[NOTE: Earlier today I had posted this topic on the "Locomotive" Discusion Group area; I have reposted it here, at a pont that may be more appropriate for this Thread.]
Back around the first week in October 2014; the TRAINSNewswire carried some stories about the transfer of their exhibit locomotive&W#2156 from the Museum of Transportation to V.M.T. Roanoke, Va for cosmetic work and a temporary loan for display for five years. @ http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2014/10/museums-railroads-prepare-to-move-nw-2-8-8-2-to-roanoke
It was set out for the pick-up to be transferred to Union Pacific and then Norfolk Southern for the transfer move. So far Nada?
Does anyone have any photos of the move they could link to on this Forum or any information if the N&W #2156 has gotten to Roanoke, or is it still in route?
Been watching the Virginia Museum of Transportation website, they have posted lots of information on the progress on #611,[Terrific stuff! ]
But so far Crickets on the status of 2156.
Last time I was there, she was still on the ready track, waiting for UP. At this point I doubt 2156 will be going anywhere until spring.
S. Connor,
The Y6a is truely a historic locomotive! And Norfolk and Western approached the concept of a "Mallet compound" engine in the 1950's as legitimate engineering idea and then transformed it into a workable locomotive design. Wow no such engines were produced new in America after 1935! This is truely as remarkable as the rest of the world basically abandon the Mallet compound as a modern locomotive. And that N&W had such engineering success here is astounding - this is an untold story.
Compounding of course is an economy idea in steam locomotive design. For example most marine steam engines of the last century were "compounded" to increase their efficiency. Basically the steam was used three times in a "high pressure cylinder" - then exhausted into a "medium pressure cylinder" - and finally used one last in a "low pressure cylinder." Efficiency! The pistons of each cylinder were of course all of different diameters in order to achieve a similar power stroke input from each of the three. This marine power design was called the Tripple Compound "A" Frame Steam Engine - and powered most ships through the 20th Century.
The steam engineering idea here was to extract ALL of the heat energy from the steam before giving it up to the atmosphere. "Compounding" was an idea from the past as it never proved practical on a railroad engine and so it quickly fell out of favor with the advent of the concept of "superheated steam" where so much more efficiency is available at much less cost.
Where "compound" steam engines were built - engine designs then became "simple." Simple locomotives" using high pressure steam only.
Almost all of the great articulated railroad locomotive power of the late steam era was "simple." The N&W A-series engines like the 2-6-6-4 steam were "simple" - all four cylinders were high pressure. So was the C&O Allegheny 2-6-6-6, the UP 4-6-6-4 and 4-8-8-4, SP, D&RGW etc.
So why did N&W alone in the 1950's develop both the articulated A-series and then continue to develop the articulated Y-series? One engine design "simple" and one engine design "compound?" And then surprisingly do such a great job at both designs - and with such great engineering effort. Truely for me the N&W - the Y-series is the most remarkable - because anyone could do the A but NO railroad could do the Y6a.
I realize the A could and was used in both high speed freight and passenger work running up to 70 mph and of course the Y was basically a "drag freight" engine running 50 mph but never a passenger engine - but still the operating efficiency of the Y-series was unique.
Both engines A and Y as well as the J - came in for some late and modern locomotive engineering of the exhaust and smoke stack design. Reducing the smoke stack diameter and the angle it was tilted forward. The shape of the petticoat at the bottom of the smoke stack. The shape and contour of the exhaust nozzle to "rosebud tip design." All these unique features gave all N&W steam power some of its unique power characteristics.
Watching the Y6a run in this modern day should be a real event! And those huge front end cylinders! You can bet I will be there to see something just as unique as a bullet nose roller bearing equiped northern - it will be an articulated compound Y6a running again! On a passenger train!?
And of course the Y6a has such a "redneck" look about it. It almost makes me want to become a "son of the south" and to "eat taters and wear no clothes!"
