Railway Preservation News
http://www.rypn.org/forums/

Harriman combines?
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41504
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Les Beckman [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Harriman combines?

In the recent new thread "Union Pacific 428 Matching......", rock island lines submitted a photo of the U.P. 2-8-0 on a mixed freight and asked if any Harriman combines were still around? That was an interesting question, because I had just recently found out that the Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad had a couple of combines that were Harriman's, possibly ex-Illinois Central. Bob Lalich was nice enough to send me a photo of C&WI number 40 at 138th Street in Chicago, just north of the railroad's Dolton terminus. Unfortunately, number 40 was not saved, but hopefully other Harriman combines might still exist.

Les

Attachments:
dolton station d4 040.jpg
dolton station d4 040.jpg [ 244.37 KiB | Viewed 3413 times ]

Author:  davew833 [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

I believe ex-Union Pacific #2700 at Heber Valley Railroad in Utah qualifies.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lemoncat1/4034569101

(edit) according to Don Strack, #2700 was built as chair car #670 in 1910 and was remodeled into a combine in 1931. It does have two vestibules.

Author:  Brian Norden [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

In California there are two preserved Harriman-style combines that were built as combine cars:

San Diego & Arizona Eastern #175 (originally San Diego & Arizona #175), a 60-foot car built in 1917, is at Orange Empire Railway Museum.

Southern Pacific #3176 (formerly Arizona Eastern #453), a 60-foot car built in 1916 is at Niles Canyon Railway.

Since these car were built as combines, they only have a vestibule on the coach end of the cars. Cars rebuilt to combines from coaches often have two vestibules.

Author:  rswebber [ Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

Well...given that there is NO such animal as a "Harriman" anything, I'd say no. Common Standard, yes. Most so-called "Harriman" cars were built post Harriman (that is to say, he passed away in 1909, his influence in attempting to establish Common Standard amongst his various holdings died sooner than that).

See the Southern Pacific Passenger Car series for more. There are a few of us who have been fighting the notion that any arched roof car is a "Harriman". Even the Commute cars of San Francisco aren't even Common Standard, let alone the nebulous 'Harriman". This is akin to the 1980s model railroad community when, after years of hearing of two types of freight trucks (arch bar and Bettendorf); they finaly woke up and realized there were MANY styles. Or a Mruphy vs a Viking roof. Or the various types of ends.

I'm *NOT* criticizing any post or poster, rather the "norm" for using an incorrect descriptor. I was in one clinic where the Texas Roof on a T&P baggage was described as "Harriman". It's a word that has been used like Kleenex - an easy word to describe - incorrectly - ANY arched roof. Never mind the obvious differences between AC&F arched roofs, Common Standard arched roofs, Pullman Oval and deckless roofs, the sheathed roof, the Texas Roof, the fully ducted clerestory roof, the various NE slightly arched roofs, etc. etc.

Of course, just like the "no dashes in PRR classes", 'no dashes in EMD nomenclature", etc. - this one has some frustrating contradictions. Standard Steel's documentation specifically mentions P-70 and PB-70 cars for the Pennsy, Pullman specifications mention 'Harriman Copies" for D&SL cars (and they were neither Harriman nor Common Standard copies), and plenty of railroad and railfan literature uses the dash in F-7 and other EMD locomotives - such things are nearly impossible to correct once the nose is under the tent flap.

The CRI&P cars are closely aligned with Common Standard methods and techniques, though not exact copies (even those that appear to be so, the 40' mail & baggage cars are not identical to the tenets that make Common Standard..standard).

Author:  M Secco [ Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

We had an ex-CGW "Harriman" combine with our wreck train in Proviso back in 1975 when I hired out with the CNW . I don't know what a Common Standard looks like but I sure do know a Harriman when I see one .

Author:  LeoA [ Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

rswebber wrote:
and plenty of railroad and railfan literature uses the dash in F-7 and other EMD locomotives


Even EMD's marketing department often did in the early days.

Attachments:
EMDGP-7.jpg
EMDGP-7.jpg [ 154.29 KiB | Viewed 3007 times ]

Author:  Brian Norden [ Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

rswebber wrote:
Well...given that there is NO such animal as a "Harriman" anything, I'd say no. Common Standard, yes. Most so-called "Harriman" cars were built post Harriman (that is to say, he passed away in 1909, his influence in attempting to establish Common Standard amongst his various holdings died sooner than that).
Quote:
It's a word that has been used like Kleenex - an easy word to describe - incorrectly - ANY arched roof. Never mind the obvious differences between AC&F arched roofs, Common Standard arched roofs, Pullman Oval and deckless roofs, the sheathed roof, the Texas Roof, the fully ducted clerestory roof, the various NE slightly arched roofs, etc. etc.
The term used in the first descriptions in the trade press of the cars built by/for the SP and the UP was "semi-elliptical roof." At that time the companies were still combined as the "Associated Lines" and common orders were made to the car builders.

