| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
giuliano
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Posts: 21
Location: Civitavecchia, near Roma
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:11 am Post subject: Some questions about Northamerican trains |
 |
|
Hello to all.
One question: did Delaware & Hudson equipment work on Leigh & Hudson River route? Is there somebody able say me that?
Otherwise, what was the railroad that operated on that route?
Is it possible New Haven worked on that route?
Is it possible New Haven and D&H worked on PRR route from New York and Washington?
I'd like put forward a proposal: who would like a nice FL9, certainly by BLW/ZT? And an interesting SDP40F?
I created a consist of train 19/20 Klamath of SP, by BLW SP equipment and some free download files from Train-Sim.Com. I'd like create an activity with this train. I found composition on a web site ( it is about of the '50s but I think it can be also right for the '60s ) but I've not been able to find a schedule of that train. I find it interesting for Cascade Crossing route and because it is a mail train with some passenger cars too. Besides, three BLW Alco PA on the head...
Does anyone know the schedules of SP Klamath in the '50s or 60s? I would be very grateful in advance.
Thanks to all.
Giuliano |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gaetan
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 1107
Location: Mont-Joli QC
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know for the other questions Giuliano but you can buy the Bridge Line from Mapleleaftraks, is the exact route for the D&H
http://www.mapleleaftracks.com/DH/features.html
_________________
Gaetan
BLW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rfranzosa
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 1210
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:39 pm Post subject: Re: Some questions about Northamerican trains |
|
|
| giuliano wrote: |
Hello to all.
One question: did Delaware & Hudson equipment work on Leigh & Hudson River route? Is there somebody able say me that?
|
I don't believe that the D&H ran on the Lehigh & Hudson River. They did not have an interchange.
| Quote: |
Otherwise, what was the railroad that operated on that route?
Is it possible New Haven worked on that route?
|
The New Haven was a major partner with the L&HR. The Maybrook yard was the New Haven terminal on their west end. Other railroads that interchange with the L&HR:
PRR
Delaware Lackawanna & Western
New York, Ontario & Western
Erie
Central New Jersey
New York Susquehanna & Western
Lehigh & New England
New York Central* (at Campbell Hall, w/New Haven, Erie and NYO&W)
also, it's possible that Lehigh Valley power could make it to the L&HR on run-throughs.
(I think that is all)
| Quote: |
Is it possible New Haven and D&H worked on PRR route from New York and Washington?
|
The New Haven shared passenger equipment with the PRR on several trains between NYC and Washington, but not locomotives. The D&H did not run trains between New York and Washington DC until Conrail, when they were given 'trackage rights' to Potomac Yard. I don't know the routing they used, maybe someone else does?
| Quote: |
I'd like put forward a proposal: who would like a nice FL9, certainly by BLW/ZT?
|
I already have the FL9 on my 'to do list'
| Quote: |
And an interesting SDP40F?
|
Gaetan can answer this if different. BLW/ZT do not have sound or cabview files for newer EMD power (2nd generation and newer). Until we solve that problem, we cannot release payware newer EMD locos.
| Quote: |
I created a consist of train 19/20 Klamath of SP, by BLW SP equipment and some free download files from Train-Sim.Com. I'd like create an activity with this train. I found composition on a web site ( it is about of the '50s but I think it can be also right for the '60s ) but I've not been able to find a schedule of that train. I find it interesting for Cascade Crossing route and because it is a mail train with some passenger cars too. Besides, three BLW Alco PA on the head...
Does anyone know the schedules of SP Klamath in the '50s or 60s? I would be very grateful in advance.
|
I can't help you there, Giuliano, maybe someone else can.
Ciao,
Rick
_________________
Rick Franzosa - ZosaTrains
http://www.valleypass.com/Sales/Sales.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bandorr2000
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Location: Cinnaminson, NJ
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
giuliano
I sent you a message, check your inbox here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bandorr2000
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Location: Cinnaminson, NJ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attached is a zip file containing a word document from the July, 1954 Official Guide. It provides the Shasta Route schedules between Eugene and Klamath Falls. This is what is represented in Maple Leaf Tracks Cascade Crosing Route.
Hope this helps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bandorr2000
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Location: Cinnaminson, NJ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Not exactly sure what happened with the attachment |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bandorr2000
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Location: Cinnaminson, NJ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Try this again |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bandorr2000
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Location: Cinnaminson, NJ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay. No clue what i am doing wrong in trying to get the attachment to show. Don't see any instructions here. This is a zip file of a word doc file.
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mt78tt
Joined: 26 May 2010
Posts: 28
Location: Germany, Dresden
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:27 pm Post subject: EMD F & E series |
|
|
I think the thread is a good place for my question 
I was looking for some informations about EMD loco´s and found this subscription on wikipedia site in german language about the EMD E-series:
| Quote: |
| Bedingt durch den Kriegseintritt der USA im 2. Weltkrieg und der damit verbundenen Beschränkung des Lokomotivbaus auf Güterzuglokomotiven, wurden von den ersten Modellen der E-Serie relativ wenige Exemplare produziert. Erst mit der E6 und den folgenden Baureihen wurden nennenswerte Stückzahlen erreicht. Jedoch erreichte die E-Serie nie die Stückzahlen der parallel angebotenen Güterzuglokomotiven der F-Serie. |
That means:
After USA joined the WW2, they just builded freight locomotives and thats the reason because not really much early E-series was build. First the E6 and later E-series became more. But the E-series didnt never get the summarys of builds like the freight locomotives of the same time F-series.
I hope my free translation is a bit to understand...
But , i wonder that they write the F-series are just freight locos  Some passenger trains was pulled by EMD F locos mostly F3 and F7. Why they used freight locos to pull passenger trains altought the E-series also was availible at the same time?
Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcarleton
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are correct that the description is over simplified.
It may be useful to think about the E unit and the F unit in the same terms as for steam engines.
The F unit was like a 2-8-0 which could be used for passenger or freight, but probably mostly on freight. Certainly not best for a very fast passenger train.
The E unit was more like a big 4-4-0 which might be slippery when starting, but once it was moving it could really go. Maybe it could also pull a freight, but it was more valuable in passenger service.
In fact many F units were equipped for passenger service, and some railroads used the E unit in freight service. But the E unit was built for speed and not for tonnage and the numbers show this. Please consider these numbers:
Between 1949 and 1953, EMD built 421 E8 A units, and 39 E8 B units.
In those same years, EMD built 2366 F7 A units and 1483 F7 B units!
David Carleton,
D. Carleton Rail Books |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
giuliano
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Posts: 21
Location: Civitavecchia, near Roma
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello.
I think it's to say several rail companies made use of F units for passenger trains because of their total mass, that latest being due at the wheel arrangement that was B-B. E units were A1A-A1A wheel arrangement, that imply a no total adherent mass.
That reason leaded several companies to prefer F units particularly on passenger trains travelling across no properly flat lines, where F units could work easier than E units. I think these latest were at ease on more flat lines. Starting a heavy train after a stop on a less flat line without risk of slippage is easier for a total adhesion mass loco.
By that I wish only add something at the topic. No other.
Thanks to all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
