Quentin, when I first saw, in my email, that you were discussing "J" & "T," I thought you might be discussing Henry Ford's most famous car and some other car (I do not recall ever hearing of a Model J car, though).
Johnny
= J =
That's quite a run down of info on said project. Don't remember if it was this same info we went thru several years ago, but it was similar.
And that info also agreed with where the project did end up...Right here with us.
I simply zeroed in on the issue when I ran across it back some years ago. Facinating.....A "V-8" steam engine....!
Quentin
Hi 19 1001
Yes I have seen data of this trial engine , here's a link :http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRB-Baureihe_19.10you may also google for 'steam motor loco' - ok , = J = has done it for you and got this :http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/steamotor/steamotor.htm
This is an interesting site about unconventional steam locos - only why the engine is listed as 'V 19 1001' must remain that writers secret - perhaps meaning 'Versuch' [ger] trial - yet that was never an official designation , in DR numbering system prefix letter 'V' meant Verbrennungs-Motor [ger] combustion engine (actually diesel as for most cases , however scrutinizing DR officials wanted numbering system to be prepared for the unexpected and most outlandish development - after all with such people as engineers you never know what they may happen to jump up with) . So , take it easy , just say "nineteen-thousand-one" or "nineteen-ten class" as with this singular trial engine loco equals class (never say "class nineteen-thousand-one" though !) .
Other than the V-2 motors hung outboards and driving via an equilibration system to deal with suspension motion the loco was fully conventional , having a 44 class boiler and same streamline tender as the previously built 01.10 class .
The concept was intended to fight the same deficiencies of clasic reciprocating steam as the Duplex concept -only the desgn was more radical and showed much the same if more radical advantages and disadvantages as found in the 2 x 2 coupled Duplexi again - logical if you come to think of fractioning of eight-coupled powered wheel set was carried one step further (independent drive axles) doing away with coupling rods at all . The V concept of engines was to fight known problem with balancing surplus that would have been more severe with vertical cylinders on a (sprung) chassis as it was with horizontal cylinders in the classic concept reciprocating engine . As you know , V-type engines , even with 90 degrees angle , do not fully self-balance , with free mass forces of secondary degree remaining . However , as for locomotive rpm speeds it promised to work out pretty well and in spite of war time the loco proved at home at speed , running smoothly and without hammer blow . Yet starting was a problem - with one major initial problem concerning piston valve rings and piston rings not functioning properly sorted out the engine considerably shaped up and proved able to start 650 t about as well as an average Pacific . Because of war time , matters could not kept going as the engine suffered a major breakage in the drive of one of the motors - it was repaired but the engine still had to be stored and suffered hits . In 1945 the US Forces got interested in it , had it repaired by original builder Henschel works , Kassel , and brought it to the US together with condersing loco 52 2006 . The locos were shown on various occasions , the 52 being of interest for completely welded construction of boiler and a few more specific details of design , the steam motor being discussed for possible future steam . In 1951 the engine(s?) were shelved in bad condition in Fort Eutis , in 1952 the were scrapped .
Although the steam motor concept was interesting by several technical aspects , all in all - IMHO - it did not offer what was needed to forward steam loco service and revenue earning in daily traffic in a way to make it competitive with diesel and electrics in the future . Basically , the concept solved some aspects of mechanical limitations of the classic engine concept , i e it promised to offer a better type of steam loco for special applications - yet it did not present a general 'cure-all' for the many aspects that were putting steam locomotive traction at disadvantage . To solve these problems a much more general approach would have been necessary , not so much looking at radical changes of design concept as looking to perfect design of known concept and improving those many badly wanting technics of RR engine handling in traffic starting with the way fuel coal was defined and handled to the way steam and combustion gases were ejected from the stack of locomotives . That could have been done and would have raised efficiency of existing engines such as the 1935 - 1945 generation by 10 - 20 % in one big rush - yet it would have demanded comprehensive revamping of locomotive servicing , maintenance and running to go together with a few simple improvements in technical specifications - which would have asked for a commitment to steam that as things were no RR in America was willing to provide . As steam traction was thus clearly remaining much the same as it was with new locomotive types staying much at a given level of relative completion attained with the early1940s - what EMD was offering seemed a simple alternative concept at once offering a way out of this situation .
Regards
Juniatha
re-formatted
Beautiful photos of the X4449 and it's passenger cars. Someone used the low sun to really bring out it's total beauty. All the details of it's running gear.
