Now see how this group goes of every answer there are countless questions
but its a voyage of dicovery . Until today I have heard nothing but GROVE
cars and exact numbers of the sizes of cars I did not know . As I have
stated in another posting I model 1950,s CANADIAN PACIFIC no CP rail packman
stuff (just my personal opinion) look the Golden Beaver rules today .
packman had its day . lol.Now in set 2 of the VAN HOBBIES the mailcar has
an extra door from the Norwest kit which version is right for the 1950,s era
?? One of the CPR passenger car people should know. regardsDAVID HILL
----- Original Message -----
From: "robin lowrie" <rlowrie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: [cpsig] Dining Cars for the Dominion
My turn on the soap box:
please...can we once and for all quit referring to all curved side lightweight CPR cars as "Grove".
only the sleepers with the word "Grove" in their names are "grove" cars.
If you check any old equipment registers, they clearly show the small group of "short" 2100 series
coaches separately from the other two full-length groups of 21- series coaches.....info extracted
below from January 1957 "official register"
see below;
series type inside length
1700 coach 64' 8"
2100-2107 coach 64' 8"
2108-2128 coach 77' 2"
2129-2178 coach 77' 4"
2200-2234 coach 77' 4"
2235-2298 coach 77' 4"
3050-3053 baggage/buffet 67' 2"
3600-3618 mail / express 69' 11" 30' rpo
3619-3648 mail / express 80' 4" 30' rpo
3745-3749 mail / baggage 80' 4" 60' rpo
when Van Hobbies did the infamous Set # 2, this is the car they should
have done if they wanted a mail car with 60' rpo, not the 3700-3705 1962-era
rebuilds from ex 3619+ cars....especially since the decal set with the cars
was for 3745-3749
4200-4201 baggage & express 69' 11"
can someone confirm if these two were indeed lightweight curved side cars
4202-4256 baggage & express 80' 4"
4560-4565 horse express 80' 4"
4701-4789 baggage & express 80' 4"
6630 buffet parlour 77' 6"
19 "grove" sleepers 77' 4"
I believe there were one or two later rebuilds using 2200 series coaches
with parlour seating but it's late and no room for 8 more reference books
on my computer table.
Robin Lowrie
----- Original Message ----- From: dave hill
To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [cpsig] Dining Cars for the Dominion
I stand semi corrected Canadian Pacific built the smaller grove equipment
first for the Jubilee trains then the full length grove cars I know there
were shorter 70ft mail cars were there shorter coaches for the Jubilee train
and how about the baggage buffet coach and the baggage cars . Now thinkof
the logistics in 1942 80people could be carried seated in a grove coach a
bunch more if they stood up or sat on the floor hey there was a war on my
mom and dad had lots of stories about wartime train travel They were
officers in the RCAF and moved around a lot As they used to say anything
that could still move was brought out especially Christmas time . Drafty old
wood cars the creaked and stunk but they got form point a to b My mom
liked to tell the story of my dad climbing up on the baggage rack and going
to sleep on an overnight trip to Sudbury from Toronto ( he probably had
lots of booze in him so he did not notice it was pretty rough up there )
then they caught the mixed train to Little Current ( my dad liked to call
it "THE Flyer " it was always a leisurely trip on the flyer but it got them
there!!! So new grove coaches would seemed a blessing in 1942. I t would be
interesting who annouced first CPR with the Canadian or the other railroad
with the Super Continential. Acomment about next issue of CP tracks "mana
from heaven " an article on cpr along lake superior What a ride along the
lake on the Canadian did it quite a few times this will bring back a lot of
memories regardsDAVID HILL
----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Thomas" <thomasd@xxxxxxx>
To: <cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [cpsig] Dining Cars for the Dominion
> Whoa! Quite a lot of interesting points here David, but let's take them
> one at a time!
>
> The Dominion ran as two separate trains, usually within an hour of each
> other, one Montreal-Vancouver and one Toronto-Vancouver, all year, from
> the fall of 1942 to spring 1955. Each section needed eight diners assuming
> they went the whole distance. (Four nights and three days running time,
> with a working day at each end to turn the trains.) I believe diners on
> the Toronto section were sometimes turned around at Sudbury because there
> train left Toronto after dinner westbound and arrived before most people
> wanted breakfast eastbound. This saved a car from the rotation. If a more
> leisurely servicing schedule was wanted at one end, an extra car could be
> put in the rotation, but this wouldn't be done during peak travel times
> when cars were in short supply. The supply of diners was more than
> adequate for everyday business, but heavy traffic required a second diner
> on large trains or on extra sections so the supply could get tight. Buffet
> or cafe cars could be used where a full diner wasn't required.
