I may be opening a BIG can of worms here, but I have to wonder how many of the wrecks involving Class J's were due to simple human error. I mean, riding a hot-rod like a J it must have been VERY tempting to push it a bit faster than the situation called for, and then wind up in an "OH $#!)" situation when those who were running them realised a little too late they were doing something they shouldn't be doing.
Of course, there's always the possibility of someone other than the head-end crew making the mistake that lead to disaster, can't discount that either.
Oh good Lord no, I had NO intention of saying all N&W enginemen were hot-rodding Class J's, far from it. I'm sure a vast majority were mature men who took their responsibilities seriously.
The trouble is, it only takes one to cause a disaster. Look at that Metro-North engineer in New York who put his train on the ground at Spuyten Duyvil because he fell asleep or was zoned out, no-one seems to know for certain.
You know, I've sat in 611's cab and looked down that long black snoot, and I can't imagine the nerve it took to drive that BIG piece of machinery 50, 60, 70 miles an hour or more. I don't think I'd run it any faster than a walk, given the chance. I am oh so chicken...
The 1994 Lynchburg collision! Lady Firestorm swears to this day it was deliberate sabotage to cause the cancellation of the steam program. She hasn't forgotten and she won't forgive!
Hi Lois! Yes, it's enough to make you stop and think of how many lives have been saved and accidents prevented simply by the use of radio on the railroads.
Reminds me of when I read in one of my vintage railbooks about the Erie adopting radio not long after the end of World War Two. A veteran trainman was asked what he though about it and all he said was "I don't know how we ever got along without it!"
Lois,Given that the Santa Fe's "Blue Goose" # 3460 was delivered in Jan.,1938, do you think that its overall profile in any way influenced the design of the N&W's Class J?
.
Amazing what information is there in front of you if you only open a book!
After posing this question late last night, this morning, I went back through my books (N&W Giant of Steam "Revised Edition", * to be specific) to find that actually Mark W. Faville made the first drawing submitted to the design team. This drawing needed some touching up which was done by Frank C. Noel. The drawing favors the SP's GS class of 4-8-4's which predate the ATSF 3460 by about a year. This design was rejected as being not fancy enough.
Mr. Noel became more interested in the project and his subsequent drawings evolved into what we now know as one of the most beautiful streamlined passenger locomotives ever built.
So, we now have two other locomotives that have similar design traits that could very well have influenced the design of the J's form (which includes the locomotive & tender styling) over function.
It is too bad that no one sat down and discussed the thought process of the J's design with Mr. Noel and put it down in writing. Here again, I wish my father, who hammered out the J's sheetmetal, was still around to ask what he knew about the evolution of the J's design and if any problems popped up while the streamlining was being formed.
* Mark W. Faville was not credited with the first sketch of the J in the original "N&W Giant of Steam" book. This was brought to light in the revised edition of the book.
It strikes me that the inspiration for the J's steamlining comes from the New York Centrals Hudsons, as designed by Henry Dreyfuss, just rendered a bit more conservatively.
No matter, it's a work of genius. Lady Firestorm, lover of all things Art Deco always refers to 611 as "My engine!", hence her fury at Norfolk-Southern back in 1994 when the steam program was cancelled.
As a matter of fact when the programs cancelleation was reported in the local paper she let out an audible gasp I could hear from two rooms away. I thought somebody died!
And Big Jim you're right, it is a shame no-one thought to write down the thoughts and processes that lead to the Class J's streamlining. But back during the Revolution no-one thought to write down the processes and discussions that lead to the design of the American flag, to the consternation of flag historians from that day to this. Sometimes people just don't think of these things.
It probably went beyond the inspiration of the NYC Hudson, in the mid and late 1930's streamlining passenger trains and locomotives became the visual future of passenger trains. Many streamlined passenger trains were brought to the forefront during that time in the US, including eastern roads PRR and B&O, the N&W had to keep pace. In the book Steam Passenger Locomotives by Brian Hollingworth, he noted that in 1940 the N&W felt it should have a locomotive better than the standard USRA design, of which the N&W passenger trains relied on. He further explained they wanted a design to help minimize the cost of maintenance and time required for servicing.
Eventually when other railroads were converting to the clean look of diesels, the N&W continued with their steam program showing a clean and fresh look could still be acheived. They did, in a fine looker and "well oiled" piece of machinery.
I particularly enjoy reading Lois's excitment and enthusiasm over the 611, I know she won't be disappointed when the project is complete...remember Lois, take a deep breath and enjoy the moment. It's gunna be great!
Firelock76It strikes me that the inspiration for the J's steamlining comes from the New York Centrals Hudsons, as designed by Henry Dreyfuss, just rendered a bit more conservatively.
You are right in part. I should have also included that Mr. Noel did a drawing very much like the NYC Hudson, only stretched out to 4-8-4 form. This design was deemed "too fancy".
