[quote user="webbk"With the Variable Valve Plumbing, the Y6B can handle today's Coal Drags on Simple Expansion mode.[/quote]Ah, where to begin...
I confess to being ignorant of any "Variable Valve Plumbing" on N&W (or anywhere else, either) and I'm afraid I don't even know what that term is supposed to mean.
If you mean the 'booster valve', it was (as built) more an enhanced reheat device for operation in compound than a means of balancing high-speed operation. That does not mean that a valve capable of Chapelon's IP injection could not be used to balance the two engines effectively WHILE WORKING COMPOUND to achieve practical merchandise (or excursion) speed... and keeping low water rate doing it.
Operating at high speed with the intercepting valve set to work simple is just a giant sucking sound, even with N&W's advanced mechanics. You'd need to rebuild the engine with four equal cylinders, and for that N&W already has a class of locomotive far better than any Y class could hope to be as a simple.
Incidentally, the original two T1s had hopeless suspension inadequacies -- see the walking beam between the duplex engines? Guaranteed to walk high-speed slip forward and backward... which is why the production T1s had snubbing between #2 and #3 driver pair, and progressively increased the snubbing rate as 'research' continued. (The experimentation is actually recorded sequentially on one of the chassis spring-rigging diagrams!)
Most, perhaps all the 'solvable' issues with the T1s (aside from better training) were resolved in the 1948 improvements list. There are such easy solutions for many of the other supposed troubles that it reinforces the idea that 'skulduggery' was involved to get PRR out of the very expensive equipment-trust obligations. The "T1" to replicate was the one fitted with Franklin B-2 rotary-cam gear (extra points if you know how B-2 differs from type B) and that is what 5550 basically is (albeit with drive arm instead of those wacky positive-location shaft bridges!)
BigJim webbk The Y6B is not a true Compound, I beg to differ!
webbk The Y6B is not a true Compound,
I beg to differ!
Moi aussi.
If the locomotive had larger cylinders that accepted expanded steam in any configuration, it was a 'true' compound. And that describes the Y series to a...Y.
What does it matter if the hogger had to throw a lever to effect piston travel via two or three means? If one of them meant compounded operation, it was a 'true' compound.
While not an individual class, I don't think that any of the various "super" Consolidations of the various anthracite roads or WM were saved.
webbkThe Y6B is not a true Compound,
.
The Y6B is not a true Compound, the Y6B class were equipped with a Variable Valve Plumbing. With the Variable Valve Plumbing, the Y6B can handle today's Coal Drags on Simple Expansion mode. Excursions won't be a problem if the Y6B ran on Compound mode instead of Simple Expansion mode. Out of all of the "Y" class, the Y6B would have a better shot than the Y6A on Exursion runs. Also, the Y3s was sold to the Pennsylvania Railroad as the HH1s. For the T1s, a replica of 6110 or 6111 would be the best option since the Production T1s are trash.
I'm not sure why N&W didn't modify the A's boiler proportions. I've never found any indication that N&W tried or had a reason to try anything different with them. It could be that they were "good enough" as built and N&W put their efforts elsewhere (e.g., the Y-classes).
We know a fair amount about the J's and Y6's performance and economics via surviving test results, but there's next to nothing for the A's. We do know that their performance was never in question and superlatives seemed to surround them. Maybe they really did seduce an entire railroad....
feltonhill I'll try to respond to this off the cuff. I've been occupied with some other work the past few seeks and have not been keeping up to date with these discussions. Most of the Y6's were modified with a different firebox following the Y6b. The tubes were shortened 4 ft from 24' to 20' and the firebox combustion chamber was extended by the same amount. This is what caused the difference in the direct heating surface. After this change the N&W noted that the boiler had increased steaming ability and that a clear stack was much easier to maintain. Boiler capacity calculations and over-the-road DBHP estimates bear this out.
I'll try to respond to this off the cuff. I've been occupied with some other work the past few seeks and have not been keeping up to date with these discussions.
Most of the Y6's were modified with a different firebox following the Y6b. The tubes were shortened 4 ft from 24' to 20' and the firebox combustion chamber was extended by the same amount. This is what caused the difference in the direct heating surface.
After this change the N&W noted that the boiler had increased steaming ability and that a clear stack was much easier to maintain. Boiler capacity calculations and over-the-road DBHP estimates bear this out.
This formula - shorter, larger diameter firetubes and a longer firebox/combustion chamber was used in many of the late steam designs for the improved performance reasons you mentioned.
The Class A had the older design of smaller, longer firetubes along with less direct heating surface. I have always been curious why the N&W didn't build the last Class A locomotives to the higher performance design like the Y6b, when the gains of shorter firetubes and larger direct heating surface were well known within the industry at that time.
Actually my dad bought a soft cover Reading Co. book which survives in scandalous condition somewhere in my archives/fire hazard. In this booklet there is a double page color rendition of the "new" Crusader. Pretty spiffy, I must admit!
