It is currently Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:10 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: DL&W mu cars?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:14 pm 

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:40 am
Posts: 325
I'll through an idea in the pot. The LIRR had some of its MP15 switchers setup to supply 600V to old 3rd rail electric cars for lights and heat. Another MP15 or GP38 would provide traction power. Could one of the MU cars supply enough HP at reduced voltage to drag around a MP15 or SW1200 converted to a power pack as the LIRR called them? Not long ago two derelict LIRR MP15 locos were available. There is/was a SW1200 for sale on Sterling in need of a good home. The switcher would have to run in notch 6 to get 600 volts DC if I'm not mistaken? http://www.sterlingrail.com/classifieds/classified.php?id=347

Robert


Last edited by BigBoy 4023 on Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DL&W mu cars?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:42 pm 

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:40 am
Posts: 325
robertmacdowell wrote:
Eric,

If you have a Lackawanna which is gutted of electrical gear, sell it to me as you have a poor candidate for restoration. Acquire one that has not been gutted. Sadly the Toledo car was scrapped a couple of years ago, I know of no other but I haven't exactly hunted them all down, either. Race 'ya.

The first thing that would be stripped is the motors, so you'd either need to find motors that fit, or change trucks. You could retrofit Brand X trolley controls if you like, at which point the performance of the car would be entirely a function of how you built it.

Yes, in the setups I propose, assuming original equipment, you would cycle through the motor point controls in the normal fashion, ultimately "putting it on the brass" just like downtown.

One detail worth noting is the resistor packs would be quite the wrong values for that application, i.e. Too high resistance. As it happens, dividing resistors by 1/3 or 1/5 is a straightforward affair. The divider bars can be fused so if it's ever run on full voltage, the excessive current would blow the fuses, resetting the resistor value back to factory.

EDM,

I wouldn't say a GG1 could be converted as easily as a Lackawanna, certainly not. But still, far easier and with far more respect for historic fabric than any of the naysayers would want you to know. It would be a wizard tier project; definitely do a Lackawanna first ;)

6-18003,

I like making money. Everything we do runs on money so I want butts in those seats any which way we can. But I also like the "everything we do" part.


Not a MU car. There is a D&LW rare Boonton Line car #3966 listed on Ozark. https://ozarkmountainrailcar.com/railEquipmentGrid.php?category=Passenger%20Equipment

Robert


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DL&W mu cars?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:52 am 

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:31 am
Posts: 525
Eric S Strohmeyer wrote:

Would it not be a better idea to simply rewire the power car so that it can run on the Electric City line from Steamtown, up to Montage?

Correct me if I'm wrong; It is my understanding that one of the ECTM's former Philadelphia trolleys cars can handle maybe 40-50 people comfortably on a single trip. A DL&W MU power car / trailer combination should (theoretically) be able to carry 140 people per trip. If, as Robert suggests, a top speed of 15 miles per hour could be obtained, then would it not be a perfect way to showcase the MU technology while accommodating larger crowds per trip, all the while retaining the ability to still be able to run any streetcar they might wish to operate as well?

It strikes me that restoring a Lackawanna MU to working order could actually be a wise investment. I keep checking out the Western Railway Museum's and the East Troy Railway's museums Facebook pages and wonder why a Lackawanna MU has not yet returned to service as well.....

I, for one, would love to travel on a self propelled Lackawanna MU again.


The ECTM operates well in excess of 15 mph for much of the ROW. I also have to wonder if a 70 foot car could navigate some of the tighter curves on the line. In my opinion, they would be much better served finding a mate for PST 76 or P&W 164.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DL&W mu cars?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:05 pm 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:01 pm
Posts: 1482
Location: SouthEast Pennsylvania
TAN: Did the Chicago Transit Authority (Chicago Rapid Transit) locomotive mentioned a few posts back have the change over switch so it could also run on the Chicago, South Sore & South Bend's 1,500 volt Direct Current supply? Some times, the companies were under common ownership or management.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DL&W mu cars?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:40 pm 

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:50 pm
Posts: 2342
Location: Northern Illinois
JimBoylan wrote:
TAN: Did the Chicago Transit Authority (Chicago Rapid Transit) locomotive mentioned a few posts back have the change over switch so it could also run on the Chicago, South Sore & South Bend's 1,500 volt Direct Current supply? Some times, the companies were under common ownership or management.


