Push-pull experiment on the NYC

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottomatic77/5248776233/

he coach with the safety stripes on the end is #2012, built by Pullman as #1095, one of 35 cars in NYC Lot 927. It was renumbered to #2012 in the late 1930's renumbering. Airconditioning was fitted either in the late 1930's or in the 1940's. NYC decided to test the concept of push pull operation in the 1960's and this car was modified to be the cab car of a test train for use on the Hudson Division. In its conversion, it was fitted with controls, a headlight, cab windows and for operation with an electric loco, a coaxial cable was installed. A coaxial cable was also fitted to coaches 1825, 1839, 1865, 1896, 1915, 2006, 2030, 2038, 2064, 2073 and 2080. In addition electric loco P-2b 235 was also modified to operate the test train on the Electric Division. Only one test run was made and it appears that the concept wasn't a success, as the necessary crew agreements were never reached. Therefore the coaxial cable was removed shortly after the test run and all equipment returned to regular service. The 2012 operated as a normal coach until 1968 when it was renumbered at North White Plains to 2778 for rider car service. In 1969 it was retired and whitelined. It was scrapped at Luria Brothers in South Modena, PA in the 1970s.

Thanks to Robert Bogie of Melbourne, Australia for the information!

Otto, very interesting info. Thanks, never heard of this before.

Not to nit pick (sorry but I must, it's a character defect, and I'm too old to fix it) it was probably a multi-conductor cable and not a coaxial cable. A coaxial cable usually carries a single high frequency signal (Radio, TV, Computer Networks, etc.). A multi-conductor cable (i.e. a bundle of wires) would have carried all of the low frequency signals used in the standard multiple unit control system invented by Sprague. Unless they converted all the low frequency signals to a single high frequency signal, but that would have taken a pretty big cabinet of electronics back in the 1960's or 1970's. And it would have required electronics in each loco/car that you wanted to control. But it may have happened that way.

NYC did do some remote unit testing using radio signals to control mid train locomotives back in the 1960's. But without microprocessors when the radio signal dropped out (i.e. when passing under a bridge, or in a deep valley) the locos sometimes kept pushing after the head end stopped. Not good, melted wheels and melted rails. Those experiments didn't last too long either. NYC was ahead of the times in many ways. I think those experiments happened on the Penn Division (Lyons to Corning and Pa).

Anybody have more info on those ? I wonder if they used the same electronic equipment for both experiments ? If the coaxial cable info is correct then they probably did use some of the same hardware. Very Interesting.

Maybe if they had used a multi-conductor cable the Push-Pull system would have worked. They could have used the existing wiring in the MU trailer cars. Not sure I understand the "crew agreements" part, except maybe that the union contracts with the NYC where very specific about the seats that had to be provided for the Engineer and Fireman. Perhaps it was a pay scale thing since the engineers were paid by "weight on the drivers". The control car probably weighed quite a bit less than the loco, but the engineer was really controlling the heavy engine from the control car. Interesting. Maybe NYC tried to reduce the pay to the rate for an MU car instead of the rate for a loco ? They probably would have suggested that just to see the reaction from the union.

Cheers and happy holidays to everybody, Kevin (Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering)

Coax cable is never used for low voltage multi functions, specialy in that day and age.
most likely standard Multi strand 27 pin Locomotive MU jumpers were used.
Coax cable did not get in general use till about 1980's except profesional radio antenna's.
even in houses the flat 300 Ohm wire was used till late 70 early 80's

Dutchrailnut, I had forgotten all about the flat 300 ohm cable in houses. I've strung a bit of that myself.

Trivia Question; Anybody know what a "BALUN" is ?

Cheers, Kevin

Concur that it was most likely NOT coaxial cable... Ammended the caption accordingly.

The late Charles M. Smith, the New York Central Mechanical Engineer-Locomotives at the time, was involved in this project. He told us about it one evening during a meeting of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society-New York Chapter; Charlie was the chapter chairman.

I don't recall the type cable used but I do recall him telling us he designed the system. He was quite proud of it although I remember him saying the project was not successful as the cable signal could not be made reliable enough.

