Earlier.
I think one of the Queens streetcar companies had a double-decker similar to Hedley's "Broadway Battleship" that New York Railways operated on what is now the M6 Manhattan bus route, and that was scrapped after GM bougt the Green Lines system in 1924.
Similar, but with trolley poles instead of conduit current pick-up.
Not sure which of the three Queens streetcar systems it was. And maybe hte NYRys car was not scrapped and it was the same car?
Earlier. (The ones I'm thinking of predate even the first double-deck streetcar in Blackpool before the turn of the century.)
Wizlish OK -- who had the first 'double deck' passenger cars on Long Island (New York)? (This includes things like gallery-car arrangements, but does involve a full roof - no open-air construction on the top deck like the Fifth Avenue sightseeing buses.)
OK -- who had the first 'double deck' passenger cars on Long Island (New York)? (This includes things like gallery-car arrangements, but does involve a full roof - no open-air construction on the top deck like the Fifth Avenue sightseeing buses.)
http://illianaroad.com/railroading/the-remarkable-boynton-unicycle-railroad/
The above article calls it a "Unicycle". It was(IIRC) Bicycle.
The IGN
narig01I don't know if this counts, The Boynton Bicycle Railroad of 1889 at Coney Island.
Did its cars carry passengers?
Were they double-deck?
Bingo!
The premise of the Boynton Bicycle Railroad was fascinating -- it was intended to turn a regular railroad track into a full double-track line (!) by using the individual rails as ground monorails, and providing an overhead structure to hold the trains upright and bank them properly on curves. Supposedly the trains were also well-suited to reach very high running speeds, much faster than a conventional train on the same track would be able to manage.
The cars were double-decked because they were so narrow that a 'conventional' train would require too long a station. This system was my introduction to the idea of full double-deck stations to speed access.
very early on (by 1891) there was a Boynton Bicycle Electric railway company (incorporated in West Virginia, which I think was 'the' place to incorporate for a time before New Jersey and then Delaware took over). I have seen stock certificates dated as late as 1907. But none of the electric designs, to my knowledge, were double-decked.
Your question...
Of course one would have to be very narrow minded to think it would be the future!
When I thought about it I started looking for older Long Island Railroad equipment. When I thought about it my mind went to the Coney Island railroads. Several pieces have been written about it. The last shadow of this unique operation is Boynton Place in Brooklyn.
Thx IGN
Now a question.
An easy question(I hope)
This 3 unit articulated aluminum train set was designed by some of the aerospace engineers who designed the WWI Zepplins. It ran for a railroad in the northeast. The train set proved so popular it had to be replaced by a steam hauled train because it lacked the capacity to carry all the passengers who wanted to ride. It ended its days in commuter service.
A couple of months ago I posted a question and shortly after I posted I'd had some problems and couldn't get back here to reply for some time. My apologies for this , and I hope it will not be repeated.
Has to be the New Haven Comet, one of the most interesting and beautiful trains built.
Wizlish Has to be the New Haven Comet, one of the most interesting and beautiful trains built.
You got it. What kind of surprises me is it lasted thru WWII's scrap drives for aluminum.
Your question
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
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?
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.
Really cool photos! Did New Haven also have a steam powered experimental lightweight or did I dream that up?
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).
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
terrific information, thanks. and my memory must have slipped. the Comet never was modified, so it must have always been three units.
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.
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...
Are we waiting for a new question?
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.
Rgds IGN
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