|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Heaven: The SoF Railway Enthusiasts' Thread
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I, too, love streetcars - or trams as we call them here in Britain. As a student I lived in Lisbon, Portugal during the late 1970s/early 80s and they had a magnificent, if slightly decrepit system, all on the narrow gauge. Some of the cars were nearly 80 years old, complete with cut glass in the clerestories and proper lampshades.
The system still exists; even as a shadow of its normal self it is well worth a visit. When, about 10 years ago, they decided to replace some of the cars in the Old Town with newer ones, I believe there was an outcry. Result: the cars are brand new mechanically but reuse bodies which are now over 70 years old - great stuff. (There are some new ones as well).
There was also an interurban system running from Sintra, near Lisbon: it lay closed and decaying but has now been revived as a tourist line.
For real tram heaven try Budapest in Hungary - a large system expanding again after some years of contraction.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Oh, and I’ve just noticed you refer to the ‘wonderful Worcestershire/Staffordshire countryside’. Shurely you mean ‘Worcestershire/Shropshire’?
Yes, of course I do.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I, too, love streetcars - or trams as we call them here in Britain. As a student I lived in Lisbon, Portugal during the late 1970s/early 80s and they had a magnificent, if slightly decrepit system, all on the narrow gauge. Some of the cars were nearly 80 years old, complete with cut glass in the clerestories and proper lampshades.
The system still exists; even as a shadow of its normal self it is well worth a visit. When, about 10 years ago, they decided to replace some of the cars in the Old Town with newer ones, I believe there was an outcry. Result: the cars are brand new mechanically but reuse bodies which are now over 70 years old - great stuff. (There are some new ones as well).
There was also an interurban system running from Sintra, near Lisbon: it lay closed and decaying but has now been revived as a tourist line.
For real tram heaven try Budapest in Hungary - a large system expanding again after some years of contraction.
Time for a rant: why, o why, did British local authorities close down so many magnificent tramway systems in the 1950s? It's taken half a century for us to realise that they are the most efficient method of urban transport, and though a few places have managed to re-invent their tramways (and technologically they are vastly superior) they are all much smaller in extent than their ghostly predecessors. And several cities have been refused funding by our short-sighted government to build new systems.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
True, but not all schemes are good ones. The West London tram project would have caused huge disruption with little gain. After spending zillions on planning it, it was (in my view rightly) scrapped. What it really needed was an underground line but that is even more expensive!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
I believe that parts of the SVR are actually in Staffordshire....in particular the bit around Arley, though whether I am correct or not I have yet to find out!
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Thanks to Toronto the Old Fashioned, the TTC kept most of its system intact. In fact that's a problem now. The TTC is a true Street Traction system, not a Light Rail line. Streetcars are about the same size as buses and negotiate the same curves. The tight radii mean that the next generation of streetcars which Toronto is now buying have to be customized. In particular Toronto uses trolley-pole lines rather than pantographs.
St. Clair Ave. and Spadina Ave. have received streetcar upgrades, and the city plans to expand the system. In fact a traffic study showed that King St. is actually a streetcar route that happens to have automobiles on it, rather than a public street with tracks down the middle.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lilly Rose
Shipmate
# 13826
|
Posted
I enjoy riding on a train pulled by a steam engine, but I'd much rather stand on the platform watching the engine living and breathing. As a photographer, I love taking photos of steam engines.
Some enthusiasts only seem to like one type of engine, usually the local one that they knew as a child, but I like all sort of shapes and sizes.
I went to Leicestershire to see Oliver Cromwell when he was back in steam after restoration. Wow! He seemed so huge!!
My very favourite engine is 7802 Bradley Manor. I've had the priveledge of being invited onto the footplate while she was at Arley station. It was fascinating! (and hot!)
It's when I'm taking photos that the drivers start talking to me, and then they invite me up into the cab. My camera club friend says it's because I'm a woman and they're just flirting with me! Who cares, as long as I get to climb up into the cab. My friend's just jealous because he didn't get invited!!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 102 | From: Midlands UK | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Oooo! You said big. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I therefore introduce you to Union Pacific 4-6-6-4 Challenger #3895. She's the largest operational steam locomotive in the world.
Her sister, Union Pacific 4-8-4 Northern 844 is the only steam locomotive in North American never to be retired by a mainline railroad. She has remained operational as property of the Union Pacific Railroad in revenue service since 1944. She is been part of the company's Steam Program since 1960.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
As a matter of interest, SPK, how active is the preservation movement on your side of the Atlantic?
