MiningmanSo now I'm standing firmly 'on your lawn' and if you don't like it then blow it out your steam cocks.
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
Yes indeed the Empire State Express did use CASO rails for its route. Attached here is a link to a 1947 NYC Timetable.
Some time ago I posted a 'timeline' series of events of occurances over the years on the CASO and the Empire State Express was mentioned many times.
Of note: I answered a quiz question some time back that asked what passenger trains New York Central utilized the CASO.
I answered "the Empire State Express" and was roundly chastised for that by the 'two men playing chess in the park.. get away from us' syndrome.
I let it slide and moved on but I knew better.
Also I never forgot that. So now I'm standing firmly 'on your lawn' and if you don't like it then blow it out your steam cocks.
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/ptt/images/tt-0447.pdf
I believe that's the official World's Fair song from the '39-'40 Fair they're using in that clip.
I had not been aware that the principal routing was over the CASO & St. Thomas. Note only a stub goes to Cleveland.
Flintlock76 Those last two shots appear to be the "Empire State Express" looking a little rough around the edges. Look at those mis-matched drivers in the last shot. Sad thing about the "E-S-E," it made it's debut on December 7th, 1941. The New York Central hoped to make a splash in the afternoon and evening papers but something else happened 6,000 miles away that Sunday that pushed it off the front page. I don't need to tell you what it was.
Those last two shots appear to be the "Empire State Express" looking a little rough around the edges. Look at those mis-matched drivers in the last shot.
Sad thing about the "E-S-E," it made it's debut on December 7th, 1941. The New York Central hoped to make a splash in the afternoon and evening papers but something else happened 6,000 miles away that Sunday that pushed it off the front page. I don't need to tell you what it was.
The legendary Empire State Express of NYCRR was the answer to those successful all-coach trains like the El Capitan of ATSF and PRR's Trail Blazer. Many said NYCRR "only" good at all-Pullman trains market, so they exquisitely designed the E-S-E, something even better than the Mercury. As a Pennsy fan who has a soft spot to PRR's (and many other railroads) betterment cars (rebuilt heavyweight cars), I found the complete newly built, tailor-made E-S-E very attractive, I don't have the chance to see and ride the train in person, but when I look at those scale models of it, I know the train was beyond glorious.
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Mystery solved! Dreyfuss Hudson looked great with the PT tender but they looked like a piggy in mud in many photos. Here are some photos of clean "Super-Super Husdon" in action. Note they all had the same treatment as the PRR duplexes with the front coupler hood removed:
The "good book" says de-streamlined 12/47 retired 11/55 so I'd say you're right about her future.
From that photo I'd have to guess 5445's streamlining isn't long for this world, they're not even trying to keep up appearances.
Jones1945This theory makes so much sense since I hardly can find another photo of NYC #5446 "semi-destreamlined" like this, there should have been more photo of this engine for her uniqueness, if she had been running in this form for a longer period.
I'll have to page through some of my NYCHS Headlight magazines. There's usually some mention of the Century Hudsons in there.
I have this shot of the forlorn 5445 taken in Elkhart. Unfortunately, the exact date is unknown. The skirting is certainly abbreviated along the running board but the nose has obviously been repaired. The tender was replaced with a PT-3 type in December of '44 and the engine was retired in November of 1955.
NYC_5445_Elkhart by Edmund, on Flickr
There are a few shots of the 5445 new at Alco here:
https://nycshs.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/pages-from-1981q3.pdf
Regards, Ed
Oh, is that what they are! Good to know, things that come in plain wrappers make me nervous, who knows what's in there?
Miningman What the? BNSF spying on UP or UP spying on BNSF?
What the? BNSF spying on UP or UP spying on BNSF?
These are two PR30C prototypes (rebuilt with Cat 3516 engines with exhaust aftertreatment) tested on UP from 2010 onward. These were presumably sold on to BNSF for some purpose. The BNSF locomotive behind is a genset switcher, so there is a good chance that ths is in California and these are being tested for emission reduction.
