That scene was in 1957, just before steam was dropped on the Pennsy. I assume the F units were F3' s or F7's. 6000 HP, plus a big steam locomotive. Obviously, tough caboose!
BaltACD Fr.Al A favorite scene of mine is on vol. 2. You have what looks like a Pennsy 2-10-0 pulling on ore train up a steep grade. Pushing on the end, you have a similar steam locomotive AND an A-B-B-A set of F units. Gotta love it. With that scene, you have to wonder if PA's 3500 HP behind a occupied caboose law was being complied with or if had yet to be enacted.
Fr.Al A favorite scene of mine is on vol. 2. You have what looks like a Pennsy 2-10-0 pulling on ore train up a steep grade. Pushing on the end, you have a similar steam locomotive AND an A-B-B-A set of F units. Gotta love it.
With that scene, you have to wonder if PA's 3500 HP behind a occupied caboose law was being complied with or if had yet to be enacted.
Meaning they could not exceed that?
I no longer have Shaughnessy's D&H book; but I seem to recall a photo with a Challenger and an Angus 0-8-8-0 pushing in front of the caboose, and I believe, a 2-8-0 was pushing behind it. This would have been in Eastern Pennsylvania. No doubt, for that reason, the two big engines were cut in ahead of the caboose. Maybe somebody out there has this book?
Caboose ahead or behind the pushers? I think it was an "it depends" situation, depends on the railroad, depends on the caboose.
If it was a steel-framed caboose there wasn't usually a problem with leaving it ahead of the pusher, a wood-framed caboose, no way!
Sometimes a steel-framed caboose was ahead of the pusher, but un-occupied, "just in case."
Probably no "one size fits all" here.
And Mike Bednar's narrations of the films? Fun stuff, it's like he's in the room shootin' the breeze with you!
Lithonia OperatorMeaning they could not exceed that?
Meaning they could not exceed that if the caboose were occupied.
It appears the Pennsylvania law restricting power behind occupied cabooses originally dates from 1913, and would therefore be contemporaneous with the Ohio (and I believe New York) laws of that year that required steel underframes on any wood caboose to be used in pusher service. It would be revised at some point to include the functional 'horsepower' equivalent, which only makes sense for diesels (which have a long part of their horsepower curve 'hyperbolic' at the constant horsepower developed for traction at full throttle).
It would make sense here to note the Lackawanna cabooses built on old tender underframes...
http://cencalrails.railfan.net/stown7.jpg
It would be interesting to see whether this law was superseded at some point by Federal regulation, probably after the revisions that started in 1970, as there is an established set of precedents that say state law can't override Federal safety provisions.
It appears this law originally dates from 1913, and would therefore contemporaneous with an Ohio law of that year that apparently required steel underframes on any wood caboose to be used in pusher service. This does not seem to be the same thing as laws requiring 8-wheel cabooses; Pennsylvania only got around to that, it seems, in 1929.
There doesn't seem to be any version of the 'horsepower restriction' in place before the diesel era, as the functional 'horsepower' equivalent only makes sense for diesels (which have a long part of their horsepower curve 'hyperbolic' at the constant horsepower developed for traction at full throttle). It occurs to me that this is a couple of 1750hp F units or equivalent.
General consensus appears to be that the law was overruled in some way after the early 1970s, as so many people remember extensive numbers of pushers behind the cabin going up Horse Shoe in latter years.
It would be interesting to see whether this law was formally superseded at some point by Federal regulation, probably after the 'safety' revisions that started in 1970. There is a long history of established precedents that say state law can't override Federal code requirements or require additional safety provisions.
I can see where 4-wheel cabooses would a be less comfortable ride for the crew. But if one were built of steel, why would it be any less suitable for pushing than an 8-wheeler?
Lithonia OperatorBut if one were built of steel, why would it be any less suitable for pushing than an 8-wheeler?