Dr. D
Dr. D,
Which is why I am so sad to see 2156 leave.I don't travel much, so it will likely be 5-6 years before I see her again.
Unfortuantly around here, there would be more interest in restoring Frisco 1522 to operation, since we miss her, and she's in such good mechanicl condition.
I feel that trying the restore 2156, well perfectly possible, is unlikely to be done, even to run around the St. Louis area. This discusion, of course, is much more complicated than this. I am at the museum often as a volunteer, and I once had a man come from India just to see the 2156 alone. There is no doubt about passion for the locomotive, so while she may not run anytime soon, I would not doubt it happening... One day.
(My views expressed in this post represent the MoT in no way whatsoever.)
To respond to the POst by S. Connor: I did some digging and found the following Post by 'Big Jim' @ http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/740/t/229994.aspx
"N&W 2156 " Posted by BigJim on Thurs. May 29, 2014 4:50am
May 28, 2014 St. Louis Museum of Transportation and Virginia Museum of Transportation to trade historic locomotives NORFOLK, VA. – The Museum of Transportation, St. Louis, and the Virginia Museum of Transportation are in discussions to bring Norfolk and Western Y6a steam engine #2156, currently in the St. Louis museum, back to its place of origin at Roanoke, Va., on a five-year loan for display at the Virginia museum, in a transaction facilitated by Norfolk Southern. In exchange, the Virginia museum will send to St. Louis a Southern Railway diesel General Motors EMD FTB unit to complement the St. Louis museum’s FTA demonstration unit. “This will reunite the last surviving Y-class locomotive, one of the hardest pulling steam locomotives ever built, with the J-611 and the A-1218 in Roanoke, where all three were designed and built by Norfolk and Western,” said Molly Butterworth, cultural site manager for the St. Louis Museum of Transportation. ”In return, our historic FTA, built in 1939 to demonstrate to the rail industry the efficiency of diesel power, will be reunited with its complimentary B unit.” “We are thrilled to welcome the Y6a home again,” said Bev Fitzpatrick, executive director of the Virginia Museum of Transportation. “We’re grateful to the St. Louis Museum of Transportation for this opportunity to reunite three powerful sisters of steam in their home town.” The Museum of Transportation, a St. Louis County Park in west St. Louis County, Mo., houses what has been recognized as one of the largest and best collections of transportation vehicles in the world. With over 70 locomotives, half of them "one-of-a-kind" or "sole survivors" of their type, the Museum has one of the most complete collections of American railroad motive power, and its collections of automobiles, buses, streetcars, aircraft, horse-drawn vehicles, and riverboat materials are constantly expanding to reflect the ever-changing nature of transportation. The Virginia Museum of Transportation, Virginia’s official transportation museum, is home to two of the most powerful steam locomotives in existence today: the N&W Class A 1218 and the N&W Class J 611. The Museum attracts visitors of all ages from across the U.S. and around the world. Through exhibits, artifacts, and an outstanding collection of rail equipment, cars, trucks, airplanes, and more, the Museum tells the story of Virginia’s rich transportation history. Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC) is one of the nation’s premier transportation companies. Its Norfolk Southern Railway Company subsidiary operates approximately 20,000 route miles in 22 states and the District of Columbia, serves every major container port in the eastern United States, and provides efficient connections to other rail carriers. Norfolk Southern operates the most extensive intermodal network in the East and is a major transporter of coal, automotive, and industrial products..."
There are no plans to get her under steam, she is only for display in Roanoke alongside 611 (when in town) and 1218
2156 is going on loan to NS, to be displayed at the Roanoke museum. Not directly to the museum.
S Connor,
I believed that they were never going to run Big Boy UP 4023 - I believed it was just a matter of time in 1970 before Union Pacific quit its steam program - no one would be interested in utilitarian old railroad locomotives - no one in their right mind - no railroad could afford it - ask President Al Pearlman! cause New York Central was way ahead of the game.