Trivia: Have you seen data on the photo of the experimental {German}, steamer {pre WWII}, over in The Flatwheel Diner {my Avatar}...?
Normal 0 21 false false false DE JA X-NONE
Hi Dave
Here’s a link to a really good standard portrait in evening light where for once rods and wheels come out real steely in contrast to usual drowning in darkness below running board valances .
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=136160
Evening sunlight of course adulates the ‚german federal flag’ color scheme . Now , I can hear you „What ??“ I’m sure that was the last thing SP had in mind and you can’t blame them either : didn’t their color scheme precede 1949 flag colors of German Federal Republic by years ! So did the Germans take colors from SP ? neither ! and , yep , in the flag it’s yellow not orange – but that’s another story .
edit: re-formatted on PC
I basically like the T-1. I did get to ride behind them. I just like the N&W J, the New Haven I-5, and the Daylights better, in that order. All four are way ahead of 20th Century and other NYC streamliners, and at the bottom of the pile are varous inverted bathtubs, with the Milwaukee's being the least objectionable. Or possibliy the CN 4-8-4 which is a bit better than a bathtub. The Pennsy streamlined K4 and S1, the B&O, Southern, and 2nd C&EI attempt, are all between the T-1 and the 20th Century. I also like the "semistreamlined" CP designs (Royal Hudson, Selkirk, Jubalee), about equal to the Pennsy T.
I think the reason I like the J and the I-5 better than the Daylights, is that I always considered the Daylight color scheme, beautiful though it is, as just a bit too colorful for trains.
Similarly, in pasenger equipment I like stainless steel with painted letterboards, purple for ACL and red for PRR and SP and blue for Wabbash, etc. For non-stainless, the NYC two-tone grey is too conservative, but GM&O, B&O, MP-TP, and UP had good schemes in my opinion.
For non-streamlined steam, nothing can beat a Southern Ry Pacific. Regarding color that is.
Esthetically, a T is a steam GG-1. That is what it was meant to be, and it is successful.
To DaveK: Hey, a "Cavalier" type! I like that! Too bad you didn't have N&W's ear back in those days! Or, they could have named them after Virginia cities, say a Richmond" , "Roanoke", or "Blacksburg" type. Why not? Most of N&W's designers came from virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Or they could have taken a page from the New York Central's book and named them after Virginia rivers like the James, the Rapahannock, of the Appomattox. Whoops, strike that last one, too many negative connotations, especially down South!
Hi Juniatha! As mentioned above, calling a "J" a "Roanoke" type would have been appropriate. Or, they could have named it a "Jeb Stuart" type for the great Confederate cavalryman, the "Last Cavalier." Class "A"s could have been called "Lee" types, a good performer in all situations. The Class "Y"s? "Stonewalls"! Don't get in his way! He's coming and you can't stop him!
I like the styling on the T-1's, very impressive and modernistic. As a matter of fact I showed Lady Firestrorm a picture of a T-1 and asked "Is this Art Deco enough for you?" "It's not 'Art Deco'", she said. "It's Moderne!" Lady Firestorm knows these things!
I'm not going to say too much tonight, long day and I'm having trouble concentrating and typing. "Thank God!" yelled the crowd!
Hi Folks
N&W - that was supposed to be the joke in my variation "North-Western Folk" when really the RR was in the South-East , besides my personal impression of their locos - which would take more than a few words to explain , so excuse me for leaving it alone .
However , my funny remarks come without guarantee .
Names of w/a derived or simply taken 1:1 from RR first applying it were not too imaginative , especially when this resulted in a composite name like "Union Pacific Type" for the 4-12-2 . This effectively was like having no name at all and having to hint the type you are talking about by saying "that type the Union Pacific had built , you know which one I mean , don't you" maybe having to add "no , the other one" too .
Since the J was the pride and joy of the Norfolk & Western ( you see I can spell it right when I want to ) what about naming it the Roanoke Type ?
A batch of N&W 4-8-4 for the Pennsy : I have some doubts if that would have avoided engine trouble - sure , that section of it related to poppet valve gear since doing without a thing has always been a good method to avoid trouble with it . Yet , the N&W J class had a substantially higher t e per unit of engine mass on powered wheels than the K4s , in other words a lower adhesion factor , an absolute low one in relation to average US practice , which meant : no full throttle full gear starting with this engine - as much a contrast to old K4s routine as with the T1 . Ok , this engine was really sound in concept and design , very robust and powerful - yet it insults my engineering mind to taylor design to be extra sturdy to account for expectable abuse instead of eradicating abuse on account of efficient service . If you ask me to make my point , in a nutshell I'd say the PRR T1 was the right concept of engine minus some shady points in design as actually built - only running and maintenance was never up to it and after just two years in service progressively dropped from indifferent to wanting .
