exist, and I hope is well served the commuter rail today. You did describe the BMT service accurately, usually called the "Sunny Summer Sunday Specials." If the Sunday was cloudy, the trains ran only Franklin - Coney Island. If sunny, they were extended through Coney Island to Chambers Street, Manhattan, using the south tracks on the Manhattan Bridge that were used by the Nassau Loop trains during rush hours, using the DeKalb bypass tracks, and the otherwise unused by revenue trains express tracks on the Sea Beach line between Coney Island and 59th Street. Between Coney Island and Chambers Street, the only stops, therefore, were 59th Street, 36th Street, and Pacific Street. Whether in just Franklin - Coney Island service or running through to Chambers Street, the front had a white disk on the right pantograph gate.
You can ask the next question, and also name the cultural event with the special Shore Line service, should be easy to determine, summer only. Only one train each way, however.
Are we talking about the "Sunny Summer Sunday Specials" (or whatever permutation ofthose four words were used)? Franklin-Nassau and Coney Island Express via I think the Sea Beach line?
And in Chicago, world-famous Arlington Park?
Catholic traffic for Mundeliein was handled on the Skokie. The North Shore train I am referring to made regular North Shore stops in both direction on the CRT-CTA tracks but no passenger stops between Howard and the terminal of the service on the Shore Line. I believe there was a siding for this train's use at the northern end of the service, or it would have run to and from Highwood without passengers. Any person with a regular ticket could use the train, although it was operated in connection with a specific repeated event. It shared a seasonal characteristic with the BMT train that used Coney Island as a thru, not a terminal station. This latter train used a pair of tracks that was never used for any other REVENUE service, except for emergencies, and periods of regular-use track intensive maintanance. Photos of these tracks make frequent appearnces on the TRAINS Transit Forum threads.
I rode both trains once. North Shore in 1952, BMT in 1948. Neither time was a railfan specific occasion. The North Shore train provided the very best needed transportation after the event, and the BMT a return to Manhattan after a fun-and-beach day with friends, via a different rout than usual, just to have the experience, despite the extra nickle it cost me, but only using the half of the total rout that was the more unusual. In addition to a season similarity, signage of the two trains was similar, with the North Shore train's northward journey simply signed with the destination and "Express" and the BMT's similarly signed with three destinations, one of which was Coney Island as a thru stop, and simply EXPRESS.
The BMT's Bankers' specials were Brighton, Sea Beach, West End, and 4th Avenue rush-hour express trains that ran through the Nassau Loop like the Culver Express and West End Local rush hour trains, instead of going up Broadway to Time Square or 57th Street or Queensboro Plaza. They were the only 4th Avenue Expresses, switching to the express tracks south of 59th St., 4th Avenue Station. I believe there three Brightons, from Brighton Beach, two Sea Beach, from Kings Highway, two West End, from Bay Parkway, and two Fourth Avenue, from 95th, Fort Hamilton.
I'll have to dig to find the name of the service, but the North Shore operated a late night express service for theatergoers that made no stops south of Howard.
I'm not a tractionexpert,so this is by way of eliciting a better response from someone who is.
I'd make book that the Coney Island question refers to the Banker's Specialsto Wall St., but all I know isthat they ran 'via the Q line' (and presumably to suit investment bankers' hours).
I don't know if the North Shore Line question is supposed torefer to the two-car "Chicago Expresses" that ran over the Shore Line. I can't help but think there would be something that handled the Catholic traffic for Mundelein at specific times, which would have little point in stopping anywhere else, but that's based only on reference to the Cardinal's Congress in the mid-Twenties (the one that also produced the NYC Cardinal's Train that was modeled with the red Hudson).
And, rc, none of the above ended in commuter service to my knowledge.
Two questions, and whoever answers one first gets to ask the next question.
Stillwell Avenue, Coney Island, is the terminal station for four routes and has been for some time. On a few occasions five different servioes terminated there at one time, but accessed the station via four routs. I suppose the Nortons Point trolley on the structure and three streetcar services on the streets below could be added if one wanted to do so. But for a long time, there was a service operated for the general public, at specific times, the ran through the station, with trains carrying three destintion signs, one of course being Coney Island. And the two routes used two and from Coney Island were not shown on signage, only "EXpress." What, when, and how?
The North Shore had a very analogous service. After the opening of the Skokie Valley routes, expresses used it and locals used the Shore Line. There were some Shore Line rush hour expresses that skipped some stops, but they were by no means as fast and limited in stops as the expresses using the Skokie Valley route. But there was one service that operated at specific times that was as fast and ran non-stop to and from Howard Street, to-and-from its destination. What, when, and how? Again, we are referring to a service open to the general public, without special tickets, and definitely not the special sailor trains.
