Hi Lois!
OK, the Pennsy's testing of a N&W J has been spoken of before, but there's no harm in speaking of it again.
Certainly, the J performed outstandingly and did everything the PRR wanted a passenger locomotive to do. Why didn't they go for it? Well, my opinion is, and it's strictly my opinion since I can't quote chapter and verse from any documentation, is this...
PRR had a symbiotic relationship with the Baldwin Locomotive works. Even ALCO gave up trying to crack it. As a J wasn't a Baldwin product it probably had two strikes against it no matter how good it was. If a J could run on the N&W's operating profile there's no reason it couldn't run on the Pennsy's.
I also suspect the PRR and Baldwin were probably a little put out that those "hillbillies" down in Virginia were more capable at building a superior steam locomotive than they were and just didn't want to admit it. DO NOT discount the effect egos have in shaping policy in business, government, the military, and other endevours! There's too many examples in history of the same for me to go into, but it's there, it's real, and it persists to this day. The sad lesson of history is so few people are willing to learn from it.
Just how responsible or realistic it was to do 100 mile-an-hour running on the PRR lines from Harrrisburg west is another issue. Was the track structure capable of it? Would the 'roads profile support it? Or did the 100mph "Holy Grail" blind the PRR to other possibilities? We'll never know at this point.
The plain fact of the matter is the PRR had a superb steam passenger locomotive there for the taking and they walked away from it. To bad for them. But what can you can about a group of people who called themselves "The Standard Railroad of the World"? That speaks volumes in itself.
Wayne
No way would there ever be 100 mph running on Middle and Pittsburgh divisions.
PRR's racetrack was west of Crestline.
nyc#25 No way would there ever be 100 mph running on Middle and Pittsburgh divisions. PRR's racetrack was west of Crestline.
True. Oh so true. And it probably wasn't realistic to do too much of it there either.
See here's the thing, and I believe the same mistake's being made today with the obsession over high-speed rail with some people. It's not high speed that's needed, it's reliability. Delivering the passengers "on the advertised" as it were. Even if the fastest you go is 70 to 80 miles an hour, so what? Get the folks there when you say you will, and do it all the time. That's what gets the business.
The concern about the J's 70" driver diameter was probably a bit misplaced, even if a "PRR version" of the locomotive would probably have been the 72" of the M1. I think Firelock is correct in thinking PRR was being 'conservative' about sticking to some version of the 'diameter speed' argument for high-speed power, and misunderstanding the gist of the balancing improvements after the mid-Thirties (most certainly not respecting the N&W team's approach to high-speed balancing until the testing demonstrated how well it worked).
On the other hand, I think PRR was "somewhat overenthusiastic" over how fast trains would be operated over at least substantial parts of its main lines after the War. We have discussed the odd design choice explicit in the Q2 of a locomotive whose peak hp occurs 10 to 15 mph faster than permitted freight speed on its railroad, and both the S1 and T1 illustrate a locomotive design whose special characteristics outweigh their liabilities only at substantially higher speed -- and by that I do mean sustained speed.
I concur that the real issue raised in the J testing was how well the 70" drivered engine would hold up if actually run for long periods of time at the high speeds it could technically reach. I would very tentatively note that the valve seizure that terminated the high-speed testing was apparently of a severe enough nature as to show substantial lubrication difficulties. If the lubrication problem involved distortion or expansion of the valve itself, the situation is still more serious. (We can take up the alternatives available to the N&W and PRR at the time that might have addressed this, but it would be largely speculation).
For those who think that standardizing on the M1 rather than the K4 in the Twenties would have addressed most of PRR's operating situations adequately, it is not too great a leap to envision a slightly 'expanded' version of the J that would do as much 'more' over the M1 as the J did itself over the N&W K2s. In my opinion it would have served nicely to keep the schedule on any of the PRR passenger trains that were operating in that era. Whether it would have 'found' problems with PRR's track geometry, due to its interesting balancing method, at those required speeds, or if it came to be used for higher-peak-speed service after the War, is another question.
I agree that the J was a mighty fine locomotive, possibliy my overall favorite steamer. The streamliniing was matched only by the New Haven I-5, which had problems, and few other 4-8-4's could match in in overall performance, either as a fast feight or fast and heavy passenger locomotive.
