Steam & Excursion > Commuter steam

For nearly 4 decades, I have been commuting 24 miles per day on the former Reading Bethlehem branch to Philadelphia. 

Last week, I noticed how my commute time has been slowly increasing over the years (both local and express trains). Silverliners replaced Blueliners and increased ride quality / acceleration. Welded rail replaced stick rail and increased running speeds. One-way signaling systems were modernized with bi-directional cab singling on both tracks. The towers were replaced with a modern centralized dispatching office at SEPTA's headquarter office 12th and Market Street (across from Reading Terminal). Now we have PTC on our lines to prevent train accidents. Yet........as I compare schedules from the 1970's to the present time, there has been an INCREASE in run times. 

Which brings me to my question: 

Prior to electrification on the Reading's Philadelphia Division commuter lines, commuter trains to Chestnut Hill, Lansdale, Doylestown, Norristown, Reading, and West Trenton seemed to be dominated by 2-6-0 camel backs. Towards the end of steam, they were hauled by G-1 G-2s and G-3 Northern locomotives. 

I understand the engine service unions fought hard to outlaw the production of Camelbacks due to the safety risks to the engineer. But overall, which engine was best equipped for commuter service, where the train had to stop/start a 3-5 car train every 1-2 miles on the Philadelphia Division? The large boiler of a Camelback seemed to be limited in distance by the capacity of the small tender behind the locomotive. 

In contrast, the Northern class locomotives had larger driving wheels and seemed like they were capable of attaining higher speeds, and pulling longer train consists for longer distances.

Which locomotive would have been the best class for start / stop commuter service to maintain an aggressive schedule? The Camelback with its jumbo size boiler, or the Northern? 

The G's were Pacifics, the Nrtherns were T-1's and not used on commuter trains.

 

Doug Wetherhold
Macungie, PA

My mistake. I was reading something about the T-1's on another web site before I posted here. 

Its getting late and my old noodle doesn't fire as many neurons after about 3pm. 

This last summer in Chicago 765 had to maintain a very tight commuter schedule and did an amazing job at it. At one point I remember we HAD to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet another commuter train and we where at least 3 minutes early at the meeting point.

Posted from Android

I don't think the 765 was running on a commuter train scedule, making frequent stops, was it?

In my early days with the SP, I was often in contact with engine crews on the San Jose - San Francisco commute operation. Some of those guys had done the same jobs with steam. When asked which were the best engines in use on the commute jobs, I got the same answer every time: the 4-8-2 mountains. It was never the GS series 4-8-4s or the 4-6-2s.

On the New York & Long Branch RR, on the North Jersey Coast trains, the PRR's commuter trains were powered by K4 class Pacifics, with many station stops ( below Red Bank, NJ) at very close intervals, all the way to Bay Head Junction.

EMD E-7 units were tried , along with PRR's Alco PAs....because of traction motor over heating, due to repetitive stops
and re-starts, the timetables established by the K4s was liberally extended to accommodate the dismals.

Because of thier more robust heavy-duty, Westinghouse electrical components ---- traction motors, etc, 2,000 HP Baldwin passenger Shark Noses, became the standard for hauling the heavy commuters on the NY&LB.

A comparison of the relevant Railway Guides, and their NY&LB timetables from the era, will show the extra time that had to be added into the commuter schedules.

The FM Trainmasters were very good at repeated rapid-accelerations.  
Two big FM, TM users WERE:  the CNJ, in New Jersey, and the SP, in California.....

​W.

Westbound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my early days with the SP, I was often in
> contact with engine crews on the San Jose - San
> Francisco commute operation. Some of those guys
> had done the same jobs with steam. When asked
> which were the best engines in use on the commute
> jobs, I got the same answer every time: the 4-8-2
> mountains. It was never the GS series 4-8-4s or
> the 4-6-2s.

In the latter days, a few of the Cotton Belt 800's were sent west and did time on those commuter runs.  I doubt we will ever know, but I'd be curious how they did in relation to Espee's 4400's when compared to the 4-8-2's.  The Cotton Belt engines had lower drivers and in size were closer to the 4-8-2's than the 4400's.  An 800 could run with a good sized passenger train (got my butt kicked trying to chase 819 in 1990), but I wonder how they were able to do in terms of acceleration.

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

The_Chief_Way Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think the 765 was running on a commuter
> train scedule, making frequent stops, was it?
It wasn't making commuter stops, but it had passenger stops and it had to keep a very very tight schedule. It was in the daily railroad commuter schedule running in between other commuter trains, so it had to be on time and had to accelerate very quickly after each passenger stop . So even though it didn't make a lot of stops it was very demanding on the 765 and her engine crew to keep up with the flow of commuter train traffic.

Posted from Android

MaryMcPherson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Westbound Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In my early days with the SP, I was often in
> > contact with engine crews on the San Jose - San
> > Francisco commute operation. Some of those guys
> > had done the same jobs with steam. When asked
> > which were the best engines in use on the
> commute
> > jobs, I got the same answer every time: the
> 4-8-2
> > mountains. It was never the GS series 4-8-4s or
> > the 4-6-2s.
>
> In the latter days, a few of the Cotton Belt 800's
> were sent west and did time on those commuter
> runs.  I doubt we will ever know, but I'd be
> curious how they did in relation to Espee's 4400's
> when compared to the 4-8-2's.  The Cotton Belt
> engines had lower drivers and in size were closer
> to the 4-8-2's than the 4400's.  An 800 could run
> with a good sized passenger train (got my butt
> kicked trying to chase 819 in 1990), but I wonder
> how they were able to do in terms of acceleration.

I was told by an old Espee hear (Neil Vodden) that the Cotton Belt engines were poor performers on the commute jobs.  He said they were good engines, but totally out of ther element in the rapid start/stop commute world.  They could not accelerate fast enough, and thier steaming ability suffered when forced to perform that way.

I'm trying to figure out if a Camelback or a Pacific was better suited for the job of commuter service. From what I have read, the Camelbacks were the preferred locomotive for the job with an extra wide Wooten firebox on a small frame, they just came with safety baggage with a center cab.

 

The extra wide firebox on the camel backs was to burn a different grade of coal wasn't it?

Victor A. Baird
​http://www.erstwhilepublications.com

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The extra wide firebox on the camel backs was to
> burn a different grade of coal wasn't it?
>
> Victor A. Baird
> ​http://www.erstwhilepublications.com

Yes:

John E. Wootten developed the Wootten firebox to effectively burn anthracite waste, which was a plentiful, cheap source of fuel. Wootten determined that a large, wide firebox would work best. As the successful trailing truck used to support large fireboxes had not yet been developed, Wootten instead mounted his huge firebox above the locomotive's driving wheels. The problem now arose that with a cab floor at the then standard tender deck height, it would be impossible for the locomotive's engineer to see forwards around the firebox shoulders. Instead, a cab for the engineer was placed above and astride the boiler. The fireman, however, remained at the rear with minimal protection from the elements. This gave rise to the unusual shape of the camelbacks

Posted from iPhone