I have always tended to assume that the vastly grander scale (and therefore cost) of North American locomotives would have made amateur preservation almost impossible ~ goodness knows, it is enough of a problem financing repairs to UK locomotives, trying to repair something that weighs in the region of 300 tons must present difficulties of a sort that only ship enthusiasts encounter in this country.
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Despite Canada being collected together in order to have a railway that went coast-to-coast (or, as it later turned, three of them), the preservation movment is barely visible. There are no operating tourist lines east of, I think, Ottawa, although the Orford Express diner run might qualify, since it uses vintage diesel cars.
The Maritimes, in the steam era, had nearly one-third of CN's locomotive stock, but the opening of the Seaway and the demise of the ocean liners effectively killed most of the work at just about the time of the end of steam. I can think of three actual railway museums in New Brunswick, none with operation, and a few miles of track deep in the woods where a few of the guys with "speeders" (work trolleys) play. PEI has a couple of display pieces. Nova Scotia also has three railway museums, plus a motel which uses several cabooses as accomodation and a a dining car used for meal service.
There is an operating Swedish (inside-cylinder!) 2-8-0 operating near the Nation's Capital (our tax dollars at work?) and an operating line just west of Toronto, with a CP 4-4-0 and a CP 4-6-0. Static museums at Smiths Falls and just south of Montreal, and incidental display pieces scattered lightly around.
Not much better out west. The Prairie Dog Central has operated just west of Winnipeg for decades, the Central Western operates near Stettler in Alberta and there are a couple of operating lines in BC, no longer including the Royal Hudson run.
The Montreal museum has the best collection - about 45 locomotives in various states of repair - but is poorly located and has very little usable space.
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The problem, as Horseman Bree alluded to is the fact that North America has such a diversity of railroad companies that market forces made preservation very difficult. Preservation of each class from each road is impossible.
This is worse in the US than in Canada since we only have two national railways: Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. The US had 30 or so Class I or mainline carriers, each with different management, operating philosophies and financial circumstances. Bankruptcy was extremely common for US railroads until 1980. Each locomotive class for each road was custom-built.
Dieselization began in the 1930's and was seen as the future, but the railroads didn't begin wholesale scrapping of their steam locomotives until after 1945.
For example, the Southern Railway was a prosperous road covering most of the South-East. It dieselized early in 1953 and a number of its locomotives are well-preserved. It had a popular steam excursion program until 1994. However the Louisville & Nashville and the Atlantic Coast Line, the two other main roads in the South left almost no locomotives to preservation.
The situation is worst with the Northeastern mainlines, the Baltimore & Ohio, the New York Central, the Erie and the Pennsylvania Railroad. All faced deep financial difficulties after 1945 and every line except the B&O collapsed into bankruptcy by 1970 and had to be nationalized under Conrail. There are almost no preserved locomotives at all from the New York Central and nothing larger than a Pacific from the Pennsy.
The western railroads were generally more prosperous, dieselized later and have the best-preserved examples. The Union Pacific still owns two of its own locomotives for steam excursions, and 844 has been operational since 1944 without retirement. The Western US has the best mainline fleet with the two UP units, a Southern Pacific Daylight GS-4 Northern, a Santa Fe Northern and a Milwaukee Road Northern.
Most preserved locomotives are static displays. Typically there are at most five engines from each road. Only 10 or so mainline, post-1930 "Superpower" locomotives are operational. These are the Hudsons, Mountains or Northerns that most people think of when you mention steam locomotives. Of the huge compound or Mallet locomotives, only the UP Challenger is operational. The rest are static displays, including the Big Boys. The other compounds of note, the
Aside from a few 10-mile loops, the best preserved operational railways are the Durango & Silverton and the Cumbres & Toltec Senic RR, both narrow-gauge lines which are fully operational. SP Cab-Forwards, only 1 survives in static display.
There really is no equivalent of the National Collection or National Railway Museum.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
To read what Horseman Bree and SPK have written regarding the preservation situation in the USA and Canada makes me realise how lucky we are in Britain. I have main line steam running past my back garden three days a week in summer, for goodness sake (not that you can see it very well due to the amount of trees and bushes in the cutting)!
I found SPK’s ‘…nothing larger than a Pacific from the Pennsy’ amusing as Pacifics are pretty much the largest locos preserved in Britain (apart from BR 9F 2-10-0s of course).