>
> Both CP and Soo Line diners have been reported as running through to
> Vancouver on the Mountaineer. At lease on some occasions they ran only as
> far east as Enderlin, North Dakota, eliminating the need to run to and
> from St Paul where the westbound left after dinner and the eastbound
> arrived early. In some seasons the Soo diner ran only east of Swift
> Current and a CP diner ran only west of Medicine Hat. The train ran
> overnight between those points. This didn't save on diners but it reduced
> mileage and kept the crews closer to home. Fred Shannon and Donald Scott
> have reported a number of consists of these trains and have more details
> at hand than I do.
>
> The Toronto-Vancouver section of the Dominion, trains 3 & 4, carried a
> Grove sleeper in the early 1950s. Eight cars were required to protect this
> service. The Montreal-Vancouver section didn't carry a Grove sleeper.
>
> In the same sentence about Grove cars you state "they were mainly built
> for day trains behind Jubilees." This is not correct as the Groves were
> built for night service, on overnight and long distance trains. The
> original curved side cars were built entirely, not mainly, for day service
> behind Jubilees. These were shorter and lower than standard lightweights,
> and there were only a few of them. The remaining curved-side coaches (some
> 170 or them) which were built later, were full-size cars used in general
> service, on daytime, nighttime and long distance trains.
>
> I don't know whether the beginning of the Second World War in 1939 delayed
> the introduction of lightweight sleepers on CP. However I can make
> deductions from known fact. First, remember that most U.S. railroads
> didn't acquire lightweight sleepers before the war, even with two extra
> years to do it and the Pullman Company to bear the capital cost. So the
> fact that the war intervened sooner in Canada doesn't necessarily support
> a conclusion that CP would have built some lightweights between 1939 and
> 1941 if the war hadn't started. CP had quite a large sleeper fleet (mostly
> 12-section cars) in 1939 and the Canadian market was behind the U.S. in
> looking for the new types of accommodations, bedrooms and roomettes. CP
> was not interested in more streamlined trains as such, other than the
> "semi-streamlined" Jubilee trains, and these fairly soon became a mixture
> of light and heavyweight cars, with some of the new cars dispersed to
> other trains. So there was no reason for CP to build lightweight sleepers.
> CP built 50 lightweight coaches (2029 to 2078) in 1942 when the war was
> on, so the war itself wasn't a bar to constructing new cars. It's likely
> however that CP would not have received approval from war production
> authorities to build low-capacity cars like the Groves.
>
> It's not impossible that CP considered a car like the Grove before the
> war. CP was a major connection and operator of through services with the
> New York Central, which operated the very similar "Cascade" sleepers, and
> would likely have received more in time if the war hadn't interrupted
> supply. (NYC was the largest operator of the successor 10-6 type built
> after the war.) It is interesting that the Grove car greatly resembled the
> Cascade type even though built in 1949 and 1950. It is possible that CP
> had decided before the war to eventually adapp the Cascade plans to its
> own curved-side construction before the war, but that doesn't prove that
> construction was already planned in 1939. CP's decision to use this plan
> may have come later. In any case it is odd that CP decided to use an
> obsolete design so late. The prewar bedroom had open toilets which made
> them very inferior to the postwar design which was slightly larger to
> accommodate enclosed toilets. (13 prewar double bedrooms could be put in a
> car, against 12 postwar rooms, or 11 after the rooms were redesigned again
> about 1950.) Conversely the prewar roomette was inefficiently large, with
> 18 fitting in a cars against 22 postwar roomettes (or 24 duplex
> roomettes). A few U.S. roads used prewar bedrooms in early postwar cars,
> and Union Pacific, Wabash and C&NW built 12 roomette, 4 bedroom cars which
> had both prewar roomettes and bedrooms (the postwar standard of this type
> had 14 roomettes). CP obviously copied the principal dimensions of the
> prewar Cascade, but I just can't say when they did, nor why they persisted
> with an obsolete plan when the 10-6 design was superior. (Unless there
> were patent issues with the new design, which doesn't seem likely to me
> given that three builders were building it.)
>
> I'm not sure which change in technology you are referring to, unless it is
> the postwar alterations to the bedroom and roomette. Public taste was not
> in favour of bedrooms with open toilets, but otherwise the new
> accommodation was popular enough.
>
> The Canadian and its equipment were certainly a modernization to suit
> public taste as you indicate. CP had the benefit of observing what the
> U.S. roads had done after the war, and N.R. Crump and other officers
> personally rode and inspected a number of their best trains, together with
> the benefit of analysis by the Research Department. Proof of the validity
> of their decisions is still with us!
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: David HILL
> To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [cpsig] Dining Cars for the Dominion
>
>
>
>
>
> Now here is somthing i though of this morning driving on the Gardner
> passing the Canadian sitting in Union Station . The Dominion in the prior
> to 1955 rannas a Montreal to Van train and a eparate Toronto to Vancouver
> train or was this only in the summer heavy traffic months?? That would
> require 9dinners per Dominion x2 wow so there were a lot of dinners in
> the system , Nick Morants book is full of separate sections being shot in
> the rockies and prior to 1958 there was the mountianer or did the Soo line
> dinner run thru now theres a mountianer question what say yee . Also the
> number of grove cars built was actually small 19 sleepers that was one car
> per domiinon and an extra they were mainly built for day trains behind
> Jubalees. Then the war came you have to remember Canada was in it sept
> 1939 till 1945 not dec7, 1941 till1945 so grove car ideea put on hold for
> a long time and then technoligy had changed and so had public taste And
> when CP
> modernizedto suit public taste the Budd stainless steel was ordered , To
> think those cars are still running after 54 years and all the Tempos
> Turbos that have come and gone since REGARDS DAVID HILL
>
> --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Don Thomas <thomasd@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Don Thomas <thomasd@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [cpsig] Dining Cars for the Dominion
> To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Received: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 6:02 AM
>
> I agree David, CP had more than enough dining cars in the 1930s and
> 1940s. Apart from the first "semi-streamlined" trains built to operate
> with the Jubilee 4-4-4s, CP ordered lightweight cars as required for
> traffic, rather than streamlined trains as such. The steel dining cars and
> a number of the steel-sheathed ones were modernized and air conditioned,
> making them the equivalent of the newest lightweight cars insofar as the
> service they provided passengers was concerned. By the 1950s the
> steel-sheathed diners were quite old and the stainless cars effectively
> replaced them.
>
> Don Thomas
>
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: David HILL
> To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 3:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [cpsig] Dining Cars for te Dominion
>
> Now proably Don Thomas or Mike Salfi couuld answer this better but my
> thinking is there was a large fleet of A series dining cars build late
> 20,s and 7would have been built for the TRANS CANADA LTD that were not
> needed after 1930 so lots around with the increase in bussiness came need
> for new coaches and more sleepers so why build new dining cars when there
> are plenty to handle the traffic. so no need for a 2200 series diner fast
> forward to 1953 NR Crump was wanting afully modern train the diners are
> getting older and when the Canadian was built it was before 2 things the
> TRANS CANADA HIGHWAYand passenger jet aircraft acceptance. so build a
> luxury train with stainless steel diners dome cars the whole 9yards . This
> is like my debate with Don Thomas over Selkirks vs Mallets on the CPR one
> must go back to the orginal CPR train of thought the line runs thru the
> most specactular scenery in north america . Tjhis was a mega major
> marketing plus from 1886 to
> 1962 competion of the Trans Canada took a lot of bussiness away in
> theRockies but in 1952 the Trans Canada was mostly a dream is some civil
> engineers minds . Building a luxury train in 1953make sense in 1937 it did
> not make sense to replace ining cars the way I sees it Mr Soapbox DAVID
> HILL
>
> --- On Mon, 6/1/09, Michael Salfi <mikesue.salfi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Michael Salfi <mikesue.salfi@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [cpsig] Dining Cars for te Dominion
> To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Received: Monday, June 1, 2009, 8:31 PM
>
> Mike,
>
> Once the Budd stainless steel cars arrived on the CPR, the Dining car
> used
> on the "Dominion" was the stainless steel Budd car. A typical consist
> for
> the Dominion commencing in 1955 would be:
>
> stainless steel baggage dorm
> deluxe coach(s) of the 2200 variety
> stainless steel coach
> stainless steel Skyline dome car
> several 14 section heavyweight sleepers of the "G" variety
> 8-2-1 heavyweight sleeper
> 12 section heavyweight sleeper(s)
> stainless steel dining car
> stainless steel manor car
> stainless steel Chateau car
> stainless steel Park car
>
> depending on traffic for a given day, there could be several 2200 type
> coach
> cars, and heavyweight sleepers, but typically, only one of the
> stainless
> steel cars of each variety identified.
>
> Mike Salfi
>
> On 6/1/09, Mike McGrattan <samuelridge@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry fo what might be a simplistic question but I am somewhat
> stumped as
> > to what kind of a dining car to build for a later day, N scale
> version of
> > the "Dominion" (1957- 1966 era) I assume it would a heavyweight (A
> series ?)
> > but would appreciate some guidance; and, while on the subject, does
> anyone
> > know why the CPR would have built the 2200 series coaches, "Grove"
> sleepers,
> > 4700 series baggage and RPO's all in the late 40's as lightweight,
> curve
> > side cars and not had a dining car designed or made.... always
> wondered
> > that.....
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> >
>
>
> >
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
