Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387628] Mon, 07 October 2019 13:20 Go to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati

https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=f alse

https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f= false
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387651 is a reply to message #387628] Mon, 07 October 2019 19:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 10:20:49 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=f alse
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f= false

Note that that's _steam_. 12 hours from Baltimore to Cincinnati.
Amtrak's "modern" diesels take 16.
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387663 is a reply to message #387628] Mon, 07 October 2019 23:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 11:20:50 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati

The Baltimore and Ohio railroad, of course, not Bang and Oluffsen, the designer
audio company.

John Savard
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387666 is a reply to message #387663] Mon, 07 October 2019 23:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ted@loft.tnolan.com ( is currently offline  ted@loft.tnolan.com (
Messages: 161
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <3a00096f-fd6a-4472-8876-57b17884e467@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 11:20:50 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati
>
> The Baltimore and Ohio railroad, of course, not Bang and Oluffsen, the designer
> audio company.
>
> John Savard

A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387678 is a reply to message #387651] Tue, 08 October 2019 09:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 10:20:49 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=f alse
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f= false
>
> Note that that's _steam_. 12 hours from Baltimore to Cincinnati.
> Amtrak's "modern" diesels take 16.
>

Apples != Oranges. In "modern" times, one can fly in less than an hour.
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387681 is a reply to message #387678] Tue, 08 October 2019 12:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2019-10-08, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 10:20:49 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati
>>>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=f alse
>>>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f= false
>>
>> Note that that's _steam_. 12 hours from Baltimore to Cincinnati.
>> Amtrak's "modern" diesels take 16.
>>
>
> Apples != Oranges. In "modern" times, one can fly in less than an hour.


We need a new concept of distance. In a recent family emergency, people could
get to Ireland faster from Perth, Australia than from a remore Scottish island.


--
Maus@ireland.xxx
Will rant for food.
You are taking the IPCC, right?
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387684 is a reply to message #387663] Tue, 08 October 2019 12:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2019-10-08, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 11:20:50 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati
>
> The Baltimore and Ohio railroad, of course, not Bang and Oluffsen,
> the designer audio company.

Still, could you imagine how pretty the trains would be?

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ "Alexa, define 'bugging'."
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387685 is a reply to message #387681] Tue, 08 October 2019 12:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2019-10-08, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:

> On 2019-10-08, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 10:20:49 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati
>>>>
>>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=f alse
>>>>
>>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f= false
>>>
>>> Note that that's _steam_. 12 hours from Baltimore to Cincinnati.
>>> Amtrak's "modern" diesels take 16.
>>
>> Apples != Oranges. In "modern" times, one can fly in less than an hour.
>
> We need a new concept of distance. In a recent family emergency, people could
> get to Ireland faster from Perth, Australia than from a remore Scottish island.

Indeed. They say the world is getting smaller, but the way local traffic
is going, it's getting bigger again.

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ "Alexa, define 'bugging'."
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387687 is a reply to message #387666] Tue, 08 October 2019 13:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andreas Kohlbach is currently offline  Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>
> A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
> anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
> was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
> enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.

They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
exist. Look at <TGV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV> in France, the
father of high speed trains staring in 1981. In 2007 it set a speed
record of 574.8 km/h (357 mp/h). I once used a TGV from Paris to
Lyon. Took a while to get out of the city. But once there the speedometer
clocked at 280 km/h if I recall correctly. Everything outside "flew" past
me so fast. According to Google it takes 2.5 hours for the almost 400
kilometer. Another web page says a flight takes 1 hour and 5 minutes. But
with check-in and -out you might be faster with the train. And it's
certainly cheaper.

Japan and South Korea have bullet bullet trains and pretty country in
Europe operates high speed lines.

You don't need streamlined trains for low speed.
--
Andreas

My random thoughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387688 is a reply to message #387684] Tue, 08 October 2019 14:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2019-10-08, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 11:20:50 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati
>>
>> The Baltimore and Ohio railroad, of course, not Bang and Oluffsen,
>> the designer audio company.
>
> Still, could you imagine how pretty the trains would be?

The train in the article does actually have a bang&olufson
vibe an art deco kinda way.
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387689 is a reply to message #387687] Tue, 08 October 2019 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
> On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>
>> A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
>> anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
>> was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
>> enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.
>
> They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
> exist.

https://wtop.com/business-finance/2017/10/amtrak-unveils-new -acela-trains/

[snip]
> According to Google it takes 2.5 hours for the almost 400
> kilometer. Another web page says a flight takes 1 hour and 5 minutes. But
> with check-in and -out you might be faster with the train. And it's
> certainly cheaper.

That's also true from NYC Penn Station to Boston on Acela. Spacious, especially
in the relatively inexpensive first class cars; 110v outlets, tables,
nice views and arrival in backbay or downtown. Can take almost as long
to just get from Boston Logan to downtown. 140 to 160 MPH depending on
the consist once you get out of the NYC metro area.
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387691 is a reply to message #387678] Tue, 08 October 2019 14:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 10:20:49 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati
>>>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=f alse
>>>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f= false
>>
>> Note that that's _steam_. 12 hours from Baltimore to Cincinnati.
>> Amtrak's "modern" diesels take 16.
>>
>
> Apples != Oranges. In "modern" times, one can fly in less than an hour.
>

Plus two hours to and from each airport and needing to get there an hour
early to get through security.

