BaltACD After the disspointment in the ride quality of the lightweight Royal Blue, the B&O's streamling of the Royal Blue, Columbian, Capitol Limited and National Limited was at cooperative effort betweeen Pullman and the B&O's own Mt. Clare Shops in rebuilding equipment into the 'new' streamlined trains. Pullman did the betterment of the sleeping cars; Mt. Clare did the betterment of the coaches, lounges and dining cars. I am don't know any of the particulars of govenmental loans that issued, I think, by the Reconstruction Finance Corp. I do know that the B&O had a lot of debt to service comming out of the Depression and WW II. The B&O did not declare bankruptcy during the Depression or anytime thereafter. Virtually all common carrier passenger transportation vehicles place the passengers ia long tin can - railroads, buses or airplanes.
After the disspointment in the ride quality of the lightweight Royal Blue, the B&O's streamling of the Royal Blue, Columbian, Capitol Limited and National Limited was at cooperative effort betweeen Pullman and the B&O's own Mt. Clare Shops in rebuilding equipment into the 'new' streamlined trains. Pullman did the betterment of the sleeping cars; Mt. Clare did the betterment of the coaches, lounges and dining cars.
I am don't know any of the particulars of govenmental loans that issued, I think, by the Reconstruction Finance Corp. I do know that the B&O had a lot of debt to service comming out of the Depression and WW II. The B&O did not declare bankruptcy during the Depression or anytime thereafter.
Virtually all common carrier passenger transportation vehicles place the passengers ia long tin can - railroads, buses or airplanes.
The Mt. Clare Shops built some outstanding quality tin cans. Although I don't have the chance to ride on them in person, I know they were great in the name of B&O.
My favorite sleeper is PRR betterment 10-3 sleeper in F.O.M livery, never produced as model in any scale, except in post-war PRR livery:
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Jones1945Thank you for reminding me of the facts, Peter. I shouldn't say "they kept the tradition" of using 6-wheel trucks for their cars in this case. I think B&O was right, intentionally or not, to use betterment cars that provide better riding quality than more modern lightweight cars. If it was about government subsidy, they probably didn't have a choice, just like the NYCRR Mercury. I wonder what would it have been like if the NYC Mercury used newly constructed cars in the early 1930s. I remember the prototype of the Pullman Standard lightweight car looked like a long tin can.
I wonder what would it have been like if the NYC Mercury used newly constructed cars in the early 1930s. I remember the prototype of the Pullman Standard lightweight car looked like a long tin can.
Virtually all common carrier passenger transportation vehicles place the passengers in a long tin can - railroads, buses or airplanes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
M636C In reality, only B&O kept the tradition of using all-12-wheel-car consist til the streamlining era (sleeper/lounge/dining) in America (Correct me if I am wrong), it was probably the only way to provide "Pullman Standard" riding quality. The B&O were among the first to adopt four wheel trucks on the 1934 ACF built Royal Blue and Abraham Lincoln trains, which may have been built with US Government subsidy. It was felt that these did not ride as well as conventional cars and all further streamliners until WWII were rebuilt heavyweight cars. It is also possible that the rebuilds were cheaper than new streamlined cars, particularly when the Federal Government wasn't paying for them. Peter
In reality, only B&O kept the tradition of using all-12-wheel-car consist til the streamlining era (sleeper/lounge/dining) in America (Correct me if I am wrong), it was probably the only way to provide "Pullman Standard" riding quality.
The B&O were among the first to adopt four wheel trucks on the 1934 ACF built Royal Blue and Abraham Lincoln trains, which may have been built with US Government subsidy. It was felt that these did not ride as well as conventional cars and all further streamliners until WWII were rebuilt heavyweight cars. It is also possible that the rebuilds were cheaper than new streamlined cars, particularly when the Federal Government wasn't paying for them.
Peter
Thank you for reminding me of the facts, Peter. I shouldn't say "they kept the tradition" of using 6-wheel trucks for their cars in this case. I think B&O was right, intentionally or not, to use betterment cars that provide better riding quality than more modern lightweight cars. If it was about government subsidy, they probably didn't have a choice, just like the NYCRR Mercury.
Penny Trains Being from Cleveland, I've always had a soft spot for the Mercury's. They look like they're straight out of Kane's Gotham. And I do agree that the headlight is in a basically useless spot.
Being from Cleveland, I've always had a soft spot for the Mercury's. They look like they're straight out of Kane's Gotham. And I do agree that the headlight is in a basically useless spot.
