QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed To make them look sleeker hoping more people would ride them. [:o)] Originally posted by gabe [ Meh? [:)][:p][:p][B)][:0][:X][^][:(!][8][}:)][:D][8D][;)][:(][xx(][V][?][|)][8)][:o)][:I][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)] Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 10:42 AM I should have added, that yes, the early gas electric or oil electric the NYC tested on the Putnam was in response to New York City's laws, but was not intended for use on the Putnam, just tested there. At that time the NYC was still using 0-4-0T locos on 10th and 11th Avenue (street trackage before the lower-Manhattan West Side viaduct and St. John's Terminal were constructed around 1933-1935) with short trains proceeded by "Manhattan Comboys" on horses, and the City did want those steamers out in a hurry. And that is where the first NYC "oil-electrics" were actually used. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 9:33 PM Dear Gabe, It is true, switchers did preceed passenger locomotives in desilization. However, this ocurred outside of mandated areas as well. Diesels were well suited to switching because there are long periods of inactivity in between work, which for a diesel means much less wasted money than for a steamer. But diesel switchers circa 1939 were a lot like hybrid locomotives today: they get a lot of press, but at the time, it was maybe 20 or 30 diesel switchers among thousands of steam switchers. It was passenger service that diesels made their first large dent in steam. And I maintain that this was because railroads wanted to look modern and sleek in their appearance--economy and efficiency were just nice bonuses at first. Sincerely, Daniel Parks Reply Edit passengerfan Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Central Valley California 2,841 posts Posted by passengerfan on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 11:28 PM An excellent book the Steamliners came out from TLC Publishing within the last couple of years it covered the vast majority of streamlined locomotives. Makes for some interesting reading. Reply passengerfan Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Central Valley California 2,841 posts Posted by passengerfan on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 11:30 PM An excellent book the Steamliners came out from TLC Publishing within the last couple of years it covered the vast majority of streamlined locomotives. Makes for some interesting reading. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 12:28 AM I don't know if it has already been mentioned above but diesels are better at start and stop operations which works better for passenger service. Actually, I think I read that in TRAINS mag... can't remember right now. Reply Edit METRO Member sinceOctober 2003 From: Milwaukee & Toronto 929 posts Posted by METRO on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 4:08 PM I think another issue is that many of the early diesel road units were not physically perfect for freight. The hood unit, which is the standard of most all of today's freight locomotives did not come out until long after the EMD FTs and other early road diesels. Ever try looking over your shoulder on an EMD F-unit? The line of sight isn't great. I just wonder how many broken couplers resulted from that. The hood units, starting with Alco's RS1 sloved the problem and could allow much more exact movements for road switchers. This probably wasn't as big an issue for long-distance trains. Santa Fe made great use of FTs on many of their hot-shot fruit trains that ran marathons across the west, but in the east one doesn't see the diesel filtering down to locals and transfer freights until the advent of the hood design. ~METRO Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, May 5, 2005 10:28 AM There's an interesting analogy that has been made between the earliest diesel switchers and the Green Goats and it can be extended further. Smoke abatement/pollution reduction is often the driving force in both situations and the technology is not all that different. The various tri-powers around New York and the dual-powers (RI, NYC) at La Salle Street Station were similar to the Green Goats in that the batteries always fed the traction motors and the diesel engine or third-rail/pantograph pick-up recharged the batteries. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 5, 2005 11:25 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29 And I maintain that this was because railroads wanted to look modern and sleek in their appearance--economy and efficiency were just nice bonuses at first. There was a lot more to it than just wanting to look modern. Steam locomotives required frequent watering and refueling. It sure kills a schedule when you must stop every 20 to 50 miles for water and/or fuel. PRR, NYC, RDG, B&O and some others got around some of the water problem by having the track pans where the trains could take water on the fly. But that required more infrastructure, a larger workforce, and frequent maintenance of the scoops which would sometimes catch on crossings, and maintance of the pans which were damaged by inexperienced firemen. The only road which made a dent in the fueling problem was NYC with the almost all coal bunker tenders. They only had to refuel once between New York and Chicago, but had to scoop up with water very frequently. Some roads got around the problem by having a fresh steamer waiting for the train every so many miles. That requires many more locomotives, and more crews, very expensive. But put a diesel on the name train and just blast past all of those coaling towers and water plugs, and leave your competitors who still have steamers in the dust. You only need to stop for fuel every 500 to 1000 miles or so. And if