28, 1922Radio Telephone Usedon Lackawanna Trains____Successful Demonstration is Given in OperationEspecially Fitted Car Running Between Scrantonand Hoboken___(Special to The Binghamton Press)Scranton, March 28. - Radio telephone messages were received and dispatched from rapidly moving Lackawanna trains Sunday afternoon for the first time in history. The test was made from a specially fitted car attached to Train 3, from Hoboken Scranton, and Train 6, from Scranton to Hoboken. It was a complete and most satisfactory demonstration of the practicability of the system on moving trains and sustained the opinion of Lackawanna wireless experts that the equipment could be installed on trains for the convenience of passengers.
Hope this is what you're looking for as an answer.
You have everything right but the exact date -- see if you can find that.
Note how very different the Lackawanna exercise was from the Union Pacific experiments that wanswheel was describing in the other thread ... and why. It appears to me that UP was trying to do phone transmission directly with the carrier -- no heterodyning!
Thinking this was pretty early on .. Good ol' Lackawanna.
Electrical World, May 30, 1914, page 1269:
On account of the success that attended the wireless-telegraph installations on the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad during the nine-day paralysis of its wires in last February's blizzard the officials of that system have been investigating the possibilities of the radiotelegraph and radiotelephone on their moving trains. Wireless-telephone apparatus was recently installed at Scranton, Pa., and on one of the through fast trains. The Scranton installation, though hurriedly made, was able on its second trial to maintain clear voice transmission to this train as far as to Stroudsburg, Pa., a distance of 53 miles, the train running at 60 miles per hour. The antenna at Scranton is 300 ft. long and 150 ft. high; that on the train extends over the four forward cars only, the station being in the second car from the locomotive. On account of train noises it is necessary to use an amplifier and a detector. A two-step amplifier giving from fifty to sixty times amplification, is used on the train. The generator is directly connected to a steam turbine in the baggage coach, which is supplied with steam from the steam-heating pipes beneath the car. At the Scranton station 125-volt direct current is used. The present apparatus is of only 1-kw rating, but no difficulty has been had in telephoning from Scranton to Binghamton, a distance of 67 miles, over rough wooded and mountainous country. The officials of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad purpose to make permanent installations on two of their fast-train equipments for facilitating dispatcher's service and especially for the convenience of the public. In the radiotelephone equipment described a De Forest transmitter, an Audion amplifier and an Audion detector were used. These devices were built by the Radio Telephone & Telegraph Company, 309 Broadway, New York, which also made the installation at Scranton and on the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western train described above.
ZephyrOverlandIronically, one can still ride most of this “temporary” detour on the through Chicago-Los Angeles cars on Amtrak’s Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited. The only difference is that the through cars run via San Antonio, totally bypassing the former T&P portion.
Actually, the section between Dallas and Texarkana (formerly Ft. Worth and Texarkana, now bypassed over TRE) is former T&P.
What's the date and railroad of the first radio-transmitted telephonic train order? (Extra points for details of the equipment setup.)
Overmod ZephyrOverland The issue that caused the Sunset Limited reroute did not have anything to do with SP's physical plant - it was more medical in nature. I started thinking about the influenza epidemic, but then remembered New Orleans... this was something worse. October 1st, in fact, SP closed the Gulf route to all freight traffic, using the T&P for all connections east of El Paso. (Interestingly enough, it appears the yellow-fever quarantine was lifted by October 18th, but the Chicago service was by that time enough of a competitive success that SP continued it...) The 'revised' Sunset Limited ran over the Sunset Route to El Paso, thence to T&P, the StL,IM&S (through St. Louis!), then Alton into Chicago. Actual time 72 1/2 hours, a rather respectable average (for late 1897) of 34mph including all stops. To compare with the 'native' Sunset Route prices, this train charged $12.50 extra fare over a $31 section price. I have no idea what the compartments or double drawing rooms would go for, but someone here will know. It lasted only two years, apparently because T&P needed 'extensive track renewals' (according to Railway Age) but spawned something of a competitive 'war' among other railroads serving San Francisco out of Chicago 'in 72 hours'.
ZephyrOverland
The issue that caused the Sunset Limited reroute did not have anything to do with SP's physical plant - it was more medical in nature.
I started thinking about the influenza epidemic, but then remembered New Orleans... this was something worse. October 1st, in fact, SP closed the Gulf route to all freight traffic, using the T&P for all connections east of El Paso. (Interestingly enough, it appears the yellow-fever quarantine was lifted by October 18th, but the Chicago service was by that time enough of a competitive success that SP continued it...)
The 'revised' Sunset Limited ran over the Sunset Route to El Paso, thence to T&P, the StL,IM&S (through St. Louis!), then Alton into Chicago. Actual time 72 1/2 hours, a rather respectable average (for late 1897) of 34mph including all stops.
To compare with the 'native' Sunset Route prices, this train charged $12.50 extra fare over a $31 section price. I have no idea what the compartments or double drawing rooms would go for, but someone here will know.
It lasted only two years, apparently because T&P needed 'extensive track renewals' (according to Railway Age) but spawned something of a competitive 'war' among other railroads serving San Francisco out of Chicago 'in 72 hours'.
Ironically, one can still ride most of this “temporary” detour on the through Chicago-Los Angeles cars on Amtrak’s Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited. The only difference is that the through cars run via San Antonio, totally bypassing the former ex-T&P Dallas-El Paso portion.
ZephyrOverlandThe issue that caused the Sunset Limited reroute did not have anything to do with SP's physical plant - it was more medical in nature.
Overmod ZephyrOverland A long, long time ago, passengers who were planning to take SP's Sunset Limited in San Francisco and expecting to detrain in New Orleans ended up traveling to Chicago instead. When did this happen and for how long? Did it have something to do with this? Not exactly a 'natural' disaster, however... (That's the only thing I know of that would really, absolutely, positively block off any traffic from SF/LA on the Sunset Route while preventing any trains from running SE. That still inadequately explains why 'Chicago' instead of going across the Overland Route or whatever from Oakland to some intermediate destination with shorter connection distance or trackage rights to New Orleans.)
ZephyrOverland A long, long time ago, passengers who were planning to take SP's Sunset Limited in San Francisco and expecting to detrain in New Orleans ended up traveling to Chicago instead. When did this happen and for how long?
Did it have something to do with this?
Not exactly a 'natural' disaster, however...
(That's the only thing I know of that would really, absolutely, positively block off any traffic from SF/LA on the Sunset Route while preventing any trains from running SE. That still inadequately explains why 'Chicago' instead of going across the Overland Route or whatever from Oakland to some intermediate destination with shorter connection distance or trackage rights to New Orleans.)
As to your comment about the routing, before the Chicago reroute was announced there were newspaper reports circulating that the Sunset would become an Overland Route train for the season, running via Ogden and Omaha. This never happened.
I think this reroute was a big deal at the time because (I presume) a good number of Sunset passengers were transcontinental types and according to some news reports at the time, traveling coast to coast via New Orleans was cheaper than via Chicago. SP still charged rates as if the train was still running from New Orleans during this time. If the Sunset became an Overland Route train, I think it would have to charge higher rates that were similiar to other Overland Route trains. Maybe this was the reason the train was rerouted the way it was.
ZephyrOverlandA long, long time ago, passengers who were planning to take SP's Sunset Limited in San Francisco and expecting to detrain in New Orleans ended up traveling to Chicago instead. When did this happen and for how long?
rcdrye My guess would be that this happened around 1900, when the Gulf Coast was ravaged by the hurricane that destroyed Galveston. The Sunset would have followed its usual route to L.A. via the recently opened Coast Line and then the classic Sunset route to El Paso. From there the cars were most likely handled via EP&SW/CRI&P via Tucumcari. The "service disruption" lasted more than a month - the longest period since the early 1890s that the "Sunset" was cancelled (at least west of New Orleans).