I am pleased to know that I am not that only one here having chemistry with Henry Dreyfuss's first "Steam-Streamliner"! If the term "Art Deco" is an adjective, I thank the Mercury engine was a very art deco locomotive. Penny Trains You probably weren't watching cartoons in the 90's. Although this one is definitely a Pennsy Torpedo, I do remember NYC prototypes also being used: Superman had his own run-in with a Torpedo in 1942: Steam engine in cartoons always looks much better than locomotive in real life, look at that train with 12-wheel coaches! In reality, only B&O kept the tradition of using all-12-wheel-car consist til the streamlining era (sleeper/lounge/dining) in America (Correct me if I am wrong), it was probably the only way to provide "Pullman Standard" riding quality. Starting from the early 1940s, other Class I RR like PRR, NYC, SP used 6-wheel trucks mainly for dining cars, lounge, and observation cars, there were many betterment sleepers re-used the original 6-wheel truck after rebuilt; Though I believe more modern trucks could have provided the same riding quality.
Penny Trains You probably weren't watching cartoons in the 90's. Although this one is definitely a Pennsy Torpedo, I do remember NYC prototypes also being used: Superman had his own run-in with a Torpedo in 1942:
You probably weren't watching cartoons in the 90's. Although this one is definitely a Pennsy Torpedo, I do remember NYC prototypes also being used:
Superman had his own run-in with a Torpedo in 1942:
Steam engine in cartoons always looks much better than locomotive in real life, look at that train with 12-wheel coaches! In reality, only B&O kept the tradition of using all-12-wheel-car consist til the streamlining era (sleeper/lounge/dining) in America (Correct me if I am wrong), it was probably the only way to provide "Pullman Standard" riding quality. Starting from the early 1940s, other Class I RR like PRR, NYC, SP used 6-wheel trucks mainly for dining cars, lounge, and observation cars, there were many betterment sleepers re-used the original 6-wheel truck after rebuilt; Though I believe more modern trucks could have provided the same riding quality.
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
"Kane's Gotham." Perfect! Why didn't I think of that?
I want to update my profile page with a list of my favorite passenger steam engine of Northern America, and this is the list as of Sep 12, 2019:
1. PRR S1 6-4-4-6
Pros - Aesthetically pleasing, unchallengeable top speed and beauty, the peak of Art Deco Streamliner.
Cons - Unrealistic size, unfavorable weight distribution, short service life.
(mirrored)
2. Southern Pacific GS-3
Pros - "Cadillacs" of Steam Power, good looking, delightfully streamlined, outstanding performance, perfect safety record, long service life, successful smoke lifting design.
Cons - Mediocre tender design, slightly underpowered for the assigned train service.
3. PRR S2 6-8-6 with small smoke deflector
Pros - Best looking non-streamlined steam engine, handsome "Pennsy face" front end, powerful with favorable top speed
Cons - Unsuccessful, short service life.
4. MILW F7
Pros - Legendary express steam engine, timeless livery design, best driving cap design.
Cons - Doubtful mechanical reliability.
5. NYC Dreyfuss Hudson *As-Built (The 20th Century and E.S.E)
Pros: Aesthetically pleasing, reliable machinery, capable of long-distance travel, driving wheels lighting
Cons: Mediocre top speed and driving cap window design.
6. Southern Pacific P-14 Sunbeam Engine and PRR Streamlined K4s 1940s version
Pros: Cute baby Daylight train, baby S1, just cute!
Cons: Not much.
7. PRR Q1 (dual service, as-built and de-skirted)
Pros: PRR and Raymond Loewy's secret project, sexy 77 inches drivers, unique duplex design, one of the best driving cap exterior design, capable of hauling superlong passenger train, supposed to be the successor of 4-8-4s.
Cons: Wheel slip, design flaws, short service life.
8. Southern Pacific SP-1/2/3 4-10-2
Pros: Charming Russia Iron boiler coating, 10X sexy 63.5 inches whitewall tire driving wheels, versatile dual service engine, capable of handling steep gradient routes. Remarkable top speed regarding the driver's size (at least 70mph), very long service life.
Cons: Minor troublesome of the 3-cylinder design, boiler explosion record.
9. Santa Fe 3765 Class 4-8-4s
Pros: A versatile 4-8-4s, powerful and solemnly good looking, breathtaking T.E, beautiful Baldwin disc driver.
10. NYC Mercury 4-6-2
Pros: Plentiful body, looked elegantly funny, charming driving wheels with lights, a great example of betterment cars (and engine as well), leading power of a successful all-coach train.
Cons: Lack of decoration on the engine's body, unfavorable headlight location.
11. CPR 4-4-4 Jubilee
Pros: Handsome front end, unique streamlining, decent livery, aesthetically pleasing.
Cons: Not much
(to be continued...when I feel bored...)
Flintlock76Fantastic! I'd love to see one in excursion service myself, and I'm sure we're not alone, but I'm not holding my breath.