In Ireland there’s nothing larger than a 3-cylinder 4-6-0. This is No.800 Meadhbh from the Great Southern Railways, and despite her working life being spent between Dublin and Cork, she is preserved at Cultra near Belfast in N. Ireland! Sadly it is unlikely she will steam again as her axle loading would preclude her working over most of the routes where steam is allowed in Ireland. I would dearly love to ride on Irish main lines behind any of their preserved locos, but a Great Northern Railway 4-4-0 in blue livery (it would have to be 171 ‘Slieve Gullion’ as the ‘V’ class compound, ‘Merlin’, is no longer operational AFAIK) would be particularly nice.
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Union Pacific 4-6-6-4 Challenger #3895.
Gorgeous ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) . I can only dream of seeing beasts like that running over here. I bet it could take the Lickey with 20 on, full and standing.
Backwards.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Only if you demolished the platforms at Bromsgrove first ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Agent Smith (elsewhere):
You know you are a nerd when someone on TV rattles off a four figure number similar to 4498, and you sit there thinking that sounds like an A4 Pacific, and trying to work out which one. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Just browsing, thinking "Look, trainspotters!". Then realised that I knew 4498 is Sir Nigel Gresley's number without having to look it up. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
(Mitigation: That fact comes from having travelled on a BR-run special up the Cumbrian coast, not long after it was restored, and living near Carnforth. Honest.)
One of the scariest evenings (in the paranoid sense) I ever spent was at Warrington Bank Quay station, waiting for Dr-Mrs-Spouse-to-be to arrive on a delayed train from Euston. There were a couple of people on the Northbound platform doing the same thing but lots of people on the opposite platform. Then some goods train thundered into view and out came the sound recorders and video cameras. Like I said, very, very scary. Though I did almost feel sorry for the guy who missed 'his' train because it got re-routed through a different platform!
I do like train travel, though. Especially modern long distance trains, having just come back from circumnavigating Sweden and Denmark courtesy of InterRail. I would much rather sit on Eurostar or TGV at 300Kph than rattle along at a tenth of that speed going nowhere in particular. Though older trains do sometimes have their appeal - Paris to Rome by sleeper was fun, with compartments that would not look out of place in scenes from a spy thriller.
Favourite heritage railway? Well, for family reasons I have to get in a plug for the Corris Railway in mid-Wales. Keeping the mid-Wales theme, Vale of Rheidol has the best views and Talyllyn is the most unpronounceable to an English speaker.
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
Ting a ling is easy to pronounce! Try Dduallt or even Cyfronydd. Glyndyfrdwy, Llanuwchllyn and Penrhyndeudraeth are just us Welsh taking the mick out of English speakers
Rob
><>
PS. My Railway atlas came in handy in this post!
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
OK, wiseguy. But if it's unpronounceable you're after, try "Ynysybwl". Granted, the station there is long gone ~ maybe Enlish inability to pronounce the name is why it has gone ... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Who'd want to be a train announcer at Shrewsbury, calling out all the station names for the Central Wales line? (It's presumably easier for the folk at Swansea making the announcements for the return journey).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
OK, wiseguy. But if it's unpronounceable you're after, try "Ynysybwl". Granted, the station there is long gone ~ maybe Enlish inability to pronounce the name is why it has gone ...
At the risk of perpetuating this tangent (I know I started it ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) ), England also has its share of local dialects at places like Mytholmroyd and Slaithwaite...
(And no one's mentioned Pwllheli or Llwyngwril!)
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
...I found SPK’s ‘…nothing larger than a Pacific from the Pennsy’ amusing as Pacifics are pretty much the largest locos preserved in Britain (apart from BR 9F 2-10-0s of course)...
North American Railroads basically standarized on the 2-8-2 Mikado for freight and 4-6-2 Pacifics for passenger work by the 1920's. However given the increasing train loads for passenger and freight trains in the 1920's, many railroads started to look for bigger power. Enter the 4-8-2 Mountains, 2-10-2 Santa Fe's, and 2-10-4 Texas types.
The late 1920's and early 1930's saw the Superpower generation of locomotives, which used superheated steam. These locomotives were meant for power at speed. This is the era of the 2-8-4 Berkshires, 4-6-4 Hudsons for passenger trains, and 4-8-4 Northerns.
The Northern type is the pinnacle of North American locomotive development: fast, powerful and useful for both freight and passenger service.
