| Re: For the Interurban Fan (1220781) | |
|
|
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
| (1223152) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Sat May 18 14:44:12 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Sat May 18 13:15:21 2013. A+ on these photos.chud1 |
|
| (1223159) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat May 18 15:07:19 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Sat May 18 13:15:21 2013. great stuff, thanks.your pal, Fred |
|
| (1223378) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun May 19 13:04:08 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by chud1 on Sat May 18 14:44:12 2013. Happy to share, but the kudos go to others. |
|
| (Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
| (1223379) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun May 19 13:05:47 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Fred G on Sat May 18 15:07:19 2013. I only gather, you however are out there creating current treasures.My hat is off to you. |
|
| (1223472) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun May 19 16:50:31 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by chud1 on Tue May 14 10:53:19 2013. So, I'm wondering how these would have held up?![]() ![]() NO RUST SHOWING ![]() LOOKS BRAND NEW ![]() I THINK THIS IS BRIDGEPORT ![]() A YARD LAYUP ![]() COMING OR GOING ON PARK AVENUE. ![]() Washboards at Stamford CT. ![]() No idea where this is. |
|
| (1223476) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun May 19 16:58:07 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Sun May 19 16:50:31 2013. The last picture looks like it's near Mott Haven. |
|
| (1223484) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Sun May 19 17:40:14 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Sun May 19 16:50:31 2013. 5 drooling stars out of 5 drooling stars on these pictures. |
|
| (1223493) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun May 19 18:02:41 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Sun May 19 16:50:31 2013. None of those are interurbans. But in a collision between a set of older, lighter Illinois Central EMUs and newer, heavier Highliners, the older EMUs fared better. |
|
| (1223504) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 19 18:45:31 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Sun May 19 16:50:31 2013. Last pic is north of Fordham.Nice shots of the good ol' Washboard 4400s!! :-) |
|
| (1223510) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun May 19 18:58:24 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 19 18:45:31 2013. Used to ride them every now and then back in the 60's in and out of Gunhill. The Bronx locals were pretty raggedy on the inside. :( |
|
| (1223513) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun May 19 19:08:30 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Sun May 19 16:50:31 2013. That is Bridgeport.your pal, Fred |
|
| (1223518) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 19 19:32:33 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by chud1 on Sun May 19 17:40:14 2013. I'm going to need a bigger umbrella what with all these drooling stars in the sky above me . . . |
|
| (1223555) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 19 21:10:02 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 19 18:45:31 2013. Wow, that was Fordham? So dingy. :-( OTOH, nostalgic to see freight service there. Don't think there is much freight service along the Harlem line anymore, no? |
|
| (1223598) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Mon May 20 02:36:29 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 19 19:32:33 2013. get da biggest umbrella u can get, drool, drool.chud1 |
|
| (1223639) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:36:38 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Dave on Sun May 19 16:58:07 2013. I'll take your word on it. I'm just not familiar with that whole ROW.Thanks, any additional information on the cars or locations is always welcome. |
|
| (1223640) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:38:54 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by WillD on Sun May 19 18:02:41 2013. Forgive the title, Electric traction might have been better.Any photos of the collisions available? |
|
| (1223641) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:41:15 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun May 19 18:45:31 2013. Thanks.Did the washboards have a weak or deficient braking system? I seem to remember that that lead to their retirement. |
|
| (1223643) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:42:41 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun May 19 18:58:24 2013. Was that due to excessive mileage and deferred maintenance? |
|
| (1223645) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:46:15 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 19 21:10:02 2013. Trucks, the Interstate system, and companies relocating to the south and China helped close down manufacturing serviced by RR in the north east. |
|
| (1223646) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:47:32 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Fred G on Sun May 19 19:08:30 2013. We have a vote for Mott Haven. |
|
| (1223647) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:49:39 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Fred G on Sun May 19 19:08:30 2013. Was your post confirming the Bridgeport supposition?If so for get the previous response. Thanks |
|
| (1223651) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 12:09:47 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:46:15 2013. You left out increasing taxation and increasing social programs run by "givernment". |
|
| (1223653) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 12:16:19 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by WillD on Sun May 19 18:02:41 2013. Highliners (at 130,000 lbs) heavier than the IC single-deck EMUs? |
|
| (1223655) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 20 12:20:42 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by WillD on Sun May 19 18:02:41 2013. IINM you have the weights reversed. The 1926 IC EMU's were classic heavyweights not light. The Highliners were 1960's products and they were lightweights. The wreck was a very sad case of bad procedure after overshooting the platform. |
|
| (1223660) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 20 12:26:53 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:42:41 2013. My first NH ride from GCT to New Rochelle in 1964 was an eye opener. There was a broken window in the door on the platform side. next to the crack and hole was a printed sticker headlinedVandalism broke this window but the NYNH&H has no funds to repair it. At the timec a regular IC Electric rider I was appalled at the condition of the cars. |
|
| (1223661) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon May 20 12:31:49 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by WillD on Sun May 19 18:02:41 2013. There may have also been mismatched heights between anti-climbers. |
|
| (1223673) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 13:26:29 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:38:54 2013. This series is of more NY NH & H washboards. The astute student will note the washboards are in the back round with the new M-2s.![]() Almost side by side. ![]() Look to the extreme right. A glimpse of some washboards. ![]() Look to the left, in the distance, more washboards. |
|
| (1223675) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 13:39:30 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 12:09:47 2013. Yep, that would be a part of it. |
|
| (1223676) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by asgard on Mon May 20 13:43:17 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Sun May 19 16:50:31 2013. "No rust showing" is one of the parlor cars."Coming or going" is New Haven railroad westbound to Grand Central. "No idea where this is" -- at first I didn't think it was north of Fordham, as was suggested, because the brick building seems to tall to be Fordham Prep. But on further thought, I don't see where else it would be. Above the second and third cars (second and third closest the camera) is what might be the remains of the railing from the Bronx Park terminal station of the Third Avenue el. |
|
| (1223679) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 13:58:53 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by asgard on Mon May 20 13:43:17 2013. Are the windows the giveaway for the polar car?I wasn't sure which direction the Park Ave train was going. It was difficult for me to judge by the horizon. Never having the opportunity to use the Third Ave El, I didn't know it terminated there. Thanks for filling in the blanks. |
|
| (1223680) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon May 20 13:59:26 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by WillD on Sun May 19 18:02:41 2013. Well, what's an interurban ? NICTD theoretically yes, but the cars are identical to the MARC loco-hauled Sumitomo coaches and never ran on the "L". |
|
| (1223685) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by CJ on Mon May 20 14:17:21 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Sun May 19 16:50:31 2013. What about these?
|
|
| (1223692) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan: Freight Handling |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 14:24:30 2013, in response to For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Wed May 8 11:56:05 2013. Interesting article in this book about interurban freight handling and competition faced from both the general railway network (called "steam railroads" here) and the trucking industry (referred to as "motor trucks").
|
|
| (1223694) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 14:28:03 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by Joe V on Mon May 20 13:59:26 2013. the cars are identical to the MARC loco-hauled Sumitomo coachesThe NICTD cars do have center doors. And no, they aren't identical aside to that either. ![]() |
|
| (1223709) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 20 15:34:31 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by Joe V on Mon May 20 13:59:26 2013. These days there is no such thing as an Interurban. NICTD is a commuter railroad per APTA, NTD, and the FTA. It's only amongst rail fans that anyone attempts to draw any sort of distinction between electric commuter rail and the South Shore's operation based entirely on its street running.If there were to be an interurban these days IMHO the Sound Transit Central Link would come close. It lacks FRA regulation, uses a 1500vdc overhead, and may someday connect Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma. |
|
| (1223711) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon May 20 15:41:37 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:41:15 2013. The washboards had essentially the same braking system as the 4500, 4600 and 4700 NYC MUs (the ACMUs) which was a D22MUE system on the washboards and 4500s and a 26CMUE on the later NYC MUs. The 4500s had M-40D brake valves and the washboards and later NYVMUs had M38 brake valves which while not identical essentially performed the same function. The North Shore Electroliners and BMT Multis had an almost identical brake system but an earlier version referred to as AMCE with the Multis having an ME 39 brake valve instead of the M-38. The brake system was essentially an electro pneumatic straight air brake system combined with an automatic brake system in the event of an EP failure. Although this system was the forerunner of the SMEE as used on NYCTS, on those systems, the straight air only functioned in and electro pneumatic mode. If the EP failed, straight air would not apply ant the automatic reduction brake positions on the brake valve would have to be used to stop the train. On the Multis, there was a protection feature that provided an emergency brake application if the straight air pressure did not correspond to what was called for by the position of the brake valve but no such feature existed on any of the RRs' MUs. I was told by an MN employee that at some point a few years ago, the FR outlawed the M-38 and similar brake valves and at least on the 1100 series (former 4600 and 4700) ACMUs, the M-38 brake valves were replaced by 26 type self lapping reduction brake valves like those on the Jersey arrows and SEPTA silverliners which lacked the straight air feature but retained the electro pneumatic feature. Whether that FRA ruling coincided with the removal of the washboards, I don't know, but if there is anyone out there from M/N or is otherwise familiar with any such FRA ruling, feel free to make any additions or corrections to the info I have. |
|
| (1223712) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon May 20 15:46:03 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by WillD on Mon May 20 15:34:31 2013. AFAIK, even back in their heyday, the interurbans were under the jurisdiction of the RR division of the ICC which was the forerunner of the FRA, so federal oversight would not preclude the South Shore from still being classed as an interurban. The other interurbans like the South Shore even carried freight like many commuter RRs. |
|
| (1223714) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon May 20 15:48:25 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 11:49:39 2013. While the photos under the wire could be Bridgeport, the photos with 3rd rail only definitely would not be. |
|
| (1223716) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon May 20 15:50:55 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by WillD on Mon May 20 15:34:31 2013. AFAIK, even back in their heyday, the interurbans were under the jurisdiction of the RR division of the ICC which was the forerunner of the FRA, so federal oversight would not preclude the South Shore from still being classed as an interurban. The other interurbans like the South Shore even carried freight like many commuter RRs. |
|
| (1223742) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon May 20 16:44:06 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 14:28:03 2013. Actually, NICTD trailers (10 of them) lack center doors. |
|
| (1223744) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon May 20 16:45:32 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by WillD on Mon May 20 15:34:31 2013. Tradition continues nonetheless: they cut/add cars at Gary and MC Shops. |
|
| (1223745) | |
Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon May 20 16:47:49 2013, in response to Re: For the Commuter EMU Fan, posted by randyo on Mon May 20 15:46:03 2013. If the North Shore and the Elgin survived, I don't think FRA would have been able to do a thing about them both interchanging freight and jumping on the "L" system because of grandfathering. CTA's cars are of course not FRA compliant, never were. |
|
| (1223751) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by asgard on Mon May 20 17:17:14 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 13:58:53 2013. Right, the double-width windows.The pantographs were at the New York end, which is the easiest way to tell that the train is inbound; also, the east side of Park Avenue is higher than the west side at that point. Bronx Park was a terminal from 1902 until 1951; in 1920 the Webster Avenue extension opened, diverging north of Fordham Road, so that trains could run either to the Bronx Park station or continue up Webster to the junction with the White Plains Road line. Details at Joe Brennan's: http://warofyesterday.blogspot.com/2009/08/botanical-garden.html and http://warofyesterday.blogspot.com/2009/08/botanical-garden-ii.html |
|
| (1223754) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by asgard on Mon May 20 17:36:32 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by CJ on Mon May 20 14:17:21 2013. A quick guess would be the Van Nest shops in the East Bronx. |
|
| (1223762) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon May 20 18:12:38 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by randyo on Mon May 20 15:41:37 2013. Could a Washboard, given that it had WH electricals , MU with LIRR conventional cars when on 3rd rail ? |
|
| (1223781) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 19:30:35 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by asgard on Mon May 20 17:17:14 2013. I have often wondered why RR's chose to have a particular end always in a certain direction, instead of haphazardly. In the case of equipment with pants, to keep them apart in case of a failure of some sort, so the defective one does not, tumble into the next.Same with push-pull sets. there is usually a dedicated end for the power and the cab car. |
|
| (1223783) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 19:40:09 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by CJ on Mon May 20 14:17:21 2013. They appear to be a power car with two pants and a trailer without pants. Both gate car types.First time I've laid my eyes on this type. |
|
| (1223785) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 19:46:15 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by randyo on Mon May 20 15:48:25 2013. I missed that important detail, the third rail. |
|
| (1223788) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan: Freight Handling |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 19:51:57 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan: Freight Handling, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 20 14:24:30 2013. Good read. |
|
| (1223797) | |
Re: For the Interurban Fan |
|
|
Posted by CJ on Mon May 20 20:37:52 2013, in response to Re: For the Interurban Fan, posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 20 19:40:09 2013. I got information from Trains.com that these were built in 1909 by Standard Steel. They weigh 84-88 tons, are 72 feet long, and seat 76-84 passengers. They use four 175hp Westinghouse dc/ac motors. These cars were retired either in 1954 or 1956.Go to this link here and you will see more of these cars as well as their closed platform counter parts. You will even see the wooden http://images.lib.uconn.edu/cdm/search/collection/photographs/searchterm/RRHA/field/all/mode/all/conn/and/page/4 |
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||