I am convinced that the same methods, and the same organization, that got 576 under restoration would work in Elkhart. I'd be pushing it now if I were there, and I suspect so would Dr. D once he understood the politics of getting to yes. 3001 might even be an easier restoration.
Fantastic! I'd love to see one in excursion service myself, and I'm sure we're not alone, but I'm not holding my breath.
Still, a "Big Boy" did come back, so you never know, do you?
No argument from me. I've always loved the "feedwater heater on the door look", but they look pretty nice without it too:
Job well done by the folks in Saint Louis!
Every bit as pretty as the Hudsons and probably better pullers if one ever enters excursion service.
It may be sacriledge to say so, and may get me burned at the stake for heresy, but you know what? I've always preferred the look of the Mohawk to the Hudson, the Dreyfuss Hudson's excepted.
Why? I don't know why. I just do.
Fr.AlI'm a Mohawk fan. Of course, I'm biased in favour of the four Rutland 4-8-2' s which were built in 1946 and retired far too soon.
The thing I still can't figure out is why he posts the L2a, and not 3001 in Elkhart, the great restoration priority once 5550 is funding-assured. Not only is that the closest thing to a Hudson we have (and, from many angles, need to have!) but it's nearly close to a Niagara; in fact, I plan to discuss whether fitting it with the lightweight Timken gear (now almost a commodity thanks to the 5550 development) makes it a better low-augment touring engine ... of course it could be readily reverted to its historical rods and gear within a few days at most if desired.
I'm a Mohawk fan. Of course, I'm biased in favour of the four Rutland 4-8-2' s which were built in 1946 and retired far too soon. None survive, but I keep hoping that someone will clean out Grandpa's attic and find some forgotten films of those beautiful machines in action!
JOHN C TARANTO NYC J-3a Hudson. Non-streamlined, Boxpok drivers and PT tender NYC L-2a Mohawk. NYC S-1b Niagara. AT&SF 5010 Class 2-10-4
NYC J-3a Hudson. Non-streamlined, Boxpok drivers and PT tender
NYC L-2a Mohawk.
NYC S-1b Niagara.
AT&SF 5010 Class 2-10-4
Glad to see another Mohawk fan! Also the 5011 class are great, definitely something to not be trifled with.
There‘s so many good options to choose from that it’s hard to pick a favorite! Off the top of my head though, here’s some that stand out for me:
-New York Central L2/3/4 Mohawk
-New York Central J3 Hudson (w/ Worthington FWH & PT Tender)
-CNJ 4-6-0 Camelback
-L&N M1 “Big Emma” 2-8-4
-MP 6600-class 4-6-2
-B&O P7 4-6-2
-SLSF 1500-class 4-8-2
That last one is special to me because it was the first (and so far the only) steam locomotive I’ve ever seen run in person; I saw Frisco 1522’s last run as a kid. What an experience!
1. The most beautiful 4-6-6-4 ever built toiled in relative anonymity in the desert west of Salt Lake City and east of the Feather River Canyon--the Western Pacific 4-6-6-4. It was rarely photographed at all.
2. The Rio Grande class L-107 2-8-8-2.
3. The Bessemer and Lake Erie 2-10-4.
4. The Texas and Pacific 4-8-2 with Worthington fwh and "Russian Iron" green boiler.
"The world headed into the Penn Central debacle and Red Ink won!"
I LOVE it!
And Mr. Taranto, you've got fine taste in locomotives! Impressive machines all!
Especially that Santa Fe 2-10-4! That thing looks like it could pull everything tied to its tail up to and including Los Angeles.
NYC L-2a Mohawk. NYC S-1b Niagara. AT&SF 5010 Class 2-10-4
Flintlock76"Balt, you've got to remember (and you probably do) that back in the steam era every railroad had it's own ideas about what a steam locomotive should be, and what kind of requirements their own particular situation called for. Builders like Baldwin and the individual companys that later merged and became ALCO did have basic "catalog" types, but always had an attitude like Burger King... "Special orders don't upset us!" Standardization only came about when it was forced, either by the USRA during the First World War, and the 'roads went right back to their old ways once the war was over, or by EMD/GM when the "Diesel Revolution" came out. EMD/GM would bend a little, but their attitude for the most part was "Take it or leave it! If you don't want there's plenty of others who do!" And it wasn't a case of arrogance, they were hungry for the business after all, but it was the philosophy of standardization and efficiency. As it was their product line was so good and in such demand they didn't get too many arguments.
Builders like Baldwin and the individual companys that later merged and became ALCO did have basic "catalog" types, but always had an attitude like Burger King...
"Special orders don't upset us!"
Standardization only came about when it was forced, either by the USRA during the First World War, and the 'roads went right back to their old ways once the war was over, or by EMD/GM when the "Diesel Revolution" came out.
