ONLINE
STORE
"ASK THE BACH MAN"
FORUM
PARTS, SERVICE,
& INFORMATION
CATALOGS AND
BROCHURES

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2017, 02:20:02 PM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Please read the Forum Code of Conduct   >>Click Here <<
+  Bachmann Message Board
|-+  Discussion Boards
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  Casey Jones and his engines
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print
Author Topic: Casey Jones and his engines  (Read 16654 times)
Mdaskalos

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: August 09, 2013, 04:13:43 PM »

One Casey Jones info webpage I went to said he had received no warnings from the railroad in the year preceding the wreck. Either he had kept his nose clean, or perhaps the railroad management just chose to look the other way. In either event, when it came time to call up a replacement engineer on short notice, and knowing that the train was likely going to get underway late, I would think the railroad management knew who to call; they probably didn't draw Casey Jones' name out of a hat.

The term "u-boat" for a locomotive must be very much an "insider" term for railroaders, I googled the terms "u-boat"  and "locomotive" together (well, I  "Bing"-ed it, I guess), and everything came up submarines. I gave up after looking through a few pages.

You know, in one of those ironies, I would probably never have the 382 on a model railroad of mine. (I used to work in a shipyard, and have built many model ships; I'm getting back into model railroading after a 35-year hiatus, to bring it to my sons). Anyway, I had two simple rules for what I would build and not build, and I will probably extend those same rules to what I will run on my railroad:

1. No ugly ships (locomotives) They gotta please my eye in the case (on the tracks)
2. No unsuccessful or "bad luck/bad reputation" ships (locos). (Within reason: build the Titanic? Yes? a modern cruise/sewage liner? No.)

(Forgive me for all of the ship references...it has been a chunk of my career, plus an unexpected kitchen rebuild over the past month has slowed my return to model railroading.)

I'm not saying the 382 is ugly, in case anyone is going to get upset; beauty is in the eye of the beholder. it just doesn't float my boat, plus it's about 50 years distant from the era I'm targeting.

Do I mean I agree with a certain other "rewd" poster? Not in the least. I assert that I would not want to have a certain loco on MY layout, this other individual contends that NO ONE should.

Where would that stop? Somebody else will come along and say "no one ought to model such and such a railroad because they exploited this or that"; someone further will come along and say "you ought not model ome OTHER railroad 'cuz it's a coal hauler, and that's jsut morally and environemntally wrong..."

Quote
...This is a freedom of speech country...

I don't know, Jerry: America seems to be turning into "Amerika" more and more every day, where if someone disagrees with you, they must demonize your view or your pursuit, and try to render it illegal.

Manuel
Logged
GG1onFordsDTandI
Guest
« Reply #46 on: August 09, 2013, 06:50:21 PM »

Thanks for a well thought out counter point Manuel.

Now here's something I hope you'll really like! (RJSquirrel) Wink
http://youtu.be/z9Dl7V_4QFY
Logged
GG1onFordsDTandI
Guest
« Reply #47 on: August 09, 2013, 07:07:19 PM »

Manuel posted-
The term "u-boat" for a locomotive must be very much an "insider" term for railroaders, I googled the terms "u-boat"  and "locomotive" together (well, I  "Bing"-ed it, I guess), and everything came up submarines. I gave up after looking through a few pages.


Manuel, maybe Bing has given us each different results based on personal settings, or past searches. In images I get all locomotives by searching  -  u-boat locomotive  - . Not all of them U-boats, but no submarines to speak of. 
Logged
rogertra


View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 09, 2013, 07:53:24 PM »

Manuel posted-
The term "u-boat" for a locomotive must be very much an "insider" term for railroaders, I googled the terms "u-boat"  and "locomotive" together (well, I  "Bing"-ed it, I guess), and everything came up submarines. I gave up after looking through a few pages.


Manuel, maybe Bing has given us each different results based on personal settings, or past searches. In images I get all locomotives by searching  -  u-boat locomotive  - . Not all of them U-boats, but no submarines to speak of. 

Speak to any railfan and mention "U-Boat" and they'll all know it means one of G.E.'s "Universal" series of diesels.  :-)

Google "U-boat diesel" and you get this, one of many hits: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_U25B
Logged

Mdaskalos

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: August 09, 2013, 11:39:58 PM »

Manuel, maybe Bing has given us each different results based on personal settings, or past searches. In images I get all locomotives by searching  -  u-boat locomotive  - . Not all of them U-boats, but no submarines to speak of. 

Actually, I got crossed up and told you the wrong terms. I really used "U-boat" and "veranda" in Bing. U-boat and locomotive get me some matches.

Manuel
Logged
GG1onFordsDTandI
Guest
« Reply #50 on: August 10, 2013, 04:34:00 AM »

Manuel, maybe Bing has given us each different results based on personal settings, or past searches. In images I get all locomotives by searching  -  u-boat locomotive  - . Not all of them U-boats, but no submarines to speak of.  
Actually, I got crossed up and told you the wrong terms. I really used "U-boat" and "veranda" in Bing. U-boat and locomotive get me some matches.                     Manuel

After looking a Veranda seems to not be there. But I found a decent photo, halfway down this page, just below the turbine illustration, on the left. UP #73. See the covered walkway?
  http://www.railarchive.net/rlsteam/nonsteam.htm
« Last Edit: August 10, 2013, 04:37:03 AM by GG1onFordsDTandI » Logged
GG1onFordsDTandI
Guest
« Reply #51 on: August 10, 2013, 04:37:58 AM »

again       http://www.railarchive.net/rlsteam/nonsteam.htm 
Logged
GG1onFordsDTandI
Guest
« Reply #52 on: August 10, 2013, 04:39:34 AM »

better     http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/up70.jpg
Logged
Skarloey Railway

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: August 10, 2013, 04:23:14 PM »

Given the paucity of pre 1910 locomotives in model form I'd say we entertain any excuse to get them produced, including associations with famous people. The advantages of modelling early railroads are so many - smaller locos and rolling stock and shorter trains, being just two - that I find it strange more modellers don't take advantage of it.
Logged
Doneldon

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: August 10, 2013, 06:05:37 PM »

Given the paucity of pre 1910 locomotives in model form I'd say we entertain any excuse to get them produced, including associations with famous people. The advantages of modelling early railroads are so many - smaller locos and rolling stock and shorter trains, being just two - that I find it strange more modellers don't take advantage of it.

