Freight through Penn...

[DutchRailnut]

even single level container cars are to much height, and putting them in well cars would prevent access to container, until its unloaded out of well, adding to time.

[Jersey_Mike]

One of my PRR books mentions some experiment with taking a loaded coal train through the tunnels in the 1950's or 60's. The up and down grades managed to break 3 or 4 knuckle couplers and the experiment was not repeated.

[gprimr1]

I was looking at some maps of Long Island and NYC to see if a combined freight/passenger operation might be possible. I see two problems.

1.) It doesn't apear possible to access the New York and Atlantic without a backup move if you follow a routing similar to the current tunnels.

2.) I doubt NYC wants hazmats running under the city; however, non-hazmats could do a lot to help reduce rail congestion, but would CSX and NY&A want to make a large investment in something they can't use for everythign?

[DogBert]

There are so many reasons this will never happen again that we could post about it for days, weeks...

One of my PRR books mentions some experiment with taking a loaded coal train through the tunnels in the 1950's or 60's. The up and down grades managed to break 3 or 4 knuckle couplers and the experiment was not repeated.

If you recall which, please post the name of it. Coming from a book, hopefully there's a reference in the back to where that info came from. I'm one of those annoying "show me the proof" people Until I find photos or the rumored report, I'm not going to believe it happened.



By that measure, here is what I found in the NY Times archives:

In 1918, much of the US was snowed in. Coal was a major source of heating - thus it's delivery was essential. Freight was largely moved by carfloat at the time, and NYC harbor was icing up.

This is probably the most interesting article:

"Use of tubes gives city relief at once" - Jan 2, 1918
subtitle: coal administrators say McAdoo's order will prevent an alarming shortage.
"Director general McAdoo's order directing the Pennsylvania Railroad tunnels under the hudeson river opened to coal trains means that the supply of fuel to NYC will be increased immediately"
"transporting coal into long island by cars instead of barges, as is now done, will mean a savings of from three to seven days in distribution to customers"

The article also describes a riot in harlem over coal, whereby residents raided a coal company to get what they could.

Note that the above article says they OK'ed the movement of coal through Penn, but not that it happened.

This next article says it did happen, and thus far is the only proof I've found that freight ever moved through Penn:

"Novel plan to supply city with coal" - Feb 17, 1918
"The use of the Pennsylvania tunnels served only to a small degree to relieve the situation, as a fifty car train had to be cut up into five sections on the Jersey side in order to be haulable by the electric locomotives on the 2 per cent grades at each end, and only a very limited about of coal could be carried under the hudson river each day by such means".

The other articles I found in the times archive state that the railroads were moving freight more reliably in February, across the country. One article actually listed car counts, which is a level of reporting you just don't see much of today.


So... like I say further up in this thread - freight probably once went through the tunnel due to an emergency shortage. There *maybe* was a PRR or PC test train way back 50 years ago... and today... well. NYS spent millions to build the oak point link to get freight out of mott haven, and LIRR rerouted anything they ran through harold by the 1980s. The MTA doesn't want freight in those junctions. Even if they were agreeable, the two times freight maybe moved through penn were failures. Using the 1918 numbers, moving 10 cars of freight through at time doesn't make much economic sense. To move a lot of freight through, you'd need a lot of slots... which doesn't exist even late at night. Nevermind the fact that Amtrak says it may need to shut down a tube for months due to hurricane damage.

[Jersey_Mike]

There are so many reasons this will never happen again that we could post about it for days, weeks...
If you recall which, please post the name of it. Coming from a book, hopefully there's a reference in the back to where that info came from. I'm one of those annoying "show me the proof" people Until I find photos or the rumored report, I'm not going to believe it happened.

The book is not where I am so it will be a month or two before I'll get back to you, but I'm certain it contained no further references. I'm not sure why you are so skeptical. I find it hard to believe that the PRR would NOT try to move profitable freight through Penn Station overnight. By the 1960's that whole setup was a white elephant. Anyway the book was published pre-internet, the train was a coal train and it was handed off to New Haven diesels at Harold.

