[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

PC: Re: MU Conversions

That was No demonstration train of NH 4400's pulled by a S motor none the
less.  Where did you dream this one up? The railroad would not waste  their
money when the state (MTA) is paying fhe the equipment. MTA would have
juristriction over anything that gets rebuilt. What you saw was a dead head
move to Harmon Shops where the cars were serviced at times since Harmon is
the closest shop to GCT.  Some old NH 4000 series MU's were pulled by GG-1's
between Trenton and NY while NJDOT was getting New Arrow MU's. The cars got
their power from the catenary with pans raised but otherwise depowered
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Holzweiss <robert.holzweiss -AT- bush.nara.gov>
To: <penn-central -AT- smellycat.com>; <robcarlo@worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 11:01 AM
Subject: PC: MU Conversions

> Rob Carlo wrote
> <snip>
> As for the PC 1000 series MU's,  I remember visiting the scrap line at
> Croton-North in the mid 70's where many of these cars sat in the weeds
> for a long time before the inevitable.  I thought the condition of the
> were certainly as good as anything running at the time (possibly better!)
> and also wondered why these could not be hauled by a locomotive at
> least as a back up when needed.   What a waste!
> Rob
>      I agree with your assessment.  I drove by the scrap line a Croton
> North almost every day from 1975-1985.  The cars looked to be in good
> shape externally.  Although to my knowledge the former NYC cars were
> not considered for conversion to coaches, the former New Haven
> "Washboard" MU's were certainly considered during the late 1970's.
> There is a picture in Rails Northeast of an S motor pulling a
> train of ex-NH cars at of all places Croton North at the very end of the
> third rail.  I wonder why PC / Conrail (MTA) chose the former NH cars.
> The New Haven's maintenance was probably worse than the NYC
> maintenance prior to the PC merger.  Also, the NH cars were very prone
> to rust because of the stainless steel fluting attached to the outside of
> the car trapping moisture.  I the end, MTA (MNCR) only reactivated two
> cars (under their own power) for the New Canaan-Stanford shuttle.
>      In previous posts, people commented that some of the locomotive
> hauled passenger cars pictured on Jerry's website may be MU's.  I
> wouldn't doubt it.  PC would do just about anything to keep the trains
> rolling, even supplying cars without heat or lights.  However, it is a bit
> unusual to see a former MU operating mixed with conventional equipment
> outside the third rail zone.  Like the former MP54's the PC ran behind
> GG1's in New Jersey, the former NYC MU's probably supplied heat and
> lights through the third rail pickup but were incapable of self
propulsion.  I
> also do not think the MU's had steam and signal lines compatible with
> conventional equipment.
>      I an aside, during the big blizzard in the northeast about three
> ago FL9's towed former NYC 1100 series MU's because the third rail
> was covered over by snow.  The MU's kept their shoes down to clear
> the line and pick up power for heat and lights.  In the mean time Metro
> North used their steam boiler equipped GP9 (former NYC) and rigged an
> attachment to direct the steam to the third rail.  It traveled about five
> per hour melting snow between Harmon and GCT.  It was the only time in
> my life I remember seeing a GP9 with an active steam boiler.
> Bob Holzweiss
> "Robert.Holzweiss -AT- bush.nara.gov"

Home | Main Index | Thread Index