However that doesn't say anything about style nor about aesthetic quality in the way that styling was realized ...
Your comments on T1 contouring ?
The C&O called their 4-8-4's Greenbriers. And they were fine locomotives too. But I agree the J was best. And more than a match esthetically for the Daylights. Too bad the N&W didn't call them Cavaliers. Woud have been a good and appropriate name.
Well thanks Big Jim, Felton Hill, and Juniatha! I had no idea the PRR tested a Class J. I'm not really a big Pennsy fan myself, just an interested bystander, and in my readings on the Pennsy never saw any mention of this. I still think the PRR missed out on a good thing with the "J". They couldn't have been seriously considering running 100 mph trains on a regular basis, could they? And yes Juniatha, the "J" was a superbly designed engine, probably the best "Northern" type ever built by anyone. Maybe that was the problem after all, the Pennsy couldn't, wouldn't admit that "wooden-axle coal hauler" was better at steam locomotive design than they were.
By the way, there was NO WAY a Virginia road was going to call their 4-8-4 a "Northern"! Not with some people still living in 1941 who remembered the Civil War, excuse me, the "War of Northern Agression." Class "J" it had to be!
Hi Firelock
Yes , Big Jim and Feltonhill are right , PRR tested a N&W J – however they found it not well fitting for their high speed demands – small wonder with cylinder volume large and drivers small it was more of an undulating line express engine – just as N&W had wanted it to be . That meant power output curve was declining above some 70 mph , on the very few occasions the T1 tested on N&W was given a chance to run fast the Duplex showed both more powerful and more economic in the upper speed range – again no wonder with an inevitably freer steam flow through four smaller cylinders with poppet valves .
Add.: attaining 110 mph was a remarkable feat , the J reached metric wheel diameter speed [530 rpm] ! Balancing and vehicle track holding must have been very good in this class of locomotive - yet such high rpm speeds mean **very** high kinetic mass inertia – several times higher than steam forces on piston ! – and thus demand designing all parts of drive motion excessively strong to withstand it -– an extreme design situation which can be considerably eased by simply applying suitably larger wheels .
It was a different thing with the C&O 2-10-4 that was modified to become PRR J1 class – (a) it was pretty much the kind of locomotive they wanted , (b) their own Q1 prototype had just proven a failure and was clearly unfit for series production ; so with a mild 'encouragement' by the War Production Board they grabbed the chance , at the same time developing their Duplex freighter into what later was turned out as Q2 .
The long total (!) wheel base of the S1 engine should not have prevented her to pass any curves the T1 and Q2 locos could pass since axles in swiveling bogies or inscribing delta trucks could be designed with adequate lateral displacement . It is another story whether PRR fully informed Baldwin what the engine *really* had to face as concerns badly aligned curves deviating from theoretical track plan including sharp spots within a given radius , low and high spots and rails at lateral angle at rail joints . The like has happened in Europe : the railway told the manufacturer of curve radii , forgetting about inexactitudes – design layout was the engine could just meet requirements ( no more than that in order to avoid design complications deemed unnecessary ) – then , entering service the new engine got into trouble meeting reality which was not geometrically perfect track layout but in cases rather sloppy approximations of plans . If so , it still makes me wonder why with practical experience they didn't grind off a little here and there at stop blocks and provided room for ¼ – ½ “ extra lateral bogie / truck displacement which probably would have cured derailing problems – or perhaps preferably would have re-aligned those few wanting spots ( at least one of which was critical with T1 locos as well , as mentioned in one of the articles in PRR historical magazine )
There are more than one text passage that hints springing trouble , although the one I mentioned is the most significant of those I know . Looking at suspension as can be seen in photos nothing special was built in to deal with an engine wheel base significantly longer than that of a 4-8-4 , a system which may well have been inadequate in vertical flexibility for the 6-4-4-6 .
In one PRR company movie showing a clean T1 running an express there is a scene in the cab with the driver in typical pose of steam crews international : with elbow leaning on window board ; although the scene is short enough , it shows one vertical jolt of the engine that gave the driver a lively bounce on his seat . Since this was a company advertising film with locomotive and set-ups carefully prepared for filming and scenes specially played , I guess this would have been cut out if it had been considered something irregular or unacceptable .
