Regarding the present status of N&W 1218 and 2156, what is your opinion on which of these would be easier to restore to operating condition?
lois
Lois, welcome back! Where ya been?
OK, in my own uninformed opinion it would probably be easier to bring 1218 back to life before 2156. Considering 1218 was restored to service in the early 80's while 2156 has been dormant for fifty-plus years with 1218 we have some idea of what we're dealing with. 2156, who knows what lurks within? The "Shadow"? Maybe.
Just my opinion.
Firelock is probably right.
If the two locos were in roughly equivalent condition, the Class A would probably be the better candidate because the Y6a was intended as a lower speed engine, and was built as a compound. The Y6a's great power would be wasted.
Tom
Mostly managing my Friends of the 611 Facebook group.
However, one thing that many fans are not aware of is that the Y6 class, even though built for low speed freight operation, could run at higher speed when necessary. They had to keep to schedule on time freights on the Shenandoah and Pocahontas divisions, and that meant occasional 50-plus mph running. The Y6 could never match the A in the fast freight department but still could be relied on to bring a train in on time if necessary. It was the "locomotive of all trades" of its time, and was called upon to do what was necessary by the railway.
friend611However, one thing that many fans are not aware of is that the Y6 class, even though built for low speed freight operation, could run at higher speed when necessary.
Something to remember, though, is that the efficiency -- and, by extension, the expected water rate -- falls off dramatically on a Y locomotive above its designed operating range. (Where was the speed range above which a NYC Hudson would produce more DBHP?) I'd be concerned that you'd need multiple A-tanks
Also, even if it is possible to run (relatively) quickly by adjusting the booster valve to balance the LP engine, that adjustment would have to be made carefully each time the power demand changed at high speed, with perhaps relatively low tolerance for error either in the quickness or the direction in which the correction was made.
If this is something being seriously considered, with the actual permission of MoT (about which I am not going to speculate on a public forum) I would be extremely prompt about finding anyone living who has actually run a Y at speeds of 40mph or higher, and ask them in great detail what they did, and what to watch for. Barring that, I don't think it is an impossible task to design some form of at least semiautomatic IP injection for high=speed operation, or developing a training program for "younger" engineers to know how to use it safely. I don't know whether it would be feasible to adapt the as-built booster valve for that purpose, so this would essentially be a new 'program' within a restoration effort. Personally I would consider it a critical one if the engine is expected to operate safely at the 'necessary' speeds to fit in with other traffic.
Keep in mind that the booster was intended for use boosting power on mountain grades, not across the entire speed range. Not as economical as pure compound operation, but, more economical than pure simple operation. Train speed increasing from a grinding 8mph to 12 - 15mph.
.
BigJimKeep in mind that the booster was intended for use boosting power on mountain grades, not across the entire speed range. Not as economical as pure compound operation, but, more economical than pure simple operation. Train speed increasing from a grinding 8mph to 12 - 15mph.
Just as he says. (There is an account in Jeffries' N&W: Giant of Steam and Louis Newton describes it in 'layman's terms' on p.657 of Rails Remembered vol.3
Remember that Big Jim previously noted that by intent it was the 'heat' (more specifically, reheat) put into the LP steam that was the most important characteristic of Pilcher's 'booster', rather than pressure normalization per se between the HP and LP engines.
I do think, however, that the idea of an intermediate degree of 'simpling' that normalizes performance from the LP engine is a logical followon that is within the scope of what a booster valve can do.
Copies of the updated version of N&W: Giant of Steam are available at the N&W HS Commissary. See nwhs.org.
Before it was shut down in 1994 the old Norfolk-Southern steam program had a speed limit of 45 miles an hour on the excursions.
I don't know if the speed limit's still in force, but if it is it would make it a moot point of how fast 2156 could be pushed. There'd be no need to push it hard anyway.
It'd be a hell of a thing to see at any rate!
Firelock76Before it was shut down in 1994 the old Norfolk-Southern steam program had a speed limit of 45 miles an hour on the excursions.
That I do not know. I have heard on a few occasions of 630 going over 40 mph. Don't know about the 765.
It's in the timetable.
BigJim Firelock76 Before it was shut down in 1994 the old Norfolk-Southern steam program had a speed limit of 45 miles an hour on the excursions. It was actually restricted to 40mph.
Firelock76 Before it was shut down in 1994 the old Norfolk-Southern steam program had a speed limit of 45 miles an hour on the excursions.
It was actually restricted to 40mph.
OK Big Jim, 40 it was. Even less reason to worry about a Class Y in excursion service, assuming that 40mph rule still stands.
The Y6 developed maximum power at 40 mph, so that is right in its territory. Imagine the size of excursion train that it could pull. 30 coaches would seem like a walk in the park.
friend611The Y6 developed maximum power at 40 mph, so that is right in its territory.
I don't believe I have ever seen a report that says the DBHP for a modern Y class peaked at any speed higher than about 26mph. I can't remember the reference that pointed out a NYC Hudson's DBHP curve crossed that of the Y somewhere in the mid-30mph range, but someone here will know and provide it. There is the advantage, of course, that a Y will definitively start any train it can pull up to 40mph. But 30 cars at 40mph is not likely to be 'in the envelope' if there is much uphill working... even relatively slight uphill working...
friend611The Y6 developed maximum power at 40 mph,
OvermodI do think, however, that the idea of an intermediate degree of 'simpling' that normalizes performance from the LP engine is a logical followon that is within the scope of what a booster valve can do.
There is a note on the 'improvements' in Dixon, Parker, and Huddleston's book on the Y class locomotives, pp.107-108. They mention a distinction between the function of the 'improved' reducing valve and the booster valve.
As they put it, the booster put a "shot of superheated steam" into the IP receiver. The reducing valve was changed from a "normal" semi-automatic simpling valve to one that was entirely "under the control of the engineer" -- by which I assume, until someone like Dave Stephenson says differently, that the degree of simpling rather than just the point of transition was capable of adjustment. I think there is a difference between what the two devices do: the reducing valve adjusts the amount of throttled steam being added to the forward engine, the booster valve adds reheat (and some pressure, but probably not adjustable pressure) to the LP steam when working full compound.
I have not seen the mechanical devices used for either function, but presume that both survive on 2156, and could be 'reverse engineered' if necessary. I am checking the NWHS drawing archives to see what's currently online or available regarding them.
Is this what you are looking for?
BigJimIs this what you are looking for?
Actually, much better than what I would have been looking for. I would not have figured that the 'booster valve' would be arranged as it is just by looking at the fabrication drawings of the reducing valve.
Note that the physical "booster" valve actually does the opposite of what I had been assuming it did. If I am reading the drawings in the instructions correctly, when in compound mode the feedback loop between receiver and piston on the reducing valve ALREADY is set to work with full 'boosted' pressure -- the booster valve's supplied steam closes the reducing valve further than the feedback system would (and effectively disabling the feedback system when it does so), so it is actually an 'economy' valve in terms of its direct action (which I would not have expected!) Of course, to the locomotive's engineer this would not matter if they were following directions. As a matter of 'interaction design' semantics, it would seem sensible that physically opening a "booster" valve (following the usual valve convention that turning its stem counterclockwise increases flow) would produce greater boosting. And indeed that is the effect here... because Pilcher et al. were smart enough to construct the valve 'backward' so that it is closed when fully unscrewed...
Note the purpose of the constriction in the control-steam feedback loop from the receiver to the reducing valve.