--
Pete
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387692 is a reply to message #387681] Tue, 08 October 2019 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andy Burns is currently offline  Andy Burns
Messages: 416
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
maus wrote:

> We need a new concept of distance. In a recent family emergency, people could
> get to Ireland faster from Perth, Australia than from a remore Scottish island.

TfL (even some estate agents) can draw isochrone maps which show where
you can live, if you want a commute less than 'x' minutes from a given
workplace.
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387693 is a reply to message #387692] Tue, 08 October 2019 14:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andy Burns is currently offline  Andy Burns
Messages: 416
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Andy Burns wrote:

> TfL (even some estate agents) can draw isochrone maps

< https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/ planning-with-webcat/webcat>

<https://www.zoopla.co.uk/travel-time>
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387695 is a reply to message #387689] Tue, 08 October 2019 16:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andy Leighton is currently offline  Andy Leighton
Messages: 203
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 18:29:53 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
>> On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>
>>> A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
>>> anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
>>> was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
>>> enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.
>>
>> They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
>> exist.
>
> https://wtop.com/business-finance/2017/10/amtrak-unveils-new -acela-trains/

Acela isn't really high speed. Yep the new Avelia Liberty trainset is capable
of a decent speed as the article said. But the problem isn't necessarily top
speed of the train. Look at the current Acelas - they average out at
around 70mph over the entire route (Boston - Washington). That is
pretty slow, it is slower than the East Coast Mainline in the UK
(which has fast but not high-speed trains).

The problem is infrastructure (including track) and congestion.

> [snip]
>> According to Google it takes 2.5 hours for the almost 400
>> kilometer. Another web page says a flight takes 1 hour and 5 minutes. But
>> with check-in and -out you might be faster with the train. And it's
>> certainly cheaper.
>
> That's also true from NYC Penn Station to Boston on Acela. Spacious, especially
> in the relatively inexpensive first class cars; 110v outlets, tables,
> nice views and arrival in backbay or downtown. Can take almost as long
> to just get from Boston Logan to downtown. 140 to 160 MPH depending on
> the consist once you get out of the NYC metro area.

Boston to NYC is currently 3.5 hours. So it is much closer to breakeven on
time. BTW the quickest Paris to Lyon journey is 1hr 56min and is a tad
longer in distance than Boston to NYC. Spain has their AVE which is
very fast too - Madrid to Barcelona (620km) in 2.5 hours non-stop.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387696 is a reply to message #387687] Tue, 08 October 2019 16:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-6, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

>> A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
>> anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
>> was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
>> enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.

> They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
> exist.

It's certainly true that trains for high-speed rail are streamlined still.

But as to his original question: it's quite true that while today's diesel-
electric trains are _not_ streamlined, there was a period when the later *steam-
engine* trains were streamlined.

That could well have been done just for looks. After all, it made sense that in,
say, 1930, a railway would have wanted to differentiate its trains from the
existing standard... which dated from 1890 or thereabouts.

This page has images of a few of the sort of trains I'm thinking of.

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/types/streamlined/

John Savard
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387697 is a reply to message #387651] Tue, 08 October 2019 16:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:55:17 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 10:20:49 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=f alse
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22mod ern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f= false
>
> Note that that's _steam_. 12 hours from Baltimore to Cincinnati.
> Amtrak's "modern" diesels take 16.

Amtrak makes more stops and has to share the track with freights.
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387698 is a reply to message #387696] Tue, 08 October 2019 17:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 4:36:28 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-6, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>
>>> A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
>>> anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
>>> was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
>>> enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.
>
>> They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
>> exist.
>
> It's certainly true that trains for high-speed rail are streamlined still.
>
> But as to his original question: it's quite true that while today's diesel-
> electric trains are _not_ streamlined, there was a period when the later *steam-
> engine* trains were streamlined.
>
> That could well have been done just for looks. After all, it made sense that in,
> say, 1930, a railway would have wanted to differentiate its trains from the
> existing standard... which dated from 1890 or thereabouts.

Steam engines require a lot of maintenance and the streamlining
covers interfered with that. Many streamlined stream locomotives
had their covers removed when the train came in for maintenance.
Re: OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945 [message #387705 is a reply to message #387696] Tue, 08 October 2019 17:43 Go to previous message
ted@loft.tnolan.com ( is currently offline  ted@loft.tnolan.com (
Messages: 161
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <3308b84e-dcea-4dbc-8d67-b99b78dabd9d@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-6, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>
>>> A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
>>> anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
>>> was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
>>> enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.
>
>> They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
>> exist.
>
> It's certainly true that trains for high-speed rail are streamlined still.
>
> But as to his original question: it's quite true that while today's diesel-
> electric trains are _not_ streamlined, there was a period when the later *steam-
> engine* trains were streamlined.
>
> That could well have been done just for looks. After all, it made sense
> that in,
> say, 1930, a railway would have wanted to differentiate its trains from the
> existing standard... which dated from 1890 or thereabouts.
>
> This page has images of a few of the sort of trains I'm thinking of.
>
> https://www.steamlocomotive.com/types/streamlined/
>
> John Savard

Interesting take from Chuck Jones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa1bUH8nV64
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Re: Versioning file systems
Next Topic: Remington Rand installation
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 00:53:08 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.16746 seconds