One of them was AEOLUS on the CB&Q streamlined Hudsons, although it could be argued that this was sort of a generic name for 'romantically applied wind and water vapor' rather than actual names, which should have been some "SILVER XXXXX" variant. (I would teasingly suggest 'Silver Warhorse' as fitting the semantics in more ways than one, considering how big these engines were for their 'streamlined' service ... but one did apparently make 112+ mph on test, which is much more than could be said for supposedly 'faster' engines specifically including the C&NW E-4s and the ATSF 3460s... or perhaps some sort of Lewis Carroll name considering the 'other' sobriquet applied to one of these streamlined engines derived from that nameplate...)
M636CI'd given clues in earlier posts talking about visiting the B&O Museum in Baltimore and buying up their (excellent) books on the B&O... It seemed easy to me...
Even after I gave them the hint that the different digit was "4", and made that comment about wrapping things up in a shroud, they didn't get it. That was truly surprising. (If it were asked on the Classic Trains forum, I bet someone would seize on it within the hour...)
What's the next question?
I give up on M636C, but as a "newby" here, I'd appreciate someone's (anyone's?) help locating any video footage of a Pennsylvania DD-1 running anywhere from Manhattan Transfer through to the New York World's Fair, or Jamaica, or wherever. Can anyone help?
Hank Ickes (dougalsdad@gmail.com)
BUMP
M636C This question is pretty easy: During the 1930s and 1940s an external modification was carried out to a relatively small number of steam locomotives. Two locomotives, each the first to get this modification on their respective systems, had a different version applied later (quite a bit later in one case)... and are thought to be the only examples of this happening twice. What were the roads and road numbers of these locomotives, the numbers of which by chance differed by only one of the four digits...
The question is still active. Before we wrap the question up in a shroud and bury it, let's see who gets the answer...
M636CThis question is pretty easy: During the 1930s and 1940s an external modification was carried out to a relatively small number of steam locomotives. Two locomotives, each the first to get this modification on their respective systems, had a different version applied later (quite a bit later in one case)... and are thought to be the only examples of this happening twice. What were the roads and road numbers of these locomotives, the numbers of which by chance differed by only one of the four digits...
Thank You.
M636CWhat were the roads and road numbers of these locomotives, the numbers of which by chance differed by only one of the four digits...
Hint: the differing numbers are "0" and "4".
That's it, of course ... I still think it's cool that the answer, a very strange wheel arrangement, is the same for both questions, two decades apart ... and neither one successful. (It was surprisingly difficult to get the answer over on the Classic Trains forum!)
You're up -- let's have some new life in this quiz.
This question is pretty easy:
During the 1930s and 1940s an external modification was carried out to a relatively small number of steam locomotives.
Two locomotives, each the first to get this modification on their respective systems, had a different version applied later (quite a bit later in one case)... and are thought to be the only examples of this happening twice.
What were the roads and road numbers of these locomotives, the numbers of which by chance differed by only one of the four digits...
M636C
M636C Wizlish The question that led up to this was "What's the wheel arrangement of the first Mallet with a four-wheel engine truck"? My follow-on question was "What's the wheel arrangement of the first simple articulated with a four-wheel engine truck?" No cab-forward or weird articulation schemes are involved, and in both cases the four-wheel truck was being used for stability at high speed. I'll phrase the question here to require both answers. But it's fun to see what 'both' means in this context... If you qualified the question by adding that the locomotives had to be built new, you should get the answer that everybody expects, the ATSF 1909 4-4-6-2 and the UP 1936 4-6-6-4.... But the B&O KK-1 2-6-6-2, built 1930 and described as a "simple Mallet" spent 1931 until 1933 as an MK-1 4-4-6-2 described as an "articulated passenger locomotive". During that time its front cylinders were smaller and the rear cylinders very slightly bigger.
Wizlish The question that led up to this was "What's the wheel arrangement of the first Mallet with a four-wheel engine truck"? My follow-on question was "What's the wheel arrangement of the first simple articulated with a four-wheel engine truck?" No cab-forward or weird articulation schemes are involved, and in both cases the four-wheel truck was being used for stability at high speed. I'll phrase the question here to require both answers. But it's fun to see what 'both' means in this context...
The question that led up to this was "What's the wheel arrangement of the first Mallet with a four-wheel engine truck"? My follow-on question was "What's the wheel arrangement of the first simple articulated with a four-wheel engine truck?"
No cab-forward or weird articulation schemes are involved, and in both cases the four-wheel truck was being used for stability at high speed.
I'll phrase the question here to require both answers. But it's fun to see what 'both' means in this context...
