While an Allegheny is a impressive piece of machinery, restoration of either of the surviving examples just isn't going to happen. I'd be scared to look inside the boiler to see the condition of the flues and, more importantly, what is the condition of the various rod and axle bearings. The expense involved in any restoration is going to be hard to justify to the shareholders and the sheer size of the locomotive is going to restrict its operating territory.
Trainman4Steam is king! The fact that a discussion has begun on a wanted restored Alleghany is where it all starts. Look at the Big Boy program and UP's overall steam program. It is first class and pays for itself in advertising and the exposure that UP gets to it's big shippers, etc. I am a CSX stockholder and want them to get moving on a project for the Alleghany. The exposure would do the same thing for them that UP gets. The finest in steam means that others are connected and want to be a part of the "action" as well. As the man in charge for Big Boy said, it is like bringing back tyronasurs rex and who wouldn't want to see one of those! Most people have never heard of Big Boy or ever seen such a large steam locomotive like that under steam, so it sells instantly for the already above mentioned reasons. Let's all push and ask the B&O Museum and CSX to look into it. The Alleghany at the Ford Museum is the most looked at object in the entire museum by the way.
Trainman4:
An interesting and exciting project. But unfortunately, I think you may have picked a battle that is "a project too far". CSX has a history that is not too conducive to the Preservation of much of their Historical Artifacts. IMHO.
The only light at the end of that tunnel seems to be that CSX is participating in the cosmetic restoration of their former STEAM LOCOMOTIVE # 1503 (nee: ACL ) in Jacksonville, FL.) See link @ http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11255162.htm
The other side of that is also the resistance of the CSX to allow the running of restored steam powered trains on their ROWs.
But each of us is free to look for "...the mountain we choose to die on..." I wish you good luck on the Battle to bring back a C&O 1600 series Alleghany... Good Luck, Trainman4!
The major question is how many of those beasties still exist and does CSX have any rights to return them to operations?
There is one at the B&O museum (nee: C&O 1604). was originally at the VMT and was flooded, and almost over turned; NS Shops did a cosmetic rebuild before it was taken to Mt. Clare(MD.) for outdoor display. Then to the B&O Museum). then one at Greenfield Village in Michigan(C&O #1601)..
Only two of this size locomotives survive.. [series H-8,for C&O RR, was numbered # 1600 to 1609 built between 1941 and 1948) by Lima Locomotive Works, in Ohio
.There was also a series of Lima-built Class AG built for the Virginian RR of 8 locomotives designated: " Blue Ridge" . These things were brutes, rumored to have been able to develop about 7,500/8,000 HP(?), and weighted, for the locomotive alone, some 290 tons and the loaded tender at something like 215 tons. Operational speeds were in the neighborhood of 40/50 mph. for 5,000 ton trains and about 10/15 mph for 10,000 ton trains. their territory included the grade around White Sulphur Spngs which I think was about 0.5 % they did on occasion operate as far as Columbus, Ohio.
[paraphrased from my memory](?) "... There was a story some time back in TRAINS about the construction of the #1600 and how during some of the construction the castings had collapsed and were much heavier than the spec called for, so when the engine was 'scaled' at Lima, it was done very secretively , and rumors were that it was much heaver than was published. A fact that would have effected the pay for the crew..." [As stated, I believe that that was the point made in the article mentioned?]
If some one can correct this I would appreciate it.
I know its fun to entertain dreams about seeing the biggest steam locomotives in action, but . . .
One remark is that the UP steam program "pays for itself in advertising and the exposure that UP gets to (its) big shippers." Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. Maybe UP does it because the UP bigwigs are steam enthusiasts and their corporate board and shareholders give them the benefit of the doubt? Maybe the benefits are not quantifiable, so UP just does this on the chance it is good for business?
Maybe CSX looks at the same business decision regarding steam-as-good-advertising and comes to an opposite conclusion?