May if you have only one of the answers, you might wait and see if someone has both?
Burlington's Zephyrs 9900, 9901, 9902 and 9903 operated at various times with four units, including the power car (only 9903 was built with four). The second Twin Zephyrs - later Nebraska Zephyrs - were built with a seven unit articulated set, later reduced to five. One set survives. UP's earliest streamliners included the "Power Unit". M-10000 was displayed as a four car set, but never ran tht way in revenue service. M10001 was built with six, modifed to seven. Trains with separate power cars had articulated sections ranging from nine to fourteen (!) cars. SP had several dozen two unit cars, and about 10 three unit diners.
Dave, of course you are right; it was either of the Electroliners (the two together constituting the 'fleet', and a little sophistry required to cover the fact that the four units WERE the 'whole train'. This wasn't intended as a particularly abstruse question - just to point out that so much of rcdrye's question about the RI triple=units could be extended to an even more uncommon four units.
To my knowledge, no railroad operated a 'standalone' four-unit articulated "car" in a longer consist made up of individual cars, as Rock Island and SP did. Were there any in European practice that fit that definition? (That is not a 'next question' - I'd just like to know...)
Dave, you are up here as with the other thread.
If it was, it could apply to TWO such units, constituting the fleet, and they are the Electroliners, which were both four units with five trucks, four powered, built for interurban inter-city service and ending up on the 69th St. - Norristown Line in rush hour commuter service. But I do not think you have this in mind. It must be one of the original Rock Island Rockets, but I do not know which one. The number of railroads that had pre-WWII fleets of streamliners that included articulated trains, some with the power included in the articulated unit and some not (RI), included, to my knowledge, only the UP, CB&Q, and RI. SP had some articulated cars, but not, as far as I know, a complete train. Other railroads had articulated streamliners: B&M, IC, GM&O, but not fleets of streamliners. Other fleets, NYC, PRR, CMStP&P, did not, as far as I know, include articulated trains.
Wizlish A quickly-answered question deserves a quickly-answerable response -- To have a little fun paraphrasing rcdrye: A four-unit articulated set, part of a fleet of prewar streamlined equipment, ended its life in commuter service. Name the railroad and the original train ... This will probably give the whole thing away, but the four-unit set was always four units (unlike SP's cut-down triple-unit diner-lounge which became a twin-unit coach), and made up the core of the original train. The only real change from streamliner to commuter service was removing part of a food-service section. They were retired before a considerable number of even older cars.
A quickly-answered question deserves a quickly-answerable response --
To have a little fun paraphrasing rcdrye:
A four-unit articulated set, part of a fleet of prewar streamlined equipment, ended its life in commuter service. Name the railroad and the original train ... This will probably give the whole thing away, but the four-unit set was always four units (unlike SP's cut-down triple-unit diner-lounge which became a twin-unit coach), and made up the core of the original train. The only real change from streamliner to commuter service was removing part of a food-service section. They were retired before a considerable number of even older cars.
Rgds IGN
Are we waiting for a new question?
rcdrye had asked a question about a prewar triple-unit streamliner, including the following hints:
rcdryeThis will probably give the whole thing away, but the three -unit set was always three units (unlike SP's cut-down triple-unit diner-lounge which became a twin-unit coach), and made up the core of the original train. The only real change from streamliner to commuter service was replacing a food-service section .... They were retired before a considerable number of even older cars.
And I had a bit of fun by asking:
[quote user="Wizlish]A four-unit articulated set, part of a fleet of prewar streamlined equipment, ended its life in commuter service. Name the railroad and the original train ... This will probably give the whole thing away, but the four-unit set was always four units (unlike SP's cut-down triple-unit diner-lounge which became a twin-unit coach), and made up the core of the original train. The only real change from streamliner to commuter service was removing part of a food-service section. They were retired before a considerable number of even older cars.[/quote]
I thought it was interesting there were so many parallels ... and that something technically more exotic could be so more well-known...
daveklepperThe Comet never was modified, so it must have always been three units.
References indicate there was some kind of full partition at the center of the middle section - somebody find a picture of what this looked like. Might have been this was made in a way that seemed to resemble a connection between articulated sections.
terrific information, thanks. and my memory must have slipped. the Comet never was modified, so it must have always been three units.
rfpjohn Had she been constructed as a non-condensing unit, would fuel consumption have been less?