Having said that, I think the T-1 was a very capable machine in the right engineer's hands. But the J wins on lower maintenance costs even then. And the T- was not dual service.
Hi Dave! Just one thing...
The J wasn't intended as a dual-service locomotive, as a matter of fact when they were used for freight toward the end of the steam era J fans thougt using them on freight was a downright disgrace! However, since they performed so well on freight it shows just how good they really were.
By the same token, the Union Pacific only found out how good their FEF's really were when THEY were downgraded to freight jobs.
I hadn't heard there were problems with New Haven's I-5's. Do you know what they were?
PS: I've got a Mike's Train House O Gauge Class J. Never, EVER do I use it to pull freight cars! Not even under the Christmas tree!
As long as we're dreaming of steam lasting forever, I was wondering what would N&W have come up with for local service on the lighter branch lines. They had the J, A, and Y for road service, and the 0-8-0 for switching, but eventually I think they would want to replace the aging power on secondary lines with something more modern. Maybe light Mikado, Pacific or Prairie types? Conjecture is fun.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Another interesting question is what would have been used on the heavier branches, the ones served by the 2-6-6-2s. The very last new steam locomotive built by Baldwin was a 2-6-6-2, to a very old fundamental design but with some modern 'conveniences'. Would a similar locomotive based on the Z class be an ongoing solution? Would it be given the full roller bearing treatment for ease of maintenance, or would longer-life versions of plain bearings be chosen instead? What sorts of servicing arrangements would be made for them?
I had thought the 'standard' light branchline engines were the 4-8-0s. I would think an eight-coupled engine would be about the 'lightest' that would be used for any branch service on N&W; modern truck design ought to allow a 2-8-0, perhaps with lead-truck parts in common with the larger classes. I had the impression N&W did not have (substantial) trouble with reverse moves by the 4-8-0s, so it might not be necessary to go to a formal 2-8-2 to get adequate reverse guiding -- the principal reason would be if a deep wide firebox were to be used, rather than a narrow box or a wide one over the rear drivers -- the latter probably being the most likely. It might be fun to speculate on the further development of the M2 Automatic modification of 4-8-0s and its application to branch as well as switching service... but I would doubt the expense of the conversions would produce any meaningful return on the investment in road service. I don't see any likelihood of turbines, even if the TE-1 were to prove the technologies workable in service, although it might be interesting to compare the Swedish 2-8-0 Ljungstrom turbines with the work requirements...
PRR (when it was N&W's majority owner) was working on some interesting all-wheels-driven ideas that might have been useful for this service. (See the Steins patent # 2586109.)
Hello Overmod. Yes, the standard branchline locomotives were the 4-8-0's, the "Mastodons" as they were called. These had been mainline engines downgraded to the branches when the bigger and better stuff became available.
When the N&W began dieselizing in the early to mid-fifties it was on the branch lines where it started, the Mastodons were coming to the end of their useful lives and no other smallish engines were available.
Assuming no diesels, I'd expect they might have been replaced with homebuilt modern 2-8-0's, or modern six-coupled types. But of course that didn't happen.
By the way, the Strasburg Railroad has a real-live-honest-to-goodness Mastodon on the roster, the only one operating in the country.
Don't you just love that name "Mastodon"? Only "Wooly Mammoth" would have been more colorful!
I had thought the 'standard' light branch line engines were the 4-8-0s.
.
Appreciate your input Big Jim. Maybe we should narrow or specify our definitions of "branch lines." When I think N&W branch lines I think of things like the Abingdon branch. I completely forgot about all those lines from all those coal mines that would have needed big power like a Y6. Those strike me more as "semi-main" lines, for lack of a better term, especially if they needed the muscle of a Y6.