But if you ever run across photos of the 117/118 after the shrouds came off in 1951(?) something has gone sour (or perhaps sower for we speak of hogs). The G1sas had their air pumps mounted on the tender so that lovely shroud wouldn't have unsightly bulges. When the shrouds came off, they mounted the compressors on the pilot beam in an ugly box. Looks like someones old refrigerator! Definitely not the graceful lines of a G1sa!
Hello John! The "Crusader" shroud was pretty tastefully done in my opinion. Ever see a color photo? Stainless steel with blue highlights. In fact, the name "Crusader" came about because the stainless shroud reminded someone of a "knight in shining armor."
Ironically, the stainless passenger consist for the "Crusader" survived well into the diesel era, pulled by Reading FP-7's.
Wayne
I don't know . I prefer my Pacifics naked. But I suppose if you want to veil one, the Crusader shroud isn't a bad way to go. I've seen photos of 'em after they took the shrouds off. Should of kept it on!
rfpjohn On the subject of tragic losses, how about a Reading G3 pacific? Last built pacifics in the US, they were modern but beautifully simple and practical. One was offered to the city of Reading. It was turned down because of budget problems. I don't think the city could afford to move the otherwise free engine to a display location! Wouldn't one look just right powering excursions on the Reading and Northern?
On the subject of tragic losses, how about a Reading G3 pacific? Last built pacifics in the US, they were modern but beautifully simple and practical. One was offered to the city of Reading. It was turned down because of budget problems. I don't think the city could afford to move the otherwise free engine to a display location! Wouldn't one look just right powering excursions on the Reading and Northern?
How 'bout the Reading's "Crusader" Pacific? Class, pure class.
That's unusual. But I have heard that 611 did derail after the first excursion from Roanoke to Norfolk in September 1982. I am able to authenticate this because my husband was on the engine crew that day. She had trouble getting to the turntable lead in Norfolk, and they had to tow her back to Roanoke, later making modifications in the yard so that she could access the turntable without any problems.
lois
I would have liked to have seen one of the N&W S1a 0-8-0's preserved- about all of these were retired when only five or six years old. #244 especially should have been saved, as it was the last steam locomotive built by Roanoke Shops.lois
It's a B4a, reboilered with a radial stay boiler while in the employ of a steel company. Still a beautiful example of a 1900 Pennsy shifter (notice I used the proper Pennsyese term for yard engine. in south Jersey it would be a "drill" engine). There is also a B6sa (PRR built with radial stay firebox) on display in south eastern Pennsylvania (maybe Avondale?) Supposedly, there is a B8 submerged in a quarry somewhere near Birdsboro, PA. I'm sure it's fine.
There's a Pennsy steam switcher that survives in Williams Grove PA. It's owned by the Wiliams Grove Steam Association and is operable, they run it several times a year. Not sure if it's a B6 but it is ex-PRR.
Here's the website: www.wghsea.org. Check it out, you'll love it!
I believe you can find a PRR B6sb at the RR Museum of PA in Strasburg.
I've noticed over time that most laments have been over the various examples of road locomotives that were not saved. What about steam switchers? I would like to have seen an example of an IHB U-4b (the grandest 0-8-0 of all) or a more pedestrian PRR B6sb preserved. After all, the road locomotives couldn't perform their feats without a train assembled by switchers.
Being a midwesterner, my votes go to a Milwaukee Road Class A Atlantic or F-7 (Baltics on the MR) Hudsosn. Another, oft-forgotten candidate was the C&NW E-4 Streamlined Hudsons. And, at least two of the three could have been saved. A Milw A was used as a stationary boiler in Chicago and an E-4 was used in Ore Thawing Service in Escanaba MI, until someone forget to set the brakes, it became a runaway down a grade and ended up in a swamp, where the only real option was to scrap it on site.But, the thought of them with 12-14 cars cruising along at 100 would be cool sight to see (and there are places in the US where that would be possible...)Of all the words of Mice and Men, the saddest is 'it might of been'....
BigJim eagle1030 Paul of Covington I may not remember correctly, but didn't N&W go back and upgrade their older Y's to be equivalent to the newest models? They did, and the 2156 (the Y6a in St. Louis) received a Y6b-sized firebox. Eagle,The firebox size was the same for classes Y5 thru Y6b. So, 2156 didn't receive anything different than the others in that respect.
eagle1030 Paul of Covington I may not remember correctly, but didn't N&W go back and upgrade their older Y's to be equivalent to the newest models? They did, and the 2156 (the Y6a in St. Louis) received a Y6b-sized firebox.
Paul of Covington I may not remember correctly, but didn't N&W go back and upgrade their older Y's to be equivalent to the newest models?
I may not remember correctly, but didn't N&W go back and upgrade their older Y's to be equivalent to the newest models?
They did, and the 2156 (the Y6a in St. Louis) received a Y6b-sized firebox.
Eagle,The firebox size was the same for classes Y5 thru Y6b. So, 2156 didn't receive anything different than the others in that respect.
GA was the same, but firebox heating surface was considerably greater for the Y6b (430 v. 555', if I recall correctly, with much of the difference being circulator area, again if I recall correctly). I suspect that what he meant by "Y6b-sized firebox" means heating surface, not physical dimensions.
Should be easy to confirm if 2156 was fitted with the enhanced heating surface...