My guess would be that this happened around 1900, when the Gulf Coast was ravaged by the hurricane that destroyed Galveston. The Sunset would have followed its usual route to L.A. via the recently opened Coast Line and then the classic Sunset route to El Paso. From there the cars were most likely handled via EP&SW/CRI&P via Tucumcari. The "service disruption" lasted more than a month - the longest period since the early 1890s that the "Sunset" was cancelled (at least west of New Orleans).
Its not a bad guess as:
- its close to the time period I'm looking for...but
- EP&SW/RI was not involved in the reroute.
- At this time the Sunset Limited was a winter season train, running approximately from October through May or June. In essence, the train was still running for the season but just with a different eastern endpoint.
Finally, your assumption that the disruption was caused by a natural disaster is on the right track, but it wasn't a hurricane that caused the Sunset to be rerouted.
A couple of months ago someone was selling a similiar document on eBay, but as a proposal to the Illinois Central. Included in this document was some color renderings of UA Turbos in a proposed IC livery.
As for the question:
A long, long time ago, passengers who were planning to take SP's Sunset Limited in San Francisco and expecting to detrain in New Orleans ended up traveling to Chicago instead.
When did this happen and for how long?
Why did this happen?
What was the routing?
The timing NY-Buffalo, net of all delays and speed restrictions, was 4 hours 35 minutes. This was extrapolated (without the rigor of the full 'computer' analysis) to longer runs with the equipment.
I got the link through scribd. The report name is "Turbo Trains for the New York Central"; https://www.scribd.com/document/66216548/Turbo-Trains-for-the-New-York-Central-092767
While it is not yet within the scope of the quiz restrictions, some people reading this report might enjoy the follow-on assessment from SNCF in 1985, about the speedup made in part of this corridor by the Turboliners.
By golly, you're guessing, but it's a good guess. This is from an actual presentation made by Sikorski (the reason I took so long putting the 'exhibit' up is that I needed to remove the footer from the page, which contained that information), I think before they started fully promoting the "United Aircraft" name to distinguish themselves from pure helicopter manufacturers.
This was a very careful computer simulation of the route, perhaps the first one I heard of that did this, down to 200 points per mile for achievable speed. As such, it was not the usual 'pie-in-the-sky' high-speed rail proposal we see so often even today: in my opinion it would have been possible to put one of the subsequently-built demonstrators on that route and achieved the timing indicated... had anyone cared about it at that time.
I don't have a 'smoking gun' associating this work with the subsequent use of Turboliners, which is as yet still outside the scope of the quiz ... even the use of demonstrators still is, but won't be much longer. But I strongly suspect that some of the nominal advantages of the Turbotrain, particularly high acceleration without the usually corresponding track forces, might have been instrumental.
Next question to you!
Overmod ZephyrOverland I'm gonna take a wild guess. Is this a proposed schedule structure for a M 497 jet type train - showing potential speed limits and slow spots for a New York-Buffalo run? It's in that time frame, but remember that the M-497 project was about high-speed vehicle research at low cost, not about converting vehicles for actual passenger service. The speed limits and slow spots were very carefully researched, right down to consulting with some of the towns along the way to determine what speed restrictions they wanted to enforce. And yes, it's associated with one response to the HSGTA, but one not typically associated with New York Central.
I'm gonna take a wild guess. Is this a proposed schedule structure for a M 497 jet type train - showing potential speed limits and slow spots for a New York-Buffalo run?
It's in that time frame, but remember that the M-497 project was about high-speed vehicle research at low cost, not about converting vehicles for actual passenger service.
The speed limits and slow spots were very carefully researched, right down to consulting with some of the towns along the way to determine what speed restrictions they wanted to enforce.
And yes, it's associated with one response to the HSGTA, but one not typically associated with New York Central.
Someone mentioned about the Rohr turbo trains of the 1970's. Would the speed limits and stops pertain instead to a proposed United Aircraft Turbo operation on the NYC, which would better tie in to the time frame of the HSGTA?
ZephyrOverlandI'm gonna take a wild guess. Is this a proposed schedule structure for a M 497 jet type train - showing potential speed limits and slow spots for a New York-Buffalo run?
