Trains.com

611 speed

14112 views
50 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,968 posts
611 speed
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, May 22, 2015 7:21 AM

Looks like the 611 was allowed 50 mph yesterday.  It did Bowers to Cox (20.65 miles) in 25 min 31 seconds for 49 mph.  On the way back, Cox to Varner (14.25 miles, 18 min 29 seconds) at 46 mph and Maybelle to Sharp (5.11 miles, 6 min 7 seconds) at 50 mph.  Hopefully, the excursions will be as speedy.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Friday, May 22, 2015 3:34 PM

I'd love to see 611 do some high-speed running as long as they don't go TOO crazy with it.  Remember, it's the only one of it's kind.  No reason not to let her romp, as long as they're a bit conservative.

In other words, no drag racing between 611 and UP's 844, even though us 611 fans just KNOW our baby would win!

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,924 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, May 22, 2015 4:37 PM

Firelock76

In other words, no drag racing between 611 and UP's 844, even though us 611 fans just KNOW our baby would win!

Why not...It's not like they are going to do a burn out through the bleach box to get their tires hot and sticky....but will there be 'competition grade' sand to improve traction off the line?  Will they need drag chutes at the end of the quarter mile to assist in stopping?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Friday, May 22, 2015 5:00 PM

Hmmmmmm.

I question the value of drag chutes, whether we're talking about 611, 844, or any other fast, modern steam passenger engine.  I suggest we all just get the H*** out of the way.

Tom

  • Member since
    August 2008
  • From: Calgary AB. Canada
  • 2,298 posts
Posted by AgentKid on Saturday, May 23, 2015 4:52 AM

Actually though, what was its' rated maximum back in the day? It looks like it must have been a real speedster.

Bruce

 

So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.

"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere"  CP Rail Public Timetable

"O. S. Irricana"

. . . __ . ______

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 23, 2015 8:56 AM

AgentKid

Actually though, what was its' rated maximum back in the day?

Bruce 

 

The N&W Js (edit:) were sometimes run at up to 110 mph in their N&W Pocahontas days... My point being the remaining J is capable of it.

I doubt they could make her do that again, not without the expertise of the guys who could really make those girls run back in the day. We don't have many people left who ran those things for a living, day in and day out.

 

-S. Connor

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, May 23, 2015 10:21 AM

I'm not so sure 110 MPH was a common occurance with the Class J's back in the good old days.  The N&W's profile was pretty much a saw-tooth "up-and-down" affair, so the opportunities for 100-plus running just weren't there.

A J COULD have the opportunity for a run like that on the "racetrack" from Norfolk to Petersburg, a dead-level and fairly straight run but even then I think it was more the exception than the rule.

No matter, the J's were so well built and balanced 100-plus running didn't have any deleterious effects on the machinery, even with 70 inch drivers.

Again, I don't think it'd be wise to try it now.  611's the only J in existance and it just wouldn't be a smart thing to do.  Run it certainly, but treat it like the irreplaceable artifact it is.

But it sure is fun to speculate, isn't it?

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Saturday, May 23, 2015 12:09 PM

Firelock76
I'm not so sure 110 MPH was a common occurrence with the Class J's back in the good old days.

Not only was there little opportunity for it, the valve lubrication was likely to be on the ragged edge of seizure if that speed were sustained for any length of time.  Average and peak machine speed of the valves are up, time for lube to spread is reduced, and effective superheat is probably 'crazy high' in that speed range... a multiple whammy all trending in the same direction, with the valve body at some points perhaps likely to heat to a higher temperature than the liner, reducing clearance.  Even a short failure of effective tribology in a comparatively small area might quickly lead to catastrophe.

I believe the balancing philosophy is in Voyce Glaze's notes on balancing for the class J locomotive (at the NWHS collection).  The engine was balanced up to a high nominal speed in order to provide good performance (and minimal augment) at regular service speeds (which IIRC were in the peak 85 mph or so range).  I believe there were known areas where 100 mph was authorized to make up time, but there was no need for that speed to 'make schedule' with any N&W train, as for example on some of the Hiawathas.  I do not believe there were any 'segments' of N&W passenger service that would have commanded a premium ticket price for very high end-to-end speed.

 

No matter, the J's were so well built and balanced 100-plus running didn't have any deleterious effects on the machinery, even with 70 inch drivers.

My suspicion is that there certainly were 'effects on the machinery', including the known fracture propensity of the extended #4 driver pins, and offset main rod, on the original tandem rod arrangement.  The thing was that Roanoke understood what was needed to keep them working right, and took the time and spent the money as needed. 

Again, I don't think it'd be wise to try it now.  611's the only J in existence and it just wouldn't be a smart thing to do.  Run it certainly, but treat it like the irreplaceable artifact it is.

Theoretically there's no part on it that couldn't be replicated if it seized or broke in high-speed service.  The question is really whether there are any meaningful reasons to see whether modern valve fabrication or lubrication practice, better preparation, etc. would allow a 70"-drivered locomotive to meet or exceed a speed above the safe range for which it was balanced, especially on a working railroad subject to modern liability and insurance conditions.