Peter
Imagine the NYC Dreyfuss Hudson wearing PRR's DGLE with some golden strips on the tender, a CB&Q Zephyr carrying the Armour Yellow and Leaf Brown prewar livery of the Union Pacific... A MILW F-7 wearing C&NW E-4's color...
M636C Jones1945 I guess the collision damage theory is the correct one. I found this pic in my photo archive, as we can see from this pic the streamlining left on 5446 looked rather new, overall undamaged and unmodified... I didn't know that NYCRR's streamlined Hudsons fleet wasn't "completely unmodified" anymore as early as 1941! It was just a few months before the debut of the Empire State Express. Anyway, NYCRR's streamlined steam engine fleet was still larger than PRR in 1941, it was 13: 6. I think the streamlining was put back on as soon as it could be repaired, but they wanted to use the locomotive in the mean time. I was interested to see the headlight and the combined number and railroad name plate. The headlight would be needed but I wonder about the number plate. It occurs to me that these would be held in stock and the actual numbers would be bolted on as required. A similar accident occured to a Victorian S class Pacific in 1951 and the locomotive was run without the casing over the front of the smokebox, with a new standard headlight and cowcatcher until the casing was repaired. However the plating over the side air reservoir is missing from 5446. This was the first permanent loss of streamlining on these locomotives and was left off the whole class by 1940 or so. This wouldn't have been affected by the grade crossing incident. Peter
Jones1945 I guess the collision damage theory is the correct one. I found this pic in my photo archive, as we can see from this pic the streamlining left on 5446 looked rather new, overall undamaged and unmodified... I didn't know that NYCRR's streamlined Hudsons fleet wasn't "completely unmodified" anymore as early as 1941! It was just a few months before the debut of the Empire State Express. Anyway, NYCRR's streamlined steam engine fleet was still larger than PRR in 1941, it was 13: 6.
I guess the collision damage theory is the correct one. I found this pic in my photo archive, as we can see from this pic the streamlining left on 5446 looked rather new, overall undamaged and unmodified...
I didn't know that NYCRR's streamlined Hudsons fleet wasn't "completely unmodified" anymore as early as 1941! It was just a few months before the debut of the Empire State Express. Anyway, NYCRR's streamlined steam engine fleet was still larger than PRR in 1941, it was 13: 6.
I think the streamlining was put back on as soon as it could be repaired, but they wanted to use the locomotive in the mean time. I was interested to see the headlight and the combined number and railroad name plate. The headlight would be needed but I wonder about the number plate. It occurs to me that these would be held in stock and the actual numbers would be bolted on as required.
A similar accident occured to a Victorian S class Pacific in 1951 and the locomotive was run without the casing over the front of the smokebox, with a new standard headlight and cowcatcher until the casing was repaired.
However the plating over the side air reservoir is missing from 5446. This was the first permanent loss of streamlining on these locomotives and was left off the whole class by 1940 or so. This wouldn't have been affected by the grade crossing incident.
Interesting analysis! This theory makes so much sense since I hardly can find another photo of NYC #5446 "semi-destreamlined" like this, there should have been more photo of this engine for her uniqueness, if she had been running in this form for a longer period. LMB made a HO scale brass model of the destreamlined #5446 but used the Selkirk front end and the plating over the side air reservoir still attached.
Ah yes, I see some rather decrepit-looking FL9's lurking in the background. Now it makes sense.
Thanks!
The blue and yellow scheme on PC's FL9s was requested by MTA. Look at the units behind them to see why. Amtrak's units were mostly in the black scheme before getting "Cigar Band" paint jobs they wore until retirement.
Flintlock76 I have read that some, but not all, of the Dreyfuss Hudsons lost their streamlining during the war to expedite maintanance, the rest following later, so by 1950 they were all back to "as-built." And the thing is, that photo was taken in September of 1941. The streamlined "Empire State Express" would debut December 7, 1941. Goes without saying the US wasn't at war yet in September. Possibly the collision damage theory is the correct one?
I have read that some, but not all, of the Dreyfuss Hudsons lost their streamlining during the war to expedite maintanance, the rest following later, so by 1950 they were all back to "as-built."
