Answer from friend Louis...told you, he's a steam engine freak. Interesting,
though. SO, yes, I was wrong. FYI, Lou is not a diesel fan. He is even into
steam cars...and that comment will probably start another thread.... No, he
doesn' thave a steam car. His daily driver is a '64 Olds Jetstar 88.
Chris
"Louis J. Tofari" wrote: Dear Chris,
Gruess Gott!
I never recalled having said that one could travel from coast to coast in 24
hours in 1940's, nor can I conceive that I would, because this simply was not
possible due to a number of factors, though the speed of steam locomotives
(built for fast passenger and freight service) was not one of these, as the
NYC's 4-8-4 Niagara's were capable of making over 120mph while carrying freight
(a dynamometer car test proved this in the 1940's when a Niagara's speed
literally went off the charts while hauling a freight train; the graph went up
only to 120mph; other locomotives, such as Santa Fe's 4-8-4 Northern's had
speedometer-tape readers that went up to 120mph).
In fact, such locomotives routinely ran at over 80mph (especially here in the
Midwest where the wide, flat plains much such speeds readily available).
Unfortunately, due to the false historic perspective that most now have of the
modern steam locomotive, thanks to the political-propaganda blitz of the diesel
agenda (enacted by GM's and GE's company, EMD [ElectroMotive Divison] and the
backing of the oil industry), it is popularly thought that steam could not make
it much past 60mph, though facts contradict this "dinosaur" myth. Steam was
(and still is) not only faster than diesel-electrics, but could accelerate
faster as well (when diesel-electrics were first put on commuter trains, the
schedules had to be lengthened due to the slower acceleration of the diesels
versus those of their older steam counterparts).
In the late 1930's until the 1942 (WWII) however, the NYC's Twentieth Century
Limited was scheduled to make it from New York to Chicago in just 16 hours (a
+900 mile route), under steam, and including limited stops (either at stations
or for coal refueling). The NYC had some great innovations along the
NYC-Chicago route such as water track pans from which their water scoop
equipped tenders could refill from while traveling as fast as 80mph (thanks to
some fancy venting on the tender), which assisted in keeping the times low. To
this day, no railroad has bested this record; not even Amtrak with its
supposedly "modern" equipment.
The main obstacle that would have prevented such a possibility was that not a
single railroad extended from the east to the west coast, or even directly
across the nation at that. For instance, for years the Union Pacific had no
direct access (tracks of it own) that went into Chicago. So they had to "piggy
back" with the Chicago and Northwestern (C&NW), that is, the train in question
(e.g., the Overland Flyer) was a joint effort, with C&NW taking it (under its
motive power) from Chicago to a point where the UP was, then the UP's motive
power taking over. The same was true with the famed California Zephyr; the
Burlington (CB&Q) took it out from Chicago and near Denver, the Denver & Rio
Grande (D&RG) took it over, and subsequently the Western Pacific (WP) at Salt
Lake City which brought it to its final destination in San Francisco.
Perhaps then I was speaking with hyperbole; certainly the train schedules in
the 1940's were more varied, often times faster and definitely more efficient
then Amtrak runs today, and without the aide of "modern" technology; for
instance, as of 1935 (again, initially under steam) C&NW's The 400 literally
ran 400 miles in 400 minutes between Chicago and the Twin Cities (in
competition with the Milwaukee Road's Hiawathas and Burlington's Zephyrs), both
heavily strewn with residential areas where restricted speeds (i.e., under
30mph) were required.
So considering these factors, if a single railroad did extend directly from
NYC to San Francisco (a little more than 2000 miles), had innovated features
such as track pans, standing relief locomotives, a limited-stop schedule and no
snow in the Rockies!, etc., a 1930's - 1940's high-speed schedule could have
been covered by steam in about 33 hours, just 9 hours more than 24.
In any case, if at some time I provided you with the wrong information, my
humble apologies.
Till next, God bless.
LJFT
Christopher McCann wrote: It came from my steam engine buff friend Louis...I
will call him on it and let you know.
Chris
andrew strasfogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "In the 40's you could go
coast to coast via train in 24 hours. A lot of
"progress" huh?"
I'm going to call your bluff on this. Coast to coast by train in 24 hours?
That an average of over 100 mph assuming no stops. Where did this factoid
come from?
---------------------------------
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 13 14:13:31 2007
Received: from omta01-pub.suddenlink.net ([208.180.40.73]
helo=omta01.suddenlink.net)
by server8.arterytc8.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id 1HR7kp-00049H-6y
for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:13:31 +0000
Received: from raec400 ([74.193.6.13]) by omta01.suddenlink.net
(InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for <mercedes@okiebenz.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:13:25 -0500
From: "Royce Engler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <mercedes@okiebenz.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:12:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
Thread-Index: AcdlFAAsybIrCyLbSmCarq5uj5+8GQAZIzMg
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus
Subject: [MBZ] CD changer info for Larry
X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9.cp2
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List <mercedes@okiebenz.com>
List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List <mercedes_okiebenz.com.okiebenz.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Archive: <http://okiebenz.com/pipermail/mercedes_okiebenz.com>
List-Post: <mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com>
List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Subscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:13:32 -0000
Larry said...
I rec'd this answer from www.installer.com - perhaps your Becker was newer
than mine (1991)?
<<<<No parts availiable to do this.
Sorry.
Dwayne
Help Desk>>>>
Sorry Larry....I must have given the wrong impression. I did the install on
my wife's 2002 Toyota Highlander and my daughter's 2001 Ford Expedition. I
figured it would be a long shot for those guys to have an off the shelf
adapter for an old Becker, but worth asking.
We're now beyond my limited electronics abilities...maybe Jim Cathey has a
suggestion...What you are looking for is a way to tap an aux input into the
connection between the head unit and the tuner/amp/changer in the trunk.
I'm not familiar with the Becker units...it is possible that either the
tuner or the amp have an aux input (too much to hope that it might be RCA
plugs...)
Royce