In retrospect view the jolt is remarkable in two ways
(a) it shows a spot of vertical misalignment in a high speed track that would have been considered unacceptable in 100 mph electric mainline track alignment of the 1960s , less so later 120 mph mainlines ;
(b) engine suspension reacts remarkably stiff and hefty for such a long and heavy locomotive – if suspension equilibration would have worked they way it should be expected , the engine should have shown just one soft vertical amplitude movement immediately leveling out . The movement visible in the cab scene is more like behavior expectable of a short 4-6-0 with hardly a reaction by stiff suspension of last coupled .
Side remark : vertical jolts of that kind didn't happen without significant momentary fluctuation of dynamic axle load and such fluctuations could well start high speed wheel spin – which again must pretty soon have had damaging impact on valve gear since spinning speed will quickly have reached excessively high rpm with traveling speed already 100 mph .
There are more scenes indicating wanting alignment of track : some inside the coaches showing sways and an especially interesting one with a view from top left corner looking forward along tender and locomotive : both vehicles show sideways sways and swiveling of varying amplitudes , more the train riding equivalent of driving a big car along a so-so country road at speed , not bearing down the highway running dead solid and dead straight . You may say I'm too much looking at it with modern standards in mind . That may be so – yet for me the picture remains Pennsy track and maintenance all in all was not fully prepared for these engines when they appeared .
That should be taken into account when evaluating quality of service , performance , reliability and economy realized with these engines .
Add.: Firelock
Oh , and as for that 012 Pacific spinning on the turn table / slipping onto and off the turn table : no , I don't think it was a practical joke – the Germans had a practical approach to steam , no joke , yet with common user system I imagine it would have been pretty hard for one roundhouse comedian to know who was on that particular engine or vice versa on which engine a particular driver would return . Besides , for a joke it was a bit much since there have been cases of engines slipping into the ditch . In one case the concerned roundhouse full of 50 class Decapods was disabled , the shed having to call for other sheds to lend locomotives to just manage to keep at least major freight trains running . Incidents of such kind were sure to prompt painstaking question asking from higher management – and rightly so . However , some steam sheds such as Rheine , obviously , didn't just serve oil-fired engines , from all that's told about it they had virtually become oil ponds in parts of their place .
As concerns jokes : a friend of mine who in the 1960s and 70s had spent many miles of cab rides on DB steam told me of one trip on 012 063 in the summer of 1970 :
They were on a 12 coaches morning express northbound – starting vigorously from Lingen , about half way up the line , what had been a typical Northern German drizzling dreary-gray 'turn-down' day was increasingly closing in with fog as the three cylinder Pacific raised her throaty stack roar gaining speed . Both driver and fireman were now keeping a close lookout as they proceeded through a densely white no-where with signal lights just showing up shortly before passing by . At 120 km/h ( 75 mph ) the driver linked her up a few more notches , running on about ½ throttle and 18 % cut-off – which was pretty short for a standard class , yet acceptable on a three cylinder engine . Feeling somewhat surplus , the footplate guest wanted to change his position , hand above head feeling about a girder in search of something to hold on to when the driver turned his head , his face immediately lighting up and with a boyish grin he nodded , pointing at his left side colleague : what the traveling third man had been about to grab was the emergency shut off handle for fuel oil supply hanging from a crescent in the back of the cab roof . With silent instigation from the driver the cab riding guest hesitatingly pulled the handle : instantly there was a “puff” from the firebox , the white inferno had blackened out and the fireman took a surprised look at his gauges , turned down his oil feed valve , saw the driver chuckling , turned around and shaking his head with a witty smile just pushed the main oil supply check valve open , flung himself back on his seat re-opeing his feed valve and – “bwoum” – on they went .
The test of N&W J 610 was covered in two parts in PRRT&HS magazine, The Keystone:
Part 1 - Vol. 41, #4, pgs 9-21 (Winter 2008)
Part 2 - Vol. 42, #2, pgs 67-70 (Summer 2009)
Top speeds were 109 mph with 13 cars on the Broadway, 110 mph with 15 cars on The Admiral, and 111 mph with 11 cars on the Liberty Limited, all regularly scheduled runs. Not too shabby for a low-drivered mountain mauler. It's not much of a stretch to visualize a T1 at 120 mph.
It does make me wonder why if the PRR was looking for a 4-8-4 type why they just didn't borrow an N&W Class J for evaluation.