I'm already happy to see testing at 50 mph.  But that is no guarantee of how fast NS will run the actual trains with the paying public on board.  Remember it wasn't Dismal Swamp that stopped the program -- it was the accident with the cars in the yard. 

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, May 23, 2015 3:09 PM

Well, it wasn't the yard accident that killed the program, plain fact of the matter was the Operating Department wanted the program ended, it was getting in the way of the other trains, and with the Claytors gone there were no "heavy hitters" left to speak up for the steam program. 

No matter, it's back.  And Wizlish that was a good post!  Good point on valve lubrication, we don't want what happened to C&O 614 to happen to 611.

  • Member since
    August 2008
  • From: Calgary AB. Canada
  • 2,298 posts
Posted by AgentKid on Saturday, May 23, 2015 5:42 PM

Wizlish

The engine was balanced up to a high nominal speed in order to provide good performance (and minimal augment) at regular service speeds (which IIRC were in the peak 85 mph or so range).

Thanks, I think that is the speed I was looking for. Instead of maximum rated speed I should have asked about maximum authorized speed. Whether it was by timetable or othe specific instructions.

Bruce

 

So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.

"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere"  CP Rail Public Timetable

"O. S. Irricana"

. . . __ . ______

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 11,426 posts
Posted by dknelson on Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:18 AM

It is possible and maybe even probable that the fastest a J ever went was when the Pennsy borrowed one for testing.

Dave Nelson

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,823 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, May 24, 2015 12:41 PM

This loco is one of a kind.  Do not ever think of taking the  chance of a high speed run could have bad things happening.  There are too many things otside of the RR and the operators that may not be preventable.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Sunday, May 24, 2015 9:23 PM

AgentKid
 
Wizlish

The engine was balanced up to a high nominal speed in order to provide good performance (and minimal augment) at regular service speeds (which IIRC were in the peak 85 mph or so range).

 

 

Thanks, I think that is the speed I was looking for. Instead of maximum rated speed I should have asked about maximum authorized speed. Whether it was by timetable or othe specific instructions.

Bruce

 

 

Bruce, I have no idea as to the maximum speed allowed on the Norfolk-Petersburg section, except that it was probably 79 mph--unless the N&W had ABS there.

I do know that the maximum speed allowed on the Radford Division (Roanoke-Bluefield/Bristol) was 60 mph back in the fifties. However, there were areas in which the engineers made time up without being censured. There was an occasion when the left side valve gear on a J disintegrated above Abingdon when the engine was pulling #45. Soon after she was taken into Bristol and what was left of the gear was removed and the main rod also taken off, she was run back to Roanoke for repairs. Along the way, she met #45--and the men on the one-legged engine estimated that #45 was running about 75 mph. The engineer was able to stop on a downgrade for the meet with #45 (the dispatcher probably knew what the grades were on all of the pass tracks).

There is a stretch near Radford which was regularly used to recover lost time, and the engineer decided to see how fast his disabled engine could run--he slowed down when she got almost to 90 mph (and the roundhouse foreman, who was along on the trip, reported that there were no ill effects from the unbalanced drivers).

At the time the J's were in regular service, there was no fallout from exceeding the speed set in the ETT's--unless damage was done as a result of the higher speed.

Johnny

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 1,180 posts
Posted by ROBERT WILLISON on Monday, May 25, 2015 7:51 AM

Was their a diesel in the consist?

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Monday, May 25, 2015 9:44 AM

Wizlish

 I believe the balancing philosophy is in Voyce Glaze's notes on balancing for the class J locomotive (at the NWHS collection).  The engine was balanced up to a high nominal speed in order to provide good performance (and minimal augment) at regular service speeds (which IIRC were in the peak 85 mph or so range).  I believe there were known areas where 100 mph was authorized to make up time, but there was no need for that speed to 'make schedule' with any N&W train, as for example on some of the Hiawathas.  I do not believe there were any 'segments' of N&W passenger service that would have commanded a premium ticket price for very high end-to-end speed.

 

The "The Modern Coal fired Steam Locomotive" movie has a shot of a J's speedometer needle resting on 100 MPH. Since the film was commissioned by the N&W, it would seem that the J's were intended to be able to run at 100MPH in service. Note that being able to run at 100MPH is not the same thing as being normally operated at 100MPH.

 - Erik

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by timz on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:42 AM

1950s Scioto Div and Norfolk Div timetables show maximum 78 mph-- for passenger and freight, and for any engine except the 0-8-0s.

The RME article says the J had 1547 lb reciprocating weight on each side, of which 550 lb was balanced. How did N&W balancing differ from anyone else's?

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by timz on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:48 AM

erikem
a J's speedometer needle resting on 100 MPH.

