Miningman Of course not ..visually they are fairly distinctive. Perhaps years of model railroading gives a person a nice 3D reference. In any case I posted a couple of pics for you. Sadly none of either locomotive were preserved.
Of course not ..visually they are fairly distinctive. Perhaps years of model railroading gives a person a nice 3D reference.
In any case I posted a couple of pics for you.
Sadly none of either locomotive were preserved.
I do appreciate the pics. Sorry if I came off wrong. I guess I'm just conditioned with responses that begin with either "Really?" or "Seriously?" on an internet forum as usually being an indication of confrontation. I apologize.
BLS53- Nice of you to post back.
It certainly is quite sad to see a once great builder like Baldwin to disappear, but many of their switchers are still around here and there.
Same thing with Alco, although much later...I suppose you could say some legacy still lives at Bombardier.
Time to give the hints away.
If you want the longest possible combustion plume on a locomotive with a brick arch, where would you introduce the fuel?
Wabash. Alcos. Speedy Gonzales. Surely someone will figure out why the B units couldn't lead. It was not because they didn't have cabs, or controls. It was something else.
RMEIf you want the longest possible combustion plume on a locomotive with a brick arch, where would you introduce the fuel?
Since the arch - at least at the top - is in the back of the firebox, you'd have to introduce the fuel the the front of the firebox. This would require mounting at least some stoker components on the locomotive rather than the tender.
rcdrye RME If you want the longest possible combustion plume on a locomotive with a brick arch, where would you introduce the fuel? Since the arch - at least at the top - is in the back of the firebox, you'd have to introduce the fuel the the front of the firebox. This would require mounting at least some stoker components on the locomotive rather than the tender.
RME If you want the longest possible combustion plume on a locomotive with a brick arch, where would you introduce the fuel?
RMEthe "official" Yahoo Group for the railroad could only come up with one reference photograph in one book that showed some of the arrangement.
I think we're getting into the realm of guesswork if documentation is that scarce.
There is considerable documentation of the existence of the things in several references, one of which is online; what is missing are the 'hard' technical details of the equipment, and the manufacturers of the components.
A surprising thing, to me, is that both the stoking and the coal-moving questions come out of the same book, a very common 'standard' reference for the motive power concerned. And yet, so little about either one appears to be recognized...
The only "oddball" stoker I can find is the Elvin stoker used on some C&O engines. It appears to have a chain-type feed (similar to a manure spreader, with a chain on each side and crossbars to move the coal) to a screw which, in turn, feeds a "shovel" that throws the coal towards the front of the firebox. Perhaps steam jets were used to "float" the coal forward to get a fire close to the base of the arch.
The Elvin was particularly beloved of Livio Dante Porta for two reasons: first, it offered (theoretically) precise control both of amount and pattern for coal delivery, and second, it did not involve those steam-mass-and-enthalpy wasting, secondary-air displacing steam jets in the firebox.
There were other designs -- Detroit Stoker had one for marine applications -- that used the same 'flinger' principle. I have long had the impression that the actual designs to 'pick up' and pre-crush the coal in the tender, move it forward, and perhaps elevate it to the table were often highly dependent on patents ... either ones you owned the rights to, or those you'd have to license (or infringe upon!) to utilize ... for their actual detail design.
Personally, I can't imagine an Elvin-style design working for the purposes of the equipment involved in the question. One immediately critical design issue involves being able to see the coal being dispensed; another has to be whether a 'flinger' might throw coal right at where the fireman is watching. At least with steam jets you have some reasonable assurance that with the valves set a certain way you're getting a reasonable pattern and dispersion...
As another hint: the installations in question were described as a modification of Duplex stoker equipment. That is highly suggestive of where, and how, the equipment would be installed on a modern locomotive (representative wheel arrangements were 2-8-2 and 2-10-2)
Duplexes were usualy set up to feed about mid-height on the rear of the firebox. I suppose a set of duplex screws could be run in the ashpans to feed the front of the firebox... Probably room above a Delta trailer to do that, unless it had a booster.
Could we take this onto another topic and return to the "pop quiz" format?
rcdryeCould we take this onto another topic and return to the "pop quiz" format?
Yes; it's essentially dead. One last call for the B units - I'll give it away: Wabash was the railroad. Who knows -- quien sabe -- the story?