And I believed they were never going to run N&W 611 - or 1214 - its why they only saved one!
And that they are never going to run NYC 3001 - Mayor of Elkhart be damned! - yah I believe that.
And I believed they were never going to the moon again too! - and surely, that they were never going to Mars - all that money was needed to solve domestic issues here in America - and of course we never would have a black president or woman either! - I believe that I really did!
And I believed they were never going to build an another new roundhouse in Amercia - or another turntable. And that when PM 1225 was on display at Michigan State University - I believed it would never run again! - the faculty told us so and students saw it as true - its why they cut it loose from the university - for insurance liability - they rolled their eyes - or was it a smile - they did - they really did. I believe that.
And I believed the British railfans could not build a brand new steam locomotive from scratch - certainly not a 4-6-2 Pacific - three cylinders? - your joking! - it was too difficult and would be easier for them to get it made in China - yah I really believed that!
Yes I believe that I really do - never again going to run a C&O 2-6-6-6. Never going to run C&O 1309 - Baldwins last domestic order - who would want to - did you see that wreck of a locomotive sitting outside in the rain for fifty years!
Medically, I believed patients could not get well from incurable diseases and those not seriously ill would always be well - I believed that I really did! And the paralized would never walk again or the blind see! I believed that I really did.
S. Connor - and you lost your favorite Y6a! Adopt a NYC Mohawk at the St. Louis museum - its an orphan child! - I only have about a million questions concerning it - you can't even find a good photo of the locomotive!
I know more about the Burlingtion Hudsons scattered across America than I do about that only remaining New York Central prize freight engine - come on - go photo shoot it from every angle! Good shots with details!
And ask them - what ever happened to the Young Valve Pilot Indicator missing from the side of that NYC engine? Its missing from the NYC Mohawk in Elkhart also! - Its why those Central engines ran so good - every engineer could get the valve "cut off" just right!
Go query those curators, to spill the beans, and ask them why? and while your at it ask them all they know about it - does it have a track pan scoop on the tender? but you have to find the right one to ask! and then not to query the dim lights for too long.
Yes - I believe I really do! - I believe.
[quote user="Dr D"]
Go quiery those curators, to spill the beans, and ask them why? and while your at it ask them all they know about it - does it have a track pan scoop on the tender? but you have to find the right one to ask! and then not to query the dim lights for too long.
Dr.D,
My view is that while 2156 will not run today, tomorrow, or the day after, it will run, one day. It may not be soon, but it is coming. That is what I expressed in my earlier post but everything you say is undoubtably true. I know that so long is there is a willing group, anything is possible. But, like everything, it is a waiting game, waiting for the right time.
About the NYC #3329-
The museum is nearing the end of a (so far) 9 year long cosmetic restoration on her. and boy, have the guys in the shop can sure work miracles.
They know what they have there in the 2933, and thats why she's getting such good treatment.
(I'll upload a picture ASAP)
I would bet against N&W 2156 ever running again for a variety of reasons. Since it has been sitting in the elements in St. Louis for a long time, the boiler and machinery are probably in pretty poor shape. Money for such a job is in pretty short supply, don't expect NS to fund it. 2156 is a large, heavy low-speed articulated, it may not have a lot of available trackage on which to run. The skills and experience available to rebuild, maintain and operate it are getting harder to find every day.
Remember, if it wasn't for the largesse of UP, a certain 4-8-8-4 would still be sitting in Pomona.
CSSHEGEWISCH 2156 is a large, heavy low-speed articulated, it may not have a lot of available trackage on which to run.
However, I will argue this point. The Y6 class was not as slow as many want to believe. And, unless the speed limit rules for steam engines have relaxed, I have no doubt that it could easily pull an excursion train at the 40mph and out pull a Big Boy. As for trackage to run on, the Y's went everywhere, so I don't think there would be any problem running anywhere anyone would want to go.