Maybe UP does this to cover the remote contingency that oil prices could spike and that maybe, just maybe, they would bring out the steam for some mainline routes -- do they have locomotives in storage? I heard something around here that UP was "looking into" an improved smokebox arrangement for their Challenger, and the only reason to do this is if you think there is a remote chance that you might bring back steam some day for real. But corporations need to have contingency plans, or at least evaluate whether such plans even make sense.
CSX was actually a partner in the ACE 3000 project in the early 1980's, and CSX (or Chessie Systems) had painted their name on the tender of Locomotive 614 for the tests hauling coal trains with a 4-8-4 Northern type over the route that was once the stomping ground of the C&O 2-6-6-6 Allegheny. So maybe CSX has already "run the experiment" of operating a steam locomotive on their lines, both for advertising and for getting some data on whether reverting to steam is an answer to a future oil-price spike, and maybe by not restoring a locomotive, they are making an informed business decision.
"Let's all push and ask the B&O Museum and CSX to look into it."
I know what "push" means in the context of passenger train advocacy means. It means communicating with all the people you know who like passenger trains for whatever reason -- enjoy taking train trips, would like an alternative to a freeway that is crowded at times we want to travel, unable to fly, believe that the train would make a non-trivial contribution to alleviating stress on the environment. It means getting all of those people to "make their voices heard" on the Web, in newspaper op-ed columns, in e-mails and phone calls to political representatives. It means debating or strenuously opposing persons expressing contrary views.
It also means pleading for the cause, taking the pros as an assumption and without deliberation of the cons, and if anyone in the group questions whether the contribution to helping the environment is large enough to justify the cost, one tries to exclude that view from the conversation.
Hypothetically, let's say UP is a more railfan and historical heritage friendlier railroad than CSX. Let's say that with its unusually high driver axle load that current railroads may not embrace operation of the Allegheny on their lines. Let's say that even though the 2-6-6-6 was used in WW-II troop train passenger service, it may be overkill off passenger excursions.
Instead of making a "push" for the Allegheny, which I agree is among the finest of steam, how about saving our donation dimes and nickles for a project with a better chance of success?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic I know its fun to entertain dreams about seeing the biggest steam locomotives in action, but . . . One remark is that the UP steam program "pays for itself in advertising and the exposure that UP gets to (its) big shippers." Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. Maybe UP does it because the UP bigwigs are steam enthusiasts and their corporate board and shareholders give them the benefit of the doubt? Maybe the benefits are not quantifiable, so UP just does this on the chance it is good for business? Maybe CSX looks at the same business decision regarding steam-as-good-advertising and comes to an opposite conclusion? Maybe UP does this to cover the remote contingency that oil prices could spike and that maybe, just maybe, they would bring out the steam for some mainline routes -- do they have locomotives in storage? I heard something around here that UP was "looking into" an improved smokebox arrangement for their Challenger, and the only reason to do this is if you think there is a remote chance that you might bring back steam some day for real. But corporations need to have contingency plans, or at least evaluate whether such plans even make sense. CSX was actually a partner in the ACE 3000 project in the early 1980's, and CSX (or Chessie Systems) had painted their name on the tender of Locomotive 614 for the tests hauling coal trains with a 4-8-4 Northern type over the route that was once the stomping ground of the C&O 2-6-6-6 Allegheny. So maybe CSX has already "run the experiment" of operating a steam locomotive on their lines, both for advertising and for getting some data on whether reverting to steam is an answer to a future oil-price spike, and maybe by not restoring a locomotive, they are making an informed business decision. "Let's all push and ask the B&O Museum and CSX to look into it." I know what "push" means in the context of passenger train advocacy means. It means communicating with all the people you know who like passenger trains for whatever reason -- enjoy taking train trips, would like an alternative to a freeway that is crowded at times we want to travel, unable to fly, believe that the train would make a non-trivial contribution to alleviating stress on the environment. It means getting all of those people to "make their voices heard" on the Web, in newspaper op-ed columns, in e-mails and phone calls to political representatives. It means debating or strenuously opposing persons expressing contrary views. It also means pleading for the cause, taking the pros as an assumption and without deliberation of the cons, and if anyone in the group questions whether the contribution to helping the environment is large enough to justify the cost, one tries to exclude that view from the conversation. Hypothetically, let's say UP is a more railfan and historical heritage friendlier railroad than CSX. Let's say that with its unusually high driver axle load that current railroads may not embrace operation of the Allegheny on their lines. Let's say that even though the 2-6-6-6 was used in WW-II troop train passenger service, it may be overkill off passenger excursions. Instead of making a "push" for the Allegheny, which I agree is among the finest of steam, how about saving our donation dimes and nickles for a project with a better chance of success?