Both the steam items were covered in Sagle & Staufer's B&O Power. The tender 'pusher' was arranged with a hydraulic lift that raised the whole coal bunker to tip the coal forward, I presume on a hinge at the front since an articulated linkage like a contemporary coal truck would raise the bunker far too high and cause all sorts of clearance fun if it came loose or didn't lock down completely or properly. The stoker was arranged with elevators 'either side' of the barrel at the throat from a common screw running, they said, under the ashpan. I presume there was some operating arrangement made to keep the coal in that section from dwelling long enough to start cooking off; the effect of tramp iron or rock jamming the worm or one of the elevators might produce some highly interesting linguistic excursions. On the other hand, with no 'heel' necessary at the back of the grate, a light hot fire might have been remarkably easy to carry, as would relatively smokeless and perhaps low-ash operation.
Wabash got seven C424's that were originally built for NdeM (8100-8106) just before the N&W lease in 1964. The controls were all labelled in spanish, so they couldn't be used as lead units. Wabash numbered them B900-B906.
NdeM eventualy got replacement units after cancelling the original order, eventually acquiring 45 units 8100-8144.
Now that is quite the tale!
A few follow up questions if you do not mind...Why did they simply not change out the labelling on the controls at Alco before they were delivered to Wabash...is it that big of a deal with the factory right there?
Did they eventually change the controls to English labelling and lose the "B unit" status?
Did they use these units on the Cannonball as a B unit? Don't think the Cannonball and the C424's co-existed that long.
Suppose Speedy Gonzalez is 100% politically incorrect these days. Too bad, it was harmless, fun and a very good character. They still run "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" occasionally on some late night movie channel which actually does set the image back a hundred years.
I suspect a factory 'relabelling' would have required an extensive amount of work for which Alco would have to be paid. Treating them as B units saved that money and time.
In any event, Wabash ran them a comparatively short time -- B904, for example, built in March 1964 was conveyed to N&W upon the merger in October 1964 (by which time one of them had already been wrecked). N&W initially renumbered them from Bxxx to 3xxx, then to a series in the 420s, and somewhere along there fitted them up as normal locomotives.
425 has actually survived into preservation as Delaware Lackawanna 2409.
To my knowledge, although some Mexican and Canadian C424s ran in passenger service, none were built with steam generators (this in fact being a reason the C424/425 were so much shorter than the LIRR C420s) and I don't think Wabash ran them in anything but freight service.
OK thanks for the informative and complete answer.
Always had a soft spot for the C424's...good looking well proportioned locomotive that was a welcome break from GP7's and 9's.
Saw a fella kicking cars around in Burlington some time ago with a 424 and was taken back at how quickly he could start, stop and zip around with it.
Like a lot of railroads that dieselized quickly, Wabash had power from several builders in the first generation, with Alco, FM and EMD road units, of which EMD units made up by far the biggest block.
Early second-generation power included eight GP35 and 15 U25B units. The C424s must have been fire-saled by Alco. They were also the only 251-powered units on the Wabash. I'm sure there was a plan to replace or relabel the controls, but the merger (actually lease) got there too soon, and N&W had more important things to worry about.
Alco provided steam generator space on the C630-C636, though it was never used. Only the C420 (LIRR, MON) had space set up for one. GE did the same, leaving space on the UxxC line but not the UxxB line, used by AT&SF in their U28CG and U30CG power. EMD either put on a back porch S/G (SDP35/40/45, GP40P) or used the short hood space (GP30B, NdeM GP35) like in the early GP series.
There was more than Spanish lettering on the controls that relegated Wabash B900-B906 to booster status. I believe that they also lacked toilets, which may have violated labor agreements.
A quick look at Alco manual TP-454A (for the Century 430/630) shows a toilet (item 45) located in the short hood.
Even if a 'bucket' weren't provided at the factory, providing something in the appropriate location would not be rocket science ... once the more-critical problems with Anglo operability had been addressed.
Certainly N&W got relatively long use out of them as normal units.
MLW C-424
2400 HP 75 MPH
Note: All 51 of these units were built with Trade-In Alco/MLW FA, FB and RS units.
8300 (re# 4200 4/1965) C-424 2400 hp MLW #84413 4/1963 This was the only 8300, all others were delivered starting two years later as DRF class 4200's. It was the only unit built with square fuel tank and other minor body details. Compare to 4201. It was remanufactured by MLW with components from RS-10 8474 wrecked January 7,1962 on
...continued...this one for NDG and all Alco fans.
on The Dominion near St.Eugene, Ontario.
Brand new C-424 4204 at St.Luc. MLW 84842 3/31/1965 CPR/Steve Morris Collection Note headlights with glare shields on cab later (see 4221 below) located on nose.