.
Will 2156 ever run again? Only if UP or a rich civilian buys her, otherwise, youd be a laughing stock to think NS would have anything to do with it! Personally, I would love to see it happen. Realistically, it wont.
Big Jim - Im quite sure too a Y6-b can haul at 40mph. No matter whats behind her! But out pulling a Big Boy will never happen. Good pullers, but not that good. If they were Y6-c's then yes. But then, theyd just update the Big Boy and were back at square one again.
Dr D - Alot of things I believed too. To this day, Im still right!
SamFP1943 - Loved reading the article you qouted. However, the part - ".... in a transaction facilitated by Norfolk Southern." is very highly suspect.
NS doesnt do steam. And are very reluctant 611 is coming back. Only the museum and 611 followers (bless them one and all!!) are carrying this torch. If NS owned 611, she'd have been scrapped when NS killed steam the last time around. I feel for the museum being stuck in NS territory. Or any other steam operator that wants to run on the east coast's class 1 rails.
Such a fine example of the Northern class loco too, tis a shame her true prowess will never be known by any of todays generation.
For Dr. D,
While I am not a member of today's generation, I do not feel that I've missed too much by the non-operation of N&W 611. What I do miss is a set of FP45's on an 18-car Super Chief/El Capitan or a trio of SW7's lugging their guts out on a trainload of steel coils on the IHB.
PM RailfanBig Jim - Im quite sure too a Y6-b can haul at 40mph. No matter whats behind her! But out pulling a Big Boy will never happen. Good pullers, but not that good. If they were Y6-c's then yes. But then, theyd just update the Big Boy and were back at square one again.
The Y6-"c" designation 'would have' been the class given to the Y6's that would eventually have recieved the "improvement" to distinguish them from other unimproved Y6s by the Mech. dept.. I used this term as reference only because the general reader has heard of it. Messena had nothing to do with it.
True, the class didnt exist only because development stopped after one Y6, and one Class A (hello diesels). No other locos recieved the 'improvement'. I have never seen any documentation of a Y5 getting the 'improvement', nor heard of it otherwise.
I have looked at the tonnage ratings. Big Boys regularly pulled more tonnage than Y6's. I am not doubting the Y6 class, the BB's frankly just out pulled them. Not by much, but there is enough difference to make a judgement.
PM Railfan,
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I'm confused. I never heard of a Y-6c until I read this thread, and I suspect N&W never heard of it either. Maybe somebody can enlighten me. I understand N&W had some proposals for a larger 2-8-8-2, which would have ridden on taller drivers & had a larger boiler. Logic says it would have been a Y-7 if it had ever existed --- but it didn't.
Tom
ACY I understand N&W had some proposals for a larger 2-8-8-2, which would have ridden on taller drivers & had a larger boiler. Logic says it would have been a Y-7 if it had ever existed --- but it didn't.
Came close, though -- many of the drawings for it were completed and still exist in the NWHS archives. But that was to be a simple articulated, not a compound.
I'm hoping that Feltonhill will weigh in here with the 'official' viewpoint, but I have never thought that there was an actual "Y6c" class -- and I have always believed that the term was of LeMassena's imagining. There is, of course, no reason why a class can't consist of a single locomotive -- the NYC S2a is enough proof of that -- but as noted, the substantial 'improvements' were subsequently applied across construction classes, which retained their original type numbers 'as improved'. That is why nobody argues that 2156 is a Y6a, even though her new firebox says otherwise. It would have been perfectly feasible for N&W to reclass the 2-8-8-2s into a new representative class (call it "Y6c" for argument if roller bearings and the various mods for ease of maintenance were consistently applied to all the power being improved) but I think it is easy to show that that was not done... and if the railroad didn't call it a Y6c, there really isn't much point in us trying to call it that.
Of course, if someone can produce actual drawings labeled Y6c, I'll happily stand corrected.
But not until.
