Wizlish sgriggs In Huddleston's Allegheny Lima's Finest, he writes, "Dynamometer testing recorded 7,498 horsepower for the 2-6-6-6 and repeatedly proved that it was a legitimate figure". Proves to me that Gene didn't think before he wrote, or is conflating the results of the analysis of dynamometric testing with the observation data. You get the horsepower by calculation, not observation; there was no device that "recorded" horsepower directly, and 'instantaneous horsepower' is an effective oxymoron, considering the definition of horsepower. I would look carefully at the momentum and slack action in the train's consist, relative to the throttle and reverse setting, relative acceleration, and speed of the locomotive and tender. But I'll bet there's no separate recording of the locomotive motion separate from what the dynamometer car, behind the drawbar, was measuring...
sgriggs In Huddleston's Allegheny Lima's Finest, he writes, "Dynamometer testing recorded 7,498 horsepower for the 2-6-6-6 and repeatedly proved that it was a legitimate figure".
Proves to me that Gene didn't think before he wrote, or is conflating the results of the analysis of dynamometric testing with the observation data.
You get the horsepower by calculation, not observation; there was no device that "recorded" horsepower directly, and 'instantaneous horsepower' is an effective oxymoron, considering the definition of horsepower.
I would look carefully at the momentum and slack action in the train's consist, relative to the throttle and reverse setting, relative acceleration, and speed of the locomotive and tender. But I'll bet there's no separate recording of the locomotive motion separate from what the dynamometer car, behind the drawbar, was measuring...
I agree with everything you said except instantaneous horsepower being an oxymoron--it's probably a legitimate concept for things like hitting baseballs, just not a useful or relevant one on a railroad that has to move heavy loads over long distances.
To divert the thread, yes, instantaneous horsepower is an oxymoron, rather like the length of a point. Momentary horsepower is intended. But meanings of words, at least in the English language, do evolve. "Momentarily" was used to just mean "FOR" a moment, but now is also commonly used as "IN" a moment. Two very different meanings. When a PA system announced interrupted service on the Toronto subway would be resumed "momentarily", I had to assume it was the latter meaning that was intended. As the wait continued to lengthen it seemed the former was closer to reality!
Now back to the original discussion of hp and steam.
John
sgriggs The 7,498hp figure is repeated so frequently in discourse on the Allegheny and without explanation of the test details that it is implied as a continuous capability. In Huddleston's Allegheny Lima's Finest, he writes, "Dynamometer testing recorded 7,498 horsepower for the 2-6-6-6 and repeatedly proved that it was a legitimate figure". In World's Greatest Steam Locomotives, the following passage is stated without qualification: "The figures are too well known to require elaboration: 7,498 maximum drawbar horsepower for the H-8 and 6,300 for the A". In his Sept 2004 Trains article, Ed King also mentions 7,498 maximum drawbar horsepower. The steamlocomotive.com website states matter of factly that, "At 40mph [the H-8] could generate 7500hp."
The 7,498hp figure is repeated so frequently in discourse on the Allegheny and without explanation of the test details that it is implied as a continuous capability. In Huddleston's Allegheny Lima's Finest, he writes, "Dynamometer testing recorded 7,498 horsepower for the 2-6-6-6 and repeatedly proved that it was a legitimate figure". In World's Greatest Steam Locomotives, the following passage is stated without qualification: "The figures are too well known to require elaboration: 7,498 maximum drawbar horsepower for the H-8 and 6,300 for the A". In his Sept 2004 Trains article, Ed King also mentions 7,498 maximum drawbar horsepower. The steamlocomotive.com website states matter of factly that, "At 40mph [the H-8] could generate 7500hp."
The absurity of the H8 producing 7500 HP and the A producing 6300 HP (or was it 6800 HP as La Massena claimed) is benign compared to some of the gems I have seen stated on some forums over the years.
Some pople have claimed as known facts:
The Big Boy produced over 9000 HP...
The Big Boy could pull a loaded 5 mile long train at 40 mph...
The Big Boy could never run on current track due to its axle loads, even though they are less than modern diesels...
