The B&M/Mt. Washington Cog connection is not what I am looking for. The line I have in mind is far removed from that locale and the entire road, both standard and narrow gauge, operated under one railroad name.
Mark
I am unsure as to when the Boston and Maine abandoned its rail connection with shuttle passenger service to the Mount Washington Base Station, and at the time, the B&M ownded the Mt. Wshington Cog. So at the time its route to Mt. Washington's peak was standard gauge to the Base Station and then the existing cog narrow gauge of four feet even to the summit.
I doubt this is what your are looking for thought, but the thought might be interesting.
narig01 Just a question. Was the earlier mentioned RDC the one that came from or went to the Northwestern Pacific? Thx IGN
Just a question. Was the earlier mentioned RDC the one that came from or went to the Northwestern Pacific?
Thx IGN
I believe that is correct. When the PUC finally allowed to SP to drop its Oakland -- Sacramento service (except what was handled by its long-distance trains, such as the City of San Francisco), the NWP (which was a wholly-owned SP subsidiary) got the RDC to cover the Redwood, for which the PUC did not so quickly allow discontinuance.
FlyingCrow Take it away...anyone
Take it away...anyone
Buck, since no one else has responded, I am taking your invitation to pose a new question.
At one time many rarilroads operated both standard and 3' narrow gauge lines. As "recently" as 1937 (and possibly a few years afterwards) a part of one railroad's route was standard gauge and the remainder narrow gauge but not 3'. What was this ralroad and what was the gauge of its narrow gauge segment?
New information. Probably read it in Hilton's book but forgot it.
Dragoman Well, I am going to guess that the Sunset sleeper spat wit the CA PUC is what you were asking for. And, since you've said it was one of mine, then I will also assume that I am truly "it". I don't have a question right now, so will think on it for maybe a day or so.
Well, I am going to guess that the Sunset sleeper spat wit the CA PUC is what you were asking for.
And, since you've said it was one of mine, then I will also assume that I am truly "it".
I don't have a question right now, so will think on it for maybe a day or so.
Naw... the answer I was looking for was none other than the dreaded AUTOMAT cars.
The first two Automats were ex-Tavern cars. They went to scrap before Amtrak. One ran regularly on the overnight "Owl" and carried a noticeable sag, and this one exhibits serious pier panel pucker; these early truss-frame cars may not have taken kindly to the added weight of the vending machines. Or the insult. I believe there were a dozen or more ex-6-6-4 cars (I don’t have my roster handy), and later incarnations saw the section partitions removed, and two of the windows in the former bedroom area enlarged. They were painted inside in the Sunset Limited “French Quarter” watermelon pink, and chairs were upholstered in multi-colors.
Anyway....next!!!!
Dave....by the way. What did the Scioto Valley and Galveston-Houston traction lines have in common? They were the only two interurban systems to be abandoned without having ever posted a loss.
ta da
Aw, shucks! I was afraid this might happen. (Obviously not afraid enough to keep my mouth shut!)
And, if anyone out there has been hankering to present a question, and just didn't have any good answers, I will not at all be offended to let you "cut in front of me in line", as it were. Just speak up!
No, you are it and one of your answers is correct.
What, you don't like the "shotgun" approach?? :)
I just assumed that Deggesty's was the outstanding answer on the table, which I was just trying to clarify. So. are you implying his is not the one you're looking for?
Well , Dragoman, which one of your three commentaries is what I'm looking for?
Dave, that's not it...
You had a discussion about this with another juice fan aboard Amtrak's BROADWAY in 1976.
Dragoman I think the point is not that SP inaugurated the Oakland-Sacramento service, but were required to continue it by the state Public Utilities Commission, and so acquired their only RDC to operate it. The train it replaced was the Senator (not sure if the RDC version carried a name or not). Of course, SP seemed to engage in a lot of "bureaucrat pleasing stop-gap" as it tried to make passenger service a unpopular as possible, so that it repeated requests to discontinue pasenger service would be (eventually) granted. Another example was replacing diners with "automat" cars. Still another example (the one I thought FlyingCrow was aiming at) was when SP took all sleepers off the Sunset. California's PUC said that was unacceptable, and required SP to reinstate sleeping car service. But, since the state PUC's jurisdiction only applies within the state, SP did the minimum it had to. So, for a while, the Sunset only had sleepers between Los Angeles and Yuma (at the CA/Arizona border). (IIRC, eventually the ICC stepped in with a compromise -- full-route first class service, in exchange for reducing the frequency to tri-weekly.)