I think the Y6 was a fairly misunderstood engine - Why would anyone try to improve a COMPOUND locomotive in 1957? The compound idea was on the whole was about economy almost more than pulling power.
Lets go back to basics - the steam railroad locomotive was a different power compared with stationary power plants and with marine power plants in one major design criteria. It was designed to generate the maximum power attainable in the smallest design package and to generate that power quickly. To do this the efficiencies of the marine power and stationary power were compromised.
The railroad locomotive used a small "horizontal high draft boiler" that often failed to burn fuel economically. It is a known fact that much of the coal burned under load was consumed before it even landed on the grates and much of it went out the smoke stack as unused carbon and unused fuel gasses. In design reality, it was a constant battle to get the heat (BTUs and calories) out of the fuel and get usable work out of it quickly. This was the idea behind the firebox brick arch and combustion chamber. New ideas of air delivery to the grate were never fully developed.
Also in persuit of usable steam power was the increase in boiler pressure, to as high a practical limit as possible without increasing the structrural weight and mass of the boiler. Also to make the locomotive boiler repairable without undue maintaince complication. With operating pressures between 200 and 300 psi this was a practical reality. Also the addition of steam superheat design to boiler flues in the 1920's became the truely significant power producing technology of the super power era of the 1920's. Feed water heating was another power and economy technology perfected in the super power era.
Other paths of economy tried before super power - compounding was tried in the early 1900s. All this was done remember in an effort to improve locomotive design without changing the framework of the overall technology. COMPOUNDING even though it was used in marine engines and stationary was NOT successful in railroading. It was tried for over 20 years and never really became practical on the railroad.
The N&W Y6 was a legitimate and practical attempt at truely modern COMPOUNDING in an age that had abandon the concept! Wow for N&W this is untold story - an untried avenue to keep steam power effective in the diesel age.
N&W added to all this modern engineering exploratory work in smokestack and exhaust nozzle design. Then further added roller bearing drive! Wow what do your have - a truely Superpower Compound Articulated!
Its not about outpulling a Big Boy its about "out cost saving" a Big Boy!
In RAILROADING - not RAILFAN bottom line how shall we compare an A-series and a Y-series this is the question?
Does anyone truely know the economic measure of a Y6b?
Folks, NO NO NO there was no "actual" Y6c class on the N&W, once again my post has been misread. There was however an experiment on "one" Y6b that yielded dramatic power gains.
Since this "one" Y6b would be a standout to other Y6b's, how would you differentiate between them? Well, you give them a new class. This is how railroads did it. Even N&W!
It would NEVER be "Y6b improved" as railroads classed their locos with letters and numbers, not full words. This is why you always see "K4", "S1", and even "Y6b". Heck, "Y6b improved" wouldnt even fit on the blueprint legend. Top of the page maybe. But no one ever classed a loco with the words "improved". Show me, and I will stand corrected.
Dont forget to take into account, where did the "b" come from in the first place?
Rest assured, the Y6"c" designation is only a reference to the one Y6b that got this upgrade, not its actual class designation. It is for 'our' purposes only.
I have no clue why the name Messena keeps coming up as he isnt the first one to use the Y6"c" designation. The retired N&W loco engineer I got this info from never heard of Messena, but did know about the Y6"c" test loco and also the Y7 class. He operated many Y6, and A's before retirement. Since the test loco was never further developed, even he didnt know which designation the loco would have finally gotten, if built (or rebuilt, in the case of existing Y6b's).
Had diesels not prevailed, there is no doubt N&W would have built a new class, and that would be the Y7. Being built with the new mods, and being "rebuilt" with the new mods is two totally different things. Thus, two totally different class designations.
Had all the existing Y6b's been updated, more than likely N&W would have gone with Y6"c". Definately NOT Y6b "improved". That makes no sense, even to N&W.
