While browsing ebay, I can across this photo for sale.
New York Central Steam Locomotive 6053 4-4-4-4 ClassC-1s photo NYC Railroad | eBay
In all my years of studying the NYC, I had never come across this particular loco. It has the same styling as the 1938 streamlined Hudson. It looks like someone spliced two Hudsons together. Was it a one-of-a-kind? The description indicates it's a "fantasy" loco. Does that mean the photo is a fake? Does anyone have more info on it. My Google searches have come up empty other than this model of it:
nyc_6050_model.jpg (750×370) (railarchive.net)
John,
You might want to scroll down and note the "'Fantasy' Locomotive Photo" in the description. It would indeed be a fake. It is kinda' cool looking though...
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Good fun. So is this a modern-day bit of photo editing trickery, or is it actually a vintage bit of photo editing trickery?
A bit of searching at enough swap meets and you'd have all the bits and pieces for a kitbash to replicate this in HO.
Dave Nelson
More fantasy inspiration here:
https://www.railarchive.net/fantasysteam/index.html
Some eBay sellers scour the internet and find public domain (or not) photos and print them for sale at a tidy profit.
https://www.railarchive.net/nyccollection/nyc_6053.htm
Regards, Ed
Have fun, Ed
tstage John, You might want to scroll down and note the "'Fantasy' Locomotive Photo" in the description. It would indeed be a fake. It is kinda' cool looking though... Tom
I did note in the OP that it was a "fantasy". What I didn't know was whether it was a prototype that was never put into production, like the RDC that was powered with jet engines, or simply a faked photo.
dknelson Good fun. So is this a modern-day bit of photo editing trickery, or is it actually a vintage bit of photo editing trickery? A bit of searching at enough swap meets and you'd have all the bits and pieces for a kitbash to replicate this in HO. Dave Nelson
My next question is whether the model was actually built or was it Photo Shopped too? Did somebody really sacrifice a good Hudson (or two) to model the fantasy loco?
Keep in mind that the C1a was not only very real, but as late as May 1945 it was still expected to be the actual NYC postwar passenger power (the locomotive that would become the S1 Niagara being at that time a 75"-drivered design principally intended for faster freight). Hugh Guillaume of the NYCSHS was kind enough to send me a scan of the contemporary description.
It would not have been at all like a 'stretched' J3a as in the Pixel Magic compilation. For one thing it specifically used a "Niagara boiler" with only as much special modification as needed -- the idea being to have compatibility in as much boiler structure as possible between classes.
Many of the principal dimensions in the running gear mirror PRR T1 practice, notably the relatively short stroke. It also uses the outside-frame lead truck as found on the the T1s, which is not found elsewhere in NYC practice. It is possible (although I have no evidence) that the intent was to use some of the cores and molds that GSC would have prepared for the production T1 engine beds.
Interestingly, the locomotive would have been close to what Baldwin was originally recommending for the 'duplex' -- the grate area was between 102-104 square feet, and the locomotive would have used Baker gear and piston valves.
The most obvious detail was that Central expected to get just enough thermodynamic improvement out of the duplex that it would be possible to run them 'through' between Harmon and Chicago without refueling (e.g. at Wayport) which in theory would allow schedules to be tightened a few minutes with one less deceleration, dwell, and reacceleration to speed. To this end the C1a tenders would be pedestal design with 64ton capacity (and the 'trailing truck' design you see on some of the late-Forties Lima proposals) to give a sort of 4-10-2 arrangement. (This even with the Central's relatively small cistern size...)
It would have been a good locomotive -- but still way too fast for how the Central ran trains, even on the flat, and of course the Niagaras with the lightweight running gear did what the C1a would at 85mph without having to deal with maintenance for four cylinders and the fun involved with low-speed and high-speed slipping, which would have been less than on a Franklin poppet-valve engine, but still... well, more than on a Niagara.
John-NYBWWhat I didn't know was whether it was a prototype that was never put into production, like the RDC that was powered with jet engines, or simply a faked photo.
The NYC RDC with a jet engine wasn't a prototype or meant to be a new way to power trains or anything. NYC management in the 1960s was researching whether high-speed trains (like 125-150+ MPH) could operate on the current rail lines, or if it special track / ballast was required. A quick way to get a test vehicle that could go that fast was to add the jet engine (I think from a retired B-36 bomber?) to an RDC. Although it made the speed, IIRC the test wasn't considered a success, due to problems like ballast stones being flung hundreds of feet from the track.
It's a NYC version of the PRR T-1. At least in somebody's mind.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
There are a couple of good references on the Web that cover M-497. You have to know in advance that one of the key men was ex-Air Force and understood how the 'technology' worked.
My understanding was that it was a B-47 pod, not a B-36 pod -- the jet engines on a B-36 were set up to burn gasoline.
The intent was to build high-speed test vehicles under Johnson's high-speed transportation program of 1965, of which the Metroliner program on 'that other railroad' was so great a beneficiary. It goes hand in hand with the actual accelerated passenger service option that Sikorsky (and then UA) performed for TurboTrains...
NYC_Headlight_1 by Edmund, on Flickr
NYC_Headlight_2 by Edmund, on Flickr
NYC_Headlight_3 by Edmund, on Flickr
dehusmanIt's a NYC version of the PRR T-1. At least in somebody's mind.
Oddly enough, had she mashed up a Niagara with the T1 undercarriage, she would have been remarkably close to what Kiefer actually had in mind...
One thing that struck me about this experimental car that I hadn't thought of before is that it would eliminate one of the advantages of the RDC in that it would no longer be bi-directional. Also, if MUed, it would have to be the lead car one would think.
The Rapido RDC I just received is the M-497 without the jet engines.
No, the RDC with the jet engine was not an experimental prototype of anything, no one was suggesting that strapping jet engines on RDCs was a good way to speed up trains. They simply did it briefly to experiment with the effect of a train travelling at very high speed on the track and roadbed, compiling data for potential later high-speed train operations.
Kinda like how the US sent chimps into space and back to test the effects of being in space on them before sending men into orbit. No one was suggesting a long-term program of training chimps to be astronauts.
Watch the film "The Right Stuff" - it suggests the Mercury 7 thought NASA was trying to train them to be chimps (or chumps, same difference)
The complaint of the Mercury 7 astronauts was that they would have no control over the space capsule. As I recall the original design didn't even have a window. They were pilots and didn't like the idea of just being along for the ride. They wanted to have control of the retro rockets to maneuver the craft and slow it down for re-entry.
Like I said, just like chimps. They were being treated as lab test animals, not pilots - and they did NOT like it
John-NYBWOne thing that struck me about this experimental car that I hadn't thought of before is that it would eliminate one of the advantages of the RDC in that it would no longer be bi-directional.
One could argue, tongue in cheek, that not only could thrust reversers be used, they would decrease the sooting and heat problems on the front side of the radiator 'hump'... And there is no formal limitation on the number of trailers when the car is under jet propulsion...
Interestingly they disconnected the axle drive completely from M-497 for the testing: it was not only not bidirectional, it had no reverse at all. A Geep was standing by to tow the car back between runs.
Also, if MUed, it would have to be the lead car one would think.
Meanwhile... if you used the turbofans off something like a war-weary or decommissioned A-10, you'd have 18,000lb thrust at all rail speeds... that's an attractive amount of tractive effort.
Of course I had a similar plan for the Schienenzeppelin, which I loved at first sight when I learned about it as a child. There you'd have a simple, small combustion motor, like that on a contemporary railcar, that would handle forward and reverse moves and hostling, and the dangerous propeller would not be spinning until you were up to prop efficiency speed...