They did in fact do this. It has been very well documented too. #610, got her up to 110mph.
.
Well hi Juniatha! Concerning the Pennsy S-1, the "Big Engine" as the Pennsy people called it, from what I've read the problem wasn't so much with slipping as it was with that loooooong wheelbase. The Crestline, Ohio section of track was the only part of the Pennsy that could handle the locomotive, it had very few curves for the engine to deal with. I suppose the Pennsy put the lessons to good use when they designed the other duplex drive engines that followed.
As far as the slipping is concerned, I suppose the Pennsy crews might have done better if they had some experience with articulated Mallet types. Engineers running articulated locomotives knew you just couldn't "floor it" when you wanted to get moving. Slow and steady throttle application was the ticket. The PRR had very, very few Mallet types and those were used mostly for pusher or heavy yard service.
I find it interesting that some other posters have said the Pennsy sent the T-1 to the C&O and the N&W for evaluation, both roads had extensive experience with articulated types and said the T-1 was fine once crews learned how to handle and fire them. There wasn't anything about it they cared to copy, but they said the locomotive was just fine.
It does make me wonder why if the PRR was looking for a 4-8-4 type why they just didn't borrow an N&W Class J for evaluation. Class "J"s were designed for undulating track profiles and were good pullers on grades. Pennsy had close contact with N&W owning quite a bit of N&W stock as I recall. Who knows? Pride perhaps? How could the "Standard Railroad of the World" humble themselves like that? Of course, they weren't above borrowing a C&O 2-10-4 in the early 40's, but there was a war on and they didn't have time (or War Production Board permission for that matter) to develop one of their own. So they copied the C&O engine but put a few Pennsy touches on it.
Maybe some of the good folks out there can weigh in on this one.
As far as that DB locomotive spinning its drivers on the turntable, do you suppose the engineer was the victim of a practical joke to end all practical jokes? You know, someone greasing the rails when no-one was looking? "Ach, dat high-und mighty Hermann, he chust annoys me no end! I fix him gut, nicht wahr?"
Sincerely, Wayne
Well , different people - different approaches .
The S1 at the 1939 World Fair ground - it was said that's where she 'performed' best .
I still don't see what should have made slipping problem so much worse than with the T1 , obviously I still don't have enough information on design details .
There is one paragraph in an article by Meyer that drew my attention , though : he recalled one incident when # 6100 had been put out at Crestline with freshly turned wheel tires ( from the text it is not clear if that included all axles of the engine or just powered axles and then again - hopefully - of both drive sets or just one due to an axle having developed maybe a flat spot or other mis-contouring )
He wrote when the engineer wanted to move to the train the engine spun wildly and could hardly be stopped ( this latter point again sounds like one of these RR tall tales as with throttle closed *any* engine has to stop spinning wheels since there is no power to support the spinning , I take it for meaning “took some time to stop because of high rpm spinning – mind high mass inertia – or : didn’t stop on throttle just eased , throttle needed to be fully closed” ) After the trip the driver came back on the workshop man asking what he had done to her , she kept spinning like mad . Whatever the details , wild spinning in a steam loco shed’s yard *might* be explained by greasy rails , mind the S1 still had plain bearings on rods that needed greasing . The like I have seen in numerous videos showing steam shed scenes on 1970s DB , in one scene a Pacific was hardly able to get off the turn table for spinning easily and with hardly a sound from stack on greasy rails , in another scene a slow (!) moving 012 Pacific with drivers brakes blocking slid onto the turn table and half way off the other side , with track there happily lining up as ingoing track lined up – maybe a farsighted precaution in layout . In said article , Meyer wrote the shop foreman from then on had always adjusted springing to different heights when having turned wheels - obviously meaning powered wheels , else there would have been no difference in height . This seems *** at least : the amount of height taken off by turning tires should rather be smaller than a drop at an average rail joint . If springing had to be adjusted ( what about spring compensation ??) for turning wheels then the engine should have been exceedingly rigid in a vertical plane . That would (a) explain words of derailing at certain bad spots (b) would explain easy slipping noted on inaugural light load run after completion to introduce the loco to PRR officials . Those incidents of slipping would appear quite ponderable from the creditability of the person noting .
So , had springing been that badly miscalculated , namely been *way* too stiff ?
If so , that would show a simple way how to get rid of most of the problem if an when an S1 should ever be built again to rectify history in the way Pepercorn A1 Pacific Tornado did in Britain …
RegardsJuniatha
I think the car talk was good for everyone taking a breather, that said.....