I think the point is not that SP inaugurated the Oakland-Sacramento service, but were required to continue it by the state Public Utilities Commission, and so acquired their only RDC to operate it. The train it replaced was the Senator (not sure if the RDC version carried a name or not).
Of course, SP seemed to engage in a lot of "bureaucrat pleasing stop-gap" as it tried to make passenger service a unpopular as possible, so that it repeated requests to discontinue pasenger service would be (eventually) granted. Another example was replacing diners with "automat" cars.
Still another example (the one I thought FlyingCrow was aiming at) was when SP took all sleepers off the Sunset. California's PUC said that was unacceptable, and required SP to reinstate sleeping car service. But, since the state PUC's jurisdiction only applies within the state, SP did the minimum it had to. So, for a while, the Sunset only had sleepers between Los Angeles and Yuma (at the CA/Arizona border). (IIRC, eventually the ICC stepped in with a compromise -- full-route first class service, in exchange for reducing the frequency to tri-weekly.)
Meaning, if nothing else, that Amtrak didn't have to make the politically unpopular move to cut service to thrice-weekly (as opposed to "The Cardinal") when it assumed service. Or was there some 1970s-1980s attempt to run the SSL daily?
Another OT but now's as good a time as any, I guess: Does the "Sunset Limited" have to have a diner of some sort to adere to Amtrak standards? I'm always amazed at the strong memories people carry of that "machine city" food car, memories both good and poor.
When I was a little boy, I remember sitting in the rear-end obs. of the SSL enroute from Houston to N.O., nursing a Coke. Sun-dappled trip thru the bayous, very charming. But even in 1962, the restroom stank (tho' at seven years old, I wasn't very picky about such things). - al-in-chgo
Its been a long time since contact with the information required to answer your question (more than 15 years), but I think the two interurbans you cited used 1000 or 1200 volts at least in places instead of 600. Also Sciotto Valley did use third rail at least in part and this may have been the only, at least one of the very few, cases of third rail voltage over 750Volts. I do not recall Galvaston - Houston using third rail. Possibly all this is wrong and what was common to both was use of a very long trestle or causeway.
As I recall, the SP inaugurated an Oakland-Sacramento train, using an RDC--which had to be obtained for this service. At the moment, I do not recall the name given the train, but it had something to do with government.
Johnny
Just for you , Dave. You seem to favor the smell of ozone: What did the Scioto Valley and Galveston-Houston systems have in common? Just yours
For others: What bureaucrat pleasing stop-gap service did Southern Pacific provide toward the end of passenger service? In general, what did they have to do to provide it?
I know you will have a good question!
Well, You are in luck with the KC structure...I grew up there. It was the "tunnel" line into the West Bottoms that went through the bluff then crossed an elevated over the rr yards down to 12th street. I rode it as a kid before the line was abandoned.
I need a day to chew over a new question, guys.
Meanwhile, talk amongst yourselves!
And you are a winner. Truly a great job! The only error: Hoboken-New Jersey was served by streetcars on an elevated structure with stations. The Jackson line ran the length of the el, the Oakland, Union City, and Weehawken lines used the section closest to the Hoboken terminal. Brooklyn had streetcars on elevated structures on the Nortons Point line, and pre-1942 on the approach to Brooklyn Bridge. Also at one time Brooklyn had a few other places where streetcars climbed to the el structure to interchange with el rapid transit trains. In Baltimore, streetcars ran on the Guildford Avenue elevated. MUNI's old Third Street line, not the current restoration, had an elevated structure. I don't remember the location of the Kansas City structure, but they had one. All these were over city streets or had sections over citiy streets. I should have added Boston which had lots of this kind of thing, and I apologize for this error. My error in not including Boston may have prevented you from getting all five, But you certainly are the winner.
