rcdryePRR's turbine?
Ah, but which one, and when?
PRR proposed a mechanical drive "V1" turbine in 1944, before modifying it to an electric drive design (using a marine-type Bowes electric drive) and then not building it at all. I assume the initial version was targeted.
Look right there and you answered the question - but you mischaracterized what the drive does...
Someone from Cornell, doing a retrospective on 'Tugboat Tom', described it (in its late-'40s version' as a "kind of electromagnetic torque converter" - it matches shaft speeds while transferring torque. I had originally (after seeing the hand-drawn presentation on it to PRR that is preserved at the Hagley) thought it worked like a self-excited inline traction motor -- it is more complicated than that.
Advantage is that it is far lighter and shorter than a full electric drive, with generator and motor(s) would be, and it does a pretty good job of allowing variable output-shaft (here, driveshaft) speed at or near the engine's torque peak. (This would have solved any issue with relatively low output speed with the Superior engine)I can provide patent numbers and drawings if there is interest. The Ingalls locomotive proposals (there are two sets) are at the Philadelphia Seaport Museum, boxes 94 and 95 ("Ingalls" and "2000hp locomotive" respectively). There is also a description of use of the Bowes drive in a lighter railcar, probably similar to what Budd developed as the RDC, and it should be interesting to compare the capabilities and cost of the two designs.
rldrye, I think you earned the next question.
If anyone has more questions or wants more information - say it now.
Otherwise rcdrye is up, I think.
Sorry we couldn't find it. Other than a post for page 1 of an article in Popular Mechanics (without the rest of the article) there's very little info about the drive out there. If you have the patent numbers I would like them, they're easy to look up. I should have something posted by tomorrow night, if not sooner.
As a little history: Bowes had a long working relationship with Cooper-Bessemer, so I wouldn't be surprised to find their engine in some of the extant material on locomotive drives.
In the Seaport Museum collection, you will want to look at the 'Railcar' drawings (designs 265, 266, 270), the "Locomotive, Diesel, Ingalls Ship Building" (1950) in box 94, and the "Locomotive, Diesel, 2000HP" (1950) in box 95
Patent for the 'fundamental' Bowes drive is 2465006; improvements by Bowes are 2503577 and 2747115. A good description of what one of these systems can do is in German patent DE102007001828A1 (there is a sort of translation in the Google Patents reference, but it is scanned (poorly) and the only download option appears to be in German from Espacenet).
It is interesting to consider the 'alternative' technology of diesel-hydraulics and its railroad commercialization (Budd, Baldwin Mekydro, KM and Alco among others) by comparison. At least one patent for concentric rotating 'dynamo-electrical machinery' improving on Bowes's design was recorded as recently as 2012.
Thanks for the info on the drive. It should be interesting reading (I can read German, so that's not an issue).
So..
Two railroads both participated in pool ticketing arrangements at each end of their respective systems, where tickets from any member of the pool were honored on any member's trains. By the 1950s one of the railroads handled all of the sleeping cars found in one pool, and most of the sleeping cars handled in the other (one round trip and a split with the third railroad, each handling sleeping cars in one direction only). Name all four railroads and the city pairs. Bonus for IDing the railroad with the sleepers.
The railroad that didn't carry any sleepers on the pool runs fielded a couple of nice postwar streamliners in one pool, and ran its own parlors in the other.
One of the pools ran between two city pairs. For that pool the two railroads in both pools shared all four stations, though they used them in a different order. The two railroads shared both end stations in the other pool.
The other railroad in in the four city pool shared only one station with the other two railroads, using two of its own, and one where it was a tenant.
The other railroad in the two city pool shared one station with the others at one end, and used a Union Station at the other end not shared by the two common railroads.
The only pools I know of are Portland - Seattle and Montreal - Toronto. In the first, GN, NP, and UP all ran one train each way. The only sleeping car(s?) was the through SP sleeper to Oakland. I do not know which railroads handled it, but it is likely that it went on different railroad in each direction.
For Toronto - Montreal, CP handled all the sleepers, which were through to Chicago via Detroit and the Michigan Central - New York Central System. Of course, earlier, CN also had through sleepers to and from Chicago, via St. Clair, Durand, and GTW.
But I am unsure if you want either of these. And NP had through sleepers with CN, Chicago - Winnapeg, a whole thorough train.
Of the railroads you named, two of them were active in the other pool.
In the Seattle-Portland pool in 1957, NP ran two round-trip trains, one day and one night (10-2-1 sleeper). UP ran the "Train of Tommorow" cars in day service, and GN ran a daytime round trip with a GN Parlor. The sleepers off the UP (6-6-4) and SP (10-6, 12 DBR) went north on UP's pool contribution (with "Train of Tomorrow" cars) and south on NP's day train. Two of the "Cascade" 10-6 sleepers were owned by NP. GN and UP used King Street Station in Seattle, UP used Union (with CMStP&P) next door. All three used Portland Union Station.