Hard to think, with all the engines available, that not one NYC Hudson was saved. Of course 5344 was the most famous one, and would have made the most sense to save.
One correction: 2050 is a Y3a.
Illinois Railway Museum does indeed have a Y6. It is 2050. It is under cover in one of the display barns for everyone to see. The tender has been repainted and lettered.The loco is in rough shape as it was used as a steam plant for a business years ago.
Paul,After the Y5 and up classes were upgraded to "Improved", they were all rated the same.Classes Y4 and lower didn't receive the same improvements.
It isn't so much curves that 611 has trouble with, it's cross-level and sharp kinks.
In order to optimize her as a high-speed locomotive, she had to be made stiffer than ordinary locomotives. The trucks have to hold her steady. So they have much stiffer lateral compliance, and in order to make the restoring force quicker-acting at speed, that force increases with the angle of deflection (Dave will know exactly how much). This extends the effective guiding 'wheelbase' out to the engine-truck pin in the front and as far as the frame is concerned (and the drivers are fixed parallel to the frame) to the centering rockers at the rear of the trailing truck. This puts proportionately more force on the driver flanges than with 'ordinary' guiding, in which the flanges of the first driver pair do a large share of the guiding (but shouldn't!)
There was an article in Trains that covered this characteristic of Class J in detail -- don't have access to my DVD to confirm; does anyone out there have the specific reference? Lois in particular will appreciate it...
Just briefly, 611 derailed in Norfolk because sometime between the end of N&W steam in 1960 and 1982 the tracks had be relaid and realigned with diesels in mind. The radii of the curves was just a little too tight for a 4-8-4. Not the locomotives fault, just someone made the wrong assumption that what was would always be.
I am aware that 611 did derail on the first trip to Norfolk in 1982, when she had trouble with the too-tight turntable lead. I am not certain what happened, but I believe her drivers began to pop out. However, the only other occasion I know of that she derailed was in 1956, when she overturned on a curve because of running at a speed higher than that called for on the curve. I am not aware of 611 having any other trouble of this kind on curves, would appreciate any more details or information on this subject.
A couple of little notes:
dknelson The Illinois Railroad Museum in Union IL has, or at least had, a Y3 2-8-8-2. Over the years modifications and improvements to the older 2-8-8-2s gave them a reasonably uniform appearance although there are many ways in which it does not looks like a Y6b.
The Illinois Railroad Museum in Union IL has, or at least had, a Y3 2-8-8-2. Over the years modifications and improvements to the older 2-8-8-2s gave them a reasonably uniform appearance although there are many ways in which it does not looks like a Y6b.
The significant differences were in detail design and maintenance/reliability. An analogy (admittedly not exact) in the aircraft world might be the B-52. The basic performance parameters and other characteristics hit a 'sweet spot' in requirements, but functional improvements could and were made in important areas. By the F version we had a very different airplane, but it appeared much the same to casual observation.
Another concern of course is that several eras of track construction have followed the end of the steam era and trying to turn these huge engines has proved to be an increasing challenge. A weekend ago in Duluth the Milwaukee Road 261 4-8-4 had to leave town ahead of its train because in the past it had derailed more than once on the wye they had used in prior years for turning the engine so it needed to go further to a different wye.
Much of this problem is due to long rigid wheelbase. One thing the Ys did not have was too long a *rigid* wheelbase -- little, if any, larger than a Mikado with that size driver, and of course with lower swing radius on the rear truck due to the lack of a deep firebox behind the drivers. So they would relatively happily traverse a wye with relatively sharp curvature and poor line/surface, as long as the swing of the forward engine was not too extreme (largely determined by steampipe swing and lineside obstructions). Dave Stephenson can tell you just how sharp that radius could be.
I do not believe these engines, even in the latest variants, used the high-speed articulated method of flat forward support to control swing of the forward engine, so they would be pretty flexible on poor wye track.
And I have seen both the UP 4-8-4 and 4-6-6-4 tiptoe through the wye at Butler Yard in Milwaukee.
BIG reason for this is the centipede tender on the reverse leg of a wye, not the engines themselves. 3985 was built with Bruce-style stabilization that gives her a long effective wheelbase 'vertically', but does not compromise curve swing. 844 has lateral motion devices that have the effect of decreasing effective rigid wheelbase. The tenders, on the other hand, have the equivalent of a long rigid wheelbase with no truck to guide it when reversing. (This is one reason you'll see a Delta-style trailing truck at the rear of long proposed pedestal tenders like the one for the Lima 4-8-6.) There is a limited amount of lateral that the pedestal suspension provides (via the composite shear springs) and the restoring force is proportionally stiffer with high deflection, so it's easy to pop a flange over the railhead, and then difficult to force it back over even if you jack weight off the wheelset.
When you use N&W J-style locomotive balancing (with zero reciprocating overbalance) you need this kind of stiff compliance in both the leading and trailing trucks, to counteract the inertial yaw component. This increases the effective rigid wheelbase AND makes negotiating unexpected sharper curve segments or kinks much less certain. 611 came to grief a number of times in places where diesels could go (albeit with a moment of flange ringing or squeal).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.