If you qualified the question by adding that the locomotives had to be built new, you should get the answer that everybody expects, the ATSF 1909 4-4-6-2 and the UP 1936 4-6-6-4....
But the B&O KK-1 2-6-6-2, built 1930 and described as a "simple Mallet" spent 1931 until 1933 as an MK-1 4-4-6-2 described as an "articulated passenger locomotive". During that time its front cylinders were smaller and the rear cylinders very slightly bigger.
NP Eddie ALL: I am starting a just for fun "Locomotive Quiz" the same as "Classic Trains" has for miscelanneous topics. This Class 1 (not in existence now) had five SS40-2's (Super Series) locomotives. What were their road numbers? Bonus points for their assigned shop. What made them different than the SD40-2's? Hint: I worked along side them in the 1980's. The person who answers it correctly asks the next question. Ed Burns Burlington Northern
ALL:
I am starting a just for fun "Locomotive Quiz" the same as "Classic Trains" has for miscelanneous topics.
This Class 1 (not in existence now) had five SS40-2's (Super Series) locomotives.
What were their road numbers? Bonus points for their assigned shop. What made them different than the SD40-2's?
Hint: I worked along side them in the 1980's.
The person who answers it correctly asks the next question.
Ed Burns
Wizlish While we're waiting: there was a question in another forum that seems to have stumped the resident experts. I said it was likely it would be answered within an hour here. Let's see if that's so... The question that led up to this was "What's the wheel arrangement of the first Mallet with a four-wheel engine truck"? My follow-on question was "What's the wheel arrangement of the first simple articulated with a four-wheel engine truck?" No cab-forward or weird articulation schemes are involved, and in both cases the four-wheel truck was being used for stability at high speed. I'll phrase the question here to require both answers. But it's fun to see what 'both' means in this context...
While we're waiting: there was a question in another forum that seems to have stumped the resident experts. I said it was likely it would be answered within an hour here. Let's see if that's so...
I missed this post earlier...
But having friends in DC I sometimes visit Baltimore and the B&O Museum, and pick up books on the B&O... It's a good excuse to ride MARC, which is cheap and fun to do.
Since it returned to being a KK-1, that must have been considered better...
This about the 1970 BN merger to 1996, when we purchased the ATSF.
How many locomotives, roughly, were destroyed in the 25 years of the BN? Extra points for below 2000 hp verses over 2000 hp? As information, in the many years of the NP, only 3 were destroyed while the GN only had 2.
Second part of the question, which locomotive(s) had four itentical numbers, as 9999?
I think that was answered on one of the CT threads. Do you have another?
NorthWestIt has been about a month since the last question. Anyone have a new one?
I asked one on the Fourth.
It has been about a month since the last question. Anyone have a new one?
daveklepper AC 25Hz commutator motors, as on a GG1, work fine on dc. They don't even rotate but just chatter and burn up on 60Hz. So I am proposing to reinisulate, perhaps even to rewoiund, the existing motors which fit the quill drives and keep alll aspects of the exterior authentic. That is why saving the AEM7-DC electricals is important, since they will convert 25Hz and 60Hz to the dc for the motors. Location of the EF-4/E-33 please? VGN 135, a stablemate of 611 is housed at the Virginia Museum of Transportation
AC 25Hz commutator motors, as on a GG1, work fine on dc. They don't even rotate but just chatter and burn up on 60Hz. So I am proposing to reinisulate, perhaps even to rewoiund, the existing motors which fit the quill drives and keep alll aspects of the exterior authentic. That is why saving the AEM7-DC electricals is important, since they will convert 25Hz and 60Hz to the dc for the motors.
Location of the EF-4/E-33 please? VGN 135, a stablemate of 611 is housed at the Virginia Museum of Transportation
daveklepper AC 25Hz commutator motors, as on a GG1, work fine on dc. They don't even rotate but just chatter and burn up on 60Hz. So I am proposing to reinisulate, perhaps even to rewoiund, the existing motors which fit the quill drives and keep alll aspects of the exterior authentic. That is why saving the AEM7-DC electricals is important, since they will convert 25Hz and 60Hz to the dc for the motors. Location of the EF-4/E-33 please?
Location of the EF-4/E-33 please?
Yes, it has been fun. I think it is Paul(CSSHEGEWISCH)'s question, though he may choose to give it away if he wishes.
On an unrelated search I learned that several more flexicoil trucked SW900s were built for South American mining operations. Sorry about my poorly crafted question!
