Hope to heck the Photo of the Day feature is not stuck like it is over at Trains. Seems we have missed a couple of days anyway so here is a temporary replacement.
CV Train #561 Stafford Springs CT.
1968 PRR last emblem on passenger service.
UP S4 at Kansas City 1965 moving a DD35 ‘B’ #77B around the yard. Apparently the UP ordered the DD35 cabless booster before it ordered the cab unit A’s
There is no such thing as a DD35B, any more than there is a South African class 25C. That locomotive was designed as a cabless booster to be run with smaller, more flexible locomotives for cabs, so it’s just DD35. Put a cab on it and you can call it ‘A’ … but that doesn’t change the history.
Aha! I hear you say, but UP numbered them as Bs. As indeed, operationally, they were. Doesn’t change what EMD called them.
Well heck. Then again that’s the point of all this, now we are all well informed. Merci Caboose !
That ‘side-door Pullman’ looks like a Bangor & Aroostook car.
Yeah that’s Bangor and Aroostook alright, pretty snappy looking boxcar series. Have one in N Scale.
Ok Good Morning! got your coffee in hand, still a bit fuzzy yet? ( that’s my fav part of the day)… ready for Friday July 17th Photo OTD?
This one has a title : Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle…
Now a quick quiz.
If you were with a crowd of 100 people watching the train what do you think they would be looking at, fascinated with and talking about?
Yeah I thought so.
Yeah, that is a rather odd power mix, a steamer bracketed by diesels.
Whatever works I suppose.
By the way, I loved that shot of those CV units in that New England landscape. Put me in the mood for waffles with maple syrup! The dark variety!
For you rivet counters, lead unit CV 4924 still had its passenger service boiler.
UP (and SP) ordered DD35s which were intended to run between a pair of GP35s. UP also bought DD35A (with the added A) units as well. EMD catalogued but did not build a DD40 with no “A” (though Athearn made a lot of them).
That Pennsy train is a “mail and express” train that may be running as an extra section of another train. Those are all express boxcars behind the PAs.
Should we do a Saturday Photo OTD. Sure why not. Got to keep Classic alive and well.
Here we are with the Southern Pacific and Holeee Mackinaw that is one BIG Mike! 2-8-2 #768
That’s because it’s a Texas Mike. 768 is a T&NO engine, from Baldwin, class of 1913. T&NO engines had three digit numbers until the 1965 renumbering.
A Texas Mike! How about that. No wonder… thanks to rcdrye, a wealth of information!
You know what they say, “Everything’s bigger in Texas!”
Just to get an idea of the size of that thing, look ant the man standing next to it. Back when that picture was taken the average size of a man was 5’8", and look how that locomotive dwarfs him!
My old girlfriend would say drily that the way to shut up Texans who started boasting about this was to ask them if Texas had the largest midgets.
THIS is a big Mike:
https://www.steamlocomotive.com/whyte/2-8-2/USA/photos/gn3397.jpg
In case you are wondering, those drivers are a quarter-foot taller than your 5’8" man.
A Sunday Photo OTD …goes good with your wake up coffee.
Thinking more words have been written on the Forum about the T1 than anything else so here is another pic because we just can’t get enough of the T1. #5536
Q? What would the holes be for on the boiler jacket about mid way along the boiler?
Late add on-- 6,000 posts! Do I get a pizza or something … I’ll settle for a Dairy Queen medium size Pineapple Sundae.
Without looking at the detailed piping layout – probably sanders.
Some of these GN mikados were built using boilers from retired 2-6-8-0s, which gives you an idea of size. Some built this way were later fitted with the boiler seen at the link, which was larger…
Peter
Another T1 question. Might be difficult to answer in a meaningful accounting way but do you think the 52 T1’s built actually recovered their cost of being built, got in the black and added to Pennsy bottom line? Not all T1’s racked up the same amount of mileage with some far greater than others. They were used pretty sparingly after 1948? I presume. Did they actually earn enough to pay back their cost and then some or were they a never ending source of red ink that never came close to their initial investment?
I would agree. There were clean-out plugs in the sand traps located right about where the holes in the jacket appear to be located:
They seem to have been made as a later modification by justifiably frustrated shop crews. I imagine a job that should have taken thirty-minutes would easily turn into two shifts if the entire jacket section had to be removed to access the sand trap clean-outs.
There seems to be none evident in this builder’s view. Upon studying a collection of other photos I see that there were several variations of the mid-flank access panels. Some were hinged at the tops and others, as the example of the 5523 show, have hand-holds cut into them for handling.
PRR_T1-5523 by Edmund, on Flickr
The streamlining of the T1 went through quite a few modifications over their brief presence on the PRR, that is a given.
Regards, Ed
And you’d best believe there was a LOT more sander-related maintenance on T1s, which turned out to need a lot more sand a lot more of the time than was ‘expected’ when the prototypes were built – probably so much as to require re-sanding at unexpected points, perhaps in bad weather, perhaps being contaminated as it was placed into those streamstyled sand hatches…
Something interesting to track would be whether there were coherent ‘phases’ of cleanout access through the shrouding between the as-built variants (Juniata vs. Baldwin) and a consistent type of change when all the noses were revised from ‘porthole’ to radiator type a couple of years later. Hinged aluminum hatch covers would not last whether they latched firmly or not; steel covers in the aluminum shroud would be asking for corrosion; slipstream in any case would not be kind. I’ve always thought the tight round ports were the ‘right’ solution for these locomotives even if they might be marginally more susceptible to weather and freezing… the arrangement as applied to 5523, with round ports for cleanout and easy modular access to more of the sander plumbing, is even more logical at only very slight cost in ‘streamlining efficiency’ or appearance.
Were these things not apparent/obvious at the time they were designed and built? They had the 2 prototypes for a couple of years before they placed the big 50 locomotive order. Did they not learn a thing, the obvious things? …one could claim the same for the nightmare inaccessible cam boxes. The cab ventilators? Why were these items not apparent during the years of testing with Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. Also the designers could not have been that blind to glaring design flaws, even if they are simple things.
So many weird mysterious items with these locos.