The Y6b could replace the Big Boy for high speed service, even though the Y's HP curve maxed out at 25 mph...
The Class A could pull 170 loaded coal cars at 70 mph! That must have been after the N&W installed flux capacitors and warp drive engines in them for the big EMD showdown...
Honestly, I don't know what is worse: That these people actually believe this stuff, or they are so dumb not to know any better.
Is it reasonable that the horsepower of a B&O EM-1 2-8-8-4 would exceed the 5.400 horsepower of a four-unit FT at speeds in excess of 19 miles per hour? That's the point at which the TE-versus-speed curves for each locomotive cross on a graph that resulted from B&O comparison testing during 1944. I don't know what data was used to plot the graph.
GP40-2 Honestly, I don't know what is worse: That these people actually believe this stuff, ...
Honestly, I don't know what is worse: That these people actually believe this stuff, ...
"Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt."
"The people gladly believe what they wish to."
-Julius Caesar
selector "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." "The people gladly believe what they wish to." -Julius Caesar
Probably more true today in this country than it was in the Roman Empire...
JayPotter Is it reasonable that the horsepower of a B&O EM-1 2-8-8-4 would exceed the 5.400 horsepower of a four-unit FT at speeds in excess of 19 miles per hour? That's the point at which the TE-versus-speed curves for each locomotive cross on a graph that resulted from B&O comparison testing during 1944. I don't know what data was used to plot the graph.
I see no issue with that considering the design of the EM-1. The EM-1 had an very large boiler, with a total firebox area equal to the H8. The EM-1 did have less grate area, but I have always wondered if it was a case of the H8 being over-grated in respect to the quality of coal used by the C&O. None of the other C&O locomotives had excessively large grate areas, and none were lacking in performance. The N&W didn't need huge grates with the Y at ~106 sq.ft., and the A at ~120 sq.ft.
The EM-1 did use a more modest 235 psi steam pressure, but that was specified on purpose to maximize low speed adhesion. The EM-1 was a late steam design that used very short, large diameter flues, in conjuction with a huge firebox. This configuration generally resulted in very high exhaust gas temperatures, so any energy increase lost to the modest steam pressure was more than likely being made up by the energy added by the superheaters. The C&O J3a, NYC Niagara, and final version of the N&W Y used similar boiler configurations. This is what makes it nearly impossible to compare different designs. You need to know the energy added by the initial process of boiling the water into steam at the designated operating pressure, plus the heat added by the superheaters. The superheaters add heat, but because the steam is already "dry", they don't raise the steam pressure, but they do add a large amount of energy and incease thermal efficiency.
So what was the EM-1 capable of on a full on charge? Nobody knows today. The B&O Engineering Department did, as they tested their locomotives in an obsessive fashion. I heard some stories back in the 1970's from retired folks, with some fairly impressive figures batted around, but to me, without actual data, they are just stories.
What we do know is that an EM-1 could replace two T Class 4-8-2 Mountains in high speed service. Of course, I have no idea what two B&O 4-8-2 were producing at 60 or 70 mph, so that still doesn't help answering the question. Probably best to say that the EM-1 was a large, powerful, modern design that could hold its own against similar designs.
Drawbar horsepower, wherefore art thou Drawbar horsepower? Would coal smoke smell just as sweet by any other name?
Work equals force times distance, as it always was. Power equals force time speed, just the same.
Drawbar horsepower is the work per unit time transferred from the puller (the locomotive) to the pullee (the train behind the drawbar). If you know how fast you are going, and I reckon they had accurate speedometers at least in the dynamometer cars if they didn't have them on every locomotive. I also reckon the dynamometer car had a reasonable accurate gauge for how hard the locomotive was pulling on its draft gear. The readouts of pen chart recorders and dials may have been crude by smartphone app standards, but if they were reading a certain drawbar horsepower, they were reading that amount of horsepower, and that was that.
