Yup. The TT tells us that for the night service between Atlanta and Brunswick, there is a motor-powered coach train between Jesup and Brunswick. To me, that says that the equipment of the Cracker carries the Atlanta-Brunswick sleeper between Jesup and Brunswick, connecting with the Kansas City-Florida Special in Jesup. Thus, you do not need to keep an engine in Brunswick just for that service.
Johnny
In 1929, this railroad rebuilt several old motor cars into a motor train powered by a newcomer into the motor car market. The train included RPO space and two Pullman sections.
That would be the "Blue Bird" on Chicago Great Western, rebuilt from McKeen cars, repowered with Winton engines from EMC.
CSSHEGEWISCHThat would be the "Blue Bird" on Chicago Great Western, rebuilt from McKeen cars, repowered with Winton engines from EMC.
The question might have added something about the special service for which as I recall the train was built -- service to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester.
This was a train that deserves more technical historical attention than I have seen it receive. Are there any good articles or discussion about its design and construction?
http://railroads.railroadheritage.org/SPT--FullRecord.php?ResourceId=1135
http://www.nsrm-friends.org/nsrm87.html
http://www.mckeencar.com/gallery-2/c/chicago-great-western-railway/
https://archive.org/stream/minnesotastategu00writrich#page/270/mode/2up
I deliberately held the Mayo angle to require a bit of thinking...
The three car train was built out of parts of several McKeen cars, plus a new front end including the 275 HP Winton engine and EMC electrical parts. The carbodies were rebuilt in CGW's Oelwein Iowa shops.
The motor car had a 15' RPO, a baggage/express compartment and a passenger section (probably the "smoker" but I haven't been able to verify that). The middle car had 76 seats, the rear car was split between coach and parlor sections, with a small lounge at the rear. Two Pullman sections were included with stretcher windows to handle passengers bound for the Mayo Clinic.
CGW also owned the first EMC railcar, their number M-300 built in 1924. EMC was also involved with McKeen repowerings on the Union Pacific.
rcdrye The motor car had a 15' RPO, a baggage/express compartment and a passenger section (probably the "smoker" but I haven't been able to verify that).
The motor car had a 15' RPO, a baggage/express compartment and a passenger section (probably the "smoker" but I haven't been able to verify that).
Rob, good luck verifying the smoker.
passengerfan ...This three-car motorcar train was actually three McKeen cars rebuilt by the CGW Oelwein shops into a power unit and two trailers. The Power cars contained Control Cab-Engine Room-15’ Railway Post Office and Baggage space and carried the number 1000. The second car was a 74-revenue seat Coach numbered 1001. The third car 1002 contained a small Kitchen and Pantry with eight seat dining area at two tables for four. A twenty seat Business Class section as today’s Airlines would refer to it, not as Spartan as regular coach seats yet certainly not up to Parlor car seating standards. To the rear of this seating was four Pullman Sections used for transporting passengers to and from the famed Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. The final compartment in car 1002 was the Parlor Observation room with parlor seats for thirteen. The BLUE BIRD would probably qualify as a semi-streamlined train when it entered service January 13, 1929. The exterior of the three-car gasoline electric train was painted a very dark Royal Blue with all lettering and numbers in Gold Leaf...
...This three-car motorcar train was actually three McKeen cars rebuilt by the CGW Oelwein shops into a power unit and two trailers. The Power cars contained Control Cab-Engine Room-15’ Railway Post Office and Baggage space and carried the number 1000. The second car was a 74-revenue seat Coach numbered 1001. The third car 1002 contained a small Kitchen and Pantry with eight seat dining area at two tables for four. A twenty seat Business Class section as today’s Airlines would refer to it, not as Spartan as regular coach seats yet certainly not up to Parlor car seating standards. To the rear of this seating was four Pullman Sections used for transporting passengers to and from the famed Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. The final compartment in car 1002 was the Parlor Observation room with parlor seats for thirteen. The BLUE BIRD would probably qualify as a semi-streamlined train when it entered service January 13, 1929. The exterior of the three-car gasoline electric train was painted a very dark Royal Blue with all lettering and numbers in Gold Leaf...
https://books.google.com/books?id=SC5gtCc7A7sC&pg=PA62&dq=%22+six+years+after+the+red+bird%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin0cipjtTQAhVn5oMKHS-tBrAQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20six%20years%20after%20the%20red%20bird%22&f=
First streamliner? Which came first, both 1929, Brill Phila. & Western Bullets or the Bluebird?