This train was placed in service in 1962 or 1963 I believe. I think it did see some regular service -- on the Hudson Division -- until the cable problem convinced Central to stop the project.

There was a photo in Central's Headlight employee magazine of the train coming east along the Hudson Division one weekday morning with an in-service train. I believe that for a short period of time the train made a rush-hour roundtrip, east in the morning and west in the PM.

In the photo the train is running with the cab car (NYC car inspectors called it a "power car") on the east end. The car did not have the safety striping then.

I saw this coach several times during the summer of 1963 running in Harlem Division trains as a regular service coach.

I was not aware the coach was apparently used in some kind of push-pull service in 1967.

Tommy Meehan wrote:The late Charles M. Smith, the New York Central Mechanical Engineer-Locomotives at the time, was involved in this project. He told us about it one evening during a meeting of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society-New York Chapter; Charlie was the chapter chairman.I don't recall the type cable used but I do recall him telling us he designed the system. He was quite proud of it although I remember him saying the project was not successful as the cable signal could not be made reliable enough.

Interesting, though I wonder why Mr. Smith didn't borrow from existing technology of the day... C&NW, Burlington, even the CNJ were all operating push-pull services at the time...

Tommy Meehan wrote:I was not aware the coach was apparently used in some kind of push-pull service in 1967.

I don't believe it was. It remained in service as a regular coach until 1967.

NYCRRson wrote:
Trivia Question; Anybody know what a "BALUN" is ?

It's a type of transformer (BAL = Balanced; UN = Unbalanced; referring to impedance).

Otto Vondrak wrote:I wonder why Mr. Smith didn't borrow from existing technology of the day... C&NW, Burlington, even the CNJ were all operating push-pull services at the time....

Otto I don't know the answer either but C&NW and CB&Q were operating new equipment designed to be used in push/pull service. Except for the locomotives (which were diesels), but I don't think the problem was with the locomotive, it was with the trainline signal. Possibly there was electrical interference from the third-rail; I don't recall Charlie saying that though, I'm speculating here.

Jersey Central's home built system came a bit later. I think they had some similar problems too, though.

I wondered why coach 2012 had the 'scare stripes' in 1967 -- it definitely didn't have them prior to 1964 -- if it wasn't being used that way? Or that at least the idea was being reconsidered. I don't know of any diesel locomotives Central had that it could have worked push/pull with, but they might've.

Beginning in 1964 the Harlem Division began to get federal operating funds through the Tri-State Transportation Committee for various projects to reduce travel time and increase ridership on the Harlem above North White Plains. They tried (and proposed) a lot of different things so who knows?

[edited once for clarity]

Ocala Mike, yes indeed, I'm glad I'm not the only person that knows what a balun is. I admit I still have a few of them hanging out in my many "junk" drawers in the shop.

A common type of balun had two screw terminals to connect to a 300 ohm flat transmission line (technical term, most folks call it a cable) and a threaded terminal to connect to a 75 ohm coaxial cable. They were used to connect your TV set to the signal from your antenna, or from the cableTV signal.

Don't see too many baluns around anymore.

Cheers, Kevin.

Just thinking of what push-pull is used for today... To eliminate the moves of an engine running around from one end of the train to the other, to eliminate the extra personnel needed on the ground to facilitate the move, and to eliminate the time lost in making the moves.

If a train was running through from New York to Poughkeepsie or New York to Brewster, an engine change was required en route. Enabling push-pull operation on the NYC would not eliminate the need for engine change. You wouldn't have much use for a captive train set that only operated White Plains North-Brewster or Croton-Poughkeepsie. It *almost* makes sense to keep an electric engine coupled on one end and a diesel coupled on the other for the entire day! You'd somehow have to MU the control stands from the diesel to the electric and vice versa... Similar to what NJT does on their Atlantic City Express service: To save time, the train has two engines, diesel on one end, electric on the other. When the train leaves electric zone at Philadelphia, the crew just moves to the other locomotive. It's quite unique to see an electric locomotive charging at you, headlights on full bore, horns blasting and pans down!

Today's Metro-North uses push-pull as most trains into diesel territory are through trains. The locomotives are dual-mode diesel and electric, and are always on the north end. Engine changes have been eliminated completely with the introduction of dual-mode locomotives.