WHAAAT! There's nothing wrong with the Dreyfuss Hudson! I LIKE the Dreyfuss Hudson! So what if it looks like a "Flash Gordon" rocket ship. that's the appeal! We're talkin' about the Thirties, man! This is the same type of wild approach that lead the Pennsy to build the Worlds Fair S-1. By the way, Mom said the 1939 Worlds Fair was a LOT better than the 1964-1965 Fair. "Thanks a lot Mom. you ruined it for us!"
Yeah. I know the S-1 was impractical in the end, but what a cool looking machine! And in keeping with the glory days of steam let's not "Rock and Roll", let's "Jitterbug"!
More anon.
Hi folks
Ok – that’s an invitation . I keep mum for now – except for just one note , quote :>> NYC Dreyfuss Hudsons. … It looks like a Flash Gordon rocket ship …<<Sound decently ArtDeco futuristic enough for a steam locomotive , one more step ahead and crews might have shied to enter cab for fear of going on an interstellar trip to Alpha Centauri – which would have been half bad if only they had known where the NYC roundhouse was up there and if the canteen was still open when they would arrive .
.. or maybe a second note , to add :
Category 2 : Jim , what would you regard as indispensable features characterizing an experimental ? obviously (a) a singular engine , or maybe let's extend that to include two to three units , classic numbers of prototype engines , although then again these might not be regarded ‘experimental’ ; (b) major innovative technical features not found in any series application , b1 on that RR , b2 on any RR , b2a in that country , b2b worldwide ; (c) significant departure from classic concept of steam , namely departure from direct drive reciprocating piston engine ( which would exclude the Delaware & Hudson ‘Loreeleys’ although their concept was maybe not so far fetched and I feel it could eventually have been made to work )
Oops , Southern Pacific AC-9 ? what ? a cab-ah..oh , I see , uhm , well , yep .. ok . I for one like the South Pole 4-10-2 three cylinder type for their harmonious proportions , nicely fitting tender with cylindrical tank – I just like a cylindrical tank complimenting boiler drum as a major factor of typical steam loco shapes )
B&O compound 2-8-8-0 Mallet >> lugging two big beer barrels up front << : that applied to most any compound Mallet and it worked much as it looked – awkwardly !
... although I’d guess there were at least some German and Polish steam loco crews who would have heartily welcomed such an engine – “Cheers , burp !” [as one writer remembering his time in the early 1970s as a fireman at Rheine shed , Northern Germany , noted of one driver of an 012 oil-fired Pacific who gradually got boozed up as they advanced on their trip northbound to Emden and Norddeich at the Sea : “For the level of blood alcohol he had meanwhile attained he was still remarkably well in command of breaking and always came to a stop with the train on spot” ]
Jesus …!Ok , as for personal preferences I had put up my list earlier and I have nothing to change about it . It’s all up to you now !So keep the fire burning and steam pressure up to the mark !
Aaaaaargh! I'm feeling an irresistable urge to pull this thread kicking and screaming back to its original subject, locomotive esthetics. How to do it in a way that's not forbiddingly technical and gives more folks a chance to weigh in? Perhaps it would work if we decide that locomotive esthectics refers mainly to looks or to looks that harmonize with functionality and yeild a handsome result. I'll start the ball rolling with a few preferences of my own and other folks can chime it to agree or disagree or offer their own choices. Here goes: Category 1) Best looking streamlined locomotive SP's Daylights. Colorful and streamlined but not too streamlined. You know it's a steamer and you can see it's practical to maintain. The worst, the NYC Dreyfuss Hudsons. The Moderne look gets dated. It looks like a Flash Gordon rocket ship from the old Republic movie series. Category 2) The best looking experimental. N&W's Jawn Henry. It looks huge and powerful but its lines are clean and crisp. The worst. The D&H Loree Consolidations. Simply too much locomotive piled on a 2-8-0 frame. Category 3) The best looking articulated. SP's AC-9's. A well proportioned Yellowstone with a skyline caseing and a neat all weather cab. The worst. B&O's compound 2-8-8-0's. The huge low pressure cylinder with the square steam chest up front throws the whole engine out of proportion. It looks like it's lugging two big beer barrels up front. Category 4) The best "standard" designs. The USRA series. Very orthodox with every component correctly sized and arranged for a harmonious whole. The worst. Pennsy's entire stable with the exception of the T-1 and Q-2. Don Ball called them "plain to the point of ugly" which says it all. So there! You can critique my choices, nominate your own, play with this theme however you like and don't worry about the technicalities. As the WWF grapplers say to each other, "Let's Rock and Roll".