UP has, IINM 4 steam engines in it's direct control , the 4-8-4, the Challenger, a non-operational 2-10-2 and O.C the Big Boy.
There are a number of other preserved locomotives that UP has donated over the years but that hardly seems like any kind of emergency reserve in case the petrochemical industry collapses.
I have never read that Union Pacific was involved with American Steam Enterprises and the ACE3000. Burlington Northern was one of the two primary railroad partners although I wouldn't be surprised to find that UP showed interest.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
CSX, not UP, CSX was involved with the ACE consortium. I know this because David Wardale says this in his book The Red Devil and Other Tales of the Age of Steam.
samfp1943 Trainman4Steam is king! The fact that a discussion has begun on a wanted restored Alleghany is where it all starts. Look at the Big Boy program and UP's overall steam program. It is first class and pays for itself in advertising and the exposure that UP gets to it's big shippers, etc. I am a CSX stockholder and want them to get moving on a project for the Alleghany. The exposure would do the same thing for them that UP gets. The finest in steam means that others are connected and want to be a part of the "action" as well. As the man in charge for Big Boy said, it is like bringing back tyronasurs rex and who wouldn't want to see one of those! Most people have never heard of Big Boy or ever seen such a large steam locomotive like that under steam, so it sells instantly for the already above mentioned reasons. Let's all push and ask the B&O Museum and CSX to look into it. The Alleghany at the Ford Museum is the most looked at object in the entire museum by the way. Trainman4: An interesting and exciting project. But unfortunately, I think you may have picked a battle that is "a project too far". CSX has a history that is not too conducive to the Preservation of much of their Historical Artifacts. IMHO. The only light at the end of that tunnel seems to be that CSX is participating in the cosmetic restoration of their former STEAM LOCOMOTIVE # 1503 (nee: ACL ) in Jacksonville, FL.) See link @ http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11255162.htm The other side of that is also the resistance of the CSX to allow the running of restored steam powered trains on their ROWs. But each of us is free to look for "...the mountain we choose to die on..." I wish you good luck on the Battle to bring back a C&O 1600 series Alleghany... Good Luck, Trainman4! The major question is how many of those beasties still exist and does CSX have any rights to return them to operations? There is one at the B&O museum (nee: C&O 1604). was originally at the VMT and was flooded, and almost over turned; NS Shops did a cosmetic rebuild before it was taken to Mt. Clare(MD.) for outdoor display. Then to the B&O Museum). then one at Greenfield Village in Michigan(C&O #1601).. Only two of this size locomotives survive.. [series H-8,for C&O RR, was numbered # 1600 to 1609 built between 1941 and 1948) by Lima Locomotive Works, in Ohio .There was also a series of Lima-built Class AG built for the Virginian RR of 8 locomotives designated: " Blue Ridge" . These things were brutes, rumored to have been able to develop about 7,500/8,000 HP(?), and weighted, for the locomotive alone, some 290 tons and the loaded tender at something like 215 tons. Operational speeds were in the neighborhood of 40/50 mph. for 5,000 ton trains and about 10/15 mph for 10,000 ton trains. their territory included the grade around White Sulphur Spngs which I think was about 0.5 % they did on occasion operate as far as Columbus, Ohio. [paraphrased from my memory](?) "... There was a story some time back in TRAINS about the construction of the #1600 and how during some of the construction the castings had collapsed and were much heavier than the spec called for, so when the engine was 'scaled' at Lima, it was done very secretively , and rumors were that it was much heaver than was published. A fact that would have effected the pay for the crew..." [As stated, I believe that that was the point made in the article mentioned?] If some one can correct this I would appreciate it.
