RailRoadFan.com

Standard Railfan wrote:

kenN wrote:I'd love to see a picture of the Centipedes on the North end. I know that the PRR M-class 4-8-2 and I-class 2-10-0 were too heavy to go north of GR, let alone TC. The lighter USRA N-class 2-10-2s were the biggest steam locos permitted north to Mackinaw; don't know if they could go to TC.

Just a few clicks away. http://www.michiganrailroads.com/statio ... rp-lake-mi

Thank you, Thank you. I knew the PRR used lots of unusual diesels on the GR area, in the early '50s (I remember Alco PAs and FM switchers and road units) but I never expected to see evidence of the Centipedes. KJN

My father-in-law worked for the Pennsy on the GR&I from Ft. Wayne to Grand Rapids in that era. Can you imagine what he saw in both cities for power and then get to run it thru the likes of Rome City, Wolcotville, Sturgis, Mendon etc. We have his fireman uniform with PRR lapel patches plus some other memorbilia on loan to the Vicksburg museum. Yes fireman had uniforms which I did not know. Since he transitioned from steamers to diesel I can't imagine having to wear that in a locomotive cab, but they did. My mother-in-law always had his dinner in the car and would meet the train in Mendon only 3 miles away.

Not to hijack this thread, but what was the biggest steam power allowed in the Grand Rapids area on the PRR? I've seen pictures of the N class 2-10-2s, but were the L class 2-8-2s or M class 4-8-2s permitted on the line? Seems like most of the freight was handled by H class 2-8-0s, while passenger trains were pulled by G class 4-6-0s or K class 4-6-2s.

The 4-8-2s were OK up to GR, but too heavy for the light rail north of town. The USRA-designed 2-10-2s were light enough to run north of GR, but the huge I-class 2-10-0 were too heavy. So, yes, the power was the smaller engines as you say. The 2-10-2s were even used on heavy passenger trains, as they could maintain the schedule whereas double-headed 4-6-0s couldn't, because it took too much time making two stops every time they took water. Can't imagine what the ride in those low-drivered 2-10-2s was like at 35 mph! Hang on for dear life--rattle and roll!

Thanks for the info Ken! I've yet to see a picture of a PRR 2-8-2 or 4-8-2 in GR, sadly.

Don't know about the 2-8-2s, but according to Jack Smith, a PRR engineer now deceased, he saw a 4-8-2 in town only once, and was the hostler who had to turn it on the downtown wye because its long-distance tender made it too long for the turntable. That may have been a test run, and apparently not repeated. Sadly, I didn't ask him when that was.

I went thru my System Timetable when I was a conductor for Lake Central Railtours and the only locomotive restriction is no more than 5 mu'ed together. Nothing re a maximum weight or # of axles.There is not a speed restriction in the timetable for the bridge which is where I think it would be if it was permanent. It could be in a bulletin but I don't recall seeing that in one but it's been 10? years.
I do remember coming to a quick stop on the bridge SB one Saturday. I climbed over the gate on the coach and went to the cab. The engineer was a little shook up because a girl and friends were surprised on the bridge. The rest ran but she panicked, laid down on the outside of the west rail and he went the length of the engine over her. She popped up between the car and engine, climbed the rear steps on the engineers side, raced thru the cab, down the steps on the conductors side, and ran off the bridge.

Anybody have current knowledge of the speed limit for the bridge? With customers north of there you have a variety of different cargos and weights crossing it. I know we made a substantial speed reduction before crossing. Didn't ask engineer if it was per timetable or bulletin?

Raildudes dad wrote:I do remember coming to a quick stop on the bridge SB one Saturday. I climbed over the gate on the coach and went to the cab. The engineer was a little shook up because a girl and friends were surprised on the bridge. The rest ran but she panicked, laid down on the outside of the west rail and he went the length of the engine over her. She popped up between the car and engine, climbed the rear steps on the engineers side, raced thru the cab, down the steps on the conductors side, and ran off the bridge.

Well that is a bizarre story.

NS3322 wrote:

Raildudes dad wrote:I do remember coming to a quick stop on the bridge SB one Saturday. I climbed over the gate on the coach and went to the cab. The engineer was a little shook up because a girl and friends were surprised on the bridge. The rest ran but she panicked, laid down on the outside of the west rail and he went the length of the engine over her. She popped up between the car and engine, climbed the rear steps on the engineers side, raced thru the cab, down the steps on the conductors side, and ran off the bridge.

Well that is bizarre story.

That woman is now my wife

Were you driving the jeep? I'm glad she stayed down flat. I would have really been shook up if she was injured and I still don't even want to think about worse.