No. They were built specifically to maintain the former Milwaukee Road freight service on the line to Evanston after that line was conveyed to the Northwestern Elevated Co. for its northward expansion. In theory they were land-locked on the far north side (the elevated north of Wilson Ave. is all on earth filled embankment, not elevated structure) as, at fifty tons they were supposedly too heavy for the structure. That being said, during the bad winter of 1967 at least one of them was sent over the structure as far south as Clark Jct. to plow out the Ravenswood line on-grade trackage. Considering the South Shore locomotives started at eighty tons and went up from there, these would have been toys on that operation. I believe they had the series-series capability for the same reason the Illinois Terminal motors had; better slow speed performance while switching.

On EDIT:

Not to hijack this thread, but here are links to a photo history of the two B-W locomotives on the CTA:
https://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gallery/work09.html
https://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gallery/work10.html
https://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gallery/work11.html

Additional EDIT:

Here is some more background on the freight locomotives. A full history of the operation is available here:
https://www.chicago-l.org/operations/freight/index.html

For the sake of standardization, the two locomotives were equipped with the same size wheels, the same motors, and the same gear ratio as that used on the most current type of steel cars (the Baldie 4000-series) purchased by the elevated lines at that time. Each locomotive was equipped with four Westinghouse 567-R-1 motors. The wheels were 34" in diameter and the gear ratio was 17 to 60. The April 2, 1921 issue of Electric Railway Journal described the locomotives' equipment in detail, explaining,

The motors are of the field control type, developing 165 hp. each on one-hour rating. The locomotives are arranged for multiple-unit control so that they may be coupled together for pulling a train as long as twenty-five cars up the 2 per cent grade approaching the elevated structure. They are equipped with Economy watt-hour meters. There are three running points provided in the control, providing three operating speeds. These are derived by connecting all four motors in series, two motors in series and two in parallel, and four motors in parallel. The motorman notches up the throttle-type controller through sixteen points to the full series position, then brings the controller back and throws a change-over lever which provides for the parallel running points.


The control positions were in opposite corners of the cab, so when the motorman had the change ends he moved to the other side of the cab. As noted above, the locomotives' master controllers had 16 points, and through the use of a series/parallel switch at each of the two control positions in each cab it could effectively become two two-motor locomotives (in parallel) or one four-motor locomotive (in series). One could not from the series to parallel without shutting off the controller and throwing the series/parallel switch, however.

The series mode was meant for two purposes: low-speed switching and high tractive effort. The parallel mode was for higher speed operations. The locomotives could be started in series or parallel, but more smoothly in parallel due to the lower available tractive effort in parallel. In actual use, the locomotive was switched into parallel after going through all the points in series. The parallel position was used when climbing the grade travelling up the ramp out of Buena Yard onto the single-track connection lead to the main line. According to former CTA Transportation Department employee Bob Janz, with a heavy train the operating practice was to have the locomotive in parallel before it reached the small yard office at Buena. Full power would be maintained until a point just short of the top of the grade. The engineer would then back off a few points to avoid overloading the locomotive, to prevent the roof-mounted 600v dc ribbon fuse from blowing.

There were three air-operated reverses on each locomotive. This was different than the standard arrangement for most electric locomotives. Two of them were in the motor circuits to reverse the direction of rotation of a pair of motors. The third reverser was controller by the series/parallel switch.

_________________
Dennis Storzek


Last edited by Dennis Storzek on Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DL&W mu cars?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:47 pm 

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:50 pm
Posts: 2342
Location: Northern Illinois
Bump.

I've added a lot of links to information to answer Jim's question about the Chicago "L" locomotives compatibility with the South Shore electrification, but in the interest of not hijacking this discussion, I've added them as edits to my message above, so I don't know if Jim has seen them.

It turns out, however, that the real reason is the last thing I checked; no consideration was given to making them compatible because when they were purchased in 1920, Insull's ownership and rebuilding of the South Shore was still five years in the future.

_________________
Dennis Storzek


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], LVRR2095, Majestic-12 [Bot], softwerkslex and 43 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: