Photos taken Winter, 1947-1948, before construction of the Major Deegan Expressway. This was the south end of the Highbridge Yard, fbs major yard and freight-car transfer point for the Putnam Division. Is the locomotive ex-Niagra Jc.?
These were the Q class on the New York Central. Built in March of 1926 by Alco-GE originally numbered 1250-1256 and in August of '36 renumbered to 150-156. I believe they spent their entire careers on the third-rail area of the New York Electrified Division. The group was scrapped between October and December of 1955.
The R motors were assigned to the Detroit River Tunnel. They were built in three groups in 1910, '14 and 1926. They were numbered 7500-7511 then to 160-171 in 1936. Three were scrapped in 1953 and the remainder in 1956.
Visually, the “hoods” were slightly smaller on the R motors. I don’t believe any of the Niagara Junction locomotives were ever operated in New York City area by NYCRR other than three (401, 402, 403) that were sold to Metro North in 1980.
Regards, Ed
The Qs not equipped with boilers and used only for freight and switching, but the Rs with train boilers?
No, no boilers or steam heat in the Rs. My understanding is that the road power was often left tied on to the train and the motors coupled on to the head end and yanked the whole train through the tunnel? Perhaps others can fill in the details.
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/ge-mcrr.pdf
The S motors didn’t have steam apparatus, either, but the NYC had about a dozen steam heat trailers that were sometimes used with them until the Ts came along with boilers.
The Detroit motors were efficient but the crew size made profitability a near impossibility [:-^]
MCRR_Detroit by Edmund, on Flickr
Regards, Ed
For fun, here’s an ‘urban archaeology’ pass through the Lost Engines of Glenmont.
http://prr4ever.blogspot.com/2012/02/12-02-04-photos-s-is-for-s-motor.html?m=1
Note that he asserts the S class had train boilers as built but does not note any indication where the equipment might have been located, presumably electrical as there is no evident room for water or fuel tankage – as there prominently is on the Ts.
The situation on the roughly contemporary DD1s was amusing: they were built with a funky sort of miniature electrical flash boiler, which appears to have been quickly removed with nothing provided to substitute. We have had threads on how the NYC provided heat to various things operating on or through the electrified part of the system, and by extension PRR first with the Ls and then the O, P, and R explicitly designed for long distance. (The GG1 of course was famously designed with an oil-fired flash boiler…)
In passing he notes that Niagara Junction motors were explicitly brought in to retire the last of the S motors in GCT switching of what by then was Conrail commuter equipment. I remember seeing what had to be 115 switching in 1981, still quiet and effective – it was as unexpected as seeing a ghost.
The two photos were taken from an eastbound streetcar on the W181st “Washington” Bridge, used by the O, U, X-f 167th St., and Z. lines. probably riding an X, wiating behind a line of cars for the light change at the east end of the bridge, which was a five-way intersection, with active dual streetcar tracks on three of the four streets, plus the bridge. Probably taken through the window glass. Correction, the O, U, and Z had been converted to bus by the time of the photo, with only the X still crossing the bridge, so I muat have been on an X - 167th Street Crosstown.
I would never guess you could get that low an angle from that bridge, which is enormously high most of its span.
https://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=newyork/washington/
My mymory may be in error, but I did have a telephoto lens to use in those days. Ig probably uaws ir. And it may have been a fantirp car and not a regular 167X.
Tje High Bridge itself is, of course, higher than the Washington Bridge.
I think that for our purposes the difference may be less than you think.
The ‘height’ given in bridge stats is for the underside of the arch to the river, which is 6’ different in favor of the aqueduct bridge – although it then becomes relevant to ask if this is the steel replacement span or the shallower-spandrel masonry arch height. (I believe the channel is tidal in the whole range between bridges, so fall should not be an issue.) Remember that your picture would be from higher deck elevation, and if the Washington Bridge spandrels are deeper, as they may be, the difference in deck height may reduce to no more than a couple of feet.
If someone more patient than I can actually produce physical deck height measurements – I know these exist for the Washington Bridge as I have seen the equivalents for the George and Martha bridges – we could have precise values of just how much higher ‘High Bridge’ is. But it might not be all that much…
What I wondered is if some of the tracks at that point might be much higher in elevation than down under the arch where the actual mains pass under, I think to the west of where the Deegan would run. There is a dramatic increase in ground elevation on the east end of the span before you reach the east abutment…
The construction of the Major Deegan, which I believe resulted in the removal of all but the two main tracks on the left at this point (by all means correct me if I am wrong on this) makes it difficult to judge what the elevations of all the tracks were at the time of the photo.
I find it difficult to imagine that I could have taken the photo, even at age 15-16, from anywhere but the interior of a streetcar in such cold weather.
Looking at satellite image, North of Washington Bridge there is the 3 track mainline with 3rd rail. South of the bridge there are also 1-3 sidings for MOW cars, and south of Highbridge there is the Highbridge yard with a large MetroNorth coach maintenance building, which I guess took the place of Mott Haven yard.
The sidings south of Washington Bridge no longer have third rail?
The sidings where the MOW gondolas were stored did not have 3rd rail as seen by satellite view (3rd rail stands out in the sat view). Of course the tracks around the coach facility had 3rd rails.
I have to speak up about this. Not all of the R motors were scrapped by 1956. Ten of them were sold to South Shore. Six were rebuilt for service by 1958 and one more was rebuilt in 1968. The three remaining hulks were scrapped in 1970 and the seven that were rebuilt were sold for scrap in 1976.
I was making reference to the original (1910-1914) Detroit Tunnel R-1b motor. My mistake for not making that distinction.
NYC_motor_R1b by Edmund, on Flickr
Then, of course there was the R-A pair followed by the R-2s of which there were 42 built between December, 1930 and June of '31. Yes, ten of those (303; 308; 314; 318; 334; 335; 340; 341; 342; 343) were sold to the South Shore in '55.
Thanks, Ed
Worthwhile information. Thanks!
Just to keep things interesting, I found out on one of the other threads that the pantographs on South Shore’s R2’s came from P-motors that were rebuilt for third-rail pickup when they went from Cleveland to New York City.
They must have rewound the motors. 760 - 1500 - 3000 no problem
600 - 1200 - 2400 no problem
but 600 - 1500?
As I recall, simpler than that; they just swapped those with P-motors too. Was a quiz question a while back.
On the R2s, that is. The R1d’s would be interesting, if 600 to 750 was too much for the insulation, but I bet we have a couple of people who know.
The only data sheets I can find on the South Shore conversions show GE 286B motors, same as NYC R2s. The CUT P-motors had GE 278C or 755A motors.
As long as the insulation was OK for 750 volts (which it should have been) the 286B motors could be used… The main change would be in the grids. The PC-L control would be virtually unchanged. The P motors had 48" wheels, the R motors 44", but both used standard nose suspension.