Fuel consumption of engines using the Rankine cycle is almost always higher when operated non-condensing, and I suspect the Blue Goose train (which operated at I think a nominal 1200 psi with a monotube) would be no exception. A more serious concern at that pressure, of course, is water quality -- I believe 1200 psi is into the range that silica becomes soluble, meaning that distilled water would be a necessity to run the steam-generator safely.
I continue to look for pictures or drawings of the power truck -- they exist; I just haven't found versions I can link to in a post. The arrangement has four cylinders, two HP, two LP. If I remember correctly both HPs drive one axle, I think the front, and the two LPs the other. The drive was via cranks on the outside of the wheels to improve maintenance, rather than (as I would have maively expected) via a jackshaft/countershaft and gears, as in a booster.
I was going to put something related to the B&O W-1 in a question, but I don't think it would spur enough interest. Some of its details are germane to a discussion of Besler engines in railway service, so:
The assumption behind the arrangement used for the Besler engines in the W-1 design (at least one of which was built, bench-tested, and dropped on someone's foot) is very strange to me in some respects. For the record, this is the locomotive diagram:
and here is a multiple section of one of the motors
It is mounted to the axle without any quilling or isolation (there is some question whether there were 'quill' springs in the driving gears) and hence the whole mass of the motors (and probably at least some of the steam piping to and from them) is carried as unsprung mass. How the engines were supposed to accommodate the shock of steel-on-steel at high speed, even with relatively large inertial mass of axle and wheels, is unknown to me. Note that the supposed high-maintenance parts of the motors face down to be accessible, with the 'sealed' bearings in the cranks and valve gear located high up; presumably you would replace the whole wheel unit via a drop pit if any substantial maintenance to the valve gear or power gearing were needed. Note the torque link connection at upper right; they're evidently assuming little if any more torque reaction than Roosen et al. did on the German 19 1001 motor locomotive.
Among other things, I would expect fairly rapidly that some very good condensate vent valves would be needed on the cylinder heads, and there would be severe issues with cracking in the web between the motor 'crankcases' and the central bearing journals.
Unlike the German locomotive, there appears to be no provision for compensating for high-speed slip of one or more of the individual axles, which I would expect to occur even more often than induction of high-speed slipping on a T1 or other duplex-drive with a two-axle engine. One would guess, however, that a differential governor would not be difficult to arrange ... it is just not shown in the material I have seen.
Thanks again, Wizlish. 7 years is actually not that bad for a one-of-a-kind experimental unit. Had she been constructed as a non-condensing unit, would fuel consumption have been less?
Also, looking at the video, can't really tell if both axles of the power truck were driven.
The train stayed in service until 1943, and if I remember correctly was only retired then because of wartime difficulties in getting parts. Interestingly enough, both of the cars were restored to 'normal' form and ran for years thereafter.
You have hit upon one of the problems with the full-condensing railroad cars -- their fuel burn exceeded that of comparable diesel cars. On the other hand, the fuel they used could be of lower quality in a number of respects than #2 diesel...
My guess is that a long, heavy power truck, with individual rod drive to cranks on the wheels, and all the moving parts and valve gear subject to road shock and thermal cycling and moisture and grit, and the need for flexible connections for 1200 psi steam, would have led over a few years to some interesting situations. The 152 passengers in commuter-grade coach seems small for 1000 nominal steam horsepower, and whenever the powerplant went down for some of the many reasons the whole train had to be out of service. It is telling that no attempt to repower the train was made; that might have had somethng to do with wartime restrictions on acquiring the necessary prime movers and generators or whatever, but might also be an acknowledgement that other attributes of the train were lacking.
As someone commented on a discussion board: Even if the train had been an operating success, the arrival of the RDCs in the early '50s would have killed it.
The fuel usage figure of 1.66 gallons of oil per mile seems pretty high to me, but they seem impressed by it in the article. Do you know if she had much of a service life?
rfpjohnAny idea how dismal her operating record was?
All I know is what I've gotten from secondary sources. There is probably more in the Besler archives about this, but I haven't seen them. Some of the understanding behind the Besler engines, particularly the 'evolved' version that went into the B&O W-1 design, is covered in posts in the 'phorum' on the SACA (steam automobile club) Web site.
An interesting 'take' on how the idea was regarded when new:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1936/12/13/page/41/article/eastern-speed-trains-studied-for-chicago-use
Thank you, Wizlish! Fascinating stuff! I take it that it was not an unqualified success. That's a shame. I'm guessing she was assembled in Philly. One segment appears to be Wayne Jct on the Reading, while another scene is in old Broad Street Station on the PRR.
