Is it possible to fully restore the Pioneer Zephyr? I know it has been at the Smithsonian for a long time and would love go to see it up and running again.
She’s not in Washington and she already was cosmetically restored about 15-20 years ago.
If you’re talking about an operational restoration, that isn’t in the cards. She’s a prized display at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, in a pit that has been built over.
She isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon.
The B&M Flying Yankee is very similar, and is under operational restoration (though this seems to be one of those projects that drags on for decades) but will probably not see main lines.
The PIONEER ZEPHYR was constructed for the CB&Q as a light weight stainless steel high speed passenger train. The unique stainless steel construction of the cars used a spot welded technique developed by the Budd Company. The trainsets did not use couplers but shared common “Jacobs trucks” which ment the train could not be broken down. The power car featured a unique 8 cylinder Winton diesel-electric engine which was developed for US Navy submarine power and was of about 600 horsepower at 750 rpm. The trainset was diesel-electric drive with the traction motors in the lead engine truck. Light weight was the key to the design and the train achieved 112.5 mph speed on its inaugural run to Chicago. The original 8 cylinder Winton engine EMC model 8-201-A was eventually replaced in 1939 with an EMC 567 which was an upgraded design.
Unlike the steam locomotive, the technology to restore the diesel engine is widely available throughout the world. Most of the wear and tear of an internal combustion engine is readily repairable. This is true from historic automobiles to historic World War II fighter planes like the P51 Mustang - to 100 year old airliners like the DC 3 - next time one flys overhead listen to the Wright Whirlwind engines - manufactured by Wright Aeronautical and Wright Company founded by the brothers who invented the airplane. All of this technology is highly rebuildable.
Procedures common to such internal combustion engine restorations include crankshaft regrinding and or replacement with new custom made. Cylinder boring and replacement with custom made pistons by a wide number of companies. Cylinder resurfacing with hard chrome and or reuse of original pistons. Additions include a host of electric motor and generator rebuilding and rewinding procedures which are common throughout all of this technology base.
It should be noted, however, that none of these repairs are of the complexity or complic
Uh, Doctor D, love 'ya buddy but “100 year old technology on a DC-3”? I’ve got an uncle who flew on a C-47 (DC-3) during World War Two who’d take GREAT exception to being called a 100 year old antique!
No matter. However the steps you state as being feasable for a diesel powerplant restoration are easier said than done, and would require quite a bit of that old bugaboo, money. It’s what’s held up the restoration of the Flying Yankee, there’s no parts available for the original Winton engine, a substitute diesel engine has to be found and fit, and so forth, to say nothing of all the other work that has to be done.
Yes, with enough time and money you can do anything, but I caution everyone who enjoys going to airshows where restored World War Two aircraft are on display to enjoy them as much as you can, because one day those planes are going to die a second death from which there’ll be no recovery. Lack of spare parts, metal fatigue, lack of people with the expertise to rebuild them will all be contributing factors.
Hate to be a killjoy but that’s the way I see it.
My father told me that after the PZ’s dawn to dusk run, the train toured the U.S. and his whole school in Towanda, Pennsylvania went down to the station and watched it go by.
A 100 year old DC-3, R4D, C-47, Dakota? It’ll happen in less than 30 years!
By the way, Orville and Wilbur did not “invent” the airplane. They were just the first ones to make it work. It was actually invented by the French. I’ve seen pictures of old French magazines of the 1860s and depicted on the cover of several was an airplane, with a fuselage, wings, tail,cockpit and landing gear all in the proper locations. An airplane that anyone can recognize in it’s configuration. Only, it had a smoke-belching steam engine. Had internal combustion come along earlier, I think there would have been flyable aircraft long before Kitty Hawk. Besides, the French named all the parts of aircraft as well. Fuselage, Nacelle, Empennage to name a few.
Ripped off from the British. Google Cayley, Henson, and Stringfellow and you’ll see.
And before you laugh too hard at steam aircraft:
(sorry about the soundtrack they used…)
Wonder if Maxim’s Thornycroft boiler would have made the Bristol Tramp practical?
Meanwhile the Illinois Railroad Museum’s Nebraska Zephyr trainset, also articulated, and pulled by the last EMD E5, has been taken out on the mainline from time to time, most recently just a couple of years ago in excursions to Quincy and back. Those cars have something of that same low-to-the-ground “worm runner” appearance as the Pioneer Zephyr compared to the Budd type “heritage” cars we are more familiar with. When the train came through Mendota IL it set off about a dozen small grass fires that a bunch of us stomped out. Reportedly it was sparks from the (food) grill although the locomotive might have been burning some built up carbon deposits as well. There are unconfirmed rumors that the crew, either deliberately or due to unfamiliarity with a diesel locomotive that has no built in speed governor, got it up to 100 mph during those runs on the old CB&Q raceway (a really long tangent with relatively few grade crossings). I do recall hearing the dispatcher remark to the crew a friendly reminder about track speed.
Dave Nelson
Whatever happened to the Mark Twain Zephyr. Is it still restorable to run?
It’s unclear where it is (Chicago? St. Louis?), but it’s in poor shape.
http://hickscarworks.blogspot.com/2014/07/mark-twain-zephyr.html
Dr D’s comment about 100 year old technology on the DC-3 several days ago jogged my memory. Time to hit the books…
OK, it was a stretch to refer to the DC-3 as a 100 year old aircraft, BUT, if we’re talking about all-metal aircraft then Dr D was more correct than he realized.
Back in 1915 Germany’s Dr. Hugo Junkers began experimenting with all metal aircraft, and by late 1917 / early 1918 he had three of them in production! The J-1, a low-level recon two-seater with an on-board radio and an armored “bathtub” for the pilot and observer, the CL-1, a ground attack two-seater that was very, very good, and the D-1, a fighter that was a bit of a disappointment, just not very maneuverable. Hey, two out of three ain’t bad! By the way, those Junkers all-metal aircraft gave Allied pilots fits, they were VERY tough to shoot down.
So, all-metal aircraft DO go back 100 years. Isn’t that something?
Although we might be familiar with the Douglas DC-3 aircraft from the Second World War as the Dakota C-47, the design began with the Douglas DC-2 in 1934. Dates from 1934 to 2016 puts the anniversary of this aircraft in about 15 years which about everyone is willing to concede is an operational life relatively close to and beyond a century.
My forum discussion was about the technology of the internal combustion engine and I offered this observation that the DC-3 aircraft and its engines are still viable in modern commerical aviation having long outlived the lifetimes of the CB&Q California Zephyr, Donald Douglas and the Wright Brothers companies.
As a Boy Scout I remember going to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Detroit City Airport in the 1950s and seeing fleets of Douglas DC-3 aircraft in operation. For years I also watched the faithful droning of these slow moving aircraft traveling overhead across the city.
Later as World War II fighter aircraft were being collected and flown at airshows I marveled how the venerable old Douglas DC-3 which pre-dated these WWII military aircraft continued on in daily commerical service!
Last year the US Coast Guard was detail maping the Lake St. Clair, Detroit River shoreline with various photographic processes for Homeland Security. The airplane they were using was not some modern spy plane but the venerable old Douglas DC-3. For two days this aircraft flew over the shorline for miles creating these photograps for national security purpose.
The Douglas DC-3 airplane is still in commerical service today with probable use into the indefinite future.
Except for “lack of interest in them,” I still see no reason the CB&Q Zephyr’s could not be returned to service fairly easily with their original GMC Winton power.
Doc
Short form. Wiki on DC-3. Honest 100 years old in2036, some key tech back till 1927 (Luck Lindy’s flight to Paris).
607[1]
|
First flight |
December 17, 1935 |
|---|---|
|
Introduction |
1936 |
|
Status |
Active service with small carriers |
|
Produced |
1936–1942, 1950 |
|
Number built |
Yes, but to put this in perspective, you also need to look at the operational characteristics of transport aircraft in … oh, 1915 or 1916, vs. the state of the art in the early Thirties. Looks a great deal different when viewed in the right perspective, doesn’t it?