Overmod Another interesting question is what would have been used on the heavier branches, the ones served by the 2-6-6-2s. The very last new steam locomotive built by Baldwin was a 2-6-6-2, to a very old fundamental design but with some modern 'conveniences'. Would a similar locomotive based on the Z class be an ongoing solution? Would it be given the full roller bearing treatment for ease of maintenance, or would longer-life versions of plain bearings be chosen instead? What sorts of servicing arrangements would be made for them? I had thought the 'standard' light branchline engines were the 4-8-0s. I would think an eight-coupled engine would be about the 'lightest' that would be used for any branch service on N&W; modern truck design ought to allow a 2-8-0, perhaps with lead-truck parts in common with the larger classes. I had the impression N&W did not have (substantial) trouble with reverse moves by the 4-8-0s, so it might not be necessary to go to a formal 2-8-2 to get adequate reverse guiding -- the principal reason would be if a deep wide firebox were to be used, rather than a narrow box or a wide one over the rear drivers -- the latter probably being the most likely. It might be fun to speculate on the further development of the M2 Automatic modification of 4-8-0s and its application to branch as well as switching service... but I would doubt the expense of the conversions would produce any meaningful return on the investment in road service. I don't see any likelihood of turbines, even if the TE-1 were to prove the technologies workable in service, although it might be interesting to compare the Swedish 2-8-0 Ljungstrom turbines with the work requirements... PRR (when it was N&W's majority owner) was working on some interesting all-wheels-driven ideas that might have been useful for this service. (See the Steins patent # 2586109.)
That would be this patent:
https://www.google.com/patents/US2586109?dq=ininventor:%22C.+K.+STEINS%22
It seems that it would use trucks somewhat akin to the then current Steam Locomotive booster engine designs, although my understanding is that booster engines were uni-directional and the power trucks on the proposed locomotive would have to be able to supply the same tractive effort in forward or reverse so ther must be some mechanical innovations, correct?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1That would be this patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US2586109?dq=ininventor:%22C.+K.+STEINS%22 It seems that it would use trucks somewhat akin to the then current Steam Locomotive booster engine designs, although my understanding is that booster engines were uni-directional and the power trucks on the proposed locomotive would have to be able to supply the same tractive effort in forward or reverse so ther must be some mechanical innovations, correct?
That is indeed the correct patent! Looking at the date on this patent, and on Kirchhof's patent that became Franklin type D (which is this one), leads me to think that the general type D idea, of a RC poppet gear with 'automatic cutoff control', is what would have been used. The system would involve control air strictly as digital control (the air moves the cam to full engagement of either forward or reverse from the 'neutral' cam profile, and the arrangement centers automatically), so there would be no synchronization problem between trucks; the operation would be just like USATC 2728/611: forward, reverse, and neutral, with the throttle then being used for speed control. The stated effect of the 'wiredrawing' would be enhanced with the small wheels. In my opinion, as with the T1 (and, apparently, according to Tuplin, the Niagara) there would be benefits from sliding-pressure firing at starting and perhaps at other times; among other things, it relieves the problems inherent in throttling the inlet steam flow before it gets to the valves...
From the way he describes the drive, I think that it consists of simple cranks, probably in trunk pistons (as in a conventional automobile engine). These could be synchronized with external side rods as indicated, but note that he only puts them in as an option. Note that the Kirchhof patent indicates that the "type D" system would inherently act to control slips from propagating, which would be a big concern on a locomotive with individual axle motor drive!
Overmod carnej1That would be this patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US2586109?dq=ininventor:%22C.+K.+STEINS%22 It seems that it would use trucks somewhat akin to the then current Steam Locomotive booster engine designs, although my understanding is that booster engines were uni-directional and the power trucks on the proposed locomotive would have to be able to supply the same tractive effort in forward or reverse so ther must be some mechanical innovations, correct? That is indeed the correct patent! Looking at the date on this patent, and on Kirchhof's patent that became Franklin type D (which is this one), leads me to think that the general type D idea, of a RC poppet gear with 'automatic cutoff control', is what would have been used. The system would involve control air strictly as digital control (the air moves the cam to full engagement of either forward or reverse from the 'neutral' cam profile, and the arrangement centers automatically), so there would be no synchronization problem between trucks; the operation would be just like USATC 2728/611: forward, reverse, and neutral, with the throttle then being used for speed control. The stated effect of the 'wiredrawing' would be enhanced with the small wheels. In my opinion, as with the T1 (and, apparently, according to Tuplin, the Niagara) there would be benefits from sliding-pressure firing at starting and perhaps at other times; among other things, it relieves the problems inherent in throttling the inlet steam flow before it gets to the valves... From the way he describes the drive, I think that it consists of simple cranks, probably in trunk pistons (as in a conventional automobile engine). These could be synchronized with external side rods as indicated, but note that he only puts them in as an option. Note that the Kirchhof patent indicates that the "type D" system would inherently act to control slips from propagating, which would be a big concern on a locomotive with individual axle motor drive!