Third Avenue Railway in NYC had three lines that used both conduit and overhead wire: Manhattan Bridge, plowpit in Brooklyn on Flatbush Avenue, Willis Avenue-125th Street, pit a 1st Ave. and E. 128th, and 149th Xtown, pit at Lenox and W. 145th. And then there is the fourth, the B'way-145th, using this pit just to access a reversing crossover on the east side of Lenox on 145th on the approach to the Bridge over the Harlem River into the Bronx. At one time there was also a plowpit at Marble Hill, 225th and Broadway, the north end of the K line and the north end of conduit operation. Before the IRT Broadway line was extended up to 242nd Street, it is probable that streetcars from Yonkers used this and ran down to wherever the north end of the subway was at the time, The 01-100 series straight-side convetables were equpped to take plows and also had poles and so did specific cars in the curved-side convertable 851-1200 series.
Cincinnati had single-wire sections in some outlying areas.. .
Try this, then
What distinguished the Washington, DC, and Manhattan, New YOrk, streetcar systems from all others in the USA?
A conduit system which used sliding shoes on a plow that ran between a slot situated between the rails. This collected the current from the underground power rails (two shoes--one positive, one negative--were used). It was expensive to build and maintain these systems as "yokes" (similar to those used in cable car construction) were needed to support the running rails and the conduit.
Most of the Third Ave Railway System cars running in Manhattan weren't even equipped with trolley poles while other parts of the system running in other boroughs did use the regular trolley pole/overhead wire collection.
On the outlying Washington, DC lines, current collection switched from conduit to overhead wire collection with a trolley pole. There were covered pits at these transition points where a man was stationed down inside to remove the plow from the streetcar when it was venturing in overhead wire territory and to attach it when the car was entering center conduit territory.
What TWO features distinguished the Cincinatti streetcar system from all others in the USA?
1. Cincinnati was the only major US trolley system to collect current with two trolley poles from twin overhead wires (like a trackless trolley). The consensus at the time of construction against using the normal collection of postive current through the trolley pole and negative return through the rails was that the negative current in the rails would interfere with underground telephone circuits. Well, that's what they contended.
2. Cincinnati also could move streetcars from one level of the city to another through the use of the Mt. Adams incline which used counterbalanced platforms to raise the cars 270 feet, an excellent shortcut in such a hilly city as Cincinnati. This was the only US city with this feature. Other cities had inclines (Pittsburgh, for example), but they did not move entire streetcars on them.
What COMMON feature distinguished the Hoboken-Jersey City, Kansas City, Baltimore, Brooklyn, and San Francisco streetcar systems from all others in the USA?
I thought the lack of "standee" windows in PCC's but that won't wash. Hoboken--Jersey City did not even operate PCC cars.The PCCs operating in KC, Baltimore, and Brooklyn did not have standee windows. Brooklyn had one standee-window PCC built in 1936 by Clark Equipment Co. This was the only streetcar ever built by Clark and the first PCC to feature standee windows. ALL of the SF PCCs had standee windows. The only exception was the Magic Carpet cars, but these weren't true PCCs. I'd like to see the answer to this one.
What particular feature of the San Francisco system distinguishes it from all others in the USA today but did not in the past, and which other cities had that specific feature?
San Francisco is the only system remaining that operates cable car lines. In the 1890s there were 28 cable car systems operating in the US. The last one to quit, leaving SF all alone in the field, was Seattle which operated its last cable cars in 1940. Prominent cable operators were Chicago, Kansas City, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Washington, DC, and Denver. The initial rapid transit service over the Brooklyn Bridge was by cable.
Well, that's my run at it.
OK Guys, I'll compromise. Get three out of five and your in for the next question. OK?
Dragoman Dave -- Five questions at once? Afraid you may not get a chance again soon?? :-) Some of us hold back from answering because we are afraid we won't be able to come up with one good question if we win! PS: All good questions!