Of course many railroads also used Mallet or articulated locomotives like the UP Challenger. These were ususally railways with steep grades or mountain profiles like the Baltimore & Ohio or the Union Pacific. The Union Pacific always had a thing for giant locomotives. They even ordered massive 6600 hp DDA-40X diesel locomotives in the 1960's to the same work the Challenger did: haul massive trains over the Rockies.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chiltern_hundred
Shipmate
# 13659
|
Posted
What I find curious, SPK, is that, although the countries are of comparable sizes, Canadian locomotives seem to have been smaller than their US counterparts and Canada never seems to have gone in for gigantic freight locos comparable to "Big Boy" and the like. Any reason for this?
I have to say that the Canadian steam locos of which I have seen photos are also more elegant.
--------------------
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
Posts: 691 | From: Duck City, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
We did have a 4-6-4 in Britain, the LNER W1 No. 10000. It was designed by Sir Nigel Gresley as an experimental water-tube boiler locomotive, then rebuilt in the 1930s with a conventional boiler and an A4-type front-end. It would have been an impressive machine, and had a grate area I think higher than am other British loco except I think the LNER’s U1 2-8-8-2 ‘Garrett’ built for the Worsborough incline banking duties.
Stanier on the LMS also might have produced a 4-6-4 that was basically an extended ‘Coronation’ 4-6-2 and would probably need to have been mechanically stoked due to its huge (by British standards!) firebox. But WW2 prevented such developments.
Anyone interested in Russian steam? They had, I think, the world’s largest non-articulated loco, with 12 coupled wheels. My favourites are the ‘S’ and ‘Su’ class 2-6-2s, but then my British favourite class is Gresley’s V2 2-6-2.
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
I stand to be corrected on this one, but it sticks in my mind that, during the Stalin era, the Russians tried building a 4-14-4, with the inevitable track-straightening problems such a long fixed wheelbase brought in its wake. In spite of having several (I think 3) wheelsets flangeless, it was extremely competent at mashing pointwork, when it stayed on the track, that is.
There is also a picture in my collection of the one Garratt locomotive that Beyer Peacock built for Russia. At first sight, it looks fairly ordinary, until you realise the height of the chimney above the boiler is misleading. Then you realise that it must have been amongst the physically largest Garratts ever built (though not the most powerful).
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
Sorry to double post, but memory was correct ~ this should take you to information on the engine in question.
Incidentally, for those of us who are impressed by vain human endeavour, Douglas Self's Museum of Retrotech (from whence comes the information) is fascinating ... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Canada's population is far more spread out than the US, in the sense that the present 30 million Canadians occupy a land area that is about the same as the US, which is nearing 300 million. In the late steam era, the population was less than 15 million.
So the trains were correspondingly smaller and/or slower and/or less frequent. Moncton, for example, had the central shops for the Maritimes, and sat at the focus of the through Main Line from Halifax westward, the NTR line also westward, the Saint John connector and connections to at least seven branch lines. But the public timetable only showed 28 passenger trains a day at most (not counting extras). Some of those only ran two or three times a week.
CN inherited a huge network of trackage, almost all of which was lightly built - the main lines were often only 85 lb. rail, so CN had to have fairly light locomotives spread out along the track. Their Northerns (4-8-4) were among the lightest of their group (Ontario Northland had the lightest, ISTM), with an axle-loading of 30 tons max. CP had better mainline track (they had a 20-year head start) and could haul the same loads with Pacifics and Hudsons.
Out west, the flat Prairies allowed Pacifics to haul 70 freight cars or more.
And CN had the easiest crossing of the Rockies, so fairly light 2-10-2s could handle full trains. CP had two much steeper climbs (Kicking Horse and Rogers passes) but still manged with 2-10-4s that were the biggest locomotives in the British Empire but which were fairly small by comparison to Challengers and Big Boys.
The British influence probably contributed to more "style" in visual design, some of which was actually rather unattractive. But the average look was tidy and reasonably well-proportioned (ignoring oddities like CPs D4g class or the rebuilds like #29)
I offer CN 5703 marred by an unfortunate smoke deflector, and CN 6200
Of course, given our weather , looks may not matter!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
I stand to be corrected on this one, but it sticks in my mind that, during the Stalin era, the Russians tried building a 4-14-4, with the inevitable track-straightening problems such a long fixed wheelbase brought in its wake. In spite of having several (I think 3) wheelsets flangeless, it was extremely competent at mashing pointwork, when it stayed on the track, that is.
It's a monster isn't it. All the other best oddities are on this site, including the Listowel & Ballybunion Railway, which used the Lartigue monorail system. Amazingly, a part of that has been restored and is run most of the summer and by arrangement outside the season.