Skar-

There's also an endearing (to me, anyway), spunky, funky charm to the smaller equipment. I won't use the c-word (no, not that one -- get your mind out of the gutter) but they do make me feel a little squishy inside and like I should cuddle one. Compared to the giants which came later -- and I have nothing whatsoever against big steam -- they evoke images of the little engine that could or man against the arctic.
                                                                                                                                                -- D
Logged
Skarloey Railway

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: August 11, 2013, 07:26:16 AM »

Yep, all of that. Plus you can model a mainline rr with scale length trains consisting of a loco and eight freight cars and hold it in a 10' long siding while the express passes with 3 or 4 passenger cars and all for the price that a transition era modeller would pay for one train.
Logged
jward


View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: August 11, 2013, 11:01:14 AM »

while I will admit turn of the century railroading has a certain charm, for me the era to model is the 1970s. the equipment is something I am familiar with in real life., and the operating practices based on my own experiences. there really isn't a lot of historical research I need to do, because I was there. can't say that about the 1890s.
Logged

Jeffery S Ward Sr
Pittsburgh, PA
Desertdweller

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: August 11, 2013, 01:20:42 PM »

I've so far been able to restrain myself from jumping in here, but you guys give me no choice.  You can only punch so many of my buttons unanswered.

What no one seems to have noticed in the Casey Jones debacle was the fact that he had been on duty running trains for over 20 hours at the time of the wreck.  Even though he belonged to a union, there was no limitation on the Hours of Service.

I have worked as an engineer on two railroads in Mississippi.  Like any main-line engineer, there have been times when I have had to fight to stay awake while running a train.  If you are working in pool service, work hours and sleep hours being different each day, your body cannot get into a natural rhythm. Couple this with no hours of service law, and it is surprising to me that there were not more accidents of this type.

I have gone down to where this wreck took place and tried to reconstruct it in my mind.  But 100 years after the fact, there was not much left to see.  A main line, a siding, and an abandoned station.

I think we should cut Casey some slack.  Worked past his limits, he tried to minimize the effects of the crash by staying on the engine and laying on the brakes.  His actions probably saved many lives.  Most engineers I have talked to about this consider him an unlucky hero, as I do.

I don't collect or operate loco models of the era of 382.  But I certainly would not avoid one because of the wreck.  It would be very easy to update a 382 model, for that matter.  Change the cab roof, the cylinder saddle, the pilot, and the headlight and it could represent any of a number of ten-wheelers of the 20's, 30's, and 40's.

My "other hobby" is building model ships.  I have collections of 1/600 scale ships and 1/350 scale ships.  Yes, Titanic is one of them.  Also Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, and Yamato.  If anyone would do a little research on the WWII German Navy, they would find that it was not a collection of Nazis.  The surface navy was totally inadequate for a war in 1940, and the ships and crews were sacrificed in a hopeless effort.

I've also preferred running GE locomotives to EMD's.  The early ones were slow to load, but the later ones were a treat to run.  Especially the -9's.  The AC 44 series were all good, too.

Les
Logged
Skarloey Railway

View Profile
« Reply #58 on: August 11, 2013, 01:36:04 PM »

while I will admit turn of the century railroading has a certain charm, for me the era to model is the 1970s. the equipment is something I am familiar with in real life., and the operating practices based on my own experiences. there really isn't a lot of historical research I need to do, because I was there. can't say that about the 1890s.

Isn't the research all part of the fun?
Logged
GG1onFordsDTandI
Guest
« Reply #59 on: August 11, 2013, 02:49:30 PM »

Ive always just liked trains. Never ever did I not have a train, one of my earliest gifts. While on vacations, as a kid in the sixties, before they all disappeared, I used to love riding "tourist trap trains" of the north. Tourist Traps with their trains and/or viewing towers would cause a fit of pleas to Dad for a stop. I would willingly grant any request my parents made, in exchange for a ride (and maybe that summers toy slingshot, or "bow and arrows". If I couldn't shoot it an honest 15ft, I passed, spoiled by owning the real things too, but those are not toys). Most I remember were rebuilt and/or repurposed narrow gauge or copies of 1800s engines, but "real steam" was all that mattered to me. Some had small diesels, even an engine with a good looking copy of a Super Chief. Wood, coal, oil? Fuel didn't matter, I always went for the steamers. Choosing a car to the rear a bit, so I could view the engines cab in bends, waiting for elusive views into the firebox at speed, sometimes opting not to even ride if it wasn't steam. It only took one trip behind the Mini Chief to decide diesel was too boring for me (unless I'm driving). But at the same time I love Es and Fs,(etc) for their style. The lack of which is my reason for lack of interest in running modern stuff. If I can have a bit of myth, legend, and history amongst my collection, I look forward to it. Heck Ill even allow whimsy.  Click to watch.


 Paucity?!?!, I had to look it up  Embarrassed. but I did look it up Cool

    
« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 02:54:38 PM by GG1onFordsDTandI » Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!