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.
Speaking of GP60s.. CR ordered 26 GP60M-Is but,later cancelled this order and bought this locomotive instead?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I see that Winton started off making automobiles but again I think I’m heading off down the wrong road again!!
That's related ... but not directly... to the second one.
The first one was the Bugatti that Ulrich was discussing.
Now what rail vehicle was particularly designed for a luxury-car engine? The Stout Scarab had Ford engines, but those were not luxury. The engine in question had as many cylinders as a B&O W-1.
OvermodBear, it's more direct than that. The first -- use of the rail engine directly in an automobile -- is quite well known,
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Wolf359Keeping with the "Geep" theme, in what year did EMD build its final GP60 series locomotive?
BRAKIE Wolf359 BRAKIE Ok.. What EMD locomotive engineer said In planing the GP I had two dreams. The first was to make a locomotive so ugly in appearance that no railroad would want it on the main line or anywhere near headquarters, but would keep it out as far as possible in the back country, where it could do really useful work. My second dream was to make it so simple in construction and so devoid of Christmas-tree ornaments and other whimsy.." I believe it was Richard Dilworth who said that. Yes, It was Richard Dilworth.. Mr. Dilworth was EMD's cheif designer. He did not like either the BL1 or BL2 neither need the sales or the mechanical departments.. Looking at the sales records neither did the railroads. His "ugly duckling" GP7 turned into a swan in the sales department.
Wolf359 BRAKIE Ok.. What EMD locomotive engineer said In planing the GP I had two dreams. The first was to make a locomotive so ugly in appearance that no railroad would want it on the main line or anywhere near headquarters, but would keep it out as far as possible in the back country, where it could do really useful work. My second dream was to make it so simple in construction and so devoid of Christmas-tree ornaments and other whimsy.." I believe it was Richard Dilworth who said that.
BRAKIE Ok.. What EMD locomotive engineer said In planing the GP I had two dreams. The first was to make a locomotive so ugly in appearance that no railroad would want it on the main line or anywhere near headquarters, but would keep it out as far as possible in the back country, where it could do really useful work. My second dream was to make it so simple in construction and so devoid of Christmas-tree ornaments and other whimsy.."
Ok.. What EMD locomotive engineer said In planing the GP I had two dreams. The first was to make a locomotive so ugly in appearance that no railroad would want it on the main line or anywhere near headquarters, but would keep it out as far as possible in the back country, where it could do really useful work. My second dream was to make it so simple in construction and so devoid of Christmas-tree ornaments and other whimsy.."
I believe it was Richard Dilworth who said that.
Yes, It was Richard Dilworth.. Mr. Dilworth was EMD's cheif designer. He did not like either the BL1 or BL2 neither need the sales or the mechanical departments.. Looking at the sales records neither did the railroads.
His "ugly duckling" GP7 turned into a swan in the sales department.
Obviously Mr. Dilworth knew what he was doing. The fact that the GP7 was an ugly duckling is exactly what made it a hit. A machine that's simple and reliable is always better in my opinion.
Keeping with the "Geep" theme, in what year did EMD build its final GP60 series locomotive?
Ulrich has the first half, although it should be checked carefully in Molsheim records whether the engine was originally specified and designed for prospective railcar use, with the Royale being 'sized to fit' as an opportunity, as I understood the story to actually be. (Naturally the engine was a 'good fit' for the high-speed streamlined railcars that would follow later, as I suspect would be the V16 steam motor Bugatti worked on at one point...)
(Incidentally de Dietrich developed a sophisticated steam plant for automobiles and built at least one complete installation using a Bugatti chassis for road testing -- we have found and now published the archive of detail drawings, so with a little work you could reproduce one for a better-than-Doble experience.)
Now what about the other way? That's the real meat of the question.
I wish I could pose the question of dirigible engines in successful main-line diesel-electric locomotives ... but the engines concerned are as I recall only adapted from lightweight airship construction, not actually 'flyable' versions. It does make a good story, though, and I suspect Kettering was mindful of at least some details of those engines when working on the ideas that would become the 201.
During the Great Depression, the French automaker Bugatti had a hard time selling his very expensive automobiles, so he began building railcars, using the engine of his top luxury model Bugatti Royale.
(Picture from Wikipedia)
Incidentally, the streamline form was later used in the design of the fastest steam engine of the world - the Gresley A4 Pacific.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Bear, it's more direct than that. The first -- use of the rail engine directly in an automobile -- is quite well known, and I have to worry people think this half is a trick question -- it isn't. Some people seem to think it was the other way 'round, with the car engine so 'big' it was used in railcars, but that is not how I learned the story.
The other one is more interesting. It was a very modern engine, in a very modern vehicle, at the time. And it is (perhaps unlikely Wolseley) a purpose-built luxury-car engine, not an internal combustion engine that could be used 'after the fact' in automobiles or railcars interchangeably.
Note that in neither case does this involve 'adaptive reuse' as with the Geese and other vast numbers of unsung 'critters' made from automobiles in that era. The engines were new and, in the latter case, very carefully chosen.
As a hint, there might have been a certain 'conflict of interest' in the latter case as the engine-builder had made certain investments in an alternative form of rail vehicle very shortly before...
Larry - he was successfull on both accounts. In my personal view, the last nice looking engine - aside from steam engines - were the F´s. Whatever came after that, is outright ugly!
OvermodThen name a rail vehicle powered by an engine designed for a famous luxury automobile.
dehusmanI'll give it to you, according to Holton's history of the Reading, the engine was a conventional 4-6-0 sent to Italy to demonstrate the Wootten [note sp.] firebox (Italy has anthracite).
I believe this is also mentioned in the Pennoyer Locomotives In Our Lives book. I couldn't remember the specific details of the Italian testing, only that it was in Italy, so said nothing.