There are a lot of windows behind the baggage door of CGW 1000 for a non-passenger section... That section was clearly shortened for its later life as a locomotive of sorts. I'm going with the Blue Bird as first, since it entered service in January 1929, while the Bullets showed up at the National Electric Railway equipment convention in Atlantic City in 1931.
thanks for the answer
Do you have the date for the Fonda Johnstown & Gloversville Bullets that went to the Bamberger?
daveklepperFirst streamliner? Which came first, both 1929, Brill Phila. & Western Bullets or the Bluebird?
Weed has both these beat by decades. As pure 'streamlining' there are many others, including by courtesy the McKeens themselves, but surely including the AEG test vehicle and the designs for the prospective NYC-Philadelphia rapid transit service circa 1910.
But I think your question is actually about the start of the modern motor train or car streamliners, typically exemplified by the M-10000 project and the Zephyr. In that sense I'm not sure the Blue Bird qualifies, as it was not (in my opinion) a high-speed train or intended as an 'envelope-pushing' design. The Bullets owe at least some of their 'high speed' to the civil engineering of the P&W, far better than that of most interurbans, and I have to wonder if they were *that* much more sophisticated in running gear and controls than, say, some less-streamlined cars like the ones CRandIC used.
The P&W bullets and Crandic's ex-C&LE Red Devils all owe their design to Dr. Thomas Conway, who also supervised the rebuilding of the CA&E in the early 1920s. Indiana RR's "High Speeds", one each of which ended up on the CR&IC and P&W, were essentially copies of Conway's C&LE cars.
Still waiting for CSS's question. You did not mean Crandic and Phila & Western, but Crandic and Lehigh Valley Transit --- which did run on P&W from Norristown to 69th St. until 1949, then cut back to Norristown with passengers forced to change to regular P&W service the rest of the way.
The P&W "Bullets" were a distictive Brill-patented, body design, copied only for the Fonda Johnstown and Gloversville, the change being internal steps for low platforms instead of the high-platform loading on the P&W.
The C&LE and Indiana cars were a conventional bus-like design. Cincinnati built the C&LE cars, and Pullman and ACF(?) o St. Louis the Indiana cars. The Indiana caars differed in having Standard drop-equalizer trucks instead of Cincinnati arch-bar, in having mu capabiliy, often used, and somewhat rounded rear-ends for coupled operation on short-radius curves.
IRR tested one C&LE car, including operating it the Standard trucks. There was no scheduled thru passenger operation beween the two systems, the cars did visit each other on specials, --including mu operation of Indiana cars on the C&LE.
Most of us are familiar with the Skokie Swift (Yellow Line) on the CTA's Rapid Transit Division. What was the original reason for CTA's purchase of the line after the North Shore Line was abandoned?
Easy,:Access to the large shop, overhaul, repair, and inspection shop. Located originally on the CNS&M instead of CRT because land was a lot cheaper.
That's the correct answer and you get the next question.
Swapping power or buying power sold by another railroad continues in the diesel world, as it did in steam days. And we know that the freight rectifyer electrics originally on the Virginian ended up with four different owners in succession, Virginian, N&W, NYNH&H, and PC before retirement. During WWII, one railroad bought two electric locomotives from another railroad, and these two were almost identacle to the fleet they joined, and were soon modified, not much required, to make them identcle.
Please: First owner, route handled.
Second owner, route handled.
What enabled the first owner in the middle of WWII traffic surge to release these two locomotives?