The Dutch locomotives in question had Superior 40-LX-6 engines and so far as I know were never repowered. I see that discussion up earlier in the thread and thought I'd add this. I don't think they're a common design to that for the Canadian customer; for example, the Dutch units were full dual control as I recall having read and seen, and were fully bidirectional (as opposed to just running "backing up" with a conventional switch engine with more or less a glass back cab wall.)Superior was another company that never made it in the US with locomotive engines either, although of course it tried with the Ingalls Shipbuilding effort that produced exactly one unit. Which was also not repowered.
Very interesting question game string you folks have going on here! I'm enjoying reading back through it.
-Will Davis
Railroad Locomotives - My Blog
Will DavisThe diesel engine involved in the construction of these units was a conventional, inline four stroke turbocharged Sterling Viking engine...
THANK YOU!
The diesel engine involved in the construction of these units was a conventional, inline four stroke turbocharged Sterling Viking engine, manufactured by Sterling Engine Company, Buffalo, New York. The Viking engine was developed originally as a gasoline engine and was modified later to incorporate a diesel version which was advertised as not only fitting exactly the same size envelope as the gasoline engine but also as having essentially the same weight. This very fact might indicate that the engines were incapable of surviving hard railroad service.
The engines were 8" bore, 9" stroke inline with four valves per cylinder and side mounted camshaft driven from the crank by gears. The block was cast as one unit, with removable liners. Cylinder heads were individual. The engine model in question (eight cylinder turbocharged) was originally announced in September 1944 as being rated up to 500 BHP at 900 RPM with a peak output of 650 BHP at 1200 RPM, and was, like the six cylinder, originally intended for marine work only.
After the Second World War Sterling announced these engines as part of a larger program to expand sales and introduced them with extended frames to mount generators in the same fashion locomotives did, and (of course) announced them as (among many things) available for use in locomotives. Some were used, as I recall, in the 6 cylinder non-turbocharged range to repower gas-electric cars on the PRR and the Rock Island. The locomotive sales were sparse, with only these units in question actually being built although I have a Sterling ad that shows a supposed twin engined Whitcomb streamlined unit with turret cab for "South American Passenger Service," riding on a B-B wheel arrangement with conventional drop equalized locomotive trucks. If this design was developed hoping that the Sterling Viking worked out in the switchers, then it almost surely was never built. I can find no record of the design having been built, to be clear.
Anyway, the ad copy for the integral-frame Sterling Viking after the war refers to the engines as "Packaged Power" as they were shipped from the factory as engine-generator sets. To wit:
"'Packaged' power is a Sterling development - an engine generator set designed and delivered as a complete unit, mounted on a sturdy one piece bed. 'Packaging' at the Sterling factory saves man-hours and money spent for time-consuming assembly jobs by the user -- eliminates alignment and coupling problems -- provides a compact, self-contained power unit ready for immediate use."
(Italics in original.)
Specified excellent points of the engine were Stronger Construction - Accessibility - Dependability - Reduced Weight and Compact Design - High Efficiency. However noting just one of these, "Dependability," we find that Sterling just says things about the machine tools in the factory, test equipment, and factory testing of the parts. It does not attempt to imply long service with engines in the field (which would certainly not have been the case in this undated but assuredly almost immediately post-war ad in my collection.)
It may not be a stretch to see why a small locomotive builder would want this to work - it's "plug and play" and offers a relatively easy way to get a (now, post war) 660 HP locomotive power plant already assembled.
The "crankless" swash plate engine shown in the post earlier was actually used in a couple of yachts -- one of them owned I think by an executive of Sterling Engine -- but never got anywhere really and never got near a locomotive.
,
M636CLouis Marre indicates a Sterling engine was used in "The Second Diesel Spotter's Guide" and the later "First Fifty Years" books. Other than it was an eight cylinder inline engine of 650HP, no details are provided.
I was thinking of 65-tonners for some reason. Yes, Sterling -- 8x9 cylinders, 1200 rpm, 650 nominal HP from what I can find. Supposedly Whitcomb bought some of the units and promptly re-engined them with D-397 Cats. I'm not sure, though, why an inline 8-cylinder engine should be such an utter and appalling failure as to result in cancellation without rebuilding.
Leads me to speculate, at least, that a version of this engine might have been involved
That is 'eight cylinders' (although scarcely inline!) and if built to 8x9 dimensions would seem to match the 650 hp rating.
The other possibility is that the Sterling engine was not built to accommodate the heavier weight of a Westinghouse generator (as was mentioned in the RyPN thread about Whitcomb history).
Be interesting if some of the actual test records, or stories, have survived.
Side note: I believe the shortline that had the odd Whitcomb from the rejected Canadian National order was the Washington and Old Dominion.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.