Trains.com

NW-Y6a- #2156 STATUS UPDATES?

14835 views
38 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 50 posts
Posted by Mntrain on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:50 PM
When people say the BB could out pull the Y6 and the the tonnage rating were higher for the BB you have to consider the track profile. If N&W ran steeper grades that would affect the tonnage rating. I beleave if you ran both engines on steep grades with the heaviest train that could be pulled with out stalling, than the Y6 would win,it had more TE and smaller drivers that allowed to make its HP at slower speeds. Ed king wrote some years ago that if a steam locomotive needs to be going 40 + mph to reach its max HP but is used as a drag engine running 20 mph it would have much derated HP. Also if we are talking about how mush tonnage could be started and pulled than I also beleave the Y6 would win.
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,483 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, December 12, 2014 7:09 AM

BigJim

Well, some engineers on the Shenandoah Valley and Bristol line knew how to let 'em roll.

I wonder what the M/W department thought of those engineers. Whistling

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,015 posts
Posted by BigJim on Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:09 PM

Well, some engineers on the Shenandoah Valley and Bristol line knew how to let 'em roll.

.

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,292 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:52 PM

   Thanks, BigJim.   And I'm wondering under what circumstances someone ran a Y at 63 mph.   I think of them as low-speed tractors that could out-pull anybody else.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,015 posts
Posted by BigJim on Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:50 PM

Paul,
Yes, the so-called "Booster" allowed a bit of live steam to enter the reciever pipe while still working in compound. It is not so much the pressure, but, the added heat that made the difference. This all worked through the reducing valve, which was now located outside of its previous location in the high pressure cylinder saddle to a position over top of the right high pressure cylinder. It is easily seen in photos of the right of the locomotives.

All steam to the low pressure cylinders was either routed through the reducing valve or from the HP exhaust to the reviever pipe going to the LP cylinders. The full 300 psi steam never went to the LP cylinders. The reducing valve regulated the steam pressure down to a value that would give the LP cylinders roughly the same power as the HP cylinders. I don't have the exact figure at my finger tips, but, I am thinking that it wouldn't be more than 115 - 120 psi. 

FWIW, an engineer that I worked with when asked, said that 63mph was about as fast as you wanted to run one. After that, things started to get a little shakey.

.

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,292 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:01 PM

   Thanks, Overmod.   I was still making my last response when you entered yours.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,292 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:55 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH
 
Paul of Covington

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?

 

 

This sounds more like you're asking about a starting valve, which performed that function to aid in starting a train from a standstill.

 

    I think that would be the function of the intercepting/reducing valve.   I remember reading (it may have been in something written by (horrors!) LaMessena.) that they added this feature that injected a small amount of high-pressure steam into the low-pressure side to boost power to the low-pressure cylinders.   This could be done after it was running in compound mode.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,377 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:48 PM

Paul of Covington
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?

Compounds are designed so that, ideally, the torque produced by the HP engine and that produced by the LP engine are either roughly equal or proportional to the relative adhesion limits of the two engines.  In practice, effects such as heat loss result in the LP engine developing substantially less than expected.  The booster valve 'boosts' the power of the LP engine by adding an amount of live steam that brings the average pressure at either the receiver or the LP steam chests up to 'spec' -- or, if a bit more power is desired, beyond that... but not up to the 'full pressure' used when the   conventional simpling valve is used.

As noted, the way the N&W had this set up, the power from the forward (LP) engine was higher enough that a bit of ballasting could provide a higher effective TE at the speeds where the booster was found most effective (IIRC from Rails Remembered vol 3 this was around 26mph).

Another way, in principle, that the 'boosting' can be done is to modulate steam into the LP chests more directly, so that not only the average pressure but the developed torque relative to stroke are similar between the HP and LP engines.  This (in theory) allows the LP engine to be balanced accurately, and the engine to work compound to a higher speed.  While it might be uneconomical to work even an 'improved' Y6b as fast as 40-45 mph (assuming you could get it that fast without bad riding), a modulated-admission locomotive -- with, perhaps, the slight additional improvements of having its forward engine hinged only in the horizontal plane, as the Alco Challengers were famously built (and, before them, the class A, although not nearly enough has been made about that point...) and being given better leading and trailing trucks (the class A's arrangement would probably do) -- could be made to run as fast as the steam mass flow from the boiler would permit.  In my opinion, it would certainly have been practical to run such a locomotive at typical N&W fast-freight speeds on the flat, greatly expanding the range of the Y class (and incidentally taking advantage of the relatively high weight on drivers and short length for developed power of the 2-8-8-2 wheel arrangement.

[To an extent, of course, the external 'booster' valve would permit much of the same effect, and I personally suspect that any Ys which were actually run to high speed would have been 'improved' locomotives run by men who understood precisely how to use the improvement.]

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,483 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:53 PM

Paul of Covington

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?

This sounds more like you're asking about a starting valve, which performed that function to aid in starting a train from a standstill.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,292 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:19 PM

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

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,163 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:32 AM

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, Thumbs UpThumbs Up 

  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. 

 

 


 

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Northern VA
  • 484 posts
Posted by feltonhill on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:12 PM

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 64-69
May 1992 Trains, pgs 64-68
May/June 1994 Arrow (NWHS), pgs 14-17
Jan/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.

 

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,015 posts
Posted by BigJim on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 9:25 AM

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.

 

.

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,163 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 9:02 AM

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,015 posts
Posted by BigJim on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:17 AM

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.

.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,483 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:03 AM

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.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2013
  • 1,034 posts
Posted by PM Railfan on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 2:03 AM

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!

  • Member since
    January 2013
  • 1,034 posts
Posted by PM Railfan on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 1:59 AM

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!

 

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 426 posts
Posted by Dr D on Monday, December 8, 2014 9:44 PM

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?

Dr. D

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Monday, December 8, 2014 9:30 PM

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.

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Monday, December 8, 2014 7:56 PM

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

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,015 posts
Posted by BigJim on Monday, December 8, 2014 4:15 PM

PM Railfan,

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

.

  • Member since
    January 2013
  • 1,034 posts
Posted by PM Railfan on Monday, December 8, 2014 12:18 PM

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.

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,015 posts
Posted by BigJim on Monday, December 8, 2014 9:27 AM

PM Railfan
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.


Well, all you have to do is check the tonnage ratings between the two. And, despite what Robert LeMassena had to say, there never was a Y6c. They were referred to as "Improved". And all Y5 - Y6b classes were "Improved", including 2156.

.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,483 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, December 8, 2014 7:02 AM

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.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, December 8, 2014 6:54 AM

For Dr. D,

NYC #2933

  • Member since
    January 2013
  • 1,034 posts
Posted by PM Railfan on Sunday, December 7, 2014 8:55 PM

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! Laugh

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.

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,015 posts
Posted by BigJim on Friday, December 5, 2014 11:32 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH
2156 is a large, heavy low-speed articulated, it may not have a lot of available trackage on which to run. 

I'm not going to get into an argument over whether the 2156 will ever run again. Quite frankly, I doubt it will ever happen. But, I have been surprised before.

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.

.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,483 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, December 5, 2014 7:13 AM

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.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy