In terms of fatalities what was the worst interurban accident in the US? Name the railroad, location and date.
Mark
Fort Wayne and Wabash Valley Kingsland IN Sept 21, 1910. 41 passengers killed.
FW&WV became the Fort Wayne and Northern Indiana, eventually folded into Indiana Service Corp, which in turn was operated as part of the Indana Railroad.
rcdrye Fort Wayne and Wabash Valley Kingsland IN Sept 21, 1910. 41 passengers killed.
Correct. It was a head on collision between a jam packed car with passengers standing in the aisle and an empty car running as an unscheduled extra. Both cars were traveling at about 60 mph when they collided.
On this stretch of track, the cars that normally operated on high voltage with pantographs continued to do so, the cars that normally operated at low voltage with pantographs operated on low voltage third rail, and the cars that normally operated at high voltage with poles arrived operating from low voltage with pantographs and changed to high voltage with pantographs. The last group of cars were third rail equipped but did not use that equipment at this location.
narig01Kind of sounds like the Sacramento Northern.Rgds IGN
SN ran high and low voltage with poles (on passenger equipment), high and low voltage with pans (freight, passenger on Key System), and low voltage third rail. The particular stretch of track I'm looking for was not owned by SN, and had high voltage overhead and low voltage third rail.
The SF-Oakland Bay Bridge trackage meets your description. The last arriving cars were not the Key System Bridge units (which I believe did use third rail on the Bridge), but the ex Sacramento Northern Passenger cars purchased second hand or leased by Key for WWII extra service. They were capable of any combinaition of trolley pole, pantograph, and third rail operation, but Key bought them without their removable third rail shoes, which were only used on the Sacramento Northern north of Sacramento and never used on the bridge, either in SN service or in WWII Key service. The trolley wire on the bridge had been left in place after SN and IE had discontinued passenger service, and was restored to service for these cars during WWII.
SN had retained a few passenger cars after ending passenger service, for fan trips and inspection trips, and these were the cars that supplemented Key equipment on the Bridge during WWII. They may have been leased and not purchased, but they were in Key, not SN service.
The ex-SN Cars were bought by Key from a scrapper which got them from the California Toll Bridge Authority, which in turn got them as collateral for the ATC equipment that had to be installed on Key System cars for Bridge operation.
The five ex-SN cars show up in photos with National City Lines "Fruit Salad" paint and third rail shoes. I haven't found photos of them on the Bridge. They operated until 1949, after the wire was removed.
SN came into Oakland from the North under 1200 V wire. Before the Bay Bridge, SN trains switched from poles to Pans (and 1200V to 600V) for operation under Key System's 600V wire to the Pier. In the Bridge era, pans were still used, but SN cars went back to 1200 volts under overhead shared with SP's Interurban Electric to cross the bridge (cars were left set for 1200V, just ran sluggishly at 600). Key System cars were not equipped for 1200V operation, so the third rail was set up, with automatic change from pans to third rail and back. IER cars just stayed on 1200V overhead.
The Key's Bridge Units were new bodies equipped with 1910-1920 era controls and motors from scrapped Key System 500 and 600 series cars. Despite their modern appearance, they were pretty worn out when service ended in 1958.
Your question , Dave!
The Eastern Mass House Neck line was an unusual line for the Boston area in that it neither entered downtown nor connected directly with a rapid transit line, although its replacement bus definitely does now connect. Let look at another unusual line that operated 1949-1952 only. The single Type 5 car used was based at the Elm Street carhouse, then serving only trackless trolleys, this single car, and the Type 5-operated Elm Street - Sullivan Square Station via Fellsway Rt. 100 streetcar line. The single Type 5 left the carhouse about 5:30 signed no stops or special but did stop to pick-up knowlegeable passengers, who paid the 15 cent rapid transit fare into the farebox and not the local 10-cent fare. At Sullivan Square, it stayed on the surface, did not enter the surface portion of the station, and operated without picking up any further passenger, and with a less than full seated load, under the elevated to North Station, where it madee a stop on the track on the suface outside the fare control location. Before arriving at that locaton, the operator would change the sign to Brattle Street. Passengers boarding at North Station paid only ten cents. It used the inner two tracks on the incline into the subway, the inner two tracks at Haymarket Station, and laid over a few minutes adjacent to the platform, outside fare conctrol at the Brattle Loop at what is now Government Center but was then Scolley Square Station. All day it shuttled between the Brattle Loop and the surface loop at North Station, with the extra stop at Adams northbound, always outside fare control. In the evening, at 6:30pm, with me aboard on the few occasions I could ride, it left Brattle, signed as usual North Station, and most of the riders left as usual at Haymarket. With those left on the car at North Station, he closed the doors, and went through the car collecting an extra nickle from all remaining passenngers, and put the sign back to NO STOPS or SPECIAL, and went back to Elm Street carhouse, under the elevated witihout stopping to Sullivan Square, then discharging but not receiving passengers to Elm Street.
He collected a nickle extra from thru passengers. None of the thu 15-cent paying passengers got a transfer. But at Brattle and Adams, some people paid only a dime and got a "continuing trip ticket" or transfer. Why?