Michael wrote:

NS3322 wrote:

Raildudes dad wrote:I do remember coming to a quick stop on the bridge SB one Saturday. I climbed over the gate on the coach and went to the cab. The engineer was a little shook up because a girl and friends were surprised on the bridge. The rest ran but she panicked, laid down on the outside of the west rail and he went the length of the engine over her. She popped up between the car and engine, climbed the rear steps on the engineers side, raced thru the cab, down the steps on the conductors side, and ran off the bridge.

Well that is a bizarre story.

That woman is now my wife

It truly amazes me how small this world really is. I am glad she made it out unharmed.

Did that bridge over 131 replace an older structure? It’s either fairly new or very well maintained.

I’ve always heard the Manistee River Bridge was the roadblock for 1225 going further north. Apparently one time GLC offered SRI a chance to pay to upgrade the bridge for 1225 but was declined. I could see a grant handling that one day.

I personally believe these trips with 126 are testing the market to see how well steam is received that far north. 175 will be up there at some point when it’s running. It’s truly exciting to see steam on a line that hasn’t seen steam since 1957.

MQT1223 wrote:Did that bridge over 131 replace an older structure? It’s either fairly new or very well maintained.

I’ve always heard the Manistee River Bridge was the roadblock for 1225 going further north. Apparently one time GLC offered SRI a chance to pay to upgrade the bridge for 1225 but was declined. I could see a grant handling that one day.

I personally believe these trips with 126 are testing the market to see how well steam is received that far north. 175 will be up there at some point when it’s running. It’s truly exciting to see steam on a line that hasn’t seen steam since 1957.

I don't think you're going to live long enough to see a grant to upgrade a bridge for a steam engine pulling an excursion every once in awhile.

I went through a Penn Central employee timetable on line. Talk about confusing. Anyone running the PC up there had to be an expert in minutia.

From that timetable, I get the feeling that the problem is with the loading gauge (high/wide) and not the weight. But remember that was a PC timetable from long ago.
Nowadays weight may also be an issue.

Unless someone from MDOT or GLC posts, under his or her real name, the bridge's current weight status, this is all just speculation with no verifiable answer in sight. Or optionally, if someone could quote a current MDOT or GLC worker about it. But it's interesting speculation, to be sure.

Steve B wrote:Unless someone from MDOT or GLC posts, under his or her real name, the bridge's current weight status, this is all just speculation with no verifiable answer in sight. Or optionally, if someone could quote a current MDOT or GLC worker about it. But it's interesting speculation, to be sure.

I'm just going through a Pennsy timetable from 1954.

There is a column titled "Engines with Tender Capacity of over 15,000 Gallons with 6-Wheel Trucks"
There is a line titled "Bridge 350.66: 2.14 miles south of Walton Jct"
Where that column and that line intersect is an "X"
That "X" means prohibited
PM 1225 uses a 6 wheel tender with a tank capacity of 22,000 gallons.

DaveO wrote:
From that timetable, I get the feeling that the problem is with the loading gauge (high/wide) and not the weight.

That can't be. It's a deck truss bridge. A bigger mystery is why I was thinking it was a thru truss bridge

DaveO wrote:

MQT1223 wrote:Did that bridge over 131 replace an older structure? It’s either fairly new or very well maintained.

I’ve always heard the Manistee River Bridge was the roadblock for 1225 going further north. Apparently one time GLC offered SRI a chance to pay to upgrade the bridge for 1225 but was declined. I could see a grant handling that one day.

I personally believe these trips with 126 are testing the market to see how well steam is received that far north. 175 will be up there at some point when it’s running. It’s truly exciting to see steam on a line that hasn’t seen steam since 1957.

I don't think you're going to live long enough to see a grant to upgrade a bridge for a steam engine pulling an excursion every once in awhile.

I went through a Penn Central employee timetable on line. Talk about confusing. Anyone running the PC up there had to be an expert in minutia.

From that timetable, I get the feeling that the problem is with the loading gauge (high/wide) and not the weight. But remember that was a PC timetable from long ago.
Nowadays weight may also be an issue.

The grant reference is if GLC needs to Do upgrades to the bridge or if some massive customer comes online in the future up north. You never know up there.

Saw it mentioned earlier and haven't been able to find it, where is the Manistee River Bridge, and how easy is it to access? I may go out there to film later this summer

The bridge is north of Manton and west of U.S.-131 a mile or so north of the end of 131 freeway. Last I know there was a access road to the south end of the bridge.