[ 11. September 2009, 22:38: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
What I find curious, SPK, is that, although the countries are of comparable sizes, Canadian locomotives seem to have been smaller than their US counterparts and Canada never seems to have gone in for gigantic freight locos comparable to "Big Boy" and the like. Any reason for this?
I have to say that the Canadian steam locos of which I have seen photos are also more elegant.
British locomotives were known for their clean lines and for keeping their equipment inside; furthermore they didn't have knuckle or Janney couplers or headlights. Also ISTM that British railways didn't go in for 'gadgets' like North American lines did. Boosters, cow-catchers, brake pumps, headlights, generators and feedwater heaters.
North American locomotives tend let all the equipment "hang out", a feature we're known for in comparison to Britain. The CPR went in for semi-streamlining in the 1930's which combined with their maroon on black accent scheme for steamlined steam gave their locomotives a very British look.
This picture shows a non-streamlined CPR 2-10-4 Selkirk from 1929. It's typical of large North American locomotives with a booster. This image shows the streamlined version of the Selkirk. to my eyes it looks very British.
In contrast to Canada, the Union Pacific has a 3-track mainline through Nebraska to Salt Lake City on the Overland Route, the original Transcontinental Railroad. This line diverges at Salt Lake City to Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, so it has always been heavily trafficked. Hence the penchant for Challengers, Big Boys and other monster power. The other railways to operate Challengers and other similar articulated designs were Western transcon haulers like the Northern Pacific and Southern Pacific with heavy grades through the Rockies, or eastern coal lines like the Chesapeake & Ohio or Norfolk & Western. They ran heavy coal trains though the Appalachians.
The Southern Pacific which operated the Overland Route west of Salt Lake City over Donner Pass and had a good number of tunnels and snow sheds on the line. They used Cab-Foward articulated steam locomotives so the crew wouldn't suffocate in the enclosed spaces.
Like Horseman Bree said, the Canadian lines were more lightly trafficked than the American ones. CN's Yellowhead Pass is the lowest trancontinental rail crossing in either country; CP's in the highest. Railways that favoured articulated locomotives generally wanted to haul heavy trains over tough grades without paying for double-heading. Thus the choices of the N&W, Chessie and Union Pacific.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
I'm thinking that the 'clean lines' of British steam locomotives had more to do with a lack of available space than anything else ~ the restricted British loading gauge meant that there was never the room for mounting things like feed water heaters and steam turbo-generators, which is why they saw very little use in this country.
There was also the Victorian predeliction for hiding things out of sight, which had dire implications for maintenance. Consider the implications of oiling-up the inside big ends of a typical Victorian British 4-4-0, a wheel arrangement widely used on Express Passenger work. Almost all British 4-4-0 classes had inside cylinders, frequently with Stephenson valve gear. Count the obstructions on the crank axle ~ that's two cranks and 4 eccentrics. Add the axleboxes to that and you have a very crowded axle. It's getting difficult to allow adequate bearing surfaces in the space available. It is also unavoidable that you need a pit between the rails just to reach the oil cups. Not a happy state of affairs. It is small wonder that certain classes of British locomotive were notorious for hot bearings.
And the problem became more accute as loco's grew bigger. Anybody who has seen King George V at the National Railway Museum and has gone down into the pit will know what I mean ~ that crank axle is very congested. And that is with Walschaert's valve gear and only one eccentric per cylinder. I now understand why the GWR 4 cylinder locomotives all had Walschaert's gear where all the other GWR engines used Stephenson ~ there simply wasn't the room for the eccentrics on the crank axle.
Now, if Churchward and Collett had done as Stanier did with his 4 cylinder locomotives and used outside valve gear, the problem would have gone away. But outside valve gear was all but unacceptable in Churchward's day, and tradition spoke against it by Collett's, with the results we see.
But, it is interesting to speculate upon how things might have turned out had the GWR main line been built in 1830, not 1835. Had the broad gauge become established that much earlier, would other Engineers have adopted it? Just think how different British locomotive engineering practice might have been had we had the larger loading gauge associated with the broad gauge.
Such a pity ...
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
<snip>
But, it is interesting to speculate upon how things might have turned out had the GWR main line been built in 1830, not 1835. Had the broad gauge become established that much earlier, would other Engineers have adopted it? Just think how different British locomotive engineering practice might have been had we had the larger loading gauge associated with the broad gauge.
Such a pity ...
Ah, if onlies . . .