And what was the reason for the operation of this line? Why was it innaugurated? Only the Brattle-N. Station appeared on maps. The morning and evening trips were put-in and pull-out carbarn trips that would carry passengers.
Hint: If you look at Boston Elevated-MTA WWII-era route maps and one for 1949 or 1950, the reason for the route may be apparent.
Hint No. 2: There is a connection with the American War of Independence.
Hint No. 3, on the inbound trips, nearly all passengers boarded at Haymarket and handed the operator a "continuing trip ticket" or transfer and left at the Brattle Loop withing Scolley Sq. Sta. At that point some, very few, paid an extra nickle to ride the East Boston Tunnel, now the Blue Line. But nobody paid an extra nickle at that point to board what is now the Grreen Line since they could have done so at Haymarket, without the continuing trip ticket.
At the time this service, with one Type 5 car, operated, it was the only passenger service using the inside tracks at Haymarket and on the incline, and the Brattle St. Loop. After it stopped running in 1952, the Brattle Loop was only used for mid-day car storage. I don't think it exists with the track plan of today, but maybe a loop facing in the other direction has replaced it. At one time quite a number of services used the Brattle Loop and the inside tracks, including about five Eastern Mass routes, that were cut and then discontinued, some replaced by buses and others part of sale to the Boston Elevated and rerouted to Maverick to connect with the E. Boston Tunnel, now the Blue Line. Only two Boston El routes continued to use the inner tracks and the Brattle Loop thru WWII. Plus an extended Owl service.
need more time or not interested?
The route you mention goes by, or at least within sight of, both the Bunker Hill monument and the Charlestown Navy Yard, which was still actively in use at the time. There was another routing between the same endpoints that got closer to Bunker Hill that was discontinued in 1949 or so.
I'll have to leave the question of extra nickels to the Kingston Trio.
You are on your way to a solution. I'll try to help you by asking two questions: (1) do you mean by discontiniued that it was converted to bus? (2) If it was converted to bus, did the end points for the bus operation remain the same as for the streetcar operation?
There was no passenger carrying regular streetcar line close to the Navy Yard or the Bunker Hill Monument during the time the specific shuttle ran. The elevated was within walking distance (I think the Thompson Sq. station was the closest one). The Main Street tracks under the elevated were, of coursse, equally close, and used for passengers only on the put-in and pull-out trips I described for the shuttle, otherwise, they tied the system together trolleywise and connected the tracks at North Station with the tracks from Sullivan Square to Everett Shops. There had been a Main Street Sullivan Square - Brattle Street trolley line, but it quit about 1947 or 1948 without bus replacement and with the tracks remaining, although they may have run a bus for a while just between Sullivan Square and Thompson Square, wihtout crossing the Charles River to North Station and to Haymarket and Brattle St..
Enough information has been given for the obvious answer,, so after another day, I'll give the answer and ask a ndw question.
This has been hanging on too long, and i suspect the interest to think through the information I have provided already is just not there. As mentioned in several places earlier, when the Eastern Mass quite running streetcars into downtown Boston because the Chelsie Avenue bridge was rebuilt without tracks, two Boston El. later MTA, streetcar lines still ran into the subway at North Station, used the inner tracks at Haymarket which had been shared with the E.ass cars, and looped at the Brattle St. Loop. These two lines were Brattle - Sulivan Square via Main St. and B - SS via Bunker Hill Street. Even thought the tracks remained as a service connectin, the Main St. run, lightly patronized with the el overhad, long headways, and Bunker Hil St. not far away with frequent servie, was cut around 1946 pr 1947. These lnes were always considered local fare lines, not like the Lechmere - subway service and the much longer lines entering from the south and west. The Eastern Mass buses all terminated at Hayhmarket Sq., and their passengers then had to pay an additonal fare to go south to Scolley Square where their streetcars had terminated at the Brattle Loop. The MTA wanted to do the same thiing with the Bunker Hill Street buses, but the protests forced them to run the shuttle to take this bus line's passengers to the Brattle Street Loop without extra fare. When a flat fare of 25 cents with no extra for transfer was instituted, the reason for the shuttle was ended. We all know about gas turbine operation on the UP, the CN and PC Turbotains, the Amrak Tuboliners.
Who can relate the unusual LIRR flirtation with gas turbines?
Not necessarily a matter of interest, but perhaps access to the necessarily-detailed research sources.
I, for one, find the questions and answers quite intersting and enlightening, even though I have neither the time nor the resources to research an answer.
You, Dave, are simply the master in this area!
Since no one has written on this yet, I'll bite.
daveklepperWho can relate the unusual LIRR flirtation with gas turbines?
Long Island wanted to operate fast MU trains without needing to extend the electrification.
LIRR first tested one prototype, essentially a gas turbine version of the Pioneer III (actually a Budd demonstrator?) named the GT-1, later rebuilt to the GT-2.
The next cars, known as GTELs, were built in M1 bodies, but were doomed by high fuel usage.
Both the GTELs and the GT-2 had third rail shoes for Penn Station.