Do you think that the design of the "power trucks" in the patent would have been better than say, the Bulleid Leader's bogey design? I realise that that may be an "Apples-and-Oranges" type of question in the sense that the two designs are aimed at different applications....
carnej1 Do you think that the design of the "power trucks" in the patent would have been better than say, the Bulleid Leader's bogey design? I realise that that may be an "Apples-and-Oranges" type of question in the sense that the two designs are aimed at different applications....
There were some aspects of Bulleid's trucks that were better: the primary springing and damping arrangements, the centerless design with multiple 'side bearing' pads, the use of welding and rotating jigs for fabrication. I have grave doubts that the triple-throw crank could be made to work properly in the long run. The thermodynamic and performance advantages of the sleeve valves turned out to be minor overall, with greatly increased maintenance problems -- I admit I am still in awe of the Napier Sabre, and Bulleid's valve arrangement is not far behind, but even the joys of Meehanite are not going to keep those sleeves and rings both free-moving and steam-tight at the same time...
The detail design of the chain final drive was recognized as a kludge at the time; it could probably have been made to work with American clearances (where there would have been room for fore-and-aft chains on both sides, relieving the awful reversing stresses on the crank and the distorting effects of the one-sided drive on the flexible suspension. (As a note: Bulleid was impressed with chain drive because he saw it on industrial machinery... driven at reasonably constant torque, and not reversed. Had he recognized more about the behavior of Morse chain, things might have been different both on the Pacifics and on the Leader class. Note that the Turf Burner had conventional little piston-valve-equipped cylinders not unlike what Steins calls for).
When Riddles was criticizing the design, he noted it would benefit from 'smaller wheels'. There is little doubt that this would improve most aspects of a 'general purpose' locomotive.
The principal 'catch' here is that Steins has those trucks the way he does for a reason; they have extremely short wheelbase, to facilitate working very sharp curves, with... I think... the polar moment of inertia made purposely large to damp yaw oscillation from that short wheelbase. If that is a design criterion, Bulleid's long wheelbase trucks with minimal lateral excursion (limited by the chain side play) is NOT a particularly good answer. There are some ways to get around this (one being to use curved rather than cylindrical rollers in the chain, with similar radius to what was used in spherical rod bearings) but unless you go to a radial truck -- which would require something like Klien-Lindner axles to work with the chain drive -- you will still have substantial restriction on where the locomotive can work.
Similar issue with adapting Besler's New Haven railcar trucks -- the wheelbase is so long that the flanges would start to bind...
Paul,
in a nutshell :
my bet for a light Mike
axle load for go-everywhere , I guess some 55 lb10³ - you may tell me a more accurate value
ihp in the 3000 range
speed in the 70 mph range ( or 100 if you'd use J class rpm )
Again , certainly no chain driven Bulleid power trucks or the like fancy plumber's nightmares .
Basically , steam did *not* improve in versatility by being cluttered with auxiliaries or if you prefer ancillary engines by the numbers . All these extra machinery often enough of quite special design and inevitably adding mass which drew on possible boiler size , too , by default was to be inactive for most of a trip and therefore gave a low return of value for capital spent - it just was not cost efficient .
Regards
= J =
Something also to be considered is N&W's merger with the Wabash and NKP, two fast freight lines. Would N&W have kept Berkshires, or would it be more Class A's?
Berk or A - that's like asking more Chevys or more Cadillacs
eagle1030 Something also to be considered is N&W's merger with the Wabash and NKP, two fast freight lines. Would N&W have kept Berkshires, or would it be more Class A's?
Considering the geographical layout of the both the Wabash and NKP, Berkshires I feel would be a more logical choice. Rolling and flat lands, area's where the Berk performance was just fine.
Also, think about the maintenance requirements of the two, again, some advantage to the Berk. Add on some modern type thinking and improvements the Berk could be an even more awsome piece of machinery. The NKP, assuming steam had another decade, would have pushed the technology of the Berk even further. Seem's they liked those suckers.
friend611In my opinion, the N&W would have kept the Berkshires in operation on the NKP. Now with the Wabash, that is more open to question, though it is possible Berkshires may have been used there as well.Lois
I know at least one portion of the Wabash line (Moberly-KC) was hilly enough to warrant 4500hp diesel consists. That's around what a normal 4-8-4 could produce, and a superb 2-8-4 would be more equal to the task.
