If not for deisels, Y7s would have been built.
CSSHEGEWISCHThe train-length reduction issue was based on state statutes (usually 70 cars) which were stricken by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional state regulation of interstate commerce.
I remember Ed King describing it differently in his book on the A; he said there was some pending federal regulation (through the ICC) of train length (to something like 83 cars) and that was the specific thing cited for the suspension of the Y7 development. (I don't have my copy of the book accessible; someone who has it can probably quote the relevant sentences.)
If you have the detailed case history for the situation you describe, including cites, I'd greatly appreciate it.
RME he said there was some pending federal regulation (through the ICC) of train length
.
One challenge for the N&W nearing the end of steam was that it was becoming harder to get appliances that were needed; since the lubricators, dynamos, injectors, feedwater heaters, ect, ect. were outsourced and built by Nathan, Franklin, Elesco, (And so on...)
As almost every other railroad had done away with steam, many of these companies had gone under and the N&W could not get the things that they did not build themselves. Probably one of the many reasons a large order of "home-built" Y7's was canceled.
RME CSSHEGEWISCH The train-length reduction issue was based on state statutes (usually 70 cars) which were stricken by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional state regulation of interstate commerce. I remember Ed King describing it differently in his book on the A; he said there was some pending federal regulation (through the ICC) of train length (to something like 83 cars) and that was the specific thing cited for the suspension of the Y7 development. (I don't have my copy of the book accessible; someone who has it can probably quote the relevant sentences.) If you have the detailed case history for the situation you describe, including cites, I'd greatly appreciate it.
CSSHEGEWISCH The train-length reduction issue was based on state statutes (usually 70 cars) which were stricken by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional state regulation of interstate commerce.
I've linked to the Supreme Court ruling that struck down State-mandated train length restrictions:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/761/case.html
It is a more than a bit convoluted in it's wording (lawyers...) but it does go into the prior legal history of such State legislation..
I suppose that the Ruling does not necessarily mean that there wasn't federal legislation about train length proposed in the late 30's but for that to be the overriding factor in the railroads decision we would have to know whether or not the States that N&W served had such restrictions on the books during that period..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
daveklepper If not for deisels, Y7s would have been built.
That may not be the case..
Keep in mind that the railroad did not own a single diesel-electric locomotive until 1955. They built new steam locomotives right up until 1953 (an 0-8-0 switcher) with their last new build road locomotive, a Y6B, being erected in 1952.
Post-World War 2 the railway stayed committed to steam traction much longer than most of the rest of the industry but focused on improving the A class 2-6-6-4s and the ultimate version of the Y series compound 2-8-8-2s.
N&W management still showed some interest in continuing with coal fueled external combustion power via the Jawn Henry Steam Turbine-electric project after the end of conventional steam locomotive production. However I suspect that by the time they placed big orders with Alco and EMD the higher-ups started to realize that steam really was on it's way out..
The state mandated train length restrictions that were the big factor in cancelling the Y7 class were invalidated by the US Supreme Court at the end of the war so the company could have gone ahead with the design. It would seem that they felt that improvements to the A and Y6b classes fit their operational requirements..
carnej1 I suppose that the Ruling does not necessarily mean that there wasn't federal legislation about train length proposed in the late 30's but for that to be the overriding factor in the railroads decision we would have to know whether or not the States that N&W served had such restrictions on the books during that period..
Rather obviously Southern Pacific Co v. Arizona has little if any bearing on the N&W's design decisions. I found it interesting that SP had evidently accorded with the Arizona 70-car limit from 1912 all the way through to 1940 before 'testing' it (along with the accompanying passenger-car train limit) and that the Government thought it desirable to issue an order suspending any train-length limits in 1942.
However, footnote 1 in this case does clearly establish what we needed: there was indeed Federal legislation, 75th Congress S.69, a McCarran bill to restrict all freight trains to 70 (apparently not 83) cars. This was apparently approved by the Senate but died when sent to the House (I have not found the record of its history there.)