Thrust lines are all wrong. It tips up and telescopes far more readily; it cocks to the side and flange-binds dramatically fast if shoved to an angle... which is almost kinematically guaranteed. See the Wickens paper on what was necessary (in the 1960s) to make a decently-guided vehicle out of a four-wheel waggon. All that would have to be applied to a bobber to make it safe to shove on. (Unless you implemented controlled guiding in the couplers and draft gear -- it's both easier and cheaper to go to longer effective wheelbase and three-piece trucks with parts common to a large number of freight cars.)
Cute as the bobbers were they really were only good for locals and short runs. Consider the name, they went "Bob-bob-bobbin' along..."
Weren't the Pennsy Center Cab units Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton? By the 50's weren't these three names an item, so to speak? Somewhere, I read that even steam locomotives were marketed under that name. Not in the US, because Baldwin's last steam locomotive for the U.S. was 2-6-6-2 1309 for the C&O in 1949. It is undergoing restoration at the Western Maryland Scenic Railroad, which I will be visiting this Saturday.
In 1947 Lima merged with General Machinery Coporation of Hamilton OH becoming Lima-Hamilton. Since Lima's last steam locomotive left the shops in 1949 anything produced after 1947 may have said "Lima-Hamilton" on the builder's plate but I have no evidence of that.
The merger with Baldwin came after steam production had ceased, so there's no possibility of a "Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton" steam locomotive out there, unless some were made for export. It's possible, I'd never say never, but I doubt it.
They WERE made for export. Last one made was for India in 1955.
Fr.Al They WERE made for export. Last one made was for India in 1955.
Ah-HA! That would explain it!
I did some looking, and found some Lima-Hamilton builders plates from 1949. Zoom in for a good look.
http://www.railroadiana.org/hw/hw_bp/bp_Lima_b.jpg
The D&H had the helpers arranged that was for operational reasons. The train in that photo is climbing towards the line summit in Ararat, PA, with a Challenger on the point and the helper set. The helpers were on the train from its origin point in Carbondale, PA.
The 2-8-0 would be "the Forest City kicker" which was used to help start the heavy coal trains with a push from Carbondale to Forest City, PA, a distance of maybe 5 miles. The kicker was cut off on the fly by the train's rear brakeman on the caboose.
The 0-8-8-0 would push the train to Ararat, where the caboose would be cut off just after cresting the summit while the train continued downgrade until the helpers were past the switch for the wye. The 0-8-8-0 would cut off and back into the wye to turn and be ready to head back to Carbondale.
The crew on the caboose would release the brakes and roll downgrade to couple onto the back of the Challenger which would help take the train either to Lanesboro, PA or to Ninevah, NY where the rear Challenger would cut off or wait to help a train south to Carbondale.
This clip shows such a train with the kicker pushing as the head end goes by and the rear goingby much slower as the kicker has cut off before the caboose has passed.
Vern MooreThe ... "Forest City kicker" ... .was cut off on the fly by the train's rear brakeman on the caboose. The 0-8-8-0 would push the train to Ararat, where the caboose would be cut off just after cresting the summit while the train continued downgrade until the helpers were past the switch for the wye. The 0-8-8-0 would cut off and back into the wye to turn and be ready to head back to Carbondale. The crew on the caboose would release the brakes and roll downgrade to couple onto the back of the Challenger which would help take the train either to Lanesboro, PA or to Ninevah, NY where the rear Challenger would cut off or wait to help a train south to Carbondale.
Note the amount of careful planning and cost minimization inherent in this operation.
Keeping the caboose behind the road pushers is safe; keeping it between the pushers and the kicker is expedient; the power of the kicker might be at least partially determined by the safe capacity of the caboose underframe; it would cost more to have a separate crewman on the kicker pull the pin, or worse, to have to climb down on the tender beam of the 0-8-8-0 to do that.
Be interesting to see what modern rules would have to be changed to permit that slip operation today!
Also note that the 0-8-8-0 only pulls at low speed; the Challenger can 'help' at higher speed (especially if there are intermittent grades interspersed with 'faster running') over what amounts to a recognized running-helper district.
