SD80MACs
Speaking of GP60Ms, Conrail cancelled an order for what locomotive to order those GP60s? Extra points if you know why they ordered GP60s then... and why the order was for 26.
CR canelled the SD60I order for the GP60M-Is. If memory serves the GP60Ms was to be assigned to Mail Trains.
------------------------------------------------------
What did C&O call their 2-8-4s?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIEWhat did C&O call their 2-8-4s?
Kanawhas.
What did New York Central call their A2a 2-8-4s?
OvermodWhat did New York Central call their A2a 2-8-4s?
White Elephants?
Ed
gmpullman Overmod What did New York Central call their A2a 2-8-4s?
Overmod What did New York Central call their A2a 2-8-4s?
Overmod The engine in question had as many cylinders as a B&O W-1
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
"But there was an earlier 4-8-4, a strangely conceived high-pressure 'freight-only' one, the H S-1a (yes Virginia, there's a space in the cab lettering). What name did NYC give that locomotive type 'officially' at the time?"
# 800, a failure!!
Hope I’m still not whistling Dixie!!
Old times dere are not forgotten...
The Besler railcars had the same number of cylinders as ONE of the W-1's engines.
And Doble and the Beslers in their wildest moments would not have built a car with... well, really with more than two cylinders, which they figured quite good enough for 'scalded ape' acceleration without a multiple-gear transmission. I still can't quite figure out the Bugatti point in using all the cylinders they seem to have been tinkering with; the de Dietrich system in 1938 was far less complecticated but certainly got the job done.
The engine in the 'rail vehicle' in question was used in some of the most undeniably classic cars built. Not esoteric ones, either.
And the company that built the vehicle (and hoped to sell many of them) was not a household name in passenger transport, but very familiar for a different kind of transport equipment...
Certainly wasn't a failure (yet) when they gave it its official name. Which is a name just as good as 'Mohawk' or 'Hudson'.
Much of the 'failure' of this engine was the implicit idea that high fuel economy and three-cylinder power were the 'future' of freight service. Not higher speed, not lower capital cost, not better or lower maintenance... and if crews didn't like that huge baleful dial with 850 staring them in the face, they could suck it and see; no, there was no likelihood something like that would lead to passive-aggressive sabotage or worse like in England, was there?
A mere 3 or 4 years later this might have been built with better running gear, slightly taller drivers and modern balancing, and used for things like M&E where its advantages might mean more. But as it stood you had an awful lot of maintenance and an awful lot of tinkering, very similar to me like PRR designing the Q1 as "5/4 of an M1", for relatively little extra in usable, reliable power.
The thing seems to have run in hump service reliably well (of course with the wacky complications removed) -- just no point in making more instead of improving Mohawks. The fundamental idea of a better 4-8-4 was of course 'nailed' 15 years later...
I don´t think this is the answer, but the Waggonfabrik Wismar in Germany built a railcar with a Ford Model A engines at each end, also using an automotive gearbox.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Ulrich, I suspect you could post a considerable thread on the various European railbuses in that period, some of which were quite substantial.
But to my knowledge few of them used high-speed automobile engines like the V12s and better that marked the (relatively brief) age of large classic cars. Either they were 'economical' (with relatively small gasoline engines or bus engines) or they had purpose-built engines too large to go in regular cars. In part, I think this was due to the implementation of road buses in the latter '30s, and the concentration of lightweight interest in higher speed rather than the kind of bare-bones service provided in, say, the Kruckenberg Schienenzeppelin.
The thing I'm thinking of had the same idea for achieving high speed as the Scarab with its V8s, but did it with a much more evocative and impressive powerplant.
OvermodOld times dere are not forgotten...
If I’ve missed again, I’m looking for an “I surrender” emoji!!
How about the Cadillac V16 powered Clark Autotrain??
Hi Bear,
That is a very interesting railbus. It would be an interesting scratchbuild to go along side my McKeen Motor Car even though there was a 25 year gap between them.
Thanks,
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
How about the Cadillac V16 powered Clark Autotrain?
Ding! Ding! Ding! (Except that if you look a bit more closely, it's actually Auto-Tram...)
I'd have loved to see this used as 'railroading's answer to the Pickwick Nite Coach' (which wasn't going to happen in the '30s for a whole passel of reasons ... but wouldn't it have been fun to watch, and perhaps to run, and perhaps to ride?)
Overmod (Except that if you look a bit more closely, it's actually Auto-Tram...)
The Rail Tram would be a much easier scratchbuild than the Rail Plane. The Rail Tram has slab sides whereas the Rail Plane has compound curves everywhere. I suppose you could whittle it out of a block of balsa but 3D printing would do a better job - for a price!
I’m afraid the pre-Niagara name is well beyond me.
Actually, it isn't. You just don't realize it quite yet.
See the October 1931 issue of the NYC employees' magazine ... or the beginning of Tom Gerbracht's book on the Niagaras. (It was also a quiz question in mid-February on the Classic Trains forum, where it seems to have met with a predictable response.)