So in my above post, for those who dont know about this, Y6"c" was only used for you, the reader, to discern between existing Y6"b" and the test Y6"b". Thats all it ever was. No big deal. And has been this way since the test loco was developed.
To wit: the class Y6"c" thing is not the point anyway. What was the point was the suprise in power increase and economy increase. If they were really that great, 1) why werent more locos given this option, 2) with the economy increase, a coal hauler (think ease of getting fuel and its low cost) like N&W would have gone even later with purchasing diesels. They didnt.
Lastly, my post was a response to the user "Big Jim" as he stated...
" I have no doubt that it could easily pull an excursion train at the 40mph and out pull a Big Boy. "
There is only ONE Y6 class that could out pull a Big Boy, and that was the test loco.... Y6"c". Not your everyday Y6b. They just dont have the specs to match a BB. And therefore, highly unikely a normal, everyday Y6b could outpull one of the most powerful locos ever built.
Ofcourse, a Y6b could easily handle an excursion train at 40. That part wasnt in question. A Y6b outpulling a BB is! I hope this clears it up for those who are in question.
Cheers!
One more thing, had this upgrade on the Y6c been added to other N&W locos, dont think for a minute other railroads wouldnt have copied it.
Thus, when given to a Big Boy, the Y6"c" would again pale in comparison. And we are back to square one. Horsepower wars didnt start with the diesel!
As a historical reference, by the time that N&W had proposed these various upgrades, the rest of railroading in the United States was firmly committed to the diesel.
PM Railfan,I have no idea where you are getting your information from, but, you have your facts all confused on this Y6c deal. You say that Messena has nothing to do with it, yet, what you are saying is reading almost word for word exactly like Messena wrote in his articles.
Go read the book "Rails Remembered Vol. 3" by Louis M. Newton. He had first hand experiance to these tests and set all of the facts straight.
On the "Improved" deal. Yes, N&W posted right there in the employee timetables figures for the Y5 & Y6 "Improved". "Improved" meant that the locos were equiped with the "External Reducing Valve" and booster. This gave the Y6 more power and caused them to add lead weight to the front engine frame in order to stem the slipping that this initially caused. The "I" rating (this how it is stipulated in the ETT, Y5"I", Y6"I", etc.) brought with it tonnage ratings higher than unimproved locos (no "I").
Once all of the bugs were worked out of the "ERV&B", performance was "improved" so much that they decided to add the "ERV&B" to the entire Y5 - Y6b classes. This created a fleet of 100 "Improved" Y class locomotives. And whether it was a Y5 - Y6 - Y6a or Y6b, they were all rated the same for the specific district they were operating on (each distict having its own tonnage ratings account of grade differencials). But you can learn all about this in Bud Jeffries book "N&W Giant of Steam - Revised Ed.".
Although written specificaly about the C&O H8 2-6-6-6, N&W Class A 2-6-6-4 & UP Big Boy 4-8-8-4, the Y6 class also merits its own chapter in Eugene Huddleston's book "World's Greatest Steam Locomotives".
I would strongly suggest that you take the time to read the above books in order to learn the true facts about the Y class locomotives.
Another point someone brought up was economy, and, that was a big factor too. Modern improvements to the N&W fleet enabled the "The Big Three" to rack up some impressive ton/mile ratings along with a minimum of turnaround time in the terminals. This fact cannot be lost in the discussion either.
Ed King is a master with economic numbers and I should have them remembered as many times as he has had to set the record straight on these forums.
Let me clear up one thing that I wrote that I now see can easily be taken in the wrong context. In my statement " I have no doubt that it could easily pull an excursion train at the 40mph and out pull a Big Boy.", I should have put a period behind the 40mph. and started a new sentence with: "And, out pull a Big Boy up a mountain." I defer the fact that at 40mph a Y6 is getting out of its optimum power range compared to the higher drivered Big Boy. But, down low, the Y6 will pull tonnage up the mountain the Big Boy won't.