you do that at one of your major stops, then you lose virtually no time at all. Or if your competitor already has a diesel on the flagship train then you must also, so your schedule can keep up. Looks didn't hurt, but the economic benefits of placing diesels at the head of passenger trains were too good to ignore. If a freight train had to stop every 20 miles for water, so what. It likely had to stop anyway to get out of the way of another passenger train. Passengerfan: As to changing the cylinder on the fly. The engine must be shut down to do that. There is no way you could attach a connecting rod to a crankshaft that is rotating at thousands of RPM. Nor could you place a new cylinder over a piston that would be floppinng around many times a second. Yes the maintainers did change out cylinders on the road, but the engine was shut down and the train was being moved by the other engines in the multiple unit locomotive. Reply Edit martin.knoepfel Member sinceDecember 2003 400 posts Posted by martin.knoepfel on Thursday, May 5, 2005 12:51 PM It is astonishing commuter-trains did not get diesels early. With a diesel, it is easy to establish push-pull-operation which is much cheaper than uncoupling and recoupling the engine to the train a the end of a run. That is especially true if better turn-around-times lets the railroad save one consist. Of course, all the passenger-cars have to bee wired-through for the controls. Push-pull-technology was known on subways and E.M.U.s decades before the diesel-engines replaced steam. Reply passengerfan Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Central Valley California 2,841 posts Posted by passengerfan on Thursday, May 5, 2005 1:37 PM rdganthracite of course you are correct that the engine was shut down while the cylinder was changed. but the engines we are talking about were dual engined units so they simply isolated the one and shut it down while changing a cylinder. The train if it was a single unit train operated at reduced speed until the cylingder change was completed and the engine was back on line. Cylinder jackets were also able to be changed out while the unit was underway as they were badly scored by the cylinder in many cases so both had to be changed. The one power plant was shut down while the other continued to operate. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 5, 2005 6:34 PM Cleanliness, Deisels may get dirty, but they certainally were cleaner than steam. They also didnt pound the rails as much allowing a smoother ride. Reply Edit passengerfan Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Central Valley California 2,841 posts Posted by passengerfan on Thursday, May 5, 2005 6:51 PM And much less track damage. Reply Texas Zepher Member sinceOctober 2004 From: Colorful Colorado 8,639 posts Posted by Texas Zepher on Friday, May 6, 2005 12:28 PM I haven't seen anyone mention the weight of the trains. Passenger trains don't have the tonnage that passenger trains do. Then the first B&M & CB&Q articulated trains were designed to be much lighter. Thus a lesser powered diesel could perform much better. As others have mentioned the speed and look of the trains were definitely a factor at saving passenger rail travel in general. I didn't realize how much so until I recently read "Burlington route; a history of the Burlington lines" by Richard C. Overton. Nor did I realize how impressive the performance of the Zephyrs was. I always knew it was good but fantastic would be a better word. Another factor was the war. I don't think the Santa Fe would have never ordered the 2900 class Northerns if they would have been allowed by the government to get FTs. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, May 6, 2005 3:23 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29 And I maintain that this was because railroads wanted to look modern and sleek in their appearance--economy and efficiency were just nice bonuses at first. ------ Passengerfan: As to changing the cylinder on the fly. The engine must be shut down to do that. There is no way you could attach a connecting rod to a crankshaft that is rotating at thousands of RPM. Nor could you place a new cylinder over a piston that would be floppinng around many times a second. Yes the maintainers did change out cylinders on the road, but the engine was shut down and the train was being moved by the other engines in the multiple unit locomotive. Well, it's only 800/835 RPM for an E7 or E8, but not only can't you do it while the engine's running, I can't imagine anyone doing while the locomotive is moving. Just for starters, you have to drain the coolant to change out a power assembly. Also, even though I've heard of guys manhandling a head onto an cylinder - it would be a whole' nother story to manhandle liner - is there even headroom? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, May 6, 2005 6:57 PM Don, I'm looking for the reference, but some of the early EMD covered wagons had traveling-crane chain hoists running on the upper carbody framing members, so that the heavy engine pieces could be changed on the fly -- and I remember reading in one source, possibly one of the S. Kip Farrington books, that a cylinder head was changed out 'on the fly' at something like 80 mph. Don't know if it was a 201A or a 567, and I didn't know at the time how EMD engines were constructed, so I don't know whether the whole liner or just a cracked/warped head was what got changed... but there was most definitely the infrastructure to do it in some of the early locomotives. Just as with the Metroliners, though, there's a relatively quickly reached point where it isn't cost-effective to transport the shop personnel and parts on every trip to keep the thing rolling... let alone keep the required knowledgeable and motivated people on board the locomotive. Which addresses another point: what kind of freight service requires such fanatical devotion to the 'cause'? Whereas something like the Super Chief in the mid-'30s clearly would deserve it... Reply passengerfan Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Central Valley California 2,841 posts Posted by passengerfan on Friday, May 6, 2005 7:18 PM I also understand that the early COSF - COP - COD and COLA also carried diesel maintainers for the trips and their stories should be just as entertaining as those of the diesel maintainers of the Santa Fe that traveled on the Super Chiefs, El Capitans, Chicagoan, Kansas Cityan, San Diegans, and Golden Gates. I certainly wish I could remember where I have seen a photo of a block and chain hung in an engine room as a cylinder head was lifted out by a diesel maintainer wearing what looked like white coveralls. I wonder if they were white when he finished. Reply n2mopac Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: El Dorado Springs, MO 1,519 posts Posted by n2mopac on Friday, May 6, 2005 7:54 PM I believe part of the story included the outcry of city populations against the polution of steam as well. As electrics and diesel-electrics came about many city's banned steam in their more densely populated areas--namely the approaches to large city passenger terminals. Diesel-electrics were needed to get passenger trains to and from terminals in populated areas with the least possible pollution. Ron Owner and superintendant of the N scale Texas Colorado & Western Railway, a protolanced representaion of the BNSF from Fort Worth, TX through Wichita Falls TX and into Colorado. Check out the TC&WRy on at https://www.facebook.com/TCWRy Check out my MRR How-To YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/RonsTrainsNThings Reply passengerfan Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Central Valley California 2,841 posts Posted by passengerfan on Friday, May 6, 2005 8:28 PM I can remember how polluted Pittsburgh was with smoke from the steel mills when they were all operating , I cant imagine how anyone could even see when steam locos were added to the mix. Now most of the mills are gone and the remaining mills were forced to clean up and surprise surprise Pittsburgh is a nice looking city. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 7, 2005 7:09 PM By N Y law (the bill passed in the 20's) no steam could enter the city for that reason. Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, May 8, 2005 3:30 AM Second time for the correction. The law applied only for Manhattan and the outer boroughs had steam well into the 50's. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, May 8, 2005 8:30 AM You are right Eolafan why diesel went to passenger trains first. Reply Edit passengerfan Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Central Valley California 2,841 posts Posted by passengerfan on Monday, May 9, 2005 8:00 AM The railroads had enjoyed profitable passenger and freight operations until the Great depression took its toll both. Railroads were loooking for anything that could bring passengers back to the rails as the great depression eased. Thus two railroads initially paved the way with lightweight streamlined artticulated three car trains the UP and CB&Q. To the UP goes the distinction of having the first successful streamlined train in America. To the CB&Q goes the honor of having the first lightweight streamlined diesl powered streamliner. These two streamliners did more to bring passengers back to the rails then any other single event of the period. Passengers who were lucky enough to ride the new streamliners enjoyed the experience and talked about it to their friends. The two trains took extensive tours of the country that allowed great hordes of people to visit the streamliners. People began seeing the trains in their local newspapers and began asking their local railroads where was the streamliners to serve their towns and cities. The Santa Fe is credited with building the first full size streamlined trains that would establi***he standards for all carbuilders and railroads to follow. The new Santa Fe streamliner was the Super Chief. The cars were 13'6" high and 10' wide and the length was the only variable. The Super Chief cars were simply coupled and the power units were separate from the cars as well. From these humble beginnings the streamlined era was born and a love affair with diesels began. Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by gabe [
QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29 And I maintain that this was because railroads wanted to look modern and sleek in their appearance--economy and efficiency were just nice bonuses at first.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29 And I maintain that this was because railroads wanted to look modern and sleek in their appearance--economy and efficiency were just nice bonuses at first. ------ Passengerfan: As to changing the cylinder on the fly. The engine must be shut down to do that. There is no way you could attach a connecting rod to a crankshaft that is rotating at thousands of RPM. Nor could you place a new cylinder over a piston that would be floppinng around many times a second. Yes the maintainers did change out cylinders on the road, but the engine was shut down and the train was being moved by the other engines in the multiple unit locomotive.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Owner and superintendant of the N scale Texas Colorado & Western Railway, a protolanced representaion of the BNSF from Fort Worth, TX through Wichita Falls TX and into Colorado.
Check out the TC&WRy on at https://www.facebook.com/TCWRy
Check out my MRR How-To YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/RonsTrainsNThings
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.