I think a Wagner-style fluidic valve controlling the reducing-valve actuating piston would make modulation of the reducing valve position easier when running 'servo' with booster 'enabled' (note how I carefully avoid 'open' and 'closed' -- shades of the troubles at Three Mile Island!). As constructed, I think it would be effectively impossible to use an intermediate setting of the booster valve to control 'offset' of the reducing valve (and hence degree to which HP steam is admitted in response to the receiver-pressure control signal), and I understand the instructions to state that the booster valve itself should be either fully open or fully closed.
Interesting.
I believe the 40 mph speed limit was for insurance purposes after the wreck at Great Dismal Swamp. My experience with NW611 after that, was that "official speed limit" and "actual practice" varied greatly. Chasing from Fort Wayne IN to Detroit MI - I could not catch NW611 running well over 70mph. This was likely never reported.
UP844, however, seems to hold fairly close to 75mph.
Dr. D
friend611 That I do not know. I have heard on a few occasions of 630 going over 40 mph. Don't know about the 765. lois
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EQERd2NJYs
It,s funny caused I posted a thread asking If 1218 will be restored after 611 runs for a bit. In this sutitution..... I think1218 is in better shape. I may be 21 but if i remember right. 1218 was in a full rebuild when the steam programe got axed. with that said.... half the work might be already done. But..... we don,t offically know till we open her up and take a gander.
now with the trade aquring 2156..... i wonder if she is going to take 1218's place and 1218 is gonna be next to join the steam programe. i really makes me wonder that. i mean to me that seems what might happen. plus. she is on loan. there not gonna spend the money to restore her when the time frame is gonna take at least 5 years to get her to run. and the st. louis won,t run her even if they could cause up won,t allow non up steam. but they will allow frisco 1522 to run on thier rails. so who know,s on that. but it seems like 1218 is better. i pray she will get the same treatment as her sister is getting right now. i also have mentioned this also in my thread. i can't imagine 611 running without her. plus people are gonna put a fund in her. cause we have waited almost 20 years for both to return.
Joseph,
You can bet that when they finished working on 1218 they did not want to leave it in a condition that precluded further work. In this case, the firebox of 1218 was seriously worn out because the thickness of the steel being so thin there was a safety issue. Sections of the firebox were cut out and replacement patches fabricated. The new steel was tack welded into place so that finish welding could be done at the time the restoration would again proceded. I believe an entire rear to the firebox was fabricated.
I don't know if the flues were re-installed and the superheaters still exist - rumor has it that the bulk piping obtained to renew these items was sold off at auction. I have heard that the superheater ends or at least some parts of them were saved. These are all standard replacement items and as long as some critical parts were not lost there should be no real problem finishing NW1218 with sufficient funds.
When I was your age the Burlington Railroad out of Chicago had a really beautiful and massive 4-8-4 engine BN5632. This was a famous excersion engine that needed new boiler work similar to NW 1218. The president of the road - Louis Menk - gave the go ahead for the repairs. Cost of new staybolst seemed to be an issue and was up several dollars each from what was anticipated. After Mr Menk retired the new president ordered the locomotive overhaul stopped and what remained sold. BN 5632 was sold to Chicago railfan Richard Jensen in a condition similar to NW 1218. Richard was an excentric person who was acquiring steam locomotives and was running steam trips our of the Windy City with the Ilini Railroad Club.
In a tragedy recounted on the internet if you Google for it, he was handed a storage bill for keeping the locomotive at the 49th street roundhouse. The railroad siezed the locomotive for the unpaid bill and cut it up for scrap, before he could settle the debt. Jensen in a court settlement won a substancial financial compensation, severa hundred thousand dollars, but the emotional toll on him from this and other conflicts over steam locomotives seriously affected him.
If it was not for the protection of the museum, NW 1218 would be in danger from similar circumstance. In overhauling any steam locomotive one of the great dangers to it is that the repair will be stopped in process and what remains sold as scrap.
In other circumstances locomotives in abismal condition, missing much of their equipment will be restored - the parts needing to be found from many places. C&O 614 sat on the scrap line in Russell, Kentucky until 1975. Stripped of equipment, much needed to be scrounged from collectors for Ross Rolland to equip and run the engine. Scrappers today will take anyting they can get their hands on just for the value of the metal.