Author:  rswebber [ Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

Quote:
We had an ex-CGW "Harriman" combine with our wreck train in Proviso back in 1975 when I hired out with the CNW . I don't know what a Common Standard looks like but I sure do know a Harriman when I see one .


Which is an EXCELLENT example. If it's the car that became C&NW 4061 - which is at IRM - it is not only NOT a "Harriman" nor is it a Common Standard. It is an ex-C&O car. And...while there were ties to Harriman (the man) that is simply an oval roof - *NOT* a Common Standard roof, nor is the body, underframe, etc.

And therein lies the issue - you insist you know a "Harriman" car when you see one - but what, to you is a "Harriman" car? Any oval/deckless/arched roof car? I am *NOT* criticizing you or the post - this is exactly why the term has to be abandoned. People absolutely do NOT recognize "Harriman" (sic). It has become a generic term for any arched roof car - usually incorrectly. This is akin to saying those cars are Stillwell cars - clearly they are not. You have people insisting that the cars on the Super Skunk were 'Harriman" simply because they had arched roof.

The roof plates on a Common Standard car alternate, and are perpendicular to the sides from hood to hood. (_-_-_-_-__) rather than being overlapped i none direction from hood to hood, where the plates are parallel to the car side (at the hood that is, which is the end of the car's roof). The centersill is not fishbelly - it is a straight sill. The letterboard stays the same width, end to end. Etc. etc. - these aren't *MY* descriptions, but the Common Standard standards.

The whole point is that a CS car revolutionized the structure of a railroad passenger car, the arched roof is part of the shell structure, creating a VERY strong body (remember the VW commercials about the bug's shape and showing architectural domes?)

Were you to claim a Hudson form the NYC was a Baltic from the MILW, there would be derision and multiple corrections. Were you to proclaim that a given car has "bettendorf" trucks, while they had Chrysler trucks, you'd be corrected. Were you to call a Model A a Model T - you'd be corrected. The passenger car history and research is back where fright car research was in the 70s. Modelers more often than not treat passenger trains as rolling scenery. Museums have poorly worded or plain incorrect signage for passenger cars. Most people see a car in work train service, give ti a cursory glance and call it what it sort of resembles - most simply say "Pullman" if it's a passenger car and "RPO if it's a mail car and "Harriman" if it has an arched roof. The San Francisco Commute cars have been wideley - and VERY incorrectly referred to as "Harrimans" for decades - being neither "Harriman" nor "Common Standard". That people can't "tell a Common Standard" car is a problem - that they confuse "Harriman" with cars from all over the country, with a variety of designs is more than a problem.

Author:  wesp [ Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

I guess this means the Rock Island "Jesse James" cars are also not Harrimans?

(Ducking for cover)

Wesley

Author:  Trainlawyer [ Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

As I prepare to take a similar posture to Wesley, I will posit this question - As there is strong possibility that a Deputy U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of New York who was also a sports writer at the New York Morning Telegraph may well have ridden on the DL&W and a much lower possibility that the best known Town Marshal from Tombstone, AZ was ever east of Peoria - Shouldn't the Lackawanna's open platform cars be properly nicknamed 'Bat Mastersons' rather than 'Wyatt Earps'?

I am now going to warm my coffee in a radar range which was not manufactured by the Amana Corporation while Great-Granddaughter Number One xeroxes an article for me.

GME

Author:  Mount Royal [ Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

American Flyers.....

Author:  Les Beckman [ Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

wesp wrote:
I guess this means the Rock Island "Jesse James" cars are also not Harrimans?

(Ducking for cover)

Wesley


Wesley - "Jesse James" cars? Not "Al Capone"? It's funny, but I commuted on those Rock Island arch roofed cars for years both before and after my "active" (before marriage) rail fan days, and never once heard them referred to as James or Capone cars. To me, there were simply 2500's (and yes, I know the numbers overlapped into the 2600's). So "arch roofed" or "2500's"; never James or Capone cars!


Les

Author:  Trainlawyer [ Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

In Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) Mr. Justice Stewart, in a concurring opinion, wrote:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...


GME

Author:  M Secco [ Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

Hey Les ,
Was your search for preserved Harriman's successful or did you want to change that to a Harriman-type , Harrimanish or Harrimananalytical combine search ?

Thank you rswebber for immediately recognizing the car, I described as a Harriman . Right or wrong , people know what you're talking about when the term is used .

FYI - Harriman's Bait and Tackle is having a Can Of Worms sale New Years Day .
I'm gonna be first in line for that .

Please have a Happy New Year.
Mark

Author:  Howard P. [ Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harriman combines?

Well, at least we're ending the year on a humorous note, thank you very much!

Howard P.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/