The problem is that if the (head end, people, the head end) was going uphill, some of the horsepower of the locomotive was pulling the locomotive up the grade and less of the locomotive output was being registered by the tech people in the following car. If the locomotive was going downhill at a steady speed, force is required to keep it from accelerating, so unless the independent brake were applied, the drawbar would register more HP than what the locomotive was actually generating.
It really doesn't matter what the trailing load is doing with regard to sitting across a Loch Ness Monster of humpy hills. If you are accounting for the drag and acceleration of the locomotive, either the acceleration (or deceleration) from change in speed or the gravitational acceleration relating to climbing or descending, which Dr. Einstein told us was indistinguishable, and you account for these forces acting on the locomotive only, locomotive power net those factors shows up on the drawbar -- it cannot go any other place.
There are two things my students need to know. One is that there is a distinction between instantaneous power and average power, and yes, it is going to be on the final test. The second is that if you are uncertain about something, draw system boundaries and apply the conservation laws . . .
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Jay,
I just wanted to add that in all the B&O steam test I have seen, they never seemed to test the engines at maximum power. They seemed to be interested in economic improvements above all else.
Case in point: I had a copy of a test on the S1a 2-10-2 performed on the Pittsburgh line. I haven't been able to locate it for several years, so I'm just going by memory. As you probly know, The B&O's shops were well know in the industry for their ability to rebuild and modernize existing locomotives. They were always tinkering with the initial design, to the point that they often had the same class of locomotives to the end of steam, but they were much different locomotives performance wise.
In this test, they ran an original S1a against one that was just out of the shop with improvements. For the test, they ran the locomotives over the same portion of the line with the exact same test train. They extensively noted that the newly shopped engine used less coal and water over the run. There was a one sentence note that the train crew felt the shopped engine showed "a good improvement in power" but there was no data on what that meant. It was almost like they didn't care that the upgrades increased horsepower. They were simply concerned that the improvements made the engine more economical to run for a given tonnage, and if they should apply the improvements to all the engines in that class.
I haven't seen the EM-1 vs FT test that you have, but I suspect that the test revolved around a typical tonnage train they would assign the FT combo, put the new EM-1 on the point, and measure the coal and water useage under the same conditions. Based on other B&O tests I have seen, I would suspect that EM-1 was never really pushed to the max, but tested in a way that would reflect typical everyday operating conditions over that portion of the line.
GP40-2, I don't have any supporting information for the TE chart (dated December 1944) other than an accompanying memo (dated June 1944) that referenced "recent dynamometer tests made with the Mallet locomotives between Grafton and Cumberland and Cumberland and Brunswick." However, the chart was "compiled from diagrams furnished by mechanical engineer". According to other correspondence, following those dynamometer tests B&O assigned the EM-1 dynamometer consist to a QD train on each of four routes and compared the test running times against the average running times, during May, for counterpart FT-powered trains.
The TE chart also plotted curves for the EL-5a, S-1, S-1a, Q-4, Q-4a, Q-4b, and P-1d.
I used some estimating formulas and came up with a possibility that the EM1 would pass 5,400 DBHP at about 25-30 mph using a very moderate unit evaporation rate of 80 lbs/sf direct heating surface per hour and 250 degrees superheat. These figures should be easily obtainable from any modern steam locomotive.
What's the possibility of seeing a copy of the TE/DB Pull graphs you have? I've been looking for some actual data on B&O power for years. Any shred of evidence will help!
The B&O historical society should have the power / dynometer charts or any engineering
Charts im assuming
Feltonhill
Power output is a product of steam available for cylinders , which by itself is a certain percentage of total hourly evaporation , divided by specific steam consumption - or hourly value of steam heat available to cylinders divided by specific cylinder thermal efficieny . In any case , if you lack data of one of the two values you can't make up the equation - or you can make any guess . If you lack even both the actual values , any estimation is fully up to conjecture .
While 5400 dbhp would appear no more but decently reasonable for that big a locomotive , the Northern Pacific 2-8-8-4 in spite of featuring the largest grate of them all did fall short or even more moderate expectations of power output ( not tractive effort , that is )
Even the rating noted for C&O H-8 Allegheny hardly lived up to what should rightlyfully have been expected of such a bulk of a locomotive , with huge boiler , huge grate , huge axle load , huge tractive effort and huge loading gauge profile . In absolute value it may have been awe inspiring at its time - yet not in relation to engineering effort and sheer mass of machinery . It bespeaks high ssc and less than fully adequate draughting .