What was NYC trying to gain from trying push-pull?

-otto-

Otto Vondrak wrote:What was NYC trying to gain from trying push-pull?

Otto as I mentioned to you off-list, according to a former employee this was a project that apparently originated at the local level so they may have been just trying it to try it. I wouldn't think the cost of installation was very high. When it didn't work very well they seemed to have quickly given up on it.

One train where I did see the equipment used back in 1963 was a Harlem Division commuter express from GCT making the Scarsdale-North White Plains stops. This train terminated on what was then called Track 5 at NWP, the easternmost platform track. (Back then there were only two tracks that platformed at NWP.)

After going out-of-service on Track 5 this train then made a backup move below NW Tower to crossover to the lead into the yard where standard equipment was stored, Yard B. Or into Yard A (where the MU Inspection Shed stood), which is where I remember it going for some reason. This backup move was being done at the height of rush hour so having the cab car on the rear end would greatly facilitate the move, I would think. Trouble is I think the cab car control had already been disabled!

This would be a train Central could keep coupled together, making an inbound run in the morning, probably a deadhead round-trip back to NWP for midday storage, and then the outbound run as I described. Not having to turn it would be a plus.

Why did they use standard cars on a train operating solely within third rail territory? They were a little short of a/c MU cars I think is the answer.

By 1963, when this experiment was tried, the Central was deep into negotiations with Governor Rockefeller and New York State about getting some relief from taxes on the suburban service and to acquire some operating subsidy as well.

One of the things Rockefeller was asking (publicly) was that commuters be provided with air-conditioned rides as much as possible. By then the standard coach fleet was entirely air-conditioned (or soon would be) while the MU fleet was only partially air-conditioned. This experiment may've been an attempt to see if it would be feasible to replace some of the older non-a/c MUs trains with push/pull standard trains.

If that's what it was, from the results it would seem Central decided it would not be feasible.

The larger potential savings in cost would have been at G.C.T.

There were numerous standard equipment Electric Division trains (non-MU) that operated into GCT during the AM Rush and did not go onto the Loop tracks. A GCT Yard Crew and S-motor were need to uncover the road engine, and a GCT Emergency Engineer & Fireman were need to move the road engine for its next assignment. With push-pull, the train could remain intact until its next assignment, which was usually in the PM rush.

shlustig wrote:The larger potential savings in cost would have been at G.C.T.

There were numerous standard equipment Electric Division trains (non-MU) that operated into GCT during the AM Rush and did not go onto the Loop tracks. A GCT Yard Crew and S-motor were need to uncover the road engine, and a GCT Emergency Engineer & Fireman were need to move the road engine for its next assignment. With push-pull, the train could remain intact until its next assignment, which was usually in the PM rush.

Didn't think of that... Eliminating switching moves at GCT would be a big savings.

shlustig wrote:The larger potential savings in cost would have been at G.C.T.

Anything is possible but eliminating the switching of suburban equipment at GCT would've required nearly all of the standard coach fleet be push/pull compatible and required motors and diesels be modified as well. Nothing like that was tried and people who were around back then have never mentioned anything like that either. Charlie Smith certainly never did.

It was just the one motor (P-2b 235) and the one set of coaches. The train apparently made a few runs, proved not to be reliable and the project went no further. I believe the caption for the photo stated it was only tested. Someone told me -- I don't remember who -- it was planned to replace non-A/C MU equipment on a pair of Hudson Division rush hour runs. As I recall they even mentioned the train numbers.

The Harlem Div. train I saw it occasionally assigned to in 1963 was one that terminated at NWP and was one of the last -- if not the last -- NWP train that usually ran with the older non-A/C MUs.

Central had agreed with NYS to try and provide an all air-conditioned fleet during the rush hour. That's part of the public record. In fact the first batch of 4600-4700 MUs had been put in service by the time this experiment was tried. The remaining non-A/C MUs were then largely restricted to Bronx local service on the Harlem and mostly so on the Hudson Division. There was at least one rush hour train that still ran with the older MUs on the Hudson Division all the way to Harmon (or Croton North). That service survived into the summer of 1967 and I made a point of riding it several times.