Now, on the other hand, I have seen a picture of a German airliner from 1919, which looks recognizably like a DC-3 in material and streamlining, except that it has those archaic-looking rotary engines without cowlings. So if wartime-scale development had indeed continued past what became the Versailles treaty restriction on German aircraft development, and the 1920-21 recession that killed early airline development, we might well have seen SOMETHING in duralumin monococque construction early enough to be celebrating its 100th anniversary soon.
Of course, the radio community celebrated the 100th anniversary of radio broadcasting in 2004. (Before anyone complains, that’s “music broadcasting, without charge to the receiving party other than owning a compatible receiver”.)
God bless the DC-3 / C-47, Donald Douglas, and the rest of the boys who designed and built it! In my humble opinion the DC-3 due to its excellence of design, longevity, and ability to do any job assigned to it is the best aircraft of all time.
Others like the Lockheed C-130, the Boeing B-52, the Bell “Huey” helicopter are catching up, but the ol’ Gooney Bird still leads the pack.
A side note: I was in Denmark in the fall of 1976 and saw a squadron exercise of Danish Air Force C-47’s. It was a thrill and I’ve never forgotten it. Like a mini D-Day!
The Winton engine (201-A) was not used in that many EMC/EMD locomotives. It was only used in the early Zephyrs and Cities streamline trains, a family of switchers (SC/SW/NC/NW/NW1/NW1A), a handful of E’s (EA/EB through E2) and some other odds and ends. It has little to no commonality with the 567 engine. Unless you are willing to machine your own parts, maintaining a Winton engine in operating condition will be difficult to nearly impossible.
The guys who were rebuilding the Winton 201-A in that was in the B&M/MEC Flying Yankee had completed just about everything except a final test before the train was moved from Claremont NH to Lincoln NH in 2005. That work was most likely wasted, as the folks doing the still-uncompleted restoration were considering using some other power plant. In the process of restoration the Claremont guys had made a fair number of spares.
Sadly, they decided going with the Winton wasn’t a realistic proposition. They’ve actually auctioned off parts from it in the years since, which hasn’t gone over well in the preservation community that found that thought very appealing and donated money specifically to further that cause (Didn’t Trains even contribute one of its earliest grants towards the Winton restoration?).
Her engine is as much part of her story as the carbody itself. While I believe it was foolhardy to try to return it to operation, it should’ve been cosmetically restored and gone on static display in a complete state along with other major mechanical components they’ve since also decided to not utilize (For instance, her original traction motors, rewound and ready to go as I recall, also ended up not being part of the plan). They’d serve as an important complement to a restored and running Flying Yankee even if they were mere static displays.
Unless something has happened recently, progress has been stalled for quite a few years and hasn’t been well managed after its promising early start (Albeit wasting much too money on the Winton during those earlier years, among other well meaning mistakes before the project’s management went down the drain and the money ran out).
At this time, besides memories and a very incomplete and stalled restoration that has yielded a half finished train with no promise of completion, perhaps the most valuable addition to the preservation community that has came out of this one is a lesson on what not to do the next time.
Hopefully she’ll at least be cosmetically finished someday, under cover at an appropriate location, and accessible to the public.
If you have an interest in Junkers aircraft, visit the Deutsches Museum in Munich. They have models of almost every Junkers ever built and some real aircraft such as a French-built (in 1952) JU-52! Used by the French navy until 1981 when it was donated to the museum. The railway section is awesome with a green Bavarian Pacific type S 3/6. Gorgeous! It takes about 3 days to really see everything they have.
Ju-52s (“Tante Ju”) were first built as 17-seat airliners for Deutsche Lufthansa in 1931. There is a fully (still has its original P&W engines) restored one, a JU-52/3m, the oldest flying JU-52 - named Tempelhof - built 1936, which I saw flying several times over the Englischer Garten in Munich two or three years ago. Amazing to see.