[DogBert]

The book is not where I am so it will be a month or two before I'll get back to you, but I'm certain it contained no further references. I'm not sure why you are so skeptical. I find it hard to believe that the PRR would NOT try to move profitable freight through Penn Station overnight. By the 1960's that whole setup was a white elephant. Anyway the book was published pre-internet, the train was a coal train and it was handed off to New Haven diesels at Harold.

I did my digging in the times article probably a year ago, so a month or two is nothing Researching this stuff always requires a long term view.

My skepticism comes from having read up on one too many urban underground legends - like the baggage car at GCT that Metro north's tour guide swears hauled FDR's limo (it's really just an old work train car), or the long rumored IND '76th street' subway stop, or Bob Diamond's steam locomotive sealed up under atlantic ave in Brooklyn (which might actually be there). There's a few of these stories out there online - often short on evidence. Being able to back this test train story with some kind of proof would be nice. Publishing standards were probably a bit stricter when your book came out in terms of fact checking, so it's probably be spot on.

I agree 100% - it would make sense for PRR to at least try the concept, especially when they were starting to loose money mid-century.

[rvlch]

The reference which I believe Jersey_Mike is likely referring is a first hand account in the introduction to Don Ball Jr.s excellent "Pennsylvania Railroad 1940s-1950s". The introduction is by E.T. Harley who was the PRR's last assistant chief mechanical officer. He describes being first hand on a night in the "early 1960s" when they took a coal train thru the tunnels with (3) E44s leading. The account describes "violent slack action" and that the coupler failure occurred soon after the NH took the train at Harold with 4 Alcos and set out over the Hell Gate bridge. The writer attributes the failure to the abuse the train took in the tunnel passage, and that the experiment did prove such a move was possible, if not practical.

[DogBert]

...sounds like a book I need to read Danke!

[ApproachMedium]

I am not sure how much of that I believe since the E44s I think couldnt even fit in the tunnels.

[n2cbo]

I am not sure how much of that I believe since the E44s I think couldnt even fit in the tunnels.

Why would they not fit? I seem to remember them as being shorter than a GG-1. The E-60s fit and in my memory the E-44 was MUCH smaller than them, although that was MANY years ago, I could be wrong.

[rvlch]

The PRR class drawing is found here:
http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiag ... &sz=sm&fr=

I think this shows it would fit although some may have later judged "too close for comfort", and later rules perhaps reflected that?. It is hard to understand why the PRR would have ordered a custom locomotive that by design could not traverse all the electric territory. I have never seen any reference suggesting such a limitation. Certainly an ETT from that period would reflect such an operational restriction if such existed. Anyone have access to one covering this territory?

The (narrow) hood height of 14' 10" is taller than any other PRR electric but still below the 15' "pan locked down" dimension that was standard for all the motors. Several others were significantly longer and wider, including the Gs.

[ApproachMedium]

I thought I had read somewhere that the reason NJ Transit didnt want to use them is because they didnt fit in the tunnels, but seeing the dimensions that seems unlikely the problem and more that they had no HEP or steam heat for the passenger cars.

[Jersey_Mike]

The reference which I believe Jersey_Mike is likely referring is a first hand account in the introduction to Don Ball Jr.s excellent "Pennsylvania Railroad 1940s-1950s". The introduction is by E.T. Harley who was the PRR's last assistant chief mechanical officer. He describes being first hand on a night in the "early 1960s" when they took a coal train thru the tunnels with (3) E44s leading. The account describes "violent slack action" and that the coupler failure occurred soon after the NH took the train at Harold with 4 Alcos and set out over the Hell Gate bridge. The writer attributes the failure to the abuse the train took in the tunnel passage, and that the experiment did prove such a move was possible, if not practical.

Yes, that's the book. My mistake...the coupler failure was after the hand off to the New Haven.

[n2cbo]

I thought I had read somewhere that the reason NJ Transit didnt want to use them is because they didnt fit in the tunnels, but seeing the dimensions that seems unlikely the problem and more that they had no HEP or steam heat for the passenger cars.

Plus, they were geared for freight use.

[DutchRailnut]

the E-44 was 15 ft 0 in (4.57 m) over pantograph locked down