Coal? Steam? Oof.

Lack of water also adds a very dangerous element to your story. If your engine's boiler runs dry or if water is added when it has very nearly run dry, there's the risk of a very spectacular explosion. Good reason for lots of shouting.

Passenger trains are not as common here in Canada as elsewhere in the world. Via Rail shut down its passenger service for a while due to lack of interest. It's going again but costs the same as flying the same distance and is inconvenient for many. If I wanted to take a train I would first have to drive or fly 400 miles north to Edmonton to catch it.

We do have a tourist steam-line that operates out of one of the small towns and a steam line that runs all summer at our local living history park inside the city limits.

PeeDee consider the size of your engine, and the date it was built. Size basically equals the number of wheels. My guess is you would want a locomotive built just before 1900. You want an older smaller one that can't handle as many cars, or get quickly up to speed and has some old fashioned features like a dated smokestack.

girlyswot said:

Wow! I mean - Really? Never?

Is that normal in America? (I'm assuming you're American because of your story, but actually I'd be equally intrigued to know of anywhere where people don't travel on trains at all.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not at all unusual in the U.S. My husband (American) and I were in Harrisburg, PA a few years ago and were going to Philadelphia. I proposed taking a train rather than driving and found out that he had never been on a train or, indeed, even known anyone who had legitimately traveled by train before (aside from the trains one might ride at a historical village or zoo).

I think it is truly regrettable that train travel is dying out in the U.S., although I can understand to some extent why it is. Few people want to be on a train for days in a trip that can take hours by airplane.

I once took a train from Minneapolis to Seattle. It took two and a half days, but was one of the neatest trips I've taken. I didn't have to worry about driving or seeing nothing but the rear bumper of the car in front of me. I could just lean back and enjoy the scenery. Incredible!

I love train travel and I'm glad to live in a place where it is cheap and convenient.

PeeDee said:

All I know is that the engineer shovels coal into the hot little door.

Click to expand...

Just wanted to suggest double-checking that. From my non-researched personal vocabulary, based on who-knows-what, the engineer is the one who drives the engine (meaning he's at the controls), the fireman shovels the coal, and the conductor collects tickets and deals with the passengers in the cars. On older trains there also would be a brakeman who's in charge of setting the brakes on the cars. Dunno if that's right, but somebody who reads it will know for sure.

You got it right on who does what, Pup. The conductor is actually the least important of the crew but he is the one the passengers see. Puma

PeeDee said:

And I have just discovered this place, with the stunning locomotives pictured, which is in Duluth, which is not particularly far from where I live. Great success.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could take a train to go and visit it?

Since I moved to the US I've travelled by train a lot. In Philadelphia there's an excellent local rail system around the city. And I've taken the train to DC and to New York, and up to Connecticut. It's always been easy and reliable. Making my connection in New Haven was an unbelievable experience - we got off the train to find a conductor waiting to show us where the train was waiting for us. I'd been imagining having to run all over the station and then finally find the right platform to see the train slowly pulling away without me. That's pretty much how it works in England.

Though I was stunned when I was coming back. I got to the station at Springfield and went to check where the train was coming in. There was one of those boards with sticky letters which at first I thought listed all the trains for the day. Then my friend pointed out it was actually all the trains for the week. So I guess that's one reason people don't use the trains much - you wouldn't want to take the risk of missing the only train that day!

PeeDee said:

That's okay, I can figure out dates just fine on my own. But that's really interesting, because I didn't know that. All I know is that the engineer shovels coal into the hot little door. Unless it's back to the future,and then it's colored sticks of dynamite.

Okay, so I can shovel coal into my steam engine. That works out perfectly. I really wanted someone to have to shovel coal.

Click to expand...

Well. coming from a railroad family, I can tell you that there WAS someone who shoveled coal and kept the fire burning - that job was called the fireman.

Some steam trains were used past the 1940's in some areas - I don't think there is one uniform date when all steam trains retired and the total switch to diesel was made. In the 60's, my great-uncle's retired steam engine was selected to be displayed in a park in my hometown and he was chosen to drive it to the final spot. Before the engine was fenced in (to protect against vandals), he took me to it and up into the engine. Thanks to him, I know the rudiments of driving a train.

There are a number of vintage steam trains around the country; I've ridden on quite a few of them - if any are in your area, it might be helpful to ride on.

Steam locomotives were in their heyday the early forties, some roads still used them into the 1960's.

War production limited diesel production to the Also RS-1 or MRS-1 (Military RS-1). No other diesels were produced, except for military use. The EMD FT diesel did not see production until the war was over. So almost all of your passenger trains would have been steam.

Circus trains were run by the railroads, not by the circuses. In other words, they adherred to all Operating Rules. Running out of water would not be a common problem, a mechanical failure would be more appropriate.

Also to be considered, is that a circus train would probably not even be allowed to operate. War supplies needed to get through and Locomotives were in short supply. In other words, no railroad would have a 'spare' locomotive to 'squander' on a circus.

Anyone going by rail as a passenger, if they were lucky enough to get a passenger ticket, would have traveled by steam. Wartime passenger service was close to nill as the railroads carried troops and equipment.

Pete, the conductor was like the manager of a passenger train. He oversaw passenger services, ticket collection, and communication down the line. The engineer operated the steam engine. He had a coalman to stoke the boiler bay. These are terms I grew up on as a kid, and they may not be exactly right, but I'm sure a conductor never drove a train unless something dire happened to the engineer because they were busy filming a movie.

To help in role definition.

The Engineer ran the locomotive.

The Fireman was responsible for stoking the fire, by hand or automatic auger. He was also responsible for watching the tender's water level.

The Conductor was in command of the train. The Engineer, Fireman, and Brakeman answered to him. Along with the Operating Rules, his word was law. A Conductor did not run the train and usually did not know how. On a small consist he would be responsible for collecting tickets. On a large consist there would be several Ticket Collectors who would handle this function.

In addition to coal, some western roads used Bunker Grade C oil to power their steam locomotives. Bunker Grade C is not the same as diesel fuel.