Boston and Maine bought a pair of EF-1s (originally EP-1s) from New Haven in 1942 to boost capacity through the Hoosac Tunnel through the Berkshires east of North Adams Massachusetts. The NYNH&H was able to release them from New Haven-New York service when the first of NYNH&Hs 10 EF-5 streamlined freight engines (similar to the EP-4, but not DC equipped, and with lower gearing) were delivered in 1942. The EF-1 was very similar to B&M's fleet, which were almost identical to the NYNH&H experimental that the EF-1s were based on. B&M only used them for a short while, as the wires came down in 1946 due to B&M's dieselization.
Correct and look forward to your question.
Except I believe they were EF-3s, not EF5s, and the ex-Virginians were EF-4s.
Electric freight on the NYNH&H main line began only when the Hell Gate Bridge line was electrfied, and the first freight locomotives were the original passenger locomotives regeared and minus their dc equipment. These lasted a long time. The EF-2 was a rotary-converted locomotive and was not particularly successful. Of course any passenger power could be used in freight, and the EP-2s, the 2-6-2+2-6-2 locomotives, were so used often.
The EF-3 had higher horsepower than the EP-4. The EP-4 was aboiut equal to a GG-1, but the EF-3 had more horsepower, the highest of any locomototive to run in New England. The EP-3 was the first of the 4-6-6-4 electrics.
You might have added that as New Haven EF-1s, their usual task, usually 2, 3, or even 4 together, was Bay Ridge Brooklyn - Ceder Hill Yard, New Haven. One new EF-3 could replace three or four of them.
Sorry, misread a caption when I was looking for the in-service dates of the EF-3s (ex-VGN EL-Cs became EF-4s). Some of the EF-3s were boiler-equipped, but could only work to Penn Station, since they did not have third-rail shoes.
The EP-1/EF-1 was really a very successful design working from the first 1906 units until the end of WWII. There were a couple of variant designs mixed in, including outside-framed 069. The 071, sold to B&M as 5007, had some minor variations from the run-of-the-mill units.
I'll post a new question tomorrow morning.
The original EP-1s were " B-Bs " or 0-4-4-0's, but riding quality and reduction of track wear was obtained by adding pony trucks to make them 2-4-4-2s, if my memory is correctm; and they kept that configuration, including the B&M unites. On the New Haven, they were nicknamed "Ponies."
The B&M units had the lead trucks, too.
Of the four 1911 experimentals, the outside-girder-framed 069 introduced one of the most significant innovations in AC electrics, copied in many later electric designs, including some DC units. What was the change from the early units?
The first locomotive with the quill dive, instead of the usual axle-hung wheelbarrow arrangement. The quill was then used on the EP-2 and then the 4-6-6-4's, EP-3 through the last EF-3. And the GG-1. And the Central's P-motors.
It reduces unsprung weight.
You have the descendants right, but not the enhancement. The direct quill was used earlier, on NYC's T/S motors. Even the first EP-1s had a geared quill. This was a slightly different enhancement which made for a smoother running locomotive. Experimentals 071 and 072 had the single geared quill. Experimentals 068 and 070 had side-rod drive and split cab a la DD1.
PRR tried undoing this enhancement in some of its 1930s experimentals, going back to the EP-1 configuration. The units so equipped were very rough on track.
The producton EF-1s (and the B&M's Hoosac tunnel units) had the single geared quill, but most subsequent NYNH&H and many PRR designs followed 069's pattern.
The following is from David Klepper:
"Having server bandwidth problems, thus gmail instead of yahoo. Please post an answer to rc's question on the experimental new haven electric. I think the answer he wishes is some sort of spring and centering in the articulation joint between the two underframes or other centering device. I ask this because I probably will not be able to log in until Thursday morning."
Ed Burns for Dave Klepper.
NP EddieI think the answer he wishes is some sort of spring and centering in the articulation joint between the two underframes or other centering device.
It doesn't have much to do with the frame, except as a place to hang stuff. Think of it as a two-for-one, and compare later NYNH&H power.
The following is from Dave Klepper:
"Revised answer. Two motors per axle, a double quill drive".
ThanksEd. Now have a revised schedule. Wed. and Thur. are reversed, meaning I will probably be away from the weg Wed.evening to Sundnay morning, althouhg might be able to touch base on Fri. morning.
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