What PRR electric is this?
- Thread starter MeowRailroad
- Start date
MeowRailroad
CKRail
Thank you!
cascaderailroad
New member
I like the way they put out the fire, probably electrical, or fuel ... then get going underway like nothing was wrong with the loco ... probably the fire will restart again.
They were at Aqueduct road in Dunncannon Pa, and if they made it to Enola they would be lucky, to reach Huntington or Altoona the loco would surely fail again. They should have called for a helper loco to haul the consist to the nearest repair terminal, and set out the loco for repairs.
They were at Aqueduct road in Dunncannon Pa, and if they made it to Enola they would be lucky, to reach Huntington or Altoona the loco would surely fail again. They should have called for a helper loco to haul the consist to the nearest repair terminal, and set out the loco for repairs.
Last edited:
MeowRailroad
CKRail
Those old training videos are hilarious! I was wondering, wouldn't a fire that big damage the engine?
MeowRailroad
CKRail
That's what I thought! That it was some terrible special effects. At least they didn't throw gray tissue paper out the vents to simulate smoke.
I doubt that, no.1 unit would of been shut off and put into trailing mode with the other two units working, it was a passenger so the other two would of been more than enough.
cascaderailroad
New member
The head end loco was driven away after the fire by an engineer, so it was not "shut down" ... If it was shut down, the cab controls in the head end unit would be inoperable.
Just another nonsense training film ... spray it with water ... and it is A-OK to drive again
Just another nonsense training film ... spray it with water ... and it is A-OK to drive again
Last edited:
Locomotives can have their engines shut down and still control trailing locos. Just because they were in the cab controlling the other two doesn't mean the leading one was necessarily providing engine power. In fact a lot of times if a crew knows they're going to have some dead-headed power they'll try to get it put in the lead so they have a quieter smoother ride.
But I agree, training films of the day weren't entirely accurate in all details, just make it look good. Just like I'm sure the fireman (the actual one, not the train crew) wouldn't have just stood there spraying not the engine for 30 seconds until he was tapped on the shoulder.
But I agree, training films of the day weren't entirely accurate in all details, just make it look good. Just like I'm sure the fireman (the actual one, not the train crew) wouldn't have just stood there spraying not the engine for 30 seconds until he was tapped on the shoulder.
Fixed. One of my biggest pet-peeves. Seriously. would've is a contraction of would have not just another way of writing would of which is never a proper phrase. Would have, Should have, Could have. Sorry to go off topic, but this seriously drives me absolutely crazy seeing this. Kind of (that one's right) like their/there/they're and your/you're and to/too/two and for/four/fore... Yes, I'm a bit of a grammar nazi, sue me.
MeowRailroad
CKRail
Wow! A fellow grammar enthusiast!