BTW, tell Lady Firestorm that I have my reasons to agree with her theory, but, I will not discuss them here.
Yeah Mr. Jim, Lois said the same thing. Must be some HEAVY theorys out there.
I'd love to get yourself, Lois, and Lady Firestorm together in a closed room with some refreshments on hand and let you all let it rip. It'd be fun to say the least.
By the way, a couple of years after 1994 I rode the C&O 614 excursions on New Jersey Transit and wore my "611- The Thoroughbred" sweatshirt. When people found out I'd ridden behind 611 I lost track of how many of them asked me "What happened?" All I could say was "pick the story you like and stick with it, it'll be hard for anyone to say you're wrong."
I've got my own theory, but like you I won't discuss it here.
You're absolutely right Lois, N&W's people were the best, and built the best.
A tribute even came from one of the people at Lima Locomotive Works, no slouches themselves. "Norfolk and Western? There's nothing we can teach them about how to build steam locomotives!"
High praise indeed!
Firelock76A tribute even came from one of the people at Lima Locomotive Works, no slouches themselves. "Norfolk and Western? There's nothing we can teach them about how to build steam locomotives!"
Perhaps an even higher tribute from Lima was the reported gloating and glee when the Allegheny "bested" the class A's test numbers -- with the Allegheny including far more fancy tecnnology, and incorporating the lessons learned during almost the entire Golden Age of evolution of large steam power after 1934...
Bit of a discussion going on in the "Allegheny" thread concerning Lima fudgin' some numbers concerning an Allegheny's weight...
No matter. The Allegheny was a great locomotive none the less, and Lima was a class act too!
Love to see one run again, but there's just two possibilities of that at this time, slim and none.
Firelock76Love to see one run again, but there's just two possibilities of that at this time, slim and none.
The weird thing is that the Allegheny is not THAT more 'extreme' than 1218 (which we will see run again), and really less overkill than the Big Boy. It's just not compelling enough in any aspect to get the necessary funding in all the necessary ways, perticularly without an established tradition or support infrastructure. I don't hesitate for a moment in noting that a CSX 'steam program' would be far better off commencing with 490, not a 1600 ... or by sticking a broken dish and some disco color on that Reading 4-8-4 that's been stranded in the Pacific Northwest... ;-}
Well of course 1218's coming back, or at least it will if that guy (who's name I won't mention) ranting and raving in the "611-4014" thread has anything to say about it.
Hey, he did everything else he said he was going to do.
One consideration with roller bearings is the type of lubrication -- oil or grease. A principal issue Wardale reports for oil-lubricated (Timken) bearings is that there's leakage past the seals, which can eventually get to the driver treads. Lube leakage from roller rods is, of course, well documented. There's been some interest in applying AAR M-942-spec grease lubrication to rod bearings, and of course there's no reason it can't be adapted to driving boxes... with care.
There are solid-bearing alternatives to rollers on rods, mostly involving the sort of geometry used on the late UP 4-8-4s, and modern materials, especially hard coatings and better methods of tribology. In some cases it may make sense to use these instead of new purpose-manufactured thin rollers at the necessary cost for small-volume production. (It remains to be seen how much Timken will quote new bearing production... but it won't be long ;-} )
Regarding 611 there would be no changes to the bearings. As far as I know they're in fine shape, and special attention has been paid to the two things that 'kill' roller bearings on stored locomotives: leaving them too long with weight on them, and exposing them to fretting levels of vibration without periodically renewing the lube film. I feel quite certain that the periodic moving of the locomotive while at VMT has ensured neither situation has occurred.
If at some point the EPA regs are changed so that total-loss lubrication is no longer possible on steam locomotives, it would be a simple thing to change the lubrication system -- either by using pressure and return lines, or converting the seals and reservoirs on the existing bearings to work with a good and appropriate modern grade of grease.
It is my opinion that anything involving the engine-truck wheels need not affect the roller bearings. But of all the times it's easiest to do something with the bearings... it's when the wheelsets are out of the locomotive and the wheels are pressed off the axles... ;-} At the very least, I'd do a really careful mapping of the inner and outer race faces, and perhaps the surface of the rolls, and perform some reasonably high-resolution NDT on the underlying metal. It will be a very long time before that becomes easy to do again...
I'd post this over on RyPN, too, where there are people familiar with the care and feeding of roller bearings during overhaul.
Let us know stat if the idea is to reduce lateral stiffness, or change lateral compliance.
This would be a very logical change if the engine's speed is to be kept below 40 mph, as it would reduce the effective rigid wheelbase and allow the locomotive to track 'diesel-grade' alignment a bit more easily. I would want to make very sure, though, that the change was fully reversible, and that all stages of the modifications were fully documented (and all original parts kept intact, or taken out and retained without modification)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.