daveklepper You got half the question right. But I am not talking about other buyers of American Flyers, and the one you left out was Kansas City Southern. Two railroad had regular single-vestibule lightweight coaches with a 14 or 16 seat smoking section with sideways facing seats. These were parlor-car-like seats, just a bit smaller, faxing the center aisle. They were not at all American Flyers. Indeed, on one of the two railroads they were not bult by Pullman. (Indeed, that railroad had no Pullman-built coaches -specifically coaches--post WWII.) And all on both railroads were used on named trains. But most are in-used today, but not in named trains except in excepitonal circumastances, and have been reseated with high density seating.
You got half the question right. But I am not talking about other buyers of American Flyers, and the one you left out was Kansas City Southern. Two railroad had regular single-vestibule lightweight coaches with a 14 or 16 seat smoking section with sideways facing seats. These were parlor-car-like seats, just a bit smaller, faxing the center aisle. They were not at all American Flyers. Indeed, on one of the two railroads they were not bult by Pullman. (Indeed, that railroad had no Pullman-built coaches -specifically coaches--post WWII.) And all on both railroads were used on named trains. But most are in-used today, but not in named trains except in excepitonal circumastances, and have been reseated with high density seating.
Actually Dave, if you'll look back at my prior reply I did list the KCS as one of the buyers of American Flyer coaches. Was one of the other railroads the Burlington which I seem to recall having some Budd built coaches that had smoking sections with the kind of seating you describe?
Mark
Did the 8600s have tray tables? B&M and MEC both had postwar American Flyer coaches. I think BAR had a pair of them as well. The MEC cars went to C&EI.
IIRC the 8600 coaches were built with a 14 seat smoking section with non-reclining seats. I'm not familiar with the seating in the smoking section but I'll hazard a guess there were bench type seats on each side of a center aisle.
In addition to the New Haven the B&M, BAR, KCS, SAL and SL-SW all bought American Flyer style coaches.
NO. Thought I made it clear these were reclining seat lightweight cars. The New York Central's 1000-series postwar air-condidtioned mu's had 3 and 2 seating and preceded the New Haven's mu fluted cars . The postwar New Haven mu's, the "washboards," were in the 4400-series, not 8600's. The 8600's had the same vestibule arrangements and exterior demensions as the prewar 8200's, the true American Flyers. Both were products of Pullman's ex-Osgood Bradley Worcester plant.
I am only talking about reclining seat long-distance coaches, if the New Haven's operations can truly be called long distance. And the other two railroads also applied this innovation to reclining seat long distance coaches. In one case, far from all such coaches, only a minority for specific services.
Hint, not all seats in these cars reclined!
2nd hint: One of the other two railroads also had prewar American Flyers. The other did not. But in both cases, the vestibule arrangement and exterior dimension were like standard Budd, ACF, Pullman, and PRR-Juniata long-distance coaches.
efftenxrfeThe LIRR converted all the MU's but the double-deckers to 3-2 and bought a bunch of Reading "steam" coaches in the early '50's, and I never was in one, but I, guessing again, suppose they were the fleet sale.
Interestingly enough, the B&M sold their entire fleet (well, 30 of 31) of Osgood-Bradley 'American Flyer' cars to LIRR in the late '50s. And SSW transferred their entire stock of them to SP. So we actually have two complete fleets that went to other railroads... if the question was about paired-window stock and not postwar Pullman-Standard cars. I thought the question was about postwar reclining-seat coaches and not the 'prewar' stuff, though.
Seems to me that Susie-Q had 3-2 cars before WWII, so that wouldn't be a New Haven innovation. And the rotating seats were also prewar. Which is why I say 'reclining seats' would be the coach innovation. But I do not know anything to speak of about postwar P-S car fleets with reclining seats ... are these Sleepy Hollow seats? Doughty doesn't say anything detailed about them...
Guessing.....Seats for three on one side of the aisle and for two on the other.
The LIRR converted all the MU's but the double-deckers to 3-2 and bought a bunch of Reading "steam" coaches in the early '50's, and I never was in one, but I, guessing again, suppose they were the fleet sale.
