PRR 1948 Richmond IN

rhensley_anderson Nov 12, 2016

  1. rhensley_anderson

    rhensley_anderson TrainBoard Supporter

    1,339
    682
    37
    John Pickett writes: "Richmond Station with shed, probably taken in 1948. East bound Penn Texas arriving Track 1 - passing westbound diesel fuel towers.
    Photo by John Pickett

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Hytec

    Hytec TrainBoard Member

    11,066
    1,148
    141
    Interesting photo. An A-B lash up of Es implies a lengthy heavy train. What was the route of the Texas?
     
  3. Hardcoaler

    Hardcoaler TrainBoard Member

    2,896
    3,703
    61
    I think the Penn Texas was a New York <=> San Antonio/Houston/San Antonio, TX train, offered in concert with the MoPac/T&P via St. Louis, MO.
     
  4. acptulsa

    acptulsa TrainBoard Member

    1,215
    415
    23
    Basically correct.

    In fact, it was a PRR streamliner on the St. Louis route which carried through sleepers for Texas. These were transfered to both the MoPac's Texas Eagle (for both El Paso via D/FW and for Houston) and the Katy/Frisco Texas Special (the San Antonio car, also via Dallas). Later the through sleepers were discontinued, but the Penn-Texas operated under that name until 1969 anyway.

    Nice pic! The short heavyweight baggage with the rounded-off roof is an interesting car.
     
    Hardcoaler likes this.
  5. Point353

    Point353 TrainBoard Member

    1,583
    352
    28
  6. acptulsa

    acptulsa TrainBoard Member

    1,215
    415
    23
    The brouhaha that led to these through Pullman runs was actually pretty interesting--as is Robert R. Young.

    I think this bit of rabble-rousing is particularly funny. This appeared in St. Louis papers. The people of St. Louis could catch a train to just about anywhere. Why would they be upset if New Yorkers going to California, or Pennsylvanians going to Texas, had to change Pullman cars in St. Louis? Didn't that just give them a chance to spend their tourist dollars in town?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2016
  7. Hytec

    Hytec TrainBoard Member

    11,066
    1,148
    141
    The Penn Texas routing and consists are interesting. What's more interesting is the cooperation between railroads at the height of the passenger train era.
     
    BoxcabE50 likes this.
  8. rhensley_anderson

    rhensley_anderson TrainBoard Supporter

    1,339
    682
    37
    November 1950
    John Pickett writes: "The T-1 that I rode behind from Dayton area on Nov 1, 1950 pulling Jeffersonian, all coach NY to St Louis. No diesel fueling towers needed that day. Track 3. 9th Street curved to right going north as seen in extreme left of picture in Richmond.
    Photo by John Pickett

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Hytec

    Hytec TrainBoard Member

    11,066
    1,148
    141
    The T-1 was a lovely efficient high speed locomotive, pity it came so late in the steam era.
     
    Hardcoaler likes this.
  10. acptulsa

    acptulsa TrainBoard Member

    1,215
    415
    23
    They were wonderful heavy passenger engines. Maybe the best this nation has ever seen--steam or diesel. But they couldn't compete with the Northern type in freight.

    They had more tractive effort than a 4-4-2 Atlantic type, but you had to work like the devil to get it. First one set of drivers would slip, then the other. And, as we all know, passenger service may have gotten publicity, but freight service paid the bills!

     
  11. Hytec

    Hytec TrainBoard Member

    11,066
    1,148
    141
    Had PRR's T-1 Engineering team incorporated an inside crank between the two driver sets, coupling the front and rear engines together, the slippage problem would not have existed. European locomotive manufacturers had been using this technique successfully with multi-engine locomotives since the late 1920's.
     
  12. acptulsa

    acptulsa TrainBoard Member

    1,215
    415
    23
    Very true. But I see why they didn't. The big idea was to create a locomotive with the power of a Northern that didn't have any more augment than an Atlantic. It was impossible to perfectly counterbalance wheels because no matter how much weight you used to counterbalance, as soon as you opened the throttle or closed the throttle, the balance was off. They weren't just counterbalancing the weight of the rods, they were trying to counterbalance the piston thrust, too. But piston thrust wasn't constant. Pistons that huge could have no thrust, or massive thrust.

    The duplexes didn't just have lighter rod assemblies, they had much smaller pistons. They didn't have anywhere near as much maximum piston thrust, so the fact that they couldn't change the counterbalance weight to adjust when they opened or closed the throttle didn't matter so much. The cranks between axles didn't have that problem. They were fairly easy to counterbalance. But when the whole idea behind the experimental engine is to make it run more smoothly than anything else that size, you can see how a mechanical engineer would hate the idea of sticking an extra crank in there. It doesn't make it more smooth. You're right that they should have done it. But you can see why they didn't.