(Incidentally if anyone wants a PDF of the Warner article, PM with your e-mail address. I now have Holton's 1979 article on Wootten and the Reading shops, too.)
dehusmanVery good! It was a trick question, they weren't banned, the ICC looked at it but the railroads had already stopped building them so no action was taken.
Not as much of a trick question as you think. The ICC did ban new construction of Mother Hubbards in 1927 (for a number of the logical 'safety-related' reasons) but didn't outlaw continuing the use of existing ones (as a different test of 'safety' would apply).
Reason for the ban, as I recall, was a prospective order of larger, modern engines (I think for delivery in 1928) which were not built as such 'in the event'.
You can track through the actions more easily if you look a bit slantwise at accounts of other ICC actions peripheral to this one; as with the ICC Order that actually re-imposed strict ATS over 79mph in the wake of the Naperville collision, you see lots of reference to it without anyone actually quoting a definitive Federal Register text. But it is mentioned both in the discussion of imposing power reverse requirements (effective in the mid-Thirties) and stoker requirements above certain nominal size...
Here's a different question: when was the first steam-locomotive-powered trip through the North River PRR tunnels?
Tinplate Toddler Wolf359 What types of locomotive (wheel arrangement) did the Colorado Midland Railway use? Tenwheelers!
Wolf359 What types of locomotive (wheel arrangement) did the Colorado Midland Railway use?
Tenwheelers!
Sorry I'm late again. Ten wheelers are correct. The CM also used Consolidations and 0-6-0s.
According to one, and don’t ask me which one it was, “authoritative account”, Camelbacks weren’t actually banned!
Very good! It was a trick question, they weren't banned, the ICC looked at it but the railroads had already stopped building them so no action was taken.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Time to throw a written hand grenade into the discussion and then beat a hasty retreat!!
dehusmanIf you like that one, what year were camelbacks outlawed by the ICC?
I believe that P & R No. 408 was the locomotive that Wolf359 was referring to
I'll give it to you, according to Holton's history of the Reading, the engine was a conventional 4-6-0 sent to Italy to demonstate the Wooten firebox (Italy has anthracite). The engine with the cab on the top of the firebox was too tall to fit through the tunnels so the engineer and fireman moved the cab to the running boards ahead of the firebox, creating the first Camelback. It operated in Italy and was shipped back to the US, where the reconfigured cab allowed bigger engines to operate through lower tunnels over here.
If you like that one, what year were camelbacks outlawed by the ICC?
dehusmanWolf359 According to my research, the first true camelback was built in 1877 in Reading, Pennsylvania, right here in the USA. It was a 4-6-0 built by the P&R's own reading shops. Close but no cigar. You are partially right, but you missed the country in which they were first operated (which could also technically be the country in which it was made.)
Close but no cigar. You are partially right, but you missed the country in which they were first operated (which could also technically be the country in which it was made.)
Name a famous luxury automobile powered by an engine designed for a rail vehicle. Then name a rail vehicle powered by an engine designed for a famous luxury automobile.
Tinplate ToddlerThe Crystal River RR ceased operation somewhere around 1919, but was later leased to the CR&SJ RR, which operated the line from Carbondale to Marble until its closure in 1941.
I only bring the issue up because some of the references for the Marble operations clearly distinguish the two, with the CR&SJ being the only one actually entering Marble (which was the form of the question)
Ownership by Colorado Fuel & Iron doesn't make them the same thing, any more than ownership of a majority of B&O or LV by PRR (or an attempt to set up Pennroad as a kind of competition to the van Sweringens) would make the roads part of the Pennsylvania.
And what about Treasury Mountain Railway, which at least one reference says was a route directly out of Marble to connecting railroads?
OvermodTechnically the Crystal River RR is NOT the Crystal River & San Juan, which was the last-mile connection into Marble.
The Crystal River RR ceased operation somewhere around 1919, but was later leased to the CR&SJ RR, which operated the line from Carbondale to Marble until its closure in 1941. Both railroads belonged to the CF&I, so while legally independent entities, the could be seen technically as one, clearly in the years after the CS&SJ RR took over the operation.
Tinplate ToddlerYes - it was the Crystal River & San Juan RR.
Technically the Crystal River RR is NOT the Crystal River & San Juan, which was the last-mile connection into Marble.
And what about the Treasury Mountain Railway?
Neither of these things ought to disqualify him from answering for a day, etc. etc. Rules for this game aren't at all like the quizzes on Classic Trains and they take some getting used to.
Wolf359According to my research, the first true camelback was built in 1877 in Reading, Pennsylvania, right here in the USA. It was a 4-6-0 built by the P&R's own reading shops.
andrechapelonAre you referring to the true camelback (anthracite burner) or to B&O's Winan's "Camel"?
True camelback, where the cab straddles the boiler.
Water Level RouteRailroad car ferries.
Bingo, Mike!!!
Gives me an excuse to link to one of my favourite railroad related photos.
https://www.shorpy.com/node/14494
Cheers, the Bear.
York1Ulrich, was it the Crystal River RR?
Yes - it was the Crystal River & San Juan RR.
OvermodLeave passenger railroads out then; name at least one currently-operating electric freight railroad west of the Mississippi.
Now what do I do? Answer the question I meant to ask?
OK.
1. The Deseret Power Railway in Utah and Colorado. It hauls coal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Power_Railway
2. The Iowa Traction Railway. It hauls general freight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Traction_Railway
3. The Navajo Mine Railroad. It hauls coal. Although I believe this is not presently running, the track and overhead wires are all intact. I drove on a highway parallel to this track last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Mine_Railroad
Since I am not a railroad expert, I am unaware of any others if they exist.
York1 John