As far as "after 1926." recall that the public still regarded them as B&M trains and used B&M, as well as CV, tickets, and were still shown as B&M in the public timetables. Correct?
You are correct. Clairmont is in Vermont, but the station, which I actually used ulonce (with about 200 fellow Wah-Kee-Nah campers and our counselors) in August 1945) is in New Hampshire and was Clairmont Junction, not Clairmont. We exited ex-PRR P-54 B&M coaches pulled by a Mogal from Concord and boarded regular grey-interior New Haven coaches on the souihbound Day White Mountans Express to GCT with a B&M Pacific up front to Springfield.
The correct Vermont station is Windsor.
Also went through Clairmont Junction in Spring 1950 on an NRHS Round-the-Mountains fan-trip. Photos somewhere (hopefully still somewhere) n this website, but not at Clairmont Jc. specifically.
Pretty close. The station at Claremont Junction is in New Hampshire (the one you're looking for isn't far away, but IS on the Vermont side of the river). Wells River was a Montpelier & Wells River (later Barre & Chelsea) station serving as an agency for B&M and CP. The remaining Union Station did not serve the B&M after 1926, though trains with B&M equipment regularly called there. White River Jct. also served the Woodstock Ry. until 1937.
An interesting variation was the station at Alburgh VT on the Rutland and the Central Vermont Rouses Point sub. Owned by the Rutland, it had a CV agent in rented space from time to time, or the Rutland agent handled what little CV business there was, including handling train orders for the gantlet (CV/Rutland) bridge to Rouses Point, an arrangement that stemmed from CV being the "senior" railroad.
Once service is restored July 19, four of the six Union Stations will be seeing passenger trains again.
The State is Vermont. and the Central Vermont and Boston and Maine shared Union Stations at Brattleboro, Bellows Falls, Clairmont Jucnction, and White River Junction. The Rutland also made an appearance at Bellows Falls and shared a station at Bennington with the Boston and Maine. The Canadian Pacific shared a station at Wells River Junction with the Boston and Maine.
This small state had at least six Union Stations. Two railroads shared four of them (with some other railroads). Name the state and the other two which were not part of that group.
There were other shared stations in the state that were not named as Union Stations. In those cases the stations were operated by one railroad on some kind of shared revenue basis.
SD70DudeSouth of the Mason-Dixon line.
(Yeah, yeah, not 'really', but extend the line east and see what happens.
(IIRC there was actually some congressperson who thought there was slavery in south Jersey before the Civil War for this 'reason'...)
South of the Mason-Dixon line.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Incidentally mine was cars that had 'Maryland' in the name somewhere. In the Southeast only, really, 'by the grace of God' but still...
RC has it correctly. Next one to you.
Ed Burns
Couldn't find any prefixes, but the following five were built for Dixie Route Florida Service in 1954 to Plan 4196 (4 sec 4 rmt 5 DBR 1Cpt):
Florida Sunset
Florida Surf
Florid Flowers
Florida Lakes
Florida Traveler
The first two went to the NC&StL, the next two to the C&EI, the fifth to the L&N.
Haven't looked at Overmod's list yet...
The other four Plan 4196 Pullmans outshopped at the same time:
Camellia
Gardenia
Jamaica
Scott M Loftin
First two went to ACL, the other two to FEC (Scott Loftin was a former bankruptcy trustee of the FEC).
No horse cars, but look to southeast USA.
While researching, what did two PRR horse cars and a 32-seat obs on the Congo, a 36-seat GN dining car, a Southern 56-seat chair car, a B&O business car and 8-section buffet lounge, and a Wagner palace car have in common?
No prefixes, but extra points for suffixes...
This is a post WWII passenger question.
Five lightweight sleepers were named for a southeastern state. The owner ship was divided by three railroads. Name the prefixes of the five cars and the originating and end terminals.a
Happy researching.
Overmod daveklepper Not a very good candidate for restoration to operation for excursion service? I think the real problem is not so much that you can't run excursions with no lead truck as it is that you have all the 'care and feeding' expenses of a 2-10-2 with the speed and service restrictions on top.
daveklepper Not a very good candidate for restoration to operation for excursion service?
I think the real problem is not so much that you can't run excursions with no lead truck as it is that you have all the 'care and feeding' expenses of a 2-10-2 with the speed and service restrictions on top.
While it would rather expensive to restore and operate, a 0-10-2 could be well suited to a excursion line with good track, big heavy trains and steep grades that would require slow speeds and high power requirements at those low speeds.
But the only line I can think of that fits that bill already has their hands full with a 2-6-6-2, which is an even better option than the surviving Union.
daveklepperNot a very good candidate for restoration to operation for excursion service?
Not a very good candidate for restoration to operation for excursion service?
rcdrye ...and Union only had 9 of them (301-309). C&NW had a pair rebuilt from CStPM&O 2-10-2's.