...Allow me just a sentince or two off topic...
Back in my work life, we had several Jaguar test cars, and if any were in the garage / Lab overnight, one could just figure of needing a mop for anti-freeze and oil when they were moved.
Normal 0 21 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
( never mind this micro soft nonsense monologue above , I don't care to get it off for now )
Hi Wayne
Well , there was a saying about Jaguars of the 1980s when the company was on their own :
“ Jags are good cars – only you ought to have two of them : one for driving and a second one in the repair shop ..”
With the Chrysler Hemi it was the opposite of early EMD diesels : while EMD offered RRs to put new engines in old chassis , Chrysler could have offered a special discount on a new car minus engine to bring your ‘well run-in’ 200.000 miles 392 or 426 Hemi to be re-installed .
Re-*gee*s
Hi Juniatha! Your talking about Chrysler reminds me of something my sister-in-laws husband Warren (who's a real car guy) said when I bought my PT Cruiser, my "mid-life Chrysler", back in 2003. He wished me the best of luck with it and said "Chrysler makes a good car, but they don't age very well". How right he was! Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
Oh yes - the Corvette . In one book "The Dream Machine" by an author who had been close with the Detroit automobile scene I read about an inofficial team having pursued the sports car project without higher management knowing until they finally had brought a prototype to one leading European Automobile Show , don't remember if it was Paris or Torino .
Anyways , it was too much of a sensation there with press going crazy about the idea of Chevrolet presenting a sports car to stop it - or else management would have looked like 'spielverderber' ( kill-joy / spoilsports ) .
As for Chrysler I feel like they have allowed a bright future as a high ranking car manufacturer slip away when after the elegant wing cars of 1957/58 they did not keep up the pace and let engineering developents as well as a definite company mark to styling slip away . To be sure , the fins had to make way for no-frills straight lines reflecting early 1960s more rational approach , late 60s indiviual styling and so on - however during much of these times Chrysler seemed to merely follow trends , not create them - with the exception of the Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Barracuda muscle cars that have attained a deserved cult status today .
Hi Juniatha! Oh you had me laughing with your "what if " scenario of yourself in the Pennsy R and D department. OK, if you couldn't save the S-2, maybe you could have saved the T-1, if not for road service then at least from the scrapper,
Interesting you bring up Chrysler and "bean counters" in the same sentence. You know, if it was up to the accountants Chevy never would have developed the Corvette? It's true. All the developement money for the 'Vette came from the Sales Department, they were the real "Car Guys" who knew a good thing when they saw it, and why should European sports car manufacturerers have all the fun and the market share? As they say, the rest was history!
Wayne
Hi Firelock>> Oh, and Juniatha, I can't help but think if you were around in 1945 you might have saved the Pennsy S-2! <<Oh-never , no chance – erh . no danger ! Ok , let’s imagine by and within strangely favoring circumstances and by help of Scotty’s beamer I had been there and at a position of some influence on engine design and management for some inexplicable reason has so far allowed me to fool around with steam – maybe under some pretext like they seemed to have allowed Wardale to tune and test # 3450 in years of steam vanishing : to let the public or shareholders in that instance believe they are investigating all possibilities of cost saving in addressing possible future demands , even improved steam .
Now , should news have trickled through while changing and re-changing for some time without a break-through ( or in other words : all was fine and regular ) lately I must have come up with something allowing # 6200 to shape up and challenge diesels on earnest : if that would have turned out to be so they would have cut my budget to zero , on pretext of pressure to save costs – whatever it may cost – pointing to Pennsy last year having turned out a deficit in passenger service and didn’t I stress the steam-turbine loco was an express engine par excellence . “ So sorry , we’ve just got to stop it “ ( “..or it may stop us !” ) “Just one (or two ) more test runs , please – and the coal is already on site” I pledge , Ahm , uuh .. ok : "Thank you , we’re considering it and ask you to wait , don't call us we call you ..“ ( .. on the twelfths of never ! Oh , hell , no – quick , get up and stop her , what about closing that whole department , tear down the loco test plant : no more steam loco test plant runs needed , get up and act , they might light up the beast and go , cut the coupling rods will you , scrap it d+++ it …!”
At that time the guys dressed in white enter the manager’s office and silently fill up a syringe – and , honestly you wouldn’t want to put management at risk of metal well-being , wouldn’t you , sure not – neither me . Thus , poor # 6200 just *haad* to be snapped , ew , scalped , I mean scrapped !