Dave --
Five questions at once? Afraid you may not get a chance again soon?? :-) Some of us hold back from answering because we are afraid we won't be able to come up with one good question if we win!
PS: All good questions!
Dave, I agree with Dragoman. I think we should limit our questions to one per round. Multi-part questions such as "name the train, its end point terminals and the RR(s) over which it ran are OK but five questions at one time is excessive. On top of that you are the only one who instructs us not to post partial answers but to reply only if we can answer all your questions.
What distinguished the
Washington, DC, and Manhattan, New YOrk, streetcar systems from all others in the USA?
Don't answer unless you have at least five correct answers in total, please.
Most of the talk about using the SF Oakland Bay Bridge for railroads was immediately after the bridge opened before WWII. Remember that the SP's Interurban Electric Ry also used the bridge. Both the IER's red cars and the SN's cars were full sized railroad equipment. The many of the IER's cars went to the Pacific Electric when the SP quit the East Bay commuter service.
The SN continued freight service from Oakland into the 1950's well after they quite the transbay passenger business. Most of the reason for this was WP's lack of access to West Oakland and thre Oakland Army Base. This was rendered obsolete with the joint purchase of the Oakland Terminal by WP & ATSF. Which gave WP a way over the SP tracks.
The Oakland Terminal was originally the Key Systems freight operation. In addition OT on occasion provided service for individuals who wanted to run private cars to hotel doorsteps in downtown Oakland. On one occasion OT pulled the US President(I do not remember which Harding or McKinley I think).
BART's broad gauge was someones idea of reinventing the wheel. Much of BARTs early history was figuring out what didn't work. In 1972 when the system first opened they discovered why you have a deadmans switch. A control malfunction resulted in a train suddenly accelerating inside the Fremont station. The acceleration was so severe it knocked the Train Operator sensless and 4 cars went thru the end of the station. After that BART installed "Emergency Stop" buttons in the cab. Also no thought was given to how to enter and egress a car away from a station platform(many dollars were spent later to install steps). Most of the mistakes were comical. A few unfortunately were deadly. I could go on.
IGN --
I had never heard about the Key System/Santa Fe proposal. It would have only been theoretically possible in the early years -- Hi-Level and dome cars would certainly not found enough clearance on the "lower deck"!
The Sacramento Northern (an interurban which also ran across the Bay Bridge) was actually a Westen Pacific subsidiary through much of its life, but that seems to have only impacted East Bay freight service, and never seemed to have any contact with transbay service.
An oft-repeated rationale for the BART wide-gauge choice was to make it impossible to ever run standard-guage trains through its transbay tunnel -- ever was sure if that really was part of the thinking, or just an urban legend.
Dave as I said in e mail you got this 1st. And to you goes the prize The next question.
Just a little history, After the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge was built there was talk of trying to bringing trains across the bay. At one point Santa Fe was going to get the Key Route to pull their trains across. I've not read what ever happened to these ideas or much about how far these ideas progressed.
I believe there was also (for a time) a San Francisco Challeger (another SP/UP train on the overland route, terminating in Oakland).
To answer the question about the major American City, the trains directly serving San Francisco were the Del Monte, the Lark, and the Coast Daylight, plus a slew of commuter trains, none of which had San Francisco in their name. But San Francisco was served through bus, ferry, and interurban train connections by: The San Francisco Overland, the San Francisco Chief, the City of San Francisco. In the Amtrak era we had the San Francisco Zephyr, until it was rerouted to the Moffat line and renamed the CZ. Perhaps others can add to these names.
December 19, 1878.
To the Shareholders of the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Co.:
The Board of Directors submit herewith their report of the operations of the Company from the 1st of June to the 30th September, 1878, inclusive.
Your Company was put in possession of the larger portion of the property belonging to the Erie Railway Company on the 1st June, 1878, the portion not transferred continuing, for prudential reasons, under the control of the Receiver, who still receives the revenues arising therefrom, and to that extent lessens the receipts of this Company. This position will probably continue until the Receiver is discharged, and all the real and personal property of the Erie Railway Company purchased by this Company is transferred to it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=CccpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1
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