EMD/GM would bend a little, but their attitude for the most part was "Take it or leave it! If you don't want there's plenty of others who do!" And it wasn't a case of arrogance, they were hungry for the business after all, but it was the philosophy of standardization and efficiency. As it was their product line was so good and in such demand they didn't get too many arguments.
The real answer is - No Bean Counters. Operations ran the show - more, better, bigger, faster and what ever ideas popped up to promote any one or more of operations desires.
Bean Counters and the first generation of diesels arrive at the same time. The initial bean counters costed out what steam cost vs. what diesels cost. Diesels won. Next the Bean Counters started costing the various manufacturers diesels against each other. EMD won. The the world headed into the Penn Central debacle and Red Ink won.
"Balt, you've got to remember (and you probably do) that back in the steam era every railroad had it's own ideas about what a steam locomotive should be, and what kind of requirements their own particular situation called for.
Was thumbing through my 'Pictorial History of Motive Power on the B&O' published in 1952 by Lawrence Sagle.
The one thing that sort of shouts out about steam was the absolute lack of standardization in virtually any aspect of the locomotives - especially over time. Virtually no two kinds of locomotives even shared the same cylinder diameters. Go into a individual class of locomotives and find that they were equpped with different fire boxes and boiler types, had different types of valve gear, feedwater heaters and the lack thereof.
In many cases a 'rebuild' was jacking up the Road Number and creating a whole new engine going from a fabricated frame to a cast frame, going from plain bearings to roller bearings and on and on.
Great list!
I'll take a stab at this:
NKP Berkshires 2-8-4
PRR T-1 4-4-4-4
N&W A 2-6-6-4
N&W Y6 2-8-8-2
N&W Y 4-8-4
NKP Mike 2-8-2
C&O/PRR 2-10-4
C&O H8 2-6-6-6
That's enough for now.
Overmod But what is that weird casting just in front, with the fins? On the blurred historical photograph, this looks like a side view of lit 'train-numberboards' inside a glass enclosure, with what might be a headlight of some kind in the middle; it also appears that the edges of the skyline casing have been curved and ground smooth, at least smoother than in the model.
But what is that weird casting just in front, with the fins? On the blurred historical photograph, this looks like a side view of lit 'train-numberboards' inside a glass enclosure, with what might be a headlight of some kind in the middle; it also appears that the edges of the skyline casing have been curved and ground smooth, at least smoother than in the model.
The first time I saw this unique odd-duck, or odd-iron-horse of the Union Pacific, I thought the skyline casting was almost identical to Southern Pacific's GSs, MTs, and P14, except the angled number board case and the shutters on that narrow entrance of the skyline casing. Turn out the design of it was more ambitious than those built on SP's steam-streamliner, even though it was a rushed design and a failed experiment. The design on SP's skyline casing and the shape of the smokestack was very straightforward. The skyline on UP 815 looks like an attempt to draft the air current into a pair of the long tunnel inside the casing until the air current hit the end of the tunnel above the driving cab.
You are probably right that the skyline casing was so much smoother than the brass train model, I can't see if there was any rivel on the outside, but since the only pic available on the web is so small, I can only trust Ajin's interpretation.
Overmod The pump shroud that works reasonably well on the FEF-3 is misapplied to the older engine; it gives it almost a James Cagney look -- not to say anything against Cagney, but I don't care for the pugilist bent-nose profile.
The pump shroud that works reasonably well on the FEF-3 is misapplied to the older engine; it gives it almost a James Cagney look -- not to say anything against Cagney, but I don't care for the pugilist bent-nose profile.
Pareidolia! Every steam engine with a single headlight looks like a "One-Eyed Monster" to me, I keep trying to avoid it.
Jones1945I think the skyline casing looks legit on the UP FEF-1.
I don't recall having seen this either in Kratville's book on the Streamliners (where he goes into front-end drafting and streamlining in some detail) or the Mighty 800s.
Obviously a test rig on the Ajin version pictured: see all the seams where the rectangular panels are cobbled together, and the frankly awful louvered 45-degree box at the front with the whistle sticking up awkwardly ... it looks in fact as if the whistle has received a whack to make it sit at that silly angle; I sure hope so for UP's sake!
I predict this came out in 'response' to the smoke-lifting tests done by Gresley et al., and perhaps the NRC study about "increasing lift at the stack" -- which, of course, was an inadequate answer to the wrong question. Be fun to see how they kept the various 'things' under the casing accessible to be worked on.
One more engine added on my already-too-long list, the UP #815 with skyline casting:
(Brasstrains.com)
This is not my video. I think the skyline casting look legit on the UP FEF-1.
With regards o AMC Berkshires, Trains published a picture, taken from a car falling behind, of a C&O Berk hauling a passenger train. The fellow who subimtted the picture said that the car's speedometer was indicating 85MPH and the train was even faster.
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