Any idea how dismal her operating record was?
rfpjohnDid New Haven also have a steam powered experimental lightweight or did I dream that up?
They did - to save money, the carbody was rebuilt from an existing coach and combine, given turret-style ends. The whole engine unit was carried underfloor within the elongated power-truck frame (cast-steel frame 14'6" long!). It's in this piece of the famous Besler promotional film in the Preminger Archives:
(this is a YouTube edited clip, and I apologize for the cheesy and irritating projector sound effect).
Really cool photos! Did New Haven also have a steam powered experimental lightweight or did I dream that up?
During the mid-to-late nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution sprang up in America. Boilers, used to drive industrial machinery, locomotives and steamboats, were everywhere.
Though the potential of steam power seemed infinite, controlling the power was still crudely developed. As applications for steam power became more complex, the dangers also became more acute.
With thousands of boilers in operation throughout the country, there was also widespread ignorance about the properties of steam and the causes of boiler explosions. During the 1850’s, explosions were occurring at the rate of almost one every four days. And, in 1865, the worst boiler disaster in history occurred when the Mississippi River steamer Sultana, took over 1,200 lives.
Most dismissed these incidences as “acts of god.” People who ran industrial concerns simply assumed that their boilers would explode and they would lose one or two other workers. Others, namely members of the Polytechnic Club, which included future founders of The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, had other ideas.
In 1857, several young Hartford businessmen who were associated with the use of steam power, formed The Polytechnic Club. Their mission was to “discuss matters of science relative to everyday life.” With steam power – and boiler explosions – becoming such a central part of everyday life, their discussions frequently turned to that subject.
This group took a practical point of view. They concluded that boiler explosions occurred because the pressure inside the boiler became greater than the ability of the boiler to withstand it. They reasoned that better materials and design – with periodic in-service inspections for weaknesses – would prevent explosions. They so believed in this view that they were willing to put money behind it.
The Polytechnic Club spent much time debating about an idea that combined insurance with a boiler inspection. They reasoned that inspections would increase boiler safety and the insurance would function as an incentive to inspect and a guarantee of a quality inspection. Though the insurance offered financial interests, it was secondary to safety and loss prevention – a totally new concept for an insurance offering.
Under that premise, The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company was founded in 1866.
daveklepperBut it was four, not three units.
When was the fourth unit added? Everything I ever read about the Comet said it was three units, and the models (including one amazing brass set that replicated the engine turning) had 3 cars ...
but Con-Cor sold expansion cars. And I wasn't there firsthand.
Could it be you're confusing it with a certain other articulated train?
Hotchkiss Bicycle Railway. There is an amazing amount of detail about this on the Net, including that several of these were built in England in the following decade.
The not-so-cleverly named Schweeb system is a modern equivalent, I think. (If ever there was a concept that would benefit from modern electric-bicycle technology, that is it!)
I rode the Comet both in Boston - Providence service (from Canton Junction to South Station) and later in Boston - Waterbury service, where it was actually a better fit and where it was last used. Rode it with Gerry Dyar as far as Hartford. And the very first New Haven RDCs did arrive before the Comet was scrapped. I liked it a lot and was sorry when it was scrapped. But it was four, not three units.
A brief note on the subject of monorails: There was a "Bicycle Railway" constructed in South Jersey from Mt. Holly to the manufacturing town of Smithville. It was constructed by Mr. Smith (Founder of the town, I would guess!) for his workers to use in their commute to his factory. The vehicles were man powered, suspended affairs, with the seat underslung between the "drivers". 1880's I believe. The line ran parallel to Pennsy's Pemberton branch.
The Comet's 150-seat capacity was quickly overrun as the depression eased and traffic picked back up, so it was demoted to commuter service, where its double-end configuration was an asset. Retired in 1951, not too long before New Haven's RDCs started to arrive. Powered by two Westinghouse 9x12 6 cyl 400 HP engines of Beardmore design built under license, also used in Westinghouse switchers of the period.
narig01What kind of surprises me is it lasted thru WWII's scrap drives for aluminum.
I still haven't quite figured out why more of these trains weren't built. I think it is because they were 'too' lightweight, in the tradition of the Railplane or perhaps Kruckenberg's Schienenzeppelin overseas. Might just have been the Depression putting the kibosh on New Haven's pathetic finances and shaky operations, and there being better motor-train solutions, or at least more mainstream ones, being available by the time other potential customers came into the means to buy streamlined trains again...
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