This legislation is the 'smoking gun' that spelled the end of Y7 development. Had Y7 development proceeded as 'speculation', it might have been complete enough to pass WPA review for construction for 'wartime' service as a high-powered single-unit engine, same as the PRR Q2, and it might be interesting to think about how a cohort of these engines would have been used in N&W service through the period of experimentation and improvement on the Y-class compounds.
I encourage people with the proper access (I apparently can't get the Congressional archive site to load with my browser-level "security options") to provide a link or text for S.69 and any House counterpart legislation that would supposedly assist 'full employment' during the second Depression downturn. (There is counterpart legislation that tied 'larger crew size' to RFC assistance on new capital for railroads around this time, which foundered for a variety of somewhat predictable reasons...)
Since this bill passed the Senate, it is possible to conclude that it might have been re-introduced in subsequent sessions of Congress, as so many bills of this kind were, and might pass the House and become enacted in any of them (it being unlikely to me that Roosevelt would veto). Expensive long-range development of any locomotive manifestly ill-suited to a 70-car limit on fast freight would not be likely to pass board review...
There is little if any question that N&W was fully dedicated to preserving steam for all its operations, including expansion, in both the short time between the non-passage of S.69 and the WPB restrictions on new design construction. There is also little if any question that N&W was fully devoted to maintaining steam power after the War ... but that it took the more-evolved form of steam-turbine mechanical and then steam-electric designs, certainly by 1948, over development of a whole new (and large) class of 2-8-8-2. There was certainly nothing keeping N&W from taking up the design again, especially with new compound locomotives being built as late as they were (and the electrification being discontinued as late as it was, not that Y7s would have run in its replacement service, but that they would have substituted for whatever Y-class engines did).
Dieselization of any serious kind on N&W came much later than any time period the resumption of Y7 development could possibly have occupied.
It's my belief that the merger talks with the VGN was another major factor in N&W giving up on steam. Operational economy pretty much dictates that locomotives be used systemwide and the VGN didn't have much support for steam at the time. The merger also meant the demise of VGN's electrification despite having the most modern electric locomotive fleet (two classes after WW2).
The demise of the VGN electrification was caused by the establishment of directional running as a result of the N&W/VGN merger. The electrification became a one-way operation which killed any efficiencies.
CSSHEGEWISCH The demise of the VGN electrification was caused by the establishment of directional running as a result of the N&W/VGN merger. The electrification became a one-way operation which killed any efficiencies.
Which leads me to ask a slightly off topic question:
N&W continued limited steam operations for a couple of years after the merger but the Virginian had completely dieselised prior to it.
Did N&W ever operate steam locomotives on the former Virginian trackage?
carnej1 Did N&W ever operate steam locomotives on the former Virginian trackage?
It may have been very difficult to get steam qualified VGN crew to operate on the VGN. Once the directional running started then the N&W steam crewmen became current on the VGN ?
What about water ? Did VGN route still have water towers ? If so could that route treat water to N&W specifications ? If not even using N&W steam with 2 canteen tenders might have been a problem ? Could see them being used for helpers on heavy grades >
But wasn't the establishment of directional running an example of improving operational economy from the merger? IIRC, the VGN had a 0.2 to 0.3% ruling grade to outbound traffic, hence why the loads were put of the VGN trak, while the empties returned on the N&W track.
erikem CSSHEGEWISCH The demise of the VGN electrification was caused by the establishment of directional running as a result of the N&W/VGN merger. The electrification became a one-way operation which killed any efficiencies. But wasn't the establishment of directional running an example of improving operational economy from the merger? IIRC, the VGN had a 0.2 to 0.3% ruling grade to outbound traffic, hence why the loads were put of the VGN trak, while the empties returned on the N&W track.
Didn't they run directionally west of Roanoke too? 0.6% VGN eastward instead of 1.0% N&W eastward. Dunno how soon after the merger they built the Kellysville connection.
Is there enough information out there for someone of an artistic bent to be able to do a drawing or painting of what a Y7 would have looked like?