Johnny
"...Sam, I will back you up on the statement that the engine was much heavier than it was expected to be; I could look through my Trains indices to see if I could find the article--and if you and I are pressed, it is possible to do so..."
Thank You, Very Much, Johnnie!
It always seems dreamers must dream, and the bigger the dream the better. But some times there is a slip into irrationality, IMHO.
The existing two Alleghany's are worthy reminders of some of what Lima accomplished in the era of "Steam's Finest Hour". The 1604 was originally at the Virginia Museum of Transportation ( the same that is home of the 1218 and 611!~ ) Unfortunately it was caught in a Flood of that facility and almost overturned in Nov. of 1985. The Ronoke Shops cosmetically rebuilt and refurbished it. It was the sent for display in 1989 to a location of a future mall at Mt. Clare, Md. The mall was never built and the builder donated it to the B&O Museum where it was moved, and is on display. 1601 went to Ford's Greenfield Village for display(inside). I have read that they had to remove the end of the building to get it inside). They also have several other steam engines that are listed as operational there. (unfortunately, C&O #1601 is not one.)
Linked @ http://www.steamlocomotive.com/lists/searchdb.php?country=USA&state=MI
I seem to recall that there were some unsubstantiated rumors that CSX was looking as a "steam revival program". Of Course it stirred the railfan community, but was apparently of no substance.
Trainman4, It does not hurt to dream! Steve Lee ( UP's Steam Manager of M.O.W.S. ) told me, and several others many years ago that UP WAS NOT INTERESTED, in ever getting a 'Big Boy" back on the rails. That was on the same trip that # 3985 'bloodied her nose' on a hopper car over on the Clinchfield's " Christmas Express" Trip in 1992 .
But, whooda ever thunk that #3985 would ever wear a CRR #676, and run in Eastern Ky and Tenn, and then here train was a mix of UP yellow, and the blue and gray of a train of CSX business cars?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlwDB-vCFVY
So here we are in 2014 and UP is preparing to take #4014 back to Cheyenne to get her back in steam....
here is a link you might enjoy to some 'Alleghany' film @ http://enginemanwook.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/unusual-co-allegheny-2-6-6-6-footage-found/
Keep Dreaming "Trainman4" !
The Trains article that was mentioned about the Allegheny's being overweight with it concealed and some creative weighing practices is titled "Doctoring the Scales". It's by Eugene L. Huddleston and appeared in the December 1998 issue.
By the way, I believe that's the correct spelling for these locomotives rather than Alleghany as seen throughout this thread.
"Alleghany", with two a's, was the name of the holding company established by the Van Sweringen brothers for their railroad holdings.
I too would love to see an Allegheny return to steam, but if we were to be practical with CSX their best bet would be to invest in C&O 614 or L&N 152. I would love to see any steam return to CSX (especially the New River Train). Best of luck to you and your push to CSX. Remember that the rail fan community is behind you.
I've ridden behind C&O 614 and I've got to agree, it's a fine locomotive and would be an excellent candidate for a CSX excursion engine. It's not as good as the N&W's Class J 611, but a good locomotive nonetheless. :)
And in finding more problems than you anticipate in a steam lcomotive restoration? Linn Moedinger of the Strasburg RR would be the first to agree. He says there's ALWAYS more problems than you'd expect, so be ready and have plenty of money!
ACYBoth spellings are acceptable, depending on who you are and what part of the Alleghenies/Alleghanies you happen to be in. A B&O sign at the summit spelled it "Alleghanies". C&O equipment diagrams spelled it Allegheny. It's something like the pronunciation of Appalachia. South of the Mason Dixon Line, the third "a" is usually a soft sound as in "bad" or "hat". Anywhere else, it's just as likely to sound like "gate" or "lane".
I'm still trying to spell Monongeh, Monongahe, Monongeha . . .