...And that was the other one I hoped people would suggest.
Overmod Nobody seems to have responded to certain interesting details about the question I posted back on the 30th. Let me bump it here to see if anyone has interest: All you Official Guide junkies, have a look at this published timetable: https://www.flickr.com/photos/112832503@N07/27393009344/in/dateposted-public/ Who can tell me the details about it, including the rolling stock?
Nobody seems to have responded to certain interesting details about the question I posted back on the 30th. Let me bump it here to see if anyone has interest:
All you Official Guide junkies, have a look at this published timetable:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/112832503@N07/27393009344/in/dateposted-public/
Who can tell me the details about it, including the rolling stock?
I'm gonna take a wild guess. Is this a proposed schedule structure for a M 497 jet type train - showing potential speed limits and slow spots for a New York-Buffalo run? Your mentioning of the time frame possibly points to NYC's response to the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965.
It barely squeaks in under (or rather, over) the limit. (When it was prepared).
And if you had told me there would come a day when it was half a century gone, and we still didn't have service that fast to Buffalo, I'm not sure I would have believed it could ever be.
Just wondering if its less than 50 years old. Looks like some of the test runs for the Rohr Turboliners in the 1970s.
Wow...that is some great stuff there Redrye. Fascinating..what we could spend a day there to observe the way it was.
Good question. Glad to learn something new about the SN.
Since I'm leaving town tomorrow for a week with limited access, I'll accept Sacramento Northern in place of Oakland Antioch and Eastern (Later San Francisco-Sacramento before joining the SN fold). The OA&E had wood, composite and steel cars from Holman, Cincinnati and Hall-Scott. In addition, it bought several open-platform wood coaches left over from SP's pre-electric Oakland suburban service for excursion service, to which it applied end gates and in some cases vestibules. The OA&E also bought a PRR duck-bill coach for the same purpose. The motorized combine came from the SP, but was built for the Central Pacific in 1879. It ran on the Danville branch in the Contra Costa hills, and was locally known as the Danville Alligator. The Danville branch was abandoned (by SF-S) in 1924, and the Alligator's motors and controls went into a box motor.
West Coast then...going to take a flyer on the Sacremento Northern, which I believe went into the Western Pacific fold.
You're still way too far east. While IRR did have lots of interesting equipment, some of it acquired used, its clearances and curve radii did not allow the use of steam road equipment. While this particular interurban did have some street running at both ends of its line, most of it was on private ROW. The later merger that gave it its more familiar name was end-to-end, not a mesh like the Indiana Railroad.
The steam road coaches that were used for excursions were made excess when the steam road electrified its suburban operations. There was also an ex-PRR open platform coach a long way from home.
The motorized combine did have its control stands inside the carbody a la open platform "L" cars. I have not been able to find if it had a cab or just control stands. After the car was scrapped its motors and controls were reused on a box motor. The car was referred to by a reptilian name, and occasionally handled interchange freight cars as a locomotive. Apparently it wasn't well maintained, as passengers were known to use umbrellas inside it on rainy days.
It is definitely one of the constituants of either the Indiana Railroad or the Cincinnati and Lake Erie. My guess is that it is Union Traction of Indiana, but Indiana Public Service, and Terra Hauat and Eastern are also possibilities, although I will stick with Union Traction. Idid know about motorizing steel trailers but not about the open-platform conversion. Was the cab s corner within the body, like open-platform "El" and "L" cars?
The line was considered an interurban. The converted combine could run over the entire line, even though it probably never did. It's better known under its later name than its original and last pre-merger names.
I'd tentatively say some predecessor of New Haven (the Nantasket Beach and Berlin branch electrifications coming to mind; what were the details of the East Hartford-Vernon-Melrose electrification?).
As an alternate something involved with the Connecticut Company (which the New Haven controlled) which I believe offered an electric route all the way between New York and Boston at one point in the early 20th Century (when it was commonly thought that light interurban electric railways would be 'the wave of the future' for much passenger transportation).
I'm looking forward to Dave Klepper's answer to this question.
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