Correction with the story regarding CB&Q 5632: Henry Murphy was the outgoing president of Burlington, not sure if he actually made a decision regarding heavy maintenance on 5632; Lou Menk was the incoming president who vetoed the heavy repairs which led to the retirement of 5632 and 4960. David P. Morgan was sympathetic to Menk on this decision, Morgan cited the cost of staybolts and the very small number of boilermakers on the payroll as some symptoms of the real issue, operation of steam locomotives in the diesel era was becoming increasingly more expensive and the expense was becoming harder to justify to the shareholders.
Hi Dr. D.
Funny as it may be. 5632 wa one of my favorite Burlington's excursion loco,s. The story is indeed very sad. Because it happens not ounce but twice cause did a 4-6-2 get cut up on a spot too? It makes me wonder if both were still here today. If they would be part of this return of big steam.
A GTW 4-6-2 and an NKP H-5 2-8-2 were also lost in that tragedy. The H-5 was a copy of an NYC design, and the sole survivor of a designed that numbered around 600 NYC and NKP engines
CSSHEGEWISCH Correction with the story regarding CB&Q 5632: Henry Murphy was the outgoing president of Burlington, not sure if he actually made a decision regarding heavy maintenance on 5632; Lou Menk was the incoming president who vetoed the heavy repairs which led to the retirement of 5632 and 4960.
Correction with the story regarding CB&Q 5632: Henry Murphy was the outgoing president of Burlington, not sure if he actually made a decision regarding heavy maintenance on 5632; Lou Menk was the incoming president who vetoed the heavy repairs which led to the retirement of 5632 and 4960.
Correction to the correction: Mr. Murphy's name was Harry, not Henry.
4960 got a major rebuild in 1961. After Menk shut down steam operations in 1966 (just a few months before I was born), it was sold to the Circus World Museum in Baraboo, WI. From there, it went to Virginia, Ft. Wayne, and finally the Grand Canyon.
5632 ran out of flue time extensions in November, 1964. Murphy authorized a rebuild and West Burlington started it, removing the flues, firebrick, and staybolts, but they didn't have enough men to finish it and Menk ordered work stopped.
Jensen bought 5632 and 4963 (which had been a parts source for 4960) for scrap value, along with several cars full of parts and tools. He stored them at the C&WI 48th St. roundhouse, but C&WI moved it all to a scrap yard, which cut up 5632 before he could get an injunction. 4963 remained at the scrapper until 1990, when Illinois Railway Museum traded five Northwestern Steel & Wire 0-8-0s for it.
Most of the above info is condensed from http://steam.wesbarris.com/union/jensen.php This page also has some details of the GTW 5629 debacle, which was separate from 5632/4963.
As for the speed of modern day excursions, I recall that in 1993, when there was some doubt about whether UP 3985 would make it to Chicago for the NRHS convention (due to Mississippi River flooding; ironically, the only engine that didn't make it was the one with the shortest distance to come, C&NW 1385), Carl Jensen (no relation to Dick) offered to run 611 on the UP, and at track speed, without the NS 40 MPH restriction. I also seem to recall that just a few years ago, UP lowered the official maximum speed for steam engines; I think it had been 83 before.
Since the thread is beginning to drift off topic, I might note on a present update on 2156. The engine still sits in St.Louis, still waiting to be moved by Union Pacific. When it will be moved I do not as yet know.
"Everything comes to those who wait." I guess we've just gotta be patient.
As a reminder to those who don't know.. please do not call NS or the Museum of Transport. Neither party knows when the move will take place. It is likely they will not know until less than a week beforehand.
NS will be using UP tracks to move the engine over, things have to be worked out, as you might imagine.
If I can help it, I will be on site to photograph and film the move.
-S. Connor
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.