Either the afformentioned New Haven EF-3, with the tenders of the two steamaers ommitted of course, or the second series of the UP's "Big Blow" Turbines.
Locks and Canals was a significant locomotive builder for a short period. Short as the Boston and Lowell was at just 30 miles, the run still required refueling the horribly ineffeicient early steam locomotives near the midpoint, at a site originally named Woodburn, shortened to Wo'burn, today's Woburn (locally pronounced wubbin).
This non-steam locomotive fits between DM&IR's Yellowstones and UP's Big Boys in the heavyweight list.
https://archive.org/stream/sketchoflifework00voseiala#page/n7/mode/2up
daveklepper Correct, look forward to your question, and if you can supply further details, please do so. I think George Washington Whistler was the design engineer for building the railroad. Was he? Did he then go to Russia for the Moscow - Petrsburg (now Leningrad) line?
Correct, look forward to your question, and if you can supply further details, please do so.
I think George Washington Whistler was the design engineer for building the railroad. Was he? Did he then go to Russia for the Moscow - Petrsburg (now Leningrad) line?
If his son had also done a painting of him, he'd be "Whistlers Father". Yes, he went to Russia in the early 1840's as a consultant for construction of that railroad. I believe he also died while living in Russia.
The Boston and Lowell was the first railroad to schedule trains at over 60 miles an hour behind steam.
Gee--- I thhought this was easy, that everyone knew it.
Anway, it was steam powered.
The EP-2's were 2-6-2+2-6-2's The EP-3]s were the first 4-6-6-4's and they were the mdoels for first the GG-1's, then the EP-4's (streamlined) and then the EF-3's (similarly streamlined0. All had the double quill.
New York State claims the honor of the 1st North American over 100mph speed witht he Empire State EXpress and NYC&HR No. 999.
What speed record does Massachusetts claim, and give the detials.
NP Eddie The following is from Dave Klepper: "Revised answer. Two motors per axle, a double quill drive". Ed Burns for Dave Klepper.
The following is from Dave Klepper:
"Revised answer. Two motors per axle, a double quill drive".
Ed Burns for Dave Klepper.
That's what I was looking for. The dual motor quill drive made the NH "Flatbottoms" possible, which were in turn the model for the GG1 and other successful designs.
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.
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 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."
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.
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 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.
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 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
That's the correct answer and you get the next question.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
thanks for the answer
Do you have the date for the Fonda Johnstown & Gloversville Bullets that went to the Bamberger?
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