And, I am still puzzled as to how to pronounce "Youghiogheny." I know how to pronounce "Ouachita" and "Guyandotte" (both start with the sound of a "w"), but this one is a bit beyond me. A second cousin of mine thought that his and my grandmother was born in Washita county, Arkansas.
And, of course, any well-educated person knows that the oldest mountain range in this country is the Appalahchians (soft "a").
Paul Milenkovic I'm still trying to spell Monongeh, Monongahe, Monongeha . . .
You missed on all three tries, Paul.
Having been born and raised within sight of and having spent a considerable part of my youth in the Monongahela River, I think I can claim some expertise in the matter. Or were you trying to spell Monongah, the name of a small town in northern West Virginia? You wouldn't be the first to confuse the two and wind up misspelling both.
Incidentally, there is also a small city in Pennsylvania named Monongahela sitting, of course, on the (west) bank of the Monongahela River. It was originally named Monongahela City, but I believe the "City" was officially dropped years ago. Meanwhile, we locals always just called it "Mon City" just as we usually referred to the river as "the Mon" (lazy folks, huh).
ChuckAllen, TX
DeggestyAnd, I am still puzzled as to how to pronounce "Youghiogheny." I know how to pronounce "Ouachita" and "Guyandotte" (both start with the sound of a "w"), but this one is a bit beyond me. A second cousin of mine thought that his and my grandmother was born in Washita county, Arkansas. And, of course, any well-educated person knows that the oldest mountain range in this country is the Appalahchians (soft "a").
"YOCK-o-GHAY-nee" will at least keep you from looking like an outsider in those parts.
Now try "Daguscahonda."
Paul MilenkovicCSX, not UP, CSX was involved with the ACE consortium. I know this because David Wardale says this in his book The Red Devil and Other Tales of the Age of Steam.
You're wrong, too. The Chessie System, NOT CSX, was involved with American Coal Enterprises.
And this bears repeating ad nauseum until it sinks in to the dense skulls that keep thinking that, because the Chessie System ran steam excursions in 1977-1981, their corporate successors will in 2014:
The CSX Transportation of 2014 has as little to do with the Chessie System of 1981 as Norfolk Southern, or the Conrail that was brokered apart in 1998-99, has to do with the Pennsylvania Railroad of 1965. With regards to this subject, they're not even in the same book, let alone on the same page.
13 were preserved but Buffalo's example was scrapped after a lot of neglect and damage over just a few months time. So only a dozen are extant today.
Unusual class of locomotive with so many being preserved and with the C&O still scrapping examples of them into the mid 1970's. Luckily, most of the survivors that were still in the scrap line at Russell Kentucky in the early 70's like H-8 2-6-6-6 1604 enjoyed better fates.
The mall was builded and the engine was out inside of it because I visit it while it was inside the building, it is now next door at the B&O muesum 1604 was traded for 1218 and put of the trade was to fix 1604 of the damage that the flood caused and the mall is still there next door to the muesum
LNER4472 Paul MilenkovicCSX, not UP, CSX was involved with the ACE consortium. I know this because David Wardale says this in his book The Red Devil and Other Tales of the Age of Steam. You're wrong, too. The Chessie System, NOT CSX, was involved with American Coal Enterprises. And this bears repeating ad nauseum until it sinks in to the dense skulls that keep thinking that, because the Chessie System ran steam excursions in 1977-1981, their corporate successors will in 2014: The CSX Transportation of 2014 has as little to do with the Chessie System of 1981 as Norfolk Southern, or the Conrail that was brokered apart in 1998-99, has to do with the Pennsylvania Railroad of 1965. With regards to this subject, they're not even in the same book, let alone on the same page.
"Eh, Jean-Paul, et-il libre? (is he free?) . . . ooooooooohhhhh, 'ee' s been tryin' to figure that one out for the last 40 years!"
Am I thick-headed? It is arguable that CSX is not Chessie Systems. The tests of 614 by ACE (later than '81) were not a steam excursion although many may argue they were "photo freight" runs for the benefit of enthusiasts instead of a serious bit of research engineering. I speculated that on the outcome of those "tests" that CSX has neither interest in bringing steam back as a Diesel substitute of oil gets really expensive or in rehabbing an Allegheny.