The other pool, as previously noted, involved four cities and three railroads. No pooling of equipment was involved, unlike the CN-CP Toronto-Montreal-Quebec pools.
rcdrye Of the railroads you named, two of them were active in the other pool. In the Seattle-Portland pool in 1957, NP ran two round-trip trains, one day and one night (10-2-1 sleeper). UP ran the "Train of Tommorow" cars in day service, and GN ran a daytime round trip with a GN Parlor. The sleepers off the UP (6-6-4) and SP (10-6, 12 DBR) went north on UP's pool contribution (with "Train of Tomorrow" cars) and south on NP's day train. Two of the "Cascade" 10-6 sleepers were owned by NP. GN and UP used King Street Station in Seattle, UP used Union (with CMStP&P) next door. All three used Portland Union Station. The other pool, as previously noted, involved four cities and three railroads. No pooling of equipment was involved, unlike the CN-CP Toronto-Montreal-Quebec pools.
Would the other pool service you are looking for is Minneapolis/St. Paul - Duluth/Superior operated by GN, NP and Soo?
ZephyrOverlandWould the other pool service you are looking for is Minneapolis/St. Paul - Duluth/Superior operated by GN, NP and Soo?
That's the one. NP ran one each day and night trains, with a 10sec, 2Cpt, 1DR sleeper on the night train. GN ran the Gopher and Badger using two identical train sets including a rebuilt heavyweight parlor-solarium. Soo Line's offering was coach only with a news butcher. NP's night train was the first withdrawal (1959) with Soo's next, after a brief withdrawal from the pool, and dropping Duluth. GN's was the last one standing, with a single Gopher/Badger pair operating on April 30, 1971 (by BN).
All three roads used SPUD, NP and GN used GN's Minneapolis station, Soo Line used Milwaukee's. NP And GN used Superior and Duluth Union Stations, Soo used its own in both cities. NP trains ran St. Paul-Minneapolis-Superior-Duluth, Soo and GN ran Minneapolis-St. Paul-Superior-Duluth.
ZO - you and Dave Klepper flip a coin to see who goes next.
rcdrye ZO - you and Dave Klepper flip a coin to see who goes next.
Dave, go ahead and give the next question.
Hint: The abandoned station was also a ferry terminal. Aftyer electrification and extensions added, it was seved by a one-car shuttle until abandonjment. Often, the shuttle used the first steel car of the system, which was not a prototype for subsequent cars and could only mu with wood gate cars.
Further hints: One extension was partly in a subway, with open-platform gate cars serving a subway station that still exsists and then extended two more stations before replacerment by steel cars standard for the system displaced by newer cars of a somewhat radical departure from the strandard design. Another extension was by standard "City-built" elevated, and this was partially replaced by a subway, much later, so the pressent route, omitting the ferry terminal, sees subway operation at both ends, and the original elevated line with some extension in the middle.
With the hints I have given, this shoujld be easy as pie. You don't even neeed a 19th Century map. Just look at the current map,see which line:
Is primarily on an elevated structure
couild easily have run to a ferry terminal instead of its present route into Manhattan
Obvioiusliy must be in a subway in Manhattan
Also has a subway at its outer end
Not the 20th Century's Flushing Line
The only line I can find that meets that description is the Myrtle Avenue J/Z running from the Williamsburg Bridge to 121st st., then ducking into a new Subway section. Subway end in Manhattan is at Broad Street, just a few blocks away from the ferries.
The J/Z line is correct, withthe section from Marcy Avenue Station to Crescent Street being an original 19th-Century, originally steam-operated elevated line.
But it is not Myrtle Avenue, although M-Myrtle trains do use part of the line.
Look at the map again, name the street under the elevated structure from Marcy to East-New-York, and then ask the next question.
Note that on the L 14th Street-Canarsie Line, at ENY, where is crosses the J/Z, the statioin name reflects the street name.
daveklepper The J/Z line is correct, withthe sectioni from Marcy Avenue Statioin to Crescent Street being an original 19th-Century, originally steam-operated elevated lione. But it is not Myrtle Avenue, although M-Myrtle trains do use part of the line. Look at the map again, name the street under the elevated structure from Marcy to East-New-York, and then ask the next question. Note that on the L 14th Street-Canarsie Lined, at ENY, where is crosses the J/Z, the statioin name reflects the street name.