With best wishes for 2015
Juniatha
I'm new so I have been reading old posts, catching up on events here. A later post may have pointed this out that I haven't read yet but...
About rail metallurgical recipes, rail wear, engine weight, axle weight, and drive wheel "hammer"...
Posted by Dr D on Sunday, December 07, 2014 9:12 PM
[QUOTE]
Things mix up again when we look at total overall engine weight. Here UP Big Boy is living up to its name at engine weight less tender of 772,000 lbs followed by H-8 Allegheny at 751,000 lbs.
[UNQUOTE]
Actually, the last group of 8 Allegheny H8's assembled managed to gain a little weight according to docs I ran across. Instead of 751,000 lbs. of most of the previous assemblies, they were 16,000 lbs. heavier @ 788,000 lbs. Not sure if this increases axle loading to the point that it is more than the Big Boy so may not make much difference. Plus, as stated before, someone may have already pointed this out in a later post.
I do, though, find this fascinating, as restoring an H8 or Big Boy, then running them on current rails, is a question posed in a other thread which most think, given current rail parameters extant, wouldn't be capable of supporting these beasts. Given the advancement of technology over time, I would be excited if the rails currently in use might hold up to their abuse. I have seen the Challenger come through Norman then OKC and would LOVE to see these beasties running. I have also enjoyed the Durango/Silverton and Chamma/Antonnito rides. I hope the steam crane, snow plow, and rotary snow plow at Chamma have received some attention over the years since I have been there. I happened to see a triple header headed north out of Chamma and had Mom pull over so I could take pictures. I heard they had to disassemble the consist to run the engines separately over a bridge since it couldn't support the weight. Rather wish my timing was better as that was I ride I would have enjoyed.
Enough of this. I just wanted to point out the slight difference which probably isn't significant enough to impact the possibility of running an H8 or Big Boy on current rails. IIRC, the pair of H8's remaining now on display were members of the last group of 8 so were slightly heavier than the rest. My comment in the other thread was, if high speed rail to support bullet type trains were laid down then perhaps the big beasties could run on them. Come on bullet trains.
The light at the end of the tunnel is a brightly lit sign in front of a blank wall reading "Dead End".
This, Posted by Dr D on Tuesday, December 09, 2014 2:25 AM, caught my eye.
Alfred W. Bruce - The Alfred Bruce book, Steam Locomotive in Americawas published in the 1952 by Norton Press. Written by just retired American Locomotive Company - (Alco) design engineer Alfred Bruce.
Paul Kiefer - Second is Paul W. Kiefer, A Practical Evaluation of Railroad Motive Power, published by Simons-Boardman in 1949. Paul was the head steam design engineering executive for New York Central, yes the man who was building the Hudson and Niagara.
Ralph P. Johnson - The Steam Locomotive Its Theory Operation and Economics, first edition in 1942 and expanded in the second edition in 1944. Johnson was a chief design engineer for Baldwin Locomotive Works.
I had a collection of books that, unfortunately, has gone. To avoid a long story, most of my stuff and all that I inherited from my folks went away. Due to various circumstances the rented storage where it all lived was auctioned off. I've managed to save a small part as some I kept at hand in my apartment. Among them is a book given to me by a friend now gone that had a book store. She knew that I was a steam and rail nut.
Titled Enginemen's Manual by W. P. James. Title page says "Intended for the Engineer, Fireman, or Mechanic who wishes to extend his knowledge of the Locomotive or Air Brake. Questions and Answers for Instructions and Examination. Illustrated. W. P. James Publishing Company, Louisville, Kentucky, 1919. Opposite the title page is a pic of an Erie 2-10-2 number 4102 courtesy of American Locomotive Works. Originally copyrighted 1916. This is evidently the 15th edition.