And I do not think Wabash had any Berks, but it's not my preferred road and I may be wrong. I do know they had some Northerns.
eagle1030 friend611In my opinion, the N&W would have kept the Berkshires in operation on the NKP. Now with the Wabash, that is more open to question, though it is possible Berkshires may have been used there as well.Lois I know at least one portion of the Wabash line (Moberly-KC) was hilly enough to warrant 4500hp diesel consists. That's around what a normal 4-8-4 could produce, and a superb 2-8-4 would be more equal to the task. And I do not think Wabash had any Berks, but it's not my preferred road and I may be wrong. I do know they had some Northerns.
If I remember correctly, the Wabash 4-8-4s were ancient (built 1930) and would have been fertile ground for rebuilding to better specs in the late '40s. Interesting to me is that the Wabash also had some Mountains of very similar dimensions built for them at about the same time -- and it might be interesting to see whether there were key differences in the approach taken to modernize the two classes.
Just what WOULD an O-1 get to modernize it?
I can't help but wonder whether N&W would have developed (for its new acquisitions) "2/3 of a Class A" as a Berkshire design. THAT would be an interesting locomotive.
JuniathaBasically , steam did *not* improve in versatility by being cluttered with auxiliaries or if you prefer ancillary engines by the numbers . All these extra machinery often enough of quite special design and inevitably adding mass which drew on possible boiler size , too , by default was to be inactive for most of a trip and therefore gave a low return of value for capital spent - it just was not cost efficient
It's interesting that in Britain, boosters were carefully tried, and showed the same advantages they did here, but were not adopted. For exactly the stated reason Juniatha gives.
On the other hand, I think there is a case for some kind of booster that gives added working TE (or allows lower propensity to slip the drivers) -- on some railroads. I agree that the Franklin booster was a complex and expensive device to provide and maintain, but it would make a locomotive with lower FA more tractable at starting and low in the acceleration range.
I concur that many of the auxiliaries that were coming into use were overcomplicated devices with minimal return. One reason I like the idea of the Snyder preheater and Cunningham circulator is that they were explicitly designed to do their job in a real railroad environment, with minimal tinkering or breakable parts involved. It's interesting to consider whether a reliable feedwater heater or exhaust-steam injector that did not involve many little moving parts supplied by the lowest bidder could be built.
Overmod
>> I agree that the Franklin booster was a complex and expensive device to provide and maintain, but it would make a locomotive with lower FA more tractable at starting and low in the acceleration range. <<
No question , or basically : total t.e. *could* be increased with a booster and if you are at the throttle climbing the mountain side in a rainy black night with a freight slowly , all too slowly winding through the curves and threatening to bear you down to a stall with just one more wild slippage , for sure you'd *wish* the railroad had not informed the builder "Uhm , on the production engines we won't need those booster .."
Only , I fear - with the booster the railroads daily traffic thinking would be "Oh-awright , just hang it on , those mammoth's do have a booster !" and then climbing that mountain in that night would find you in just the same borderline situation - only you'd pray the booster , too , won't let you down after having been engaged for so many miles on end !
Juniatha
I should probably have been more clear.
What I was referring to was a very specific use of the booster: assisting the starting and low-speed acceleration of an engine with a FA so low as to make it 'dangerously slippery' at those times.
This could certainly be 'abused' by an operating department, if they were dumb enough to think that the booster added to perfect adhesion on the main engine under all train-starting conditions. I'd like to think they were smarter than that!
As a potentially-interesting note: One of the prototype T1s was equipped with a booster. But boosters were not supplied on the 'production' engines, despite the established "slippitiness" of the locomotive at starting, and perhaps more significantly, boosters were never proposed as a 'cure' for the engine's problems with slips in service, even as some very wild changes in equalization and lateral motion were being tinkered with. To me, this strengthens the idea that boosters did not provide enough 'bang for the buck' to justify their cost and maintenance... at least, on PRR in passenger service, where I would think a booster was not only warranted, but flat out needed as far as practical operation was concerned.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.