The J/Z line is correct, withthe sectioni from Marcy Avenue Statioin to Crescent Street being an original 19th-Century, originally steam-operated elevated lione.
Note that on the L 14th Street-Canarsie Lined, at ENY, where is crosses the J/Z, the statioin name reflects the street name.
RC- Waiting for you! But Fum Fact: Brooklyn has only the one Broadway, but Manhattan has two. The first is what is known as Broadway, running the length of the island and across "Kings Bridge" to run through The Bronx and then into Yonkers. Much longer than Broadway-Brooklyn. But shorter than either is Manhattan's East Broadway, confined to that part of lower Manhattan that justs out into the EAst River. It too once had an elevated structure; part of the 2nd Avenue Elevated used it. The big Broadway has the No. 1 line on el-stucture 122-130 Streets and 200-242.
To control costs on an overnight train that carried a diner-lounge, two fairly new sleeping cars were rebuilt in 1956 into buffet-sleepers, the only ones with duplex roomettes and bedrooms. Both cars were given new names for non-U.S. locations. Railroad (only one involved), train name and endpoints.
Great Northern, St. Paul - Winnapeg
Union Pacific, Butte Special, Salt Lake City-Butte
Dave is correct. GN rebuilt two Glacier-type 16 dupRmt4DBR cars into sleeper-buffet-lounges (8 dupRmt2DBR) as "Winnipeg Club" and "Manitoba Club". They were used on the Winnipeg Limited. "Manitoba Club" even got Big Sky Blue paint. The train was truncated to a St. Cloud-Winnipeg connection with the Western Star around 1970.
UP did a similar, though less drastic, rebuild for the Butte Special, taking two sections of 6sec6Rmt4DBR cars and making a small buffet, but without the lounge area of the GN cars.
The Soo Line's Winnipeger carried rebuilt heavyweights, with an occasional borrowed CP coach for most of its later life.
I'll admit to have ridden in one of the cars, around 1969. Walked into the car from the adjacent sleeper, where I had a regular roomette, wth a copy of TRAINS in my hand, intending to read it over dinner. As I sat down across from a well dressed gentleman, he said: "Hi! I took that cover picture." My immediate reply: "You must be Phil Hastings! And he had a cab-ride pass from Croookston to Grand Forks, which he said coiuld include me. And it did. Same trip when I met Golda Maer in Milwaukee, but that story can wait.
Yes, the Reo Grande Zephyr was the last non-Amtrak intercitiy USA passenger train. But the traqnsition was not smooth. For a time there was no passenger service on the D&RGW. Why? The full story, please.
daveklepperBut the traqnsition was not smooth. For a time there was no passenger service on the D&RGW. Why? The full story , please.
I don't have the full story, but the gist as I remember it was that the D&RGW had far more limited physical capacity than UP, and was far more inconvenienced by having to run Amtrak trains than UP at the time. So understandably to contemporary Rio Grande management (I don't remember whether this was before Anschutz involvement, but I do think he was in the picture then) keeping Amtrak off their line was important, both 'absolutely' and in terms of competitive advantage.
daveklepper I'll admit to have ridden in one of the cars, around 1969. Walked into the dcar from the adjacent sleeper, where I had a regular roomette, wth a copy of TRAINS in my hand, intending to read it over dinner. As I sat don across from a well dressed gentleman, he said: "Hi! I took that cover picture." My immediate reply: "You must be Phil Hastings! And he had a cabiride pass from Croookston to Grand Forks, which he said coiuld include me. And it did. Same trip when I met Golda Maer in Milwaukee, but that story can wait. Yes, the Reo Grande Zephyr was the last non-Amtrak intercitiy USA passenger train. But the traqnsition was not smooth. For a time there was no passenger service on the D&RGW. Why? The full story , please.
I'll admit to have ridden in one of the cars, around 1969. Walked into the dcar from the adjacent sleeper, where I had a regular roomette, wth a copy of TRAINS in my hand, intending to read it over dinner. As I sat don across from a well dressed gentleman, he said: "Hi! I took that cover picture." My immediate reply: "You must be Phil Hastings! And he had a cabiride pass from Croookston to Grand Forks, which he said coiuld include me. And it did. Same trip when I met Golda Maer in Milwaukee, but that story can wait.
Yes, the Reo Grande Zephyr was the last non-Amtrak intercitiy USA passenger train. But the traqnsition was not smooth. For a time there was no passenger service on the D&RGW. Why? The full story , please.
Johnny
If you want a sobering thought... The CZ ran for 21 years, from 1949 to 1971(-ish, including BN/D&RGW only tri-weekly operation). The RGZ ran from 1971 to 1983. In August of this year the Amtrak CZ will have operated longer than the CZ and RGZ put together.
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