C&O was once one of the "holdouts" on Diesels what with all of their coal traffic. I don't think CSX burned all of the records and applied the "Men in Black" mind wipe device to people who worked for Chessie systems to destroy all institutional memory of that experience or even the C&O.
Paul MilenkovicThe tests of 614 by ACE (later than '81) were not a steam excursion although many may argue they were "photo freight" runs for the benefit of enthusiasts instead of a serious bit of research engineering. I speculated that on the outcome of those "tests" that CSX has neither interest in bringing steam back as a Diesel substitute of oil gets really expensive or in rehabbing an Allegheny.
The 'photo freight', I think, was more an appeal to the contemporary Government interest. David Wardale is probably a good source for what was actually going on then (including the reason -- I'll say 'raison du jour' pour pauvre Jean-Paul -- for the use of 614 on coal-train testing).
I thought then, and still do, that 'thermodynamic testing' on a locomotive with no feedwater heater was a bit ridiculous. I won't go into a discussion of... some of the other issues Wardale reported 614 had.
BTW, it was 'Chessie System'. They were not a high-technology startup... ;-}
I'm not sure what issues Mr. Wardale had with 614. The first year I rode behind it on the NJT excursions it ran like a champ. The second year we'd just about made it to Moodna Viaduct when it (I think) blew a piston ring.
I have to say "I think" because no-one passed the word just what the problem was.
It was running the next day with a diesel helper in the consist, but again, I don't know what happened. That was the last year it ran on NJT.
Firelock76I'm not sure what issues Mr. Wardale had with 614.
Read Wardale's account of his experience with ACE in the Red Devil book. Pay careful attention to what he says about firebox 'maintenance' and what-not during the 614T testing. Then see here for an example of contrasting opinions. Be aware that there is far more underlying 'business' than in the historical record.
Mentioned in that RyPN thread is the issue of Trains Magazine that covered the piston-ring failure. Cause was superheat well in excess of the cylinder oil temperature rating.
As noted, better oil would have fixed the piston-ring problem nicely... before it started. In my opinion, it would take far more to get the thermal efficiency of the locomotive in line with expectations. If the Foster-Wheeler engineers got the right lessons from the testing experience with 614T, I've seen very little from their company reflecting what they learned. That in no way implies I have criticisms of Ross Rowland or any other person who worked on 614T under the very severe testing conditions.
Thanks so much for that link Overmod! Very interesting! I haven't read the Wardale "Red Devil" book yet, haven't found it, but I'm looking. I'll find it eventually, I'm pretty lucky that way and have lots of patience.
However, the impression I get (and maybe it's wrong) is that Mr. Wardale doesn't have very much good to say about steam running today unless he's involved with the process.
Got a story about that 614 breakdown trip. Lady Firestorm was along for the ride, and when the word filtered back through the train about a locomotive breakdown you should have heard her:
"What do you mean the engine broke down? This never happened on Norfolk-Southern when Mighty 611 was pulling a train!"
"It's YOUR fault!" I said, "You're a WHAMMY!"
Ow. Ow, ow, ow! "Nuff said.
PS: Lady Firestorm's brother Mr. Grumpy was along for the ride. What HE had to say doesn't bear repeating.
Greets- You said;
IF it were likely to happen, it seems like the most practical class of engine for CSX would be a C&O K-4 Kanawha (another pronunciation issue). Thirteen were preserved, and I believe all still exist in conditions ranging from very nice down to utterly deplorable. I'm no expert on restoration, but I suspect a couple of those Kanawhas are now suitable only as parts sources...
I would think that rail weight issues would prevent restoration of these beasts as much as anything else. Allegheny and Big Boy among others are much heavier than the diesel electrics. The current rails in use can't handle them. Talk about cost prohibitive, replacing rail just to run them would be a big hit to the pocket book. Weight isn't the only issue. The length of the stiff inflexible frame holding all those wheels would add to the stress despite the fact that the middle drive wheels in the set were usually flangeless to attempt to reduce this. If we got high speed rail in this country like others have then perhaps the rails would be stout enough to run them. Common bullet trains!