The syntax and phrasing in places seems strange since it is an early form of formal American English. On page 18 is a list titled Classification of Locomotives (Whyte's System). Wheel arrangements were depicted 462 for what most now would use 4-6-2 and 2882 for a 2-8-8-2. I saw one system that used a plus ( + ) to designate an articulated such as the Big Boy 4-8+8-4. I haven't seen it used much so must not have been popular. I suppose that most considered it unnecessary as anything with multiple groups would be articulated. I thought it was useful as it would indicate where the articulation occured in the configuration. It would make clear such assemblies as the three sets of drive wheels of the Virginian.
Near the end of the book is description and instructions for using a large metal gauge to check wheels for spauld or shelled spots, one or two inch flat spots, and checking worn and broken flanges.
The books referenced here sound interesting. It appears that most are published near the end of steam on rails. It sounds like that at least a few here are about my age. I was born near end of the age of steam. I hope that the books mentioned here have a safe haven after you move on. I plan on schlepping the text of my book to a PDF file as it takes up much less room and saves wear and tear on an old book barely keeping it together. After which I'm thinking of donating it to the Oklahoma University library.
The light at the end of the tunnel is a large, round, brilliantly lighted room with a tunnel entrance across the room where 8 tawny heads slowly swivel as a pride of hungry lions watch you enter the room.
Posted by Wizlish on Monday, December 22, 2014 2:22 PM
It's not too hard to find references that state 7498 as 'the horsepower developed by an Allegheny.' It proves not difficult to find railfans who state 7498 as the horsepower developed by an Allegheny. That the test results are more complicated than that is lost in the quick pairing of 7498 with Allegheny. It's like Jimmy Wales' birthday, or Brazilian aardvarks -- once there is enough repetition of "factitious facts" they take on a life of their own ... and a community of the faithful to bolster them and pass them forward ...
This brings to mind the game Telephone (American) or Chinese Whispers (English). In grade school the teacher had the class form a circle and the teacher whispered a phrase to a student who whispered it to the next student until it completed the circle. Usually the final result was hilariously different from the original. People take as "gospel" or fact something they are told by another without any kind on of verification, validation, or reference to source so it can be checked. Another example of this is the conflicting definitions of dork. Research indicates it originally meant *** but was considered a derogatory term, much like calling someone a dick now. A competing definition occured when sailors using a dried six to eight foot whales *** as a walking stick were asked what it was told the person, "a dork". This definition acquired some traction since it was more colorful. There were essentially three different interpretations making the rounds. The original "dick", the "whales ***", and finally a "dried whales ***". Wikipedia runs up against this issue quite often. There are any number of instances where the text is marked for a needed citation to show validity.
Then there is, of course, the possible pressure by the employers of those doing to testing to "come up with good numbers".
And the classic
The light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.
It occurs to me that posting here is a lit'l like pissing in the rain. Doesn't have much noticable affect. Since this thread died Monday, January 05, 2015, not only is this discussion long dead but the participants may no longer be around. Ah, well. To arrive late to the party.
Give us a little time.
There's no one with pockets deep enough to rebuild one of the Alleghenies 'right' and then arrange to run it profitably. Especially now that it would be in "competition" with a more famous peer, now given an aircraft-grade restoration by an organization under the authority of a quality-assurance VP under conditions of 'cost is no object'.
It was my understanding that both surviving H8s were from the early, heavy batch. The last ones (in 1948) followed the Virginian 'lightening' program. Not that it actually lightened them that much, but I suspect it helped the unions feel somewhat less betrayed.
It is my opinion you get far more bang, both for the buck and for the pound, in rebuilding 1218 for operation; you even address most of the augment issues on ferry speed if you install lightweight rods (for which the drawings and die fabrication exist, and the technology for which is being exhaustively re-created by the T1 Trust) and use some modern materials in the counterweighting.
Yes, I'd be among the first to hail an organized effort to restore a H8, even if (as apparently is the case for ATSF 2926) nobody really cares when it all gets done, or if there are profitable places to run it once it is. But show me the organization plan, and the agreements to pay-in capital, before I say whether it's a good idea.
aboard Quisizyk!