Once you get this, the name assigned to the A2a 2-8-4 ought to be relatively easy to obtain...
I was going to say The Mohawk but nevermind, I see it was already listed in a hint The history is a little vague for The Unwanted Berkshire.......................Lima ?
Track fiddlerThe history is a little vague for The Unwanted Berkshire...
Alco through and through -- and the design was carefully considered by Kiefer. What you have is a special design for a particular 'service', which for example explains both the 63" drivers and the driver-center construction that did not permit correct later balancing for wheels that diameter.
Polaritz has written a very detailed book on these engines, which I have not yet read. There was of course the story in Classic Trains with that phrase about 'unwanted' (with some technical discussion that could be extended and redacted as necessary with a little additional knowledge).
The real, lethal problem is that the engines started to be delivered in 1948, after the complex of factors leading to rapid first-generation dieselization in the East was well established. Just as with the T1s, which were slated to be largely 'fixed' in 1948, there "could have been" fixes for the objective problems with the design, quite probably in the A2a's case including something as simple as substitution of Web-Spoke driver centers and some revision of the balancing.
And just as with the T1s, by 1949 you'd likely have a relatively high amount tied up per engine in equipment trusts or some other financing arrangement that needed to, well, disappear ASAP to free up financing for power perceived as more modern, more easily funded, less dependent on leveraged-skyrocketing-cost labor, etc. One might not be too surprised to find a general reluctance, perhaps mirroring the experience with the S2a, to actually fix problems with a design that could be branded a dog instead.
(And no, it didn't help that P&LE service in particular would benefit almost exordinately from advantages of even first-generation dieselization...)
There is comparatively little film of the A2as working, but some of it is highly enlightening in how quickly and smoothly these engines could reverse and move. In no small part this was facilitated by the lower drivers. While we can't use the ACE3000 as a direct comparison (due to the inherent first-order balance in Withuhn conjugated duplexing) it does follow somewhat that comparatively low driver diameter alone is not necessarily a predictor of lack of flexibility.
Overmod, It was a good one! I think you stumped us
It's been five days now and no one has the answer. Perhaps we'll have to chalk It up like on Penn and Teller..... You fooled us
Unless anyone else objects, I think you should give the answer and ask another question. Give it an hour. Speak up if anyone objects.
Steady As She Goes
TF
Track fiddlerUnless anyone else objects, I think you should give the answer and ask another question.
As I said on the Classic Trains forum, I'm glad to be in the Mid-South for the answer.
The A2a Berkshire was ... a Berkshire of course; NYC had the class-leading name and no reason to change it.
The bad news about the H S1a is that it was officially, in late 1931, named ... the Niagara class.
Here's a quick one: the first passenger Mallet-style articulated was built with an unusual wheel arrangement, 4-4-6-2. This (as with other true Mallets) was a compound locomotive. It would be decades before someone else tried a true passenger simple articulated -- what was its wheel arrangement?
Pullman Green
dcb_13Pullman Green
The original invocation of this 'answer' was back on page 1. Incidentally according to the preservationists this is Axalta/DuPont 1547QH which is New Pullman Green; the old color used on heavyweight sleepers and so on is a different color. It is also supposed to be Brewster Green (93-2015) but I haven't quite adjusted my color taste to admit that. (It doesn't help that these different colors and the paint GN used for their orange-and-green scheme apparently weather differently...)
It hasn't been a BNSF color since around 2005. You could therefore just as sensibly answer "Grinstein green" (which is intriguingly close both to Brunswick Green and British Racing Green) as there were until recently still some engines in active service wearing Executive Scheme.
There is also that ghastly Cascade Green that was visible until quite recently, for example on local yard power switching the Kellogg's plant in Memphis.
Rules say to pose a question with your answer. I'm not doing that any more as whenever I do it kills any interest in the thread for a while. So if I randomly throw out answers that are right, take it as 'open season' for someone else to pose a poser.
Okay, I'll ask one and I don't know the answer.
How many railroad routes through the Rocky Mountains are there.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
And here's one. On boxcars high and flat car low you see his name where ever you go..
Who is he?
BRAKIEAnd here's one. On boxcars high and flat car low you see his name where ever you go...
You mean the guy who is unable to write, but whose name is seen in yellow and white?
gmpullman Overmod What did New York Central call their A2a 2-8-4s? White Elephants? Ed
Being the OP of the thread. If I had to take the position of a judge or referee. I would have to technically State this answer was correct.
An unwanted Berkshire is extremely similar in comparison to an unwanted Christmas gift
Ed, ... It may have been your turn quite some time ago before the thread derailed
P.S. See! ... Need more emoji. That one would have been a puzzled looking guy with his hands thrown up in the air
BATMAN Okay, I'll ask one and I don't know the answer. How many railroad routes through the Rocky Mountains are there.
After a long, hard, carefully thought out process I have come up with the answer Brent.
All of them.
How many railroads currently are in service in North America?