So , maybe I better joined Chrysler , working on the turbine car project there , at the same time teaming up with Bob Rogers to push reluctant bean counting management to stage a LeMans prototype race car project with a V12 engine in competition with Ford competing with Ferrari and Ferrari with Porsche to build up the company’s engineering competence image ignited by success with the Hemi V8 . You only live twice So better get wise :one life for your beans and one for your dreams ... or so it sems
Hello, Thomas. If you have a copy of Robert Reed's "Train Wrecks" or access to same there's some photos on pages 130-131 of Camelbacks that had side rod failures. The Delaware and Hudson Camel is downright gruesome, the engineers cab is GONE! The CNJ Camels cab is beat up pretty badly but still fairly intact, but I wouldn't have wanted to be the engineer in that one either. And yes, practically speaking there was no communication with the engineer and fireman on a Camel, Camels were popular with the accountants as they burned cheap anthracite waste, but they were never popular with the crews. For all that though, CNJ's Camels were powerful, reliable engines and lasted right up to the end of steam.
Yes I used to live in Virginia and rode behind the 611 on a excursion. I have rode on many trains all over the United states but the 611 could really get a train up and going in a big hurry. It also had some of the best stack exhaust I have ever heard. Of course back in the early 90's it was pure 611 muscle with no diesels.
The 611 also was unique in the fact that it was nearly totally silent when it was resting. I swear you could stand right next to it and it was like standing next to a steam locomotive in a city park. No injector noise, no generator noise, no air pump noise, no firebox noise, very strange.
She was a beautiful engine and entire towns used to come out to watch her go by. It's a crying shame she is sitting at a museum
I also agree those Camel backs are something else. I read they were very dangerous as if a side rod broke it would swipe the cab and engineer clean off in one swoop. It was also hard for the engineer to communicate with the fireman as some one had to walk back and forth on the catwalks. I heard the fireman froze to death in the winter as you only had a roof and nothing else to protect you from the cold.
Check this photo out of a articulated camel back! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelback_locomotive
Thomas 9011 Personally I don't care what a steam locomotive looks like. If it is going somewhere I will ride it. I do believe the C&O Streamlined Hudson #490 (4-6-4) at the Baltimore railroad museum is one of the finest steam locomotives I have ever seen in person.
Personally I don't care what a steam locomotive looks like. If it is going somewhere I will ride it. I do believe the C&O Streamlined Hudson #490 (4-6-4) at the Baltimore railroad museum is one of the finest steam locomotives I have ever seen in person.
Oh, yeah Thomas, I too have seen the C&O #490 myself at the B&O museum, it's a stunner, however have you ever seen the N&W Class J, the "Mighty 611"? The wife and I will probably never love another engine like we loved that one. There's 611, then there's everything else, no disrepect intended to those of other opinions. By the way, my two favorites at the B&O museum are the "William Mason" and that funky old CNJ Camelback. The CNJ boxcab diesel #1000 is pretty interesting in it's own right, you can still smell the diesel fuel if you lean into it close enough. I wonder if it's still capable of running?
Oh, and Juniatha, I can't help but think if you were around in 1945 you might have saved the Pennsy S-2!
Hi John
uhm - no my comment wasn't aimed at your's since you clearly confined what you meant .
My description of all the methods was kind of a wry exaggeration of typical tendencies -
not a real description - neither American nor European .
regards
Uhm , those notes of mine mainly addressing the gearbox drawings and general positioning of the turbines – if you count forward and reverse – sure were in retrospect view in the light of later technology , with exception of arrangement of the gearbox / axle drive that looks pretty – uhm – conventional even for 1944 .
Hi Selector
My first language was American English , however we moved – or rather : my father took us with him to move – to Berlin before I even went to school . In Berlin , I had an initial time of disturbed 'silencing out' somewhat feeling like a ‘displaced child’ if I would have known the term in spite of American speaking closer environment . Then , as mom took me with her on tours to the city I began to reconnoiter more of the city quarter I came to like it – the rural streets , always slightly sandy , shaded by tall old trees , the playgrounds , the parks – and began to pick up German , my mom's original language , progressively while my English slowly fell behind , more so when later on I was roaming the city of West-Berlin with friends .
Sorry if my language may sometimes appear somewhat circuitous or twisted – never hesitate to send me a personal message if in doubt about meaning of content .
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.