As you can see, we do a good job here of solving all the world's railroad problems.
Sometime. Maybe. OK, not always. But we try.
A question: Just how in the hell do you pronounce "Quisizyk?"
Hmmm... Sad but real. Give the current political climate, divisive intolerance of religion and race, and the disparity of monetary distribution it's not likely to happen anytime soon. I am chrrious thiugh if current metallurgical technology means rails would support the beasts.
The light at the end of the tunnel is a bright spot light shinning on a table on which is a small finger top and a mostly collapsed tunnel beyond.
Ref. hint; alphabet shifted by 7: Movie Otikvzout
Thanx. As to pronunciation, pretty much as its spelled. 'Cept the last letter is X.
The light at the end of the tunnel is a large brightly lit room...
with a maze of twisty little tunnels leading off in all directions that all look alike.
Ref. hint; alphabet shifted by 7:
Early computer text game Gjbktzaxk
QuisizyxI am curious though if current metallurgical technology means rails would support the beasts.
Somewhat more complicated, and an interesting question to consider (perhaps even in its own thread?)
Modern head-hardened rail and modern alloys and treatment (e.g. the controversy over bainite) are all intended to provide much longer wear under heavy point loading (cf. HAL, 'heavy axle loading' -- look up conference proceedings to turn on the firehose). The problem is that there is a tacit understanding that the point loads will be applied and relaxed relatively smoothly, held in relatively stiff and properly-aligned structure. Steam locomotives will not do this either with respect to vertical augment/hammer-blow or with the lateral component of hunting or curve accommodation. Much remains to be seen about how well modern track structure would handle such things.
A reasonable starting place for analysis is Kiefer's 1947 report, in which he references greased-rail testing of a modern locomotive (almost certainly a J3a; some posters here may know the number of the engine used) that was spun up to the rotational equivalent of 161mph without producing either driver bounce or significant track geometry damage. However, this was on "stiff" track, and the results on not-so-stiff track were not nearly as sanguine (and were not discussed in any detail). The second thing to look at is the various contemporary discussions around the time of the ACL R1 fiasco, where some observations right down to subgrade structural characteristics were associated with observed overt rail damage. Some of these, including which driver is 'leading' by 90 degrees, should be interesting to you in context.
My personal impression is that a somewhat greater degree of compliance, but not active 'springing' with a measurable frequency spring rate as in the German post-WW1 experiments with sprung track, needs to be provided in the top-down Class 9 experimental slab structure to accommodate high-speed reciprocating locomotives even if designed following Australian zero-overbalance practice (which eliminates rotating augment almost entirely depending on how precise periodic balancing/rebalancing is conducted). Naturally if zero overbalance is used, there is much higher reliance on several characteristics of lateral compliance in the lead and trailing trucks and at least the first driver pair's lateral-motion device(s). Do not look for these to be optimized in most 'preserved' excursion locomotives; do not expect all designs to be amenable to "aftermarket" modification to give them better high-speed riding characteristics. (To me, it's fun designing ways to make these things go faster in practice. This easily translates as pedantry to the vast majority of people who have no particular interest in that.)