LIRR's 1954 cars, both MU and "steam" were 3-2, maybe even the two RDC's.
daveklepper Well, then I have to find a railroad less likely, how about the Missouri Pacific/Texas Pacific
Well, then I have to find a railroad less likely, how about the Missouri Pacific/Texas Pacific
BINGO! It's Texas & Pacific. As illustrated, one of the flat-out ugliest streamlined schemes I've seen. I hate to say this... but I'm glad they bought the fancy E7s...
I won't copy the picture from the 1959 Trains issue, but perhaps one of the moderators here would see about getting the necessary permissions (as it's a Kalmbach picture on a Kalmbach board).
That solves this one; Dave, you asked the majority of correct questions, so back over to you (whew!)
daveklepper Have not we covered them all, the PRR T-1.the B&O Emerson, ACL, FEC, NYNH&H? Or was the B&O 4-4-4-4 the Lord Baltimore, with the 4-4-4 the Lady Baltimore? Possibly the Emerson was a differrent B&O experimental, possibly three-cyllindered.
Have not we covered them all, the PRR T-1.the B&O Emerson, ACL, FEC, NYNH&H?
Or was the B&O 4-4-4-4 the Lord Baltimore, with the 4-4-4 the Lady Baltimore? Possibly the Emerson was a differrent B&O experimental, possibly three-cyllindered.
The B&O duplex-drive was "George Emerson", the "Lord Baltimore" was a 4-6-4 and the "Lady Baltimore" was a 4-4-4.
The Frisco did have a couple of streamlined pacifics.
Well, the Frisco had some very fancy E-7's and never had a streamlined steamer as far as I remember. It handled some fairly heavy and fast passenger trains. Possibly they were considered briefly for hte Meteor. They could also have been used on the KC-Florida Special.
Well, you happen to have found another one -- two, if you count class C1 and class C1a differently. These would probably have looked very much like long Niagaras, right down to the smoke deflectors on the C1a.
Duplexes were a 'natural' for the Water Level Route -- and it needs to be remembered that the Niagaras were experiencing a fairly severe problem with main-pin breakages, main-rod buckling at speed, and other things born of the forced compromise that is Timken lightweight rods subjected to high piston thrust. The duplex design inherently solves all that tsurris.
But, oddly enough, the Central is NOT the railroad I meant. (And yes, that railroad's E7s were fancier than NYC's in lightning stripe...)
The Central, New York Central, with their lightning-striped E-7's, even with successful Hudsons and Niagras?
OH NO, you're still missing one of the very most interesting -- a railroad I would NEVER have expected to buy a Duplex, let alone one with extravagant streamlining.
Hint: they bought E7s instead. Rather fancy E7s.
FEC indeed is one. (Very early on, in late 1935)
To my knowledge, Seaboard is not, although they were perhaps the likeliest of all railroads to make good use of a long-rigid-wheelbase high-speed engine... of course, if anyone has even a shred of documentary evidence (such as a Kuhler drawing!), bring it on!
I think RF&P was getting fine service out of their 77"-drivered 4-8-4s, the most beautiful of that wheel arrangement in America and, in my opinion, at least the equal of the J-1 Hudsons for the most beautiful of all. (DPM and his little Pacifics, pretty as their paint may have been and immaculate their maintenance, has to take a back seat here...)
I go along with rfp . And if ACL considered them, would not Seabord also? Maybe even RF&P and FEC?
Perhaps close to topic, unlike my last post, I seem to remember reading the Seaboard Air Line considered Duplex power. Thinking about it, they did buy Baldwin Centipedes, so considering Duplexes doesn't seem a stretch, plus they did have those single expansion 2-6-6-4s.
NS operates some pretty heavy trains on the corridor north and south of Perryville, MD. Coal, intermodal and general freight run south to Baltimore, General freight, auto racks, aggregate, coal and chicken feed for the eastern shore run north to Newark and Wilmington DE as well as the new oil traffic. I think they have some pretty rigid time curfews, as often I will see them waiting on the south end of the Port Road branch ( the line down the Susquehanna from Enola to Perryville) in the morning, having apparently missed their slot. CSX Coal trains for the Popes Creek secondary out of Bowie, MD use the corridor from Landover to Bowie.
