If the boiler was on the draw span, it would not be gas fired as how would the gas line or an oil feed line adjust for the swing of the bridge. bob gillis Ken wrote: > > Ed, > I believe that the bridge was oil or gas-fired. The east side of the swing > span was non-navigable, so it would have been easy to run a gas line from > Rutherford. In the years that I lived in Passaic Park and Rutherford, I > never saw a train deliver coal or oil, and there was not adequate room for > a tank atop the bridge. The pylon was made of wood, so that opens up the > whole question which you raised. Are we sure that it was > steam-operated? The next bridge south, the Union Avenue bridge, was built > in the early 1900's and was operated electrically, with manual backup. > > Ken > > At 08:08 AM 10/2/02 -0400, MONTGOMERY| ED wrote: > >The photos and discussions about the Erie line through Passaic > >has prompted another question from me. I understand this bridge > >was steam operated. I'm interested if anyone has an idea of how > >this worked. I assume the steam boiler and engin were either in > >the pylon that the bridge swung on. I don't think there was room for > >it in the shack atop the bridge. How was this thing fired? I'm > >thinking it was oil. Where would they store coal? This must have > >been an expensive operation with a bridge that wasn't opened very > >much in the 50s and 60s. I'm assuming that some sort of > >stationary fireman or engineer had to operate this steam engine. > > > >I wonder why Erie didn't convert the operation to electricity in the > >30s or 40s. > > > >Ed Montgomery ------------------------------
This HTML page is © 2000-2009 Blue Moon Online System and The Railfan Network
This page and the data contained therein may not be reproduced
for any form of commercial use without the explicit permission
of J. Henry Priebe Jr. or his duly authorized agent.