Leo_Ames When the Big Boy news was announced, there was someone around here that thought it was inevitable that CSX would do such a thing in an attempt to compete in a steam excursion style arms race to show up Union Pacific. Sadly, while certainly possible, I sure wouldn't hold my breath for such a thing. Not only do corporate attitudes have to change and money be made for it on the grounds of promoting the heritage of railroading to assist in public relations and employee pride in what they do, but then you're faced with the daunting task of actually running her when she's ready. She's just too big and too inflexible especially out here in the East. If they were to do a steam program in the future and I don't think anyone could rule it out, it surely would be something like the 614 as someone else said. Modern, powerful, reliable, and capable of mainline running without hindering freight traffic but without most of the limitations that the Allegheny's size presents. And the one at the B&O museum hasn't exactly been kept in pristine shape. Stored in a dead line for years, displayed outside for many more years afterwards, suffered a flood while also having her display track undermined leaving her leaning against a bridge abutment or something of the like, etc. She's had a rough post retirement life that very well has left a lot of hidden surprises to any would be restorers to operation. The best bet if we're dreaming would be a horse trade between the two since the 1601 is a valued exhibit at the Henry Ford Museum and has had an easier time of it in retirement. Spruce up the 1604 then trade her for the 1601 along with perhaps some cash as an inducement. And the B&O museum still to this day has a close relationship with CSX and would probably not be a major hurdle. Too bad the last EM-1 got scrapped despite being promised to Baltimore (The museum was closed for a few years and she was a victim of the closure). They were giants and impressive machines in their own right but weren't quite as huge so one would be less restricted than an Allegheny in our dream. They were more in line with the size of N&W's famous class of 2-6-6-4's if I'm not mistaken and the 1218's size didn't seem to pose a huge problem for Norfolk Southern in the 80's and 90's..
When the Big Boy news was announced, there was someone around here that thought it was inevitable that CSX would do such a thing in an attempt to compete in a steam excursion style arms race to show up Union Pacific.
Sadly, while certainly possible, I sure wouldn't hold my breath for such a thing. Not only do corporate attitudes have to change and money be made for it on the grounds of promoting the heritage of railroading to assist in public relations and employee pride in what they do, but then you're faced with the daunting task of actually running her when she's ready.
She's just too big and too inflexible especially out here in the East. If they were to do a steam program in the future and I don't think anyone could rule it out, it surely would be something like the 614 as someone else said. Modern, powerful, reliable, and capable of mainline running without hindering freight traffic but without most of the limitations that the Allegheny's size presents.
And the one at the B&O museum hasn't exactly been kept in pristine shape. Stored in a dead line for years, displayed outside for many more years afterwards, suffered a flood while also having her display track undermined leaving her leaning against a bridge abutment or something of the like, etc.
She's had a rough post retirement life that very well has left a lot of hidden surprises to any would be restorers to operation. The best bet if we're dreaming would be a horse trade between the two since the 1601 is a valued exhibit at the Henry Ford Museum and has had an easier time of it in retirement. Spruce up the 1604 then trade her for the 1601 along with perhaps some cash as an inducement. And the B&O museum still to this day has a close relationship with CSX and would probably not be a major hurdle.
Too bad the last EM-1 got scrapped despite being promised to Baltimore (The museum was closed for a few years and she was a victim of the closure). They were giants and impressive machines in their own right but weren't quite as huge so one would be less restricted than an Allegheny in our dream. They were more in line with the size of N&W's famous class of 2-6-6-4's if I'm not mistaken and the 1218's size didn't seem to pose a huge problem for Norfolk Southern in the 80's and 90's..
lottery so I can . Lol
Quisizyx ... Enginemen's Manual by W. P. James. Title page says "Intended for the Engineer, Fireman, or Mechanic who wishes to extend his knowledge of the Locomotive or Air Brake. Questions and Answers for Instructions and Examination. Illustrated. W. P. James Publishing Company, Louisville, Kentucky, 1919. Opposite the title page is a pic of an Erie 2-10-2 number 4102 courtesy of American Locomotive Works. Originally copyrighted 1916.
A downloadable (12.5MB PDF) version of the 1917 edition is available via Google Books here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=cyQxAQAAMAAJ&source=gbs_book_other_versions
Tiny little tender and almost ridiculous-looking inside-bearing trailing wheels on 4102!
There are other valuable enginemen's guides published in this general time period (around the end of WW1 to the years that copyright kicks in after 1923 for free access by Google Books), for example this one:
https://books.google.com/books?id=hhwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=santa+fe+engineman%27s+guide&source=bl&ots=wOueUCitbN&sig=ACfU3U2pl_IfCi5DWWB9Xvy6RESToPTrAQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDnYHyq9PhAhVSM6wKHQXqAa0Q6AEwEHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=santa%20fe%20engineman's%20guide&f=false
(P.S. eua tkkj zu rkgxt zu iuatz better; your codes are shift 6, not shift 7.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.