And to spot to and pull cars from sidings with facing-point switches!
Trains has had several articles on freight operations in and around the corridor. Conrail looked at electrifying portions of the ex-Reading line it uses now, as well as some parts of the ex-PRR line over the Alleghenies. The expected return on investment was good, but the capital required dwarfed anything else Conrail was looking at doing. With so much to clean up putting that much money on one project wasn't going to happen. Voltage and frequency changes would have made for strange operations.
P&W has the same problem NYNH&H had, having to slot trains between passenger trains, and timing even those movements to hit the movable bridges when they're down for passenger trains. A fair number of P&W freights operate with a locomotive on each end to make them as nimble as possible.
My understanding is that the NEC freight south of New York is limited only by local frieghts to serve on-line shippers and receivers and industrial branches not otherwise accessable. All CSX through freight goes by the former B&O-Reading-CNJ route, and NS via Harrisberg and its former Reading and Lehigh Valley route, both to Conrail Joint Assets.
North of New York, much the same situation, except that Providence and Worcester does use part of the NEC as an important main line in its operations, all the way from Fresh Pond Junction in Long Island to Providence, with CSX having rights north of there. But CSX "owns" the freight track over the H. G. Bridge, with CP and P&W having trackage rights. I use the term owns loosely here, because actual ownership may be with Amtrak, but CSX responsible for maintenance.
NP EddieAlthough my question is not a "Classic" question, I must ask if electric locomotives are still used by the CSX or NS on their former PRR lines? I wish I could have seen the GG1's, etc. in action.
They are not. Conrail ceased electric operation long before the NS/CSX split -- although for one brief, shining moment they reconsidered, with a locomotive numbered 4453.
There is even very little freight left on the old PRR main through New Jersey, hard as that may be to imagine for those of us watching in the 1970s or earlier. Expect even less if the FRA adopts more lenient crash standards for high-speed rail equipment...
Dave:
First of all, I hope you had a blessed Passover!
Although my question is not a "Classic" question, I must ask if electric locomotives are still used by the CSX or NS on their former PRR lines? I wish I could have seen the GG1's, etc. in action.
I still have memories of a 10 below night seeing an eastbound SOO freight working its way up from the west side of the Mississippi in north Minneapolis to the top of the over the NP Northtown Yards. Lots of noise and smoke!! The CP still uses that route and can be visualized on a Twin Cities Terminal ATCS layout.
Ed Burns
My face should be red for not thinking of the NYNH&H. PRR got the T-1 to do the work of GG-1's in non-electrified territory, and their EP-4 was only very slightly inferior to the GG-1. (The wartime EF-3 was actually a better locomotive than the GG-1, but that came later.) So their interest in a duplex was a logical runnon. After all, the GG-1 was based on Pennsy trials with their EP-3.
Well, if the NYNH&H thought of it, perhaps so did the B&M for Heavy Boston - Porland trains.
What about the Reading, both B&O influence and to compete with PRR?
CSSHEGEWISCH D&H 1403 was a triple-expansion design with all cylinders driving all four driving axles, not quite a duplex.
D&H 1403 was a triple-expansion design with all cylinders driving all four driving axles, not quite a duplex.
Perhaps even more to the point, with all cylinders working on ONE driving axle, the antithesis of a duplex, which splits driving and rod loads between sets of axles in a rigid-wheelbase engine...
It does bear noting that the French 'duplex' we are leaving out of the present discussion (because it was not built for achieving reliable high speed) was a compound-expansion locomotive that used the duplex principle to reduce the effects of rod thrust and allow smaller cylinders for clearance. As pointed out in 1959 and then again in the Withuhn context in the mid-Seventies, there were internal conjugating rods that kept the two engines in strict alignment. If the D&H had wanted a ten-coupled engine with triple expansion, they could very probably have adopted the French layout to reduce thrust and inertial augment.
While not a true duplex, Delaware and Hudson's bizarre Leonor F. Loree had two cylinders on the fireman's side.
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