...and Union only had 9 of them (301-309). C&NW had a pair rebuilt from CStPM&O 2-10-2's.
Yeah, I guess I misread the number series. No 300.
One survives, and is on display in Greenville, Pennsylvania:
https://www.steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=1016
It seems the pony trucks were derailing as the 2-10-2's crested the Proviso Yard hump where they were used as pushers (they didn't go OVER the hump, just up to the crest...). Pony truck removed, problem solved!
Sure looks like a 2-10-2 where someone swiped the poney truck!
The auxiliary locomotive was a fairly lousy solution, as it turned out; the quartered rods couldn't be (or weren't) effectively cross-balanced to run 'idle' at higher speeds even with the engine out of gear.
At least one railroad (Southern) used TWO three-axle (!) motored trucks under a tender - as I recall, coupled to a 2-10-2 - in what might have been the only practical possible service for the arrangement... hump duty. There was at least one picture. I do not remember the draft arrangements but I'll bet they were 'unsatisfactory' ...
Of course if you want to see the thing done with full engineering, go to the land of superfluous engineering: see the tender of T38-3255 (the ineffable Douglas Self, of course, has an account of it). Instead of wasting exhaust, let's condense it on the tender... but, hmmmm... if we have marine-style condensation effectiveness, why not build a booster turbine on a couple of tender axles that could extract power from the exhaust steam? (Perhaps needless to say, this was not what auxiliary locomotives could do!)
This is far less nuts than it appears today; consider the Parsons Reaction Turbine on Titanic, which made enormous shp on steam entirely below atmospheric pressure.
It was clear to me as a boy why this made far less economic than thermodynamic sense... connected in most ways to effective condenser limits. The experiment perfectly spanned the early research on ultrafast steam locomotives about this size, which are almost a poster child for the effective range extension at 'above scooping speed' that the arrangement would provide as well as the augment-free boosting... but you'd want speed gears in the tender. If I could figure that out at age 15, I'm reasonably sure the German engineers behind the tender looked carefully at this in some of their high-speed design from the very early '30s on. (If Juniatha were here I'm sure she'd be familiar with what was done then and why, but no.)
Like any heavy switcher or hump pusher, the proportions always seem a bit off. It may be due to the lack of a pony truck.
Overmod Union 0-10-2
Union 0-10-2
Correct.
Auxiliary locomotive is a far better name than booster anyway!
Here's 303 brand new at Eddystone:
https://railpictures.net/photo/773574/
SD70Dude A class of 10 steam locomotives were the only engines of their wheel arrangement to be built new in North America, the wheel arrangement was named after the purchasing railroad. They also had a booster on the tender's front truck. What is the wheel arrangement and name?
A class of 10 steam locomotives were the only engines of their wheel arrangement to be built new in North America, the wheel arrangement was named after the purchasing railroad.
They also had a booster on the tender's front truck.
What is the wheel arrangement and name?
As I recall, that's an 'auxiliary locomotive' on the tender, not a 'booster'. Bethlehem could not use a Franklin name... (yes, there was legal action about this back in the day!)
Parent Western Pacific had SN order the heavily-equipped steeplecabs in anticipation of merging SN And San Fancisco-Sacramento (former Oakland Antioch & Eastern).
SN removed the third rail shoes on equipment operating on the former OA&E south of Sacramento. In Key Pier days before the Bay Bridge opened SN trains changed voltage settings at 40th and Shafter in Oakland. In something of a reverse of most of the industry, SN used poles on the 1200/1500 volt overhead for passenger trains, and pantographs on Key System's 600 volt overhead. In the Bay Bridge years, no voltage settings changes were made, with SN trains operated set up for 1200 volts on Key's 600 volt wire to the Bay Bridge yards, where they joined the 1200-volt overhead also used by SP's Interurban Electric. SN Freight motors used pans almost exclusively, though some also had poles.
GE seems to have built the third unit in 1928, but it wasn't delivered until 1930.
Your question(s).
The south end was all 1200V overhead wire except 600V wire in Sacramento, 600V third rail on the Bay Bridge, and a short stretch of 600V overhead wire Key System track that SN had to use between their tracks and the Bay Bridge.
The north end was third rail except in towns: i Sacramento, Yuba City, and Chico, where SN operated local streetcar servic, until after WWII, outlasting the interurban passenger sercice.
Thanks for the correct answer to a good question.
Sacramento Northern purchased two GE 60 ton motors that year, and it would have been smart to so equip them in anticipation of the upcoming merger with the San Francisco-Sacramento (formerly the OA&E), which was completed that same year.
From what I can gather online the 'north end' of the merged system was mostly 600v third rail, while the 'south end' used 1200v overhead.
It looks like a third steeplecab was ordered at the same time, but was not delivered until several years later.
Although CCT did meet SN at Sacramento, there is no record of through operation. CCT was jointly owned by WP and AT&SF. The year 1928 is important.
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