Always good to recognize 'smart' railroading when you see it. Now, we see continuation of this into the diesel era ... how was that run, and with what power, over the years?
Flintlock76In 1947 Lima merged with General Machinery Coporation of Hamilton OH becoming Lima-Hamilton. Since Lima's last steam locomotive left the shops in 1949 anything produced after 1947 may have said "Lima-Hamilton" on the builder's plate but I have no evidence of that.
Since the LT-2500s had Hamilton engines, it would be strange if their data plates did not read 'Lima-Hamilton'. It should be easy to check; those red diamond data plates were very visible in many shots of these engines.
The RT-624s were of course fundamentally a Baldwin design, but I believe they were delivered after the Westinghouse-mediated merger of Baldwin with Lima-Hamilton.
Lithonia OperatorI can see where 4-wheel cabooses would a be less comfortable ride for the crew. But if one were built of steel, why would it be any less suitable for pushing than an 8-wheeler?
What can happen to a caboose with a lot of power behind it.
https://dotlibrary.specialcollection.net/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=(select+1898)
DOT site requires free registration.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I had to break down and buy another copy of Shaughnessy's book. Sure enough, on page 411, there is the Challenger with the Angus behind it. Another Angus,backing down after having helped a train over Ararat Summit, oblireates the view of the Forest City Kicker, behind the caboose.
My late wife was from Simpson, Pennsylvania, just below Forest City. After our marriage, the two of us lived in her parents home in that town, years after any D&H steam action.
We've come a ways from Baldwin Center Cabs, but as I read in the book, the Angus locomotives had no stokers. One can only imagine firing one of those. The ICC did mandate two firemen on some runs, though.
I had to look up what an "Angus" is - a 0-8-8-0 ! See:
http://mattforsyth.com/?p=9
Surely a rare animal - were there any others in North America (or anyplace else)?
No reference to them that I can recall in the "Consolidations, Incorporated" series in Trains from back in the 1960s:
- PDN.
P.S. - Further down in the webpage I linked above it says the Erie also had 0-8-8-0's.
PRR had 1 CC1s and 10 CC2s 0-8-8-0's.
I thought perhaps the "Angus" might refer to the Canadian shops (they gave us an 0-6-6-0 with the cylinders facing each other, so why not the next step) but MTH said it was due to Angus Sinclair saying something to the effect that it would dry up every canal and watercourse in the vicinity to keep something this hugehugehuge running. (It would be easy to confirm this, including adoption of the name, by reading a few years' worth -- starting, say, with what Sinclair said about Old Maud, which I recall as being complimentary. All the year volumes ought to be easily available via Google Books.)
Probably the first 0-8-8-0 was an Erie Camelback. The D&H borrowed one of these before getting their own(non Camelback) 0-8-8-0's. When they were delivered in 1910, they were the largest locomotives in existence.
I caught a couple glances of those EJ&E center cabs at Great Lakes RTC, once when I was supposed to be looking the other way [give me 20!]. Did spy a better look at Waukegan but did not have the time to stay long there either.
Nah! Read most of the responses and still think the correct one is: The Baldwin Center Cab was created for those of us born and raised (or raised, at least) in Trona, CA, in the 40's and 50's (and some stragglers in the 60's) could ride on them from Trona to Searles Station as often as the opportunity came up!
AnonymousI was watching some old Pentrex videos and in one of them they were talking about the Baldwing Center Cabs. Does anyone know the reason for it's downfall?
I'm not sure they had a "downfall". Although they never ran on the line I grew up by, the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern owned several of the Baldwin Centercab transfer diesels. They ran for about 30 years, typical (or better) than most first generation diesels. As I mentioned earlier, their purpose was to put two locomotives together as one. By the 1970s, there really was no reason to do that, it was easier just to m.u. two locomotives.
BTW 4-wheel cabooses were outlawed here in Minnesota in 1911. If you ever look at the classic Missabe Road wood cabooses (as modelled by Walthers in HO) you can see that they were the result of putting two wood 4-wheel bobbers together to form one car with two trucks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.