Thank you, BigJim! That would have been a photogenic unit indeed! I wonder what someone like John Winfield or Larry Fisher could have done with that. Wishful thinking, I guess. Thanks again for sharing that drawing!
It should be mentioned that the Y7 drawing was published in Lewis' "Norfolk & Western Giant of Steam".
The basic diamentional drawing was in that book. It is drawn in the same manner as many similar N&W drawings of each locomotive class published long ago and at one time could be purchased from the N&WHS. The higher detailed drawing is not in that book and I have no idea where it did come from.
sgriggsI'm pretty sure the detailed line drawing is in my copy of Lewis' N&W Giant of Steam. There is a chapter about experimental locomotives and the Y7 is mentioned along with the reproduction of both of the drawings posted here.
sgriggsI'm pretty sure the detailed line drawing is in my copy of Lewis' N&W Giant of Steam.
Do you have the 2005 'revised edition'?
It is the same line drawing in either edition. It does say that Mr. Jeffries drew it. But, not the more detailed drawing.
I believe I have the 2005 revised edition (the book is at home and I am not right now). I will look tonight. I know for a fact that I have a book with both the N&W Y7 proposal drawing and the detailed side view drawing arranged exactly as posted above. I'm 99% certain it is my copy of N&W Giant of Steam.
sgriggs I believe I have the 2005 revised edition (the book is at home and I am not right now). I will look tonight. I know for a fact that I have a book with both the N&W Y7 proposal drawing and the detailed side view drawing arranged exactly as posted above. I'm 99% certain it is my copy of N&W Giant of Steam.
Well, I checked my copy of N&W Giant of Steam (revised edition, 2005), and I was wrong. In the 'Proposals and Experimental' chapter, there is a section dealing with the Y7 design, and there is the N&W line drawing of the type with basic dimensions, but there is not an image of the more detailed side view drawing as posted above. I stand corrected. The thing that troubles me is that I could have sworn I have a book in my library on locomotives that shows both the N&W line drawing and the detailed 'conception' drawing of the Y7 one above the other on a page dedicated to a discussion on the proposed type. I can't think of where I have seen them. I also checked my copy of King's N&W A--Mercedes of Steam and it also does not show the detailed Y7 drawing, although it does mention the Y7.
I'll keep looking to see if I can find where I have seen those drawings printed.
I think I'm losing my mind :-).
sgriggs The thing that troubles me is that I could have sworn I have a book in my library on locomotives that shows both the N&W line drawing and the detailed 'conception' drawing of the Y7 one above the other on a page dedicated to a discussion on the proposed type. I can't think of where I have seen them. I also checked my copy of King's N&W A--Mercedes of Steam and it also does not show the detailed Y7 drawing, although it does mention the Y7. I'll keep looking to see if I can find where I have seen those drawings printed.
The diagram and detailed elevation was developed for a "what-if" entry at the N&WHS convention in Williamson, WV. That's where the above pair of drawings came from. I drew the elevation based on Bud Jeffries' diagram, and to the same scale. This was probably at least 10 years ago. In the meantime, Jeffries found new information regarding some of the details, particularly the trailer truck. Later ideas did not include the Delta design. N&W decided to go with the same type as tne lead truck. I've developed another elevation incorporating revised information and I hope it will see future use. It's under wraps at the moment
Thanks Dave for clearing that up. Hope that I didn't step on your toes by using it.
I wonder if one could construct an O scale brass Y7 and put it on the market?
It wouldn't be surprising if "what if" steam locomotives for modelers would sell well.
After all, each modeler gets to set the terms for his or her own railroad universe.
That is probably a musing best discussed on one of the other forums, however.
Back to "1-to-1" scale now.
kgbw49 I wonder if one could construct an O scale brass Y7 and put it on the market? It wouldn't be surprising if "what if" steam locomotives for modelers would sell well. After all, each modeler gets to set the terms for his or her own railroad universe. That is probably a musing best discussed on one of the other forums, however. Back to "1-to-1" scale now.
Why not? They've made everything else in O gauge. Might as well start making locomotives that never made it off the drawing board! LOL
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.