The light at the end of the tunnel is white hot lava flowing rapidly towards you.
[quote\]... it seems like the most practical class of engine for CSX would be a C&O K-4 Kanawha (another pronunciation issue). Thirteen were preserved, and I believe all still exist in conditions ranging from very nice down to utterly deplorable.[/quote]
Leaving aside the point that there is no need to restore inferior Berks when we already have 614, there is really only one candidate: the locomotive with the example of a welded boiler. Relatively recently got a pretty good cosmetic going-over. As with any of these discussions, show me the plan and the financial get-go, and I'll stoke as needed.
I would think that rail weight issues would prevent restoration of these beasts as much as anything else. Allegheny and Big Boy among others are much heavier than the diesel electrics. The current rails in use can't handle them.
Don't be silly. Current HAL alone handles these legacy axle loadings without concern -- even the ridiculously bloated loadings permitted by C&O's right of way department. An astute PR department would find this another reason to push implementation of 315K ... not that its putative benefits to PSR operation would actually be anywhere near what's been claimed.
In any case, it's not the weight, it's the augment that matters.
Weight isn't the only issue. The length of the stiff inflexible frame holding all those wheels would add to the stress despite the fact that the middle drive wheels in the set were usually flangeless to attempt to reduce this.
You need to study up -- a lot -- on lateral-motion devices and their application. Rigid wheelbase issues are overrated anyway, at least in my opinion. Easy to build a single instrumented rig that gives direct indication of any critical problem that exists in trackwork not just in theory, but in the hours before a particular run.
The effect of Voyce Glaze-like stiff lateral compliance in lead and trailing trucks matters far more to practical accommodation of lateral issues than does the nominal wheelbase. (See the backing problems with UP centipede tenders, and compare the situation with and without Fabreeka springs, for more insight on the actual issues here.)
we got high speed rail in this country like others have then perhaps the rails would be stout enough to run them. Common bullet trains!
This is actually not as witless as it appears, since the 'best' practical class 9 track system tested in the United States (top-down-aligned slab construction; see the relevant Research Report) is, in fact, also explicitly suited to HAL operation without loss of critical geometry.
But no other high-speed track in the world is intended, or suited, for the kind of heavy axle loading imposition, or lateral compliance, or augment absorption, produced by reciprocating locomotives far smaller and less powerful than the ones mentioned in these threads. Only a handful of current locomotives are even qualified to run on such trackwork, and there is really only one potential contender to approach gateway speed (125mph) for even the most primitive excuse for HSR.
]
Don't be silly. Current BAL alone handles these legacy axle loadings without concern -
OK. I got HSR but crapped out on HAL. I hadn't considered the weight distribution. I can see how they can actually be lighter on the rail than current DEs. Plus the larger wheels mean a larger contact area.
You need to study up -- a lot -- on lateral-motion devices and their application. The effect of Voyce Glaze-like stiff lateral compliance in lead and trailing trucks matters far more to practical accommodation of lateral issues than does the nominal wheelbase. (See the backing problems with UP centipede tenders, and compare the situation with and without Fabreeka springs, for more insight on the actual issues here.)
You need to study up -- a lot -- on lateral-motion devices and their application.
I'm starting to feel like I'm among some University student engineering graduates. Voyce Glaze? There are "lateral" issues? I get the impression that backing the centipede tenders could be an exercise for derailment.
But no other high-speed track in the world is intended, or suited, for the kind of heavy axle loading imposition, or lateral compliance, or augment absorption, produced by reciprocating locomotives far smaller and less powerful than the ones mentioned in these threads.
Augment? Yet another term I'm not familiar with. At least not in this context. I have heard of steam engines "hammering" the rails due to the imperfect attempt to counter balance the flailing rods. Never heard of augment. By all means, please educate me.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.