And the thing is, that photo was taken in September of 1941. The streamlined "Empire State Express" would debut December 7, 1941. Goes without saying the US wasn't at war yet in September.
Possibly the collision damage theory is the correct one?
Well that blue and yellow Penn Central scheme looks a hell of a lot better than that funereal black they wound up with!
"Paint 'em black! Black is cheap!"
I imagine that blue n' yellow is from a predecessor 'road, but I don't know which one. Santa Fe maybe?
Photo two. You suppose we're in the mythical Happy Valley?
Another oddball Penn Central paint scheme. FL9's.
#2 Don't Worry Be Happy! Happy Elevator, Happy building, Happy Station, even the Santa Fe is smiling.
3) More Happy. Now this is a happy family.
From "The Twentieth Century Limited 1938-1967" by Richard J. Cook Sr., TLC Publishing, Inc. Copyright 1993:
5446, Alco #68880, Blt. 3/1938, PT-3 Tender 8/44, De-streamlined 3/1947, Retired 3/1956.
However. This photo also appears in that book:
And the caption reads: "The occasion for partial de-streamlining of No. 5446 is not known, but this photo was taken at Englewood, Illinois, September 14, 1941." Photo is credited to Jay Williams Coll.
I would guess it was done as a "wartime neccessity".
That last shot of 5446 is interesting, I've never seen it before.
Someone with a copy of "Thoroughbreds" is going to have to sound off on this one.
MiningmanHow long did 5446 look like that?
Wasn't there a note in Thoroughbreds about this? ISTR it was grade-crossing accident damage, with no re-application of the nose but retention of the 'rest' of the scheme ... until final tinsnips action.
Fascinating...or Vacillating perhaps!
Great pics, good post!
How long did 5446 look like that?
Between this:
http://rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-s5445do.jpg
and this:
http://rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-s5446s.jpg
We apparently got this...
http://rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-s5446ajh.jpg
Persuant to the concurrent thread in Locomotives, is this now only "stream-styled"?
daveklepperI hope the HSTs in general do not face scrapping. Overhauled, they should find some kind of new life in the developing country. Or is it a case of pollution? If so, new diesel prime movers would be required.
I agree with this sentiment: there certainly are many places where, as with the first generation TGVs, the trainsets can provide significant advantage at comparatively little cost.
The main concern I have is whether their condition is 'clapped-out' in respects where spare parts are lacking or no longer produced. That has been the essential argument behind not using the Acela equipment in alternative service. Of course an HST power car without its matching train is little more the right kind of 'preservation' than keeping an LRC Alco without something worthy for it to pull, and whether or not it had to be kept 'outdoors' I think the NRM is more than a bit remiss in not securing a full top-and-tail consist (of the best examples and spares) while that is still relatively easy to do.
I think the MTU 4000 series, with which most of these trains were refitted, has been capable of modification to meet Tier 4 since 2015, and it is well understood what would be required even if whole new engines were more cost-effective than refitting older ones.
To my knowledge none of the Bulleid (note sp.) Pacifics were condensing, or designed to be. While the Southern did do some interesting research into Holcroft-Anderson 'recompression' (preserving the latent heat of vaporization in the steam by partial condensation under pressure on the locomotive) the experiments floundered on the detail design of the draft turbine, as was the case for so many draft arrangements of that kind, and the whole Holcroft-Anderson arrangement was bombed out of existence in the London Blitz.
Bulleid had steel fireboxes, and could have benefited from stoker firing. But the cost to provide them was deemed too high for the benefits actually achievable in British practice net of ASLEF concerns. Peter probably can find more precise details and perhaps the actual history.
These are the locomotives with the notorious chain-driven valve gear that caused more issues than it solved; some of the effect of the more precise gear might have been saving of water, but it certainly made up for it in increased oil consumption in a great many recorded cases! I think it is a tribute to the locomotives, more than an indication of relative British impoverishment in the '50s, that so many were expensively built to conventional valve drive.
