toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The Brotherhoods’ National Diesel-Electric Agreement of 1937 established the less-than-45 ton limit on drivers and specifically required firemen on “streamliners” (regardless of the UP’s trademark). SOU deliberately insisted that the StLCCo train was not a streamliner for this reason, and occasionally corrected people who called them such. Arbitration went against the Brothers in 1948 and, for a final time, in 1948. But that agreement is why the early FTs were drawbar-connected. See TIES
Magazine, 2019-2, p. 21.
As far as I know, SOU did not operate the FM-StLCCo trains with firemen.
They were built by StLCCo with the “power” car (note attached). The coaches outlived the powered units and were used as coaches in regular passenger service after the diesel “trains” were taken out of service (we have the assignments somewhere).
Bill’s comment about keeping the weight below what would require a firemen explains why the Southern never seemed to know exactly how to describe them. “Streamliners” was out of the question for two reasons; the Union Pacific apparently trademarked that term when it introduced its original articulated diesel trains. Those trains really turned up the heat on having Firemen in diesel locos. I don’t remember the details of how that came out but apparently it was agreed that “Streamliners” would require and Engineer and Fireman.
The Southern was always concerned that no one should use that term for their F-M trains as they worried it would be used as justification for a two man crew.
We have more than enough material on the power cars and coaches to do a great TIES article (or Classic Trains?) AND as complete histories on their passenger routes until they were discontinued for another full article. The “Cracker” (Atlanta to Brunswick, GA) is the largest “train-off” file of the bunch. As a “beloved” Intra-state operation, the GA PUC would not allow the railroad to discontinue the train. A Judge in GA liked to ride the Cracker’s Pullman to Brunswick and probably did more to keep the train (and heavyweight sleeper) running than anyone.
I realize I sound like a broken record but SRHA is only able to publish this kind of information if people will help with our archives (cash or labor).
<StLCCo diesel trains back cover.jpeg>
On Aug 13, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Kevin Centers <klcenters@...
Were these coaches the steel sheethed wooden cars, or am I thinking of something else?
The StLCCo literature describes “ 6 Wheel motor truck at the rear of motor car” and “ 4 Wheel pilot truck at the front….” Both had 33” wheels and roller bearings. The number of wheels and axles does seem reversed as weight on the front truck
was 64 tons, the rear 51 tons.
Coaches were “Jim Crow” with two “compartments” front 32 passengers, rear 44 passengers and four toilets, length 70’ 6"
Yes, apparently they were re-trucked several times in their career.
The promotional brochures I have (Cracker and
Goldenrod) show a four-wheel lead truck and a six-wheel rear truck.
I've seen photos of the units with two six-wheel trucks, and (I believe - not certain) with two four-wheel trucks.
I have several negatives of these units, but I cannot dig them up just now.
From: John Stewart <jstew@...
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2020 9:45 am
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] Vulcan 40
Thanks for info and update
That seems to agree with model on Brass Trains website.
Proto Photo appears to have 3 axles front and rear... But not sure