Enough history lessons. As I digress, this thread is getting pulled away from the "Update" theme.
Thanks, Big Jim for your comments. It may be just me, but i have been interesting in the N&W steam program for a long time. I had read of it as if seemed to be wirtten about as if it were a step child to the PRR Steam. Obviously, it was definitely not that, but was an innovative and progressive program.
Many around here may not know who Robert A Le Massena (1914 to 2013) was, and his status as a contributor to TRAINS magazines; and author of at least 18 books on railroad subjects and locomotives.
The most complete biography seems to becontained in his obituary: Linked @ http://www.foothillsfuneral.com/fh/obituaries/obituary.cfm?o_id=2312572
The following linked site[steam locomotives.com] contains much information on N&W steam engines, see link @ http://www.steamlocomotive.com/2-6-6-4/?page=nw
Specifically, a number of 'hot links' at the bottom of the page should interest readers of this Thread.
Still hoping that anyone can advise us when the N&W 2156 is on the move, from MoT to Roanoke.
Sam, Someone in the N&W HS very close to St. Louis is keeping an eye out for movement and will let the rest of us know. It would imagine there will be some media publicity about it too. Patiently awaiting the return myself.
I can only give my own opinion. There was no such thing as a Y6c except in LeMassena's imagination. Please read the following four articles if you must argue that a Y6c existed in any form whatsoever, even as a one-off:
Nov 1991 Trains, pgs 64-69May 1992 Trains, pgs 64-68May/June 1994 Arrow (NWHS), pgs 14-17Jan/Feb 1998 Arrow (NWHS), pgs 14-18
To reiterate (and yes, some of this is self-serving) read the initial article in Nov 1991 Trains, the rebuttal of Louis Newton in May 1992 Trains (only a partial was published, he submitted a lot more than was printed), his full rebuttal in the May/June 1994 issue of NWHS magazine The Arrow and my article in the Jan/Feb 1998 issue of The Arrow.
The initial article contains many errors of fact, some of them substantial. N&W did not modify the Y6b involved in the 1952 steam vs diesel tests. Why?? Because they didn't have to. The performance it turned in was well within its capabilities without modification. Trains made a major misstep in printing that article without (apparently) checking with a credible N&W source, NWHS for one, that was available at the time.
Keep in mind that duing the 1950s, N&W was implementing the system-wide use of auxiliary water tenders, an operations change which increased train tonnage and reduced running time.There were several other changes occurring simultaneously, all of which increased gross ton-miles significantly. However, the increases had nothing to do with altering the basic design of the Y6's.Let’s remember one thing. N&W was in business to make money. Sure, company pride existed when the steam vs diesel tests were run. But EMD had a reason to hot rod the F7's (if, in fact, they did), i.e., cracking the last large market for its product. On the other hand, N&W had no economic incentive to go out and “beat the diesel” because it wasn’t selling anything to anyone else. The performances that were recorded during the tests in 1952 became standard operating procedure for the remaining 6-7 years until the end of steam.
This subject has been discussed to death over the past 10-15 years. Again, there is no Y6c any more than there are unicorns and jackalopes. If you don't want to read the four articles recommended above, go back and re-read Big Jim's comments. He covers the details very well.
BigJim Sam, Someone in the N&W HS very close to St. Louis is keeping an eye out for movement and will let the rest of us know. It would imagine there will be some media publicity about it too. Patiently awaiting the return myself.
Thanks ! Big Jim,
I just did not want this one to' slip past us'. Never got to see any of the Y's work in freight service, except on some videos. I did get to see the #1218, in and around the Birtmingham area..Too long ago.
It was a very impressive machine.
BigJim:
"Improved" meant that the locos were equiped with the "External Reducing Valve" and booster."
By "booster" are you referring to the injection of some high-pressure, high-temp steam into the low-pressure steam? The Y's never had booster engines, did they? Or is this something else?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.