About 30 years ago I saw an "if only" model railway of a 1930's Great Western main line as if it was still broad gauge (7’ 0½” gauge). The stock was of similar overall dimensions, just a little broader, but the point that sticks was that with the extra stability, higher speeds would be almost routine! You wouldn't have to break conjugated valve gear to travel at 126 mph, just devise a mechanical stoker to shift enough coal to a much wider firebox that in turn provides heat for a boiler that could heat a small town.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
Horseman,
Something I really have to ask, are you sure about that maximum axle load of 30 tons? It seems immensely heavy (OK, by UK standards) for 85lb rail. Point is, at the time indicated, the Bridge Stress committee had just reported in this country and, as a result of their work, it was agreed that the maximum permissable axle load could be raised to 22.5 tons, but only for well-balanced, 4-cylinder locomotives ~ which led to the introduction of the Kings on the GWR.
At the time, most of the railways in this country observed an axle load limit of 20 tons, frequently less. Significant parts of the old Cambrian system would only accept locomotives up to 16 tons axle load (Mid-Wales route through Llanidloes and Rhayader to Brecon). Admittedly, it was found that certain classes of locomotive imposed far greater dynamic loadings on the track ('hammer blow') than their static load would suggest ~ the George V class of the old LNWR were particularly notorious in this respect: 19 tons static axle load, 33 tons at 60 mph.
Given that UK main lines in the 1930's were laid on rather heavier rail than many, the idea of 30 tons on 85lb rail seems anything other than light. Or are we just talking light-by-North-American-standards?
Sioni
As you said, ifonlies! The notion of a broad-gauge GWR in the 1930's poses the question whether Collett would have introduced a locomotive with a trailing truck of some sort to carry the sort of firebox you suggest. It would appear that he thought a Pacific superfluous to the needs of the GWR (hence his conversion of The Great Bear) and Hawksworth, though there is evidence that design work was started on a Pacific, never built one either. But, had there been the need for a wide firebox, one cannot help wondering whether they would have leaned towards a Pacific or a Hudson?
Idle speculation, all of it!
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
As you said, ifonlies! The notion of a broad-gauge GWR in the 1930's poses the question whether Collett would have introduced a locomotive with a trailing truck of some sort to carry the sort of firebox you suggest. It would appear that he thought a Pacific superfluous to the needs of the GWR (hence his conversion of The Great Bear) and Hawksworth, though there is evidence that design work was started on a Pacific, never built one either. But, had there been the need for a wide firebox, one cannot help wondering whether they would have leaned towards a Pacific or a Hudson?
Idle speculation, all of it!
I am definitely going to have to build a time machine to "correct" history!
Rob
><>
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure about the 30-ton axle load. Bridges wouldn't be a problem; the railways routinely overdesigned their bridges by massive amounts. Hence live-loads have never been much of a problem in North America.
Even the Delaware & Hudson in upstate New York owned Challengers.
Are you sure that some of the light loading is not a result of the UK use of vacuum brakes? North America standardized on Westinghouse air brakes in the 1870's.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
Interesting question, SPK. I think, though, that the restricted maximum axle loads in this country had more to do with inadequate formations and poorly laid (for which read, 'cheap') track than the braking systems used. Whilst the 3 of the Big 4 companies (post 1923) used vacuum brakes, it is worth bearing in mind that a number of pre-grouping companies used Westinghouse (or similar) brakes.
Could the pattern of rail used be of greater significance? Until relatively recently, most of the UK railway system was laid in bullhead rail, which required chairs to hold it upright and a high level of regular maintenance if the track was not to disintegrate, but which did not lend itself to high localised loadings anything like as well as flat-bottomed rail. Am I right in thinking that most of the railways in North America were laid using flat-bottomed rail? This might be why high axle loads were acceptable.
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Flat-bottomed T-rail is standard in North America, with the rail held to the cross-ties by spikes. This method has been standard since the 1850's, so we likely have an answer.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I suspect that the bull-head rail was actually quite flexible, since the web (the vertical bit between the head and the base) of British bull-head was somewhat thicker than the North American standard, presumably to compensate. The rounded base was needed because of fitting into the chairs and was only about 2.5 inches wide, while the flat base of 85-lb Candian rail was 5.2 inches - and that was supported full width of tie rather than just in the chair. So a lot of the weight went into preventing wriggle, rather than supporting imposed weight.
Once the money crunch eased up in the 1960's, bull-head was totally replaced by flat bottom in UK.
BTW, you also have to remember that the trains were/are hugely different in trailing weight - a big passenger train in England is 400 tons. A steam-era 18-coach Ocean Limited would run at about 1500 tons plus 300 for the loco, and would require steam heat from the locomotive - hence the larger firebox (84 sq. ft. on a CN Northern). No question about mechanical stokers! Speeds not that great - 24 hrs. for 840 miles, Halifax to Montreal - but all single track with passing sidings and all movements/meets coordinated by telegraph and written orders. Another reason for the big, infrequent trains.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
OK, so that makes it possible (and more than possible) that CN were operating a 30 ton axle load, but you described this as light. What on earth was 'heavy' on this footing?
I was aware of the fact that train loads were significantly heavier than we were used to in this country but then, as you said, how else could trains be operated on what was predominantly single track? You either have to run light, frequent trains with short distances between passing loops or, if this is impractical (which, with the distances involved, it has to be) you have to run infrequent, seriously heavy, trains.
In this country, the heaviest trains were mostly coal trains, running to about 1000 to 1200 tons, hauled by 2-8-0's (mostly), loose coupled and unbraked, which meant that speeds were low. Braking on coal trains is a modern phenomenon in this country. In the 1930's, the train crew would have had the brakes on the engine and the Guard's brake van. Any other braking they required was available only by stopping the train and pinning down the brakes manually on individual wagons. In turn, this meant stopping at the top of any significant incline to pin down brakes, then stopping again at the bottom to release them.
Add to this the fun implicit in loose coupling of the wagons, and the trains must have been a real nightmare to operate. From that perspective alone, it is small wonder that we never operated seriously heavy trains in this country.
And, in case anybody should ask why, the reason was the scourge of the Operating Department, the Private Owner Wagon. A large proportion of the coal trucks circulating the railways in this country belonged to the colliery of origin. No colliery was going to go to the expense of fitting power brakes to its wagons if it could get away without them ...
Which has a lot to do with why the Railways in this country were found to be uneconomic in the aftermath of Nationalisation. Granted, it wasn't quite that simple ~ government restrictions on how the railway companies could spend their money had had a lot to do with it and the lack of restrictions on road hauliers completed the picture.
I shall have to stop there before I start to rant. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Once the money crunch eased up in the 1960's, bull-head was totally replaced by flat bottom in UK.
Not totally by any means. There is plenty of it still around. IIRC the London Underground has a lot of it.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
No one has yet mentioned that oddity among railways, the funicular railway, which features two cars that operate in tandem to asend and descend steep hills.
One of the most famous is the Angels Flight in Los Angeles, which operated during the first half of the 20th century, was abandoned in 1969, reconstructed and reopened in 1996 as a tourist attraction, closed again in 2001 after a fatal accident, and so far as I know remains closed (I haven't been to L.A. in a while).
Angels Flight was special in that it used a single three-railed track which parted in the center of the line so that ascending and descending cars could pass each other.
Pittsburgh, once the site of dozens of funicular railways, retains two that (again, so far as I know) operate to this day: the Monongahela Incline and the Duquesne Incline.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) streetcars.
Yes indeed! San Francisco still has "old style" working streetcar lines (with tracks in the traffic lanes) and employs the original lovingly restored cars from abandoned lines in many cities.
And, of course, there's New Orleans.
Philadelphia was one of the last cities to abandon "old style" lines. These are all gone now, although I believe in some cases the tracks and even the overhead wires remain in place. I understand the Girard Avenue line recently reopened. I don't know if it remains open -- I haven't been to Philadelphia in ages.
Many cities are seeing a rebirth of streetcars in the form of light rail, but the cars run on right-of-way segregated from the street traffic lanes. San Diego and, most recently, Phoenix are examples. Fun, but not the real thing in my mind.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
No one has yet mentioned that oddity among railways, the funicular railway, which features two cars that operate in tandem to asend and descend steep hills.
On this side of the pond, there are two in Scarborough that I remember from a very young age. Bridgnorth in Shropshire (terminus of the Severn Valley line) has one too, between the lower and higher town.
Italy has lots. There are several in Genova (aka Genoa) including one that goes up for miles out into the suburban countryside.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
On an ecclesiastical note, Mont St Michel used to have a funicular: the slope can still be seen (and very steep it is too: more like an outdoor lift).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Darllenwyr: The preference was always for heavier, longer trains, to reduce the number of meets on single track, especially in the telegraph era, when messages about changes of plan had to be telegraphed to the local station and written out in triplicate, so that copies could be handed up to the engineer and the conductor (guard). Another complication was that the track switches were operated by the crew of the train - no central control on most lines until quite recently - so the process of moving into the siding was slow.