Part iii
4221 (t.i. 4044) MLW 8485910/1965. Phil Mason Toronto Yard June 27, 1968
Wrenching the quiz forum back around...
This north-south interurban that formed a key link in east-west connections "dieselised" after its western connection closed with a variety of interesting power, including at least one LP-gas powered unit, and later acquired a side-rod unit with a planetary gear transmission.
Just a wild guess. Was it the Winona? With Northern Indiana Traction being the western connection and Indiana Raiilway, formerly Union Traction, at the south?
Good to have you back, Dave! Yes, I was looking for the Winona. After the Chicago, South Bend and Northern Indiana cut back from Goshen to Mishawaka in 1934, the Winona left the wires up for a couple of years before buying two LP-gas locomotives from Plymouth Locomotive Works. The two they get were one 65-ton centercab with two diesel-cycle engines set up to run on propane, and one six axle industrial-type that seems to have had a mechanical transmission. The Flexomotive, with direct drive and planetary gear transmission driving side rods, followed in 1939. The Flexomotive may have run on LP as well, but nothing I've found says for sure. All of them were sold off by early 1945, when Winona got a pair of GE 44-tonners, which ran on diesel fuel.
Plymouth designated the 65-ton 707 as mode PE (similar diesel units were model OE). The six-axle 701 was a WLB of 30 tons. The Flexomotive had two axles and weighed 45 tons.
The southern interurban connection was at Peru with Union Traction, whose operations were folded into the Indiana RR. The Winona cut back to Warsaw in the late 1930s, to its primary interchange with the Pennsylvania.
I am going to play a New York City card. Part One: The present subway system has two stations with the exact same name, and one route stops at both of them. Name the stations and the current route that stops as both of them.
Part Two: In addition, up to sometime after WWII, the overall system had an additional two stations with the same name (not the same name as in Part One). This case doesn't exist today. On a typical Sunday, Dad and I would use both these stations, walk from one to the other, and enjoy two of the still-existing sites that make New York a better place. And both going to one of these stations and returning from the other, we would see the station name inside whatever car we riding. And the equipment to one station was different than the equipment to and from the other.
Again, the first pair still exists and is linked by a route, and the second pair, very different in two ways, no longer esists.
Hint: For a short time, the same general type of equipment visited both of the stations with the same name that no longer exist. And for a very short time, trains to both these stations shard the same tracks. And both stations were terminal stations in the same borough. And not far from each other, as shown by Dad's and my Sunday strole.
The second hint: The two stations with the same name that exist today have been around for well over 70 years. For about half that time they were served by different routes that never shared the same tracks. Then there was a change, and a full-time service stopped at both stations. But now the service that serves both stations is not quite full-time. In all cases, both stations were served by more than one route. And there were a few years after opening where one of the stations had only half its potential in actual use.
Does not somebody have access to a current subway and a WWII-era subway-elevated map for New York? With the two maps it is a simple question to answer.
The pair that exists is on the B Division, and the pair that does not exist was an IRT pair, both on elevated structure. One for its life was used only by elevated trains, and the other was opened by elevated trains and then these operated rush hour only with subway trains providing full-time service and then no service and abandonment, one of the very few cases of a subway service being abandoned. (The Court Street - Hoyt-Shemerhorn shuttle is the classic example with the Court Street station now the Transit Museum, underground.)
In the historoy of subway services in New York City, subsay service was abandoned to some local IRT stations when neighboring express stations had their platforms extended and/or new entrances. When the 94th Street entrance wa opened at the 96th Street and Broadway station, the 91st Station stopped having service. !9th Street and 4th Avenue is another case, and there may be a few others. Discontinued track use includes the possibly temporary end of passenger service between Broad and Nassau Street thourgh "Nassau Cut" tunnel to Clark Street on the tunnel route between DeKalb in Brooklyn and Whitehall Street in Manhattan, last used by the M when it ran to 9th Avenue in Brookliyn instead of up 6th Avenue and over to Forest Hills, Queens. The Court - Hoyt shuttle is another. The outer part of the Jamaica Elevated structure was replaced by the Archer Avenue subway's upper level. The Culver line was removed beween Ditmas and 9th Avenue in Brooklyn. The of course the old South Ferry loop stiation was replaced by the present stub-end terminal. I think this oovers all tracks used by subway trains, except for one of the pairs of stations that I am looking for. Can someone answer the question or should I ask another?
Just compare a 192-1949 map with a current map, and get the answer to both pairs.
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