M636CBritish commentators have suggested that the wide fireboxes of the LNER and LMS Pacifics were neccessary for the non stop runs to Scotland to prevent the grate being choked with ash.
That would certainly make sense, particularly if using the 'corridor tender' approach for longer range without stopping.
Some of the discussions I have read indicate that the 'difference' was more that the Pacifics were easier to fire and work than the narrow-firebox engines at the combinations of speed and load where the latter were approaching their effective grate limit, but that much of the potential power of better radiant uptake was not fully used in British running; this was part of the reason for the relative failure of the P-class idea (which might be thought of as a counterpart to Chapelon's 4-8-0 conversions). Some of this may be related to the retention of copper fireboxes, with better heat uptake but lower pressure tolerance, until relatively late.
I recall OS Nock commenting on some of the best runs over the grades west of Exeter were made with a Castle fitted for oil burning during the early post WWII period where its performance on the steep grades greatly exceeded the usual coal fired locomotives.
I had not thought carefully about this, but oil firing of the right kind would neatly remove most of the steam-generation issues from a good narrow-firebox boiler. Pity Britain had access to cheap American petroleum, so didn't develop its coal--gasification/fuel synthesis capability, but then opted against increasing its balance-of-trade deficit by having to use 'dollars' for oil fuel postwar.
It would have been interesting to see if the oil-fired Leader would have been a functional success as designed.
Yes, but the dual-modes use the electrification as far as Southampton, while the HSTs ran on diesel all the way, or am I mistaken? I hope the HSTs in general do not face scrapping. Overhauled, they should find some kind of new life in the developing country. Or is it a case of pollution? If so, new diesel prime movers would be required.
Of course you are right, Overmod, I stand corected and will make the correction. Thanks!
I rode the Bournmouth Bell behind a Bulleid Pacific, summer 1960. Probably also hand-fired. Were not these Pacifics originally condensing locomotives, saving water? In 1960 they were not, however.
Overmod daveklepper Are A4s only hand-fired? Or do they havepeed stokers? A4s have always been hand-fired - astounding as that may seem. They are small enough locomotives that lack of a stoker does not impair their ability to run at high speed; on the other hand the often-quoted observation that a narrow-firebox engine like a Castle or King can cover the same size train to much the same timekeeping may be an indication that the full potential of radiant uptake is not being fully realized. We might remember that even after many A locomotives had been designed and built, PRR specified the K5, a much larger engine, as obligate hand-fired, and it essentially took an 'act of Congress' to change that. I think the general perception in Britain was that stokers were wasteful of fuel, excessively expensive (there would be similar reasons for boosters not to be adopted, after some fascinating experiments) and probably seen as unnecessary when you were paying someone to shovel... PS - I thought it was 'Firth of Forth'.
daveklepper Are A4s only hand-fired? Or do they havepeed stokers?
A4s have always been hand-fired - astounding as that may seem. They are small enough locomotives that lack of a stoker does not impair their ability to run at high speed; on the other hand the often-quoted observation that a narrow-firebox engine like a Castle or King can cover the same size train to much the same timekeeping may be an indication that the full potential of radiant uptake is not being fully realized. We might remember that even after many A locomotives had been designed and built, PRR specified the K5, a much larger engine, as obligate hand-fired, and it essentially took an 'act of Congress' to change that.
I think the general perception in Britain was that stokers were wasteful of fuel, excessively expensive (there would be similar reasons for boosters not to be adopted, after some fascinating experiments) and probably seen as unnecessary when you were paying someone to shovel...
PS - I thought it was 'Firth of Forth'.
British commentators have suggested that the wide fireboxes of the LNER and LMS Pacifics were neccessary for the non stop runs to Scotland to prevent the grate being choked with ash. The "Kings" were limited to the heaviest main lines and did most of their work between Paddington and Bristol and to Exeter, so less than half the distance run by the A4s.
While thinking of that line, I'm told that the new Hitachi dual mode trains have saved a total of eleven minutes over the 40 year old HST trains to the most distant terminus at Penzance, not much of a result for the cost involved....
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