But, again, the population was thinly spread. In the first 600 miles out of Halifax (equivalent to London - Inverness), the total population anywhere near the Main Line was much less than one million, and most were engaged in scratch farming or other pursuits which didn't allow for much travel. So a few big-name trains could handle the through traffic to the ports.
The rairoads that had the big traffic used much heavier rail, up to 132 lb in the 1920's.
"Heavy" is relative. A Norfolk & Western class J 4-8-4 weighed 494000 lb, compared to a CN U2's 383000 lb. The tenders were, respectively, 379000 lbs and 281000 lbs, both on 6 axles, which means that the "small" CN tender weighed more than most locos + tenders in England.
Angloid: the advantage of bull-head and chairs is easy rail changes, which is a huge advantage in the Tube lines (where axle-load isn't the problem)
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I streetcars.
Yes indeed! San Francisco still has "old style" working streetcar lines (with tracks in the traffic lanes) and employs the original lovingly restored cars from abandoned lines in many cities.
And, of course, there's New Orleans.
Philadelphia was one of the last cities to abandon "old style" lines. These are all gone now, although I believe in some cases the tracks and even the overhead wires remain in place. I understand the Girard Avenue line recently reopened. I don't know if it remains open -- I haven't been to Philadelphia in ages.
Many cities are seeing a rebirth of streetcars in the form of light rail, but the cars run on right-of-way segregated from the street traffic lanes. San Diego and, most recently, Phoenix are examples. Fun, but not the real thing in my mind.
Toronto's system is classic street-traction operation like San Francisco's and Philadelphia's. The TTC's streetcars are the size of a bus and operate in the same fashion in a stop-and-go manner with a pull rope to request a stop.
When Toronto replaced its PCC streetcars (the kind Philadelphia has) with newer units, it tried to get a joint deal with Boston and Philly going. It didn't work out and it went alone and built the CLRV's in the late 1970's. The articulated ALRV's came along in the early 1980's.
Toronto just ordered the next generation to replaced the CLRV's. Bombardier is making the cars.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The Norfolk and Western J class mentioned by Horseman Bree was a magnificent locomotive. It used lots of devices to make the life of crew easier, and which also prolonged the useful life of the locomotives themselves. Further, it was serviced in modern facilities, and thus could be turned around in little longer than a diesel. With coal a major freight for Norfolk and Western, it is no wonder that the J class had useful life.
Finally. it looked superb.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
On the subject of funicular railways/tramways, my favourite has to be the Great Orme Tramway, in Llandudno, north Wales.
It may not be quite as steep as the others mentioned, but it's more scenic and even features street running
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
The Lynton/Lynmouth cliff railway is pretty good - like going up and down in a green ferny cavern. Mind you, it's not so good for exciting trainspotting: they sell a card locally which shows a man writing down on his pad "This one ... that one ... this one ...".
For excitement travel in the front of a Docklands train going into Bank. You think you're going into Tower Gateway, then suddenly you lurch to the left and go over what seems like a precipice into the tunnel ... You got that going into Queen Street (High Level)in Glasgow, too, at least when they had trains you could see out the front of!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Sioni Sais says: On an ecclesiastical note, Mont St Michel used to have a funicular.
So does St. Michael's Mount in Cornwall, although it's never been a passenger line and runs mostly in a tunnel.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
Horseman: interesting your mention of the signalling methods used ~ I doubt that any other method would have been practical, though it is of interest to note that the same method was implicated in a head-on collision in this country.
This link (Thorpe accident ) gives some information on the incident, which was written up in detail in LTC Rolt's book "Red for Danger". The gist of it was that the mistakes were made at shift change time. The procedure was for Inspectors to give written instructions to their Telegraph Clerk regarding train movements. These were communicated to the next stations in each direction. The significant point was that no instruction was to be transmitted until the Inspector had signed it, and the signature was transmitted by the Telegraph Clerk as proof of his authority.
On the day in question, the one Inspector, Parker was still on duty (for some reason) when the other Inspector (Cooper) gave the instruction for the Mail train to be sent on from Norwich to him. Unfortunately, Parker had just given the driver of a train at Brundell the authority to proceed. Now, here is the interesting part. Cooper had not signed his instruction, but the Telegraph Clerk transmitted it as "Signed B. Cooper"
One very loud bang near Yare Bridge.
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
