If it’s got modern big steam on the head-end and it’s got the appropriate cars, it’s a streamliner.
If it’s got an E, an appropriate F, or PA or even FA diesel on it, and with those self-same appropriate cars, it’s a streamliner.
Same if it’s got the appropriate passenger electrics, BUT…
If it’s got a Geep or any other kind of road-switcher then it’s just another train.
And Becky’s right, none of us O-gaugers can figure out what got into Lionel in the late post-war era!
And I HAVE seen a Class J pulling “extruded aluminum cars!” OK, they were 12" to the foot scale and part of Mighty 611’s excursion consist, but you know what I mean! [:-^]
Exactly! [:D] Why did it take till the 80’s to get tuscan versions (models) of the aluminum cars that had been around since the early 50’s? [:(] The only possible answer must be the same one that we’ve been dealing with for millenia: moolah. [soapbox]
If the engine was not a streamlined one, like the Fleet of Modernism trains of PRR before the arrival of 50 T1s in 1945, many “Streamliner” and named train was powered by unstreamlined K4s outside the electrified territory; they were a streamliner when they were hauling by GG1 within the electrified territory but all eastbound “streamliner” was not a complete streamliner until they reached Harrisburg. Pennsy called them streamliner in advisement anyway.
On the other hand, comparing the 20th Century Limited of 1938 and the Century behind a Niagara, I don’t consider the latter a streamliner as well. The former had an engine carrying livery and streamlining which match the entire streamlined consist behind them. We can find a lot of similar case from different railroads history.
What was true years ago is true now. The average passenger train rider doesn’t care what the locomotive looks like as long as it gets the train where it’s supposed to be in a timely manner.
Look at the current “Genesis” locomotives pulling Amtrak trains. Many railfains consider them creepy looking, if not downright ugly, but the riders could care less.
Although, I’d suspect back in the 40’s and 50’s many train riders were a little depressed at the transition from steam to diesel. The “Big Show” just wasn’t the same afterward.
I agree with you that average passenger who is not a railfan probably never give any attention to the engine of their train. Streamliner or not, the general public considers them a transportation machine which takes them to where they want to go.
Regarding the “Genesis” locomotives… I am glad to know that I am not the only one think that they don’t have an appealing appearance, just like many “modern” engine from different countries. It is just my personal preference, no offense to people who love them!
People probably feel excited about their new cars and travel by air since the mid-1940s. It is human nature to love the new and forget the old. But I agree with you that some people in that era did prefer steam to diesel; it is reflected in the result of a survey conducted by SP.[C][swg]
Base on the operating data provided from the book “Know Thy Niagras” by Thomas R. Gerbracht, you can rest assured that putting NYCentral Niagara on the list is consistent with the historical fact. [C] [:-,]
Absolutely David, those Lionel extruded aluminum cars were supposed to replicate the stainless steel streamliner cars.
Interestingly, those aluminum cars didn’t originate with Lionel. An outfit called American Model Toys, later American Model Trains, beat Lionel to the punch by bringing out aluminum streamline cars in 1948, but it didn’t take Lionel long to react.
OK, off topic, but toy trains can be a fascinating study when you get into them.