Northwest, I hope the bite Of LIRR GT's didn't produce heartburn.....By investing my 2-cents, I'll show you how lacking in courage I'm.
I read about it: the testing.
And the posted question, why?, I wanted an answer to but never tried hard to get one.
I think mgmt. knew GT's had no justification, except at continuous full load operation. How far-out is this guess? LIRR stations are close together...dwell time for em- and debarking gotta be added.
Publicity grab.The RR says "we're trying everything to get our customer's the best ride to work."
On the left coast, I didn't follow the tests, but I felt frustration when trying to guess why, in the primary instant, they initiated the testing.........
Publicity...maybe....technical stupidity...hoping GT's will work...hope not!
efftenxrfeNorthwest, I hope the bite Of LIRR GT's didn't produce heartburn....
No, they were a bit crunchy, though...
efftenxrfeI think mgmt. knew GT's had no justification, except at continuous full load operation. How far-out is this guess? LIRR stations are close together...dwell time for em- and debarking gotta be added. Publicity grab..The RR says "we're trying everything to get our customer's the best ride to work."
I also suspect that it had political motivations, but I suspect that it had to do more with the fact that the M1s were being delivered, and those on the nonelectrified branches said "Hey! They get new cars, and I don't!". So, LIRR had to do something to show they were working on upgrading these lines, and the failure of the turbines was an excuse to delay it.
Northwest did get it right, and can ask the next question. The cars were not successful because of high maintenance and fuel costs. Before they were removed from service completely, the ERA had a fan trip with the pair, but stuck to electrified lines using only electric power. Even with that limiation, there was an unscheduled stop and some time spent in correcting some glich.
I did have the suspicion that Grumman being on the Island had something to do with at least one of the gas turbines.
Part of the allure of the turbine (if you remember Kneiling's espousal of the things for integral train sets) was its light weight and small package compared to an equivalent power in either diesel or diesel-electric drive. ISTR that the original car -- the Pioneer one -- had a modified hydraulic torque-converter drive. Acceleration using turbine with such a thing ought to have been spectacular... if inherently fuel-wasting compared to compression-ignition piston engines. There is also the sex factor of the 'jet engine'...
The other half of the equation (and where the Grumman connection might come back in) is that maintenance on the turbines was supposed to be gotten to low levels, with the engine units being changed out in a short time to keep availability high. I'd guess the contemporary LIRR balked at the idea of stocking a few (expensive first cost) engines to make this work; in any case, the other predictable problems of a cash-starved, politically-tied organization running a car with that kind of powertrain then began to twinkle.
I never found out enough about the GTEL pair to comment accurately -- they came and went while I was still an active student in 'other disciplines' and I wasn't watching either the railfan or the trade press -- for which I have kicked myself frequently in ensuing years. I think the idea was to shoehorn self-power into a typical e-MU design... and a diesel of any suitable power was NOT going to go in there without more redesign expense than could possibly be justified. Again, please note the parallel transmission: the gas turbine is essentially a big genset, and during acceleration could be presumed to ramp up to best efficient speed quickly and maintain that speed over the full acceleration range... and subsequently go to BCC for whatever trip between stations might be involved. If I were doing one of these, I would size the engine accordingly... and put in some hybrid technology that would let me operate something like a small Capstone ceramic turbine at essentially constant rpm, or with a nice long NOx-friendly transition between speeds...
Then there is the potential issue of HEP lighting and AC, for which the turbine could be kept spooled up with its alternator field weakened ... that would at least save the wear and tear of idling the turbines at each and every station stop, I do suspect the fuel burn and operating issues connected with frequent station stops was the issue that killed these things.
Be interesting to see how a turboelectric package would stack up with current generations (no pun intended) of AC transmission.
Overmod, I'm in agreement. I think the GT-1 transmission was derived directly from the RDC transmission.
Next question: This terminal in Alabama, built in the Mission Revival style, is named after a railroad that did not exist when it was constructed. Name the terminal and why.
That's a cinch -- the Gulf, Mobile, and Ohio terminal in Mobile (an astounding building, built 1907, over 30 years before the merger between M&O and GM&N) but after the Southern bought efective control.
I would note this terminal also served a wide range of ships to various Gulf points... which is my understanding of why the word is in the terminal's name.
Good job. The building is beautifully restored, although the walls have been replaced (something about hurricane storm surges). However, the floor is original, with the grooves worn into the marble where the doors to the trains (now a parking lot) are.
Overmod, your question.
Name at least five railroads (other than PRR) that actively considered duplex-drive locomotives for high-speed service. (Be prepared to back up with at least a diagram...)
One other railroad had a sample builtl and used it. Other than that, I await the full answer, and since I don't have easy access to any diagrams, I'll just wait it out and hopefully learn something.
That one, of course, being B&O. (Note that I'm leaving the French conjugated locomotive out of this discussion as it wasn't a high-speed passenger engine!)
If you have access to the Trains collection, look at the Duplex article in 1959...
Looks as if these silly questions have killed the quiz threads.
Anyone with a legitimate and interesting question, post it in either thread.
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