    Doesn't matter to me. Let diesels be freight hogs. They have the right hog grunt anyway. I wish the duplexes had served longer just in passenger service. I'm jealous of people old enough to have actually seen one.
     
    Rocket Jones likes this.
  13. Hytec

    Hytec TrainBoard Member

    11,066
    1,148
    141
    Thanks for a very logical, and probably accurate, response. I'm sure the chief engineer didn't think there was much possibility of single engine slippage, so saw no benefit from a crank.

    I'm sorry to learn that you may be jealous of me, but I had an up close and personal meeting with a T-1 at the Englewood, IL station platform in 1946. The westbound NYC Commodore Vanderbilt was running late and we were going to miss our connection with the RI/SP Golden State. So the Central dropped us off at Englewood and contacted RI to pick us up. While waiting, this BIG BEAUTIFUL T-1 drifted by on the other track serving our platform....WOW!
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2016
    Rocket Jones likes this.
  14. rhensley_anderson

    rhensley_anderson TrainBoard Supporter

    1,339
    682
    37
    Early 1950s, last Richmond photo...
    Until now, I didn't realize there is conductor or someone in uniform shadowing the fueler. I believe this picture was taken from the small tower that stood at the 9th crossing. My mother grew-up a few hundred yards away directly behind this picture on what she calls short 9th in Richmond. The house is still there - white with green trim. - Joe Iacuone
    Photo by John Pickett

    [​IMG]
     
    acptulsa likes this.
  15. Hytec

    Hytec TrainBoard Member

    11,066
    1,148
    141
    What luck to have a PA and a DL-109 (I think?) side-by-side. Great photo.
     
  16. acptulsa

    acptulsa TrainBoard Member

    1,215
    415
    23
    Even rarer--a sharknose Baldwin! What did they call those? DR 6-4-2000 or DR 6-4-1000/2 or something like that.

    That pic definitely show how long they are! Looks longer compared to the PA than either an E or a DL-109.

    Photos of those things in action are so rare I used to wonder if they were scrapped five days after they were delivered...
     
  17. Hytec

    Hytec TrainBoard Member

    11,066
    1,148
    141
    Is this the engine you're referring to......?

    Shame that ALCO didn't have the marketing expertise that GM/EMD had, or ALCO might still be in the business.

    [​IMG]
     
    acptulsa likes this.
  18. acptulsa

    acptulsa TrainBoard Member

    1,215
    415
    23
    Yeah, those beasts. Love those trucks, whether they're under those, ALCOs or Erie-Built F-Ms.

    I suspect ALCO's mistake was not either switching to Westinghouse, or developing their own electrical shop. Seems like the 251 was a reliable enough diesel--they were produced for stationary applications until very recently--but their last locomotives were not reliable. Leads me to believe GE got tired of the competition, and started supplying them with electrical gear only Lucas Electric could be proud of.

    Maybe I'm wrong. I'd love to hear if I am. But I can't help but think the problem was that alternator-rectifier drive. Nothing like depending on a revolutionary technology which is being developed by a supplier which also happens to be a major competitor...

    Anyway, I'm amazed Baldwin stuck so stubbornly to that VO prime mover. They lived by it, and they died by it. Neat photo. Didn't expect to ever see two of those cab units working together. They had lots of boosters on that pattern.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  19. Paul Bender

    Paul Bender TrainBoard Member

    176
    1
    20
    I know this is an older thread, but I had to comment on something interesting...

    That car on the right hand edge of the photo is exceedingly rare to find in in service photographs. It is one of only 4 PRR Cascade series 10-5 sleepers that were painted to match the Texas Special or the Meteor from 1948 to 1950.

    The Texas Special cars ( "Cascade Meadow" and "Cascade Range" ) were painted to match The Texas Special from May 1948 until sometime in 1950. In 1950, the two cars were replaced with 10-6 sleepers "Swatara Rapids" and "Tioga Rapids". The two Rapids series cars were apparently in standard PRR colors until May 1953 when they were finally shadowlined. In November 1956, the cars were repainted red and imitation aluminum without the shadowlining. Both cars were repainted to standard PRR colors in 1960 (the service on the Texas Special was discontinued in 1958). These cars all had Texas Special script lettering in the letterboard.

    The Meteor cars ( "Cascade Brim" and "Cascade Ravine" ) were painted to match the Meteor from May 1948 to early 1950. Service on the Meter ended late in 1949. These cars had PENNSYLVANIA in the letterboards.

    Another thing I find interesting is that the shadowline car is probably deadheading. TRRA documentation indicates the through sleepers were the last 6 cars on the train in 1948 ( there were two cars for the Frisco and 4 cars for the MoPac ).
     
    Kurt Moose likes this.

Share This Page