You remember that Trains article circa 1958 describing a fan trip -- the writer was in the cab, and the speedometer read 100 mph. In a letter a couple months later E. L. Thompson said the fastest mile on that trip was 41 seconds.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,924 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:54 AM

erikem
Wizlish

 I believe the balancing philosophy is in Voyce Glaze's notes on balancing for the class J locomotive (at the NWHS collection).  The engine was balanced up to a high nominal speed in order to provide good performance (and minimal augment) at regular service speeds (which IIRC were in the peak 85 mph or so range).  I believe there were known areas where 100 mph was authorized to make up time, but there was no need for that speed to 'make schedule' with any N&W train, as for example on some of the Hiawathas.  I do not believe there were any 'segments' of N&W passenger service that would have commanded a premium ticket price for very high end-to-end speed.

The "The Modern Coal fired Steam Locomotive" movie has a shot of a J's speedometer needle resting on 100 MPH. Since the film was commissioned by the N&W, it would seem that the J's were intended to be able to run at 100MPH in service. Note that being able to run at 100MPH is not the same thing as being normally operated at 100MPH.

 - Erik

Movie was made in the 40's - well before the ICC's speed regulations were implemented.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:34 AM

timz
The RME article says the J had 1547 lb reciprocating weight on each side, of which 550 lb was balanced. How did N&W balancing differ from anyone else's?

In one respect, almost none of the reciprocating balance was carried in the mains -- they had only about 80lb. overbalance, which was calculated as the vertical component of main rod thrust (I don't know at what speed or valve setting conditions).  The other overbalance was distributed -- ISTR with some form of tapered 'loading' -- in the other drivers.  I have not seen the actual balancing book yet, so I don't know as many details as I should. 

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by timz on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:32 PM

RME article says 25 lb in the main driver, 175 lb in each of the others.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Anywhere there are trains
  • 578 posts
Posted by Train Guy 3 on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:23 PM

Well I was not there for the mailine test run but if it did run up to 50MPH, who allowed it? 50MPH would be a 10MPH violation of NS rules. I've aquired various NS rulebooks from 1990 to 2012 I believe being my lastest. All those rule books specificly state "steam excursions" or "steam locomtoives" depending on the book are restrictive to 40 MPH. Who has the authority to just allow a rule to be broken?

TG3 LOOK ! LISTEN ! LIVE ! Remember the 3.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 4:36 PM

"Who has the authority...?"  Well, if Wick Mooreman was on board....

Need I say more?

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:57 PM

BaltACD

The "The Modern Coal fired Steam Locomotive" movie has a shot of a J's speedometer needle resting on 100 MPH. Since the film was commissioned by the N&W, it would seem that the J's were intended to be able to run at 100MPH in service. Note that being able to run at 100MPH is not the same thing as being normally operated at 100MPH.

 - Erik

Movie was made in the 40's - well before the ICC's speed regulations were implemented.

 

I realized that when watching the movie - related issue was that the J was designed well befoe the movie was made.

 - Erik

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:14 PM

If I remember correctly:

"Maximum" speed is correlated with an AAR measurement, I think at 504 rpm (but I don't remember why that number was picked).  That translates to just under 105 mph for a J locomotive with nominal driver diameter (no tire wear).

If I remember correctly, the locomotive was service-balanced for 'acceptable' augment up to 520 rpm and designed for 540 rpm (this not representing a speed the locomotive would actually reach, but the point at which peak vertical augment would just equal downward 'preload' of weight on drivers; above that speed you could expect to see 'bounce'...)  If that is wrong, someone (like BigJim) insert the correct information.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 18 posts
Posted by Aussie Loco on Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:00 AM
Very interesting posts. The issue of the locomotive being only a 1 off now is critical to ensuring the locomotive is carefully operated. Having the knowledge of lubrication issues when running at higher speeds along with numerous other aspects of the experience around running these locos in the past is also essential. Even so it seems where it could be safely managed at 79/80 mph for short bursts which also fits in with the normal operation of passenger trains in the USA. Having said that just recently an A4 class Pacific Bittern in the UK was recently permitted a special run at 90 mph for a class of loco that was regularly scheduled for extensive daily running at 100mph in the days.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,968 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:35 AM

Train Guy 3

Well I was not there for the mailine test run but if it did run up to 50MPH, who allowed it? 50MPH would be a 10MPH violation of NS rules. I've aquired various NS rulebooks from 1990 to 2012 I believe being my lastest. All those rule books specificly state "steam excursions" or "steam locomtoives" depending on the book are restrictive to 40 MPH. Who has the authority to just allow a rule to be broken?

 

Probably just needed the authority of the Div Supt. or GM for the region .  Wouldn't a bulletin order do the job?  

It's a good thing, generally, to allow excursions the same speed as freight trains.  Slow trains are a drag on line capacity.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Anywhere there are trains
  • 578 posts
Posted by Train Guy 3 on Thursday, May 28, 2015 3:16 PM

oltmannd

 

 
Train Guy 3

Well I was not there for the mailine test run but if it did run up to 50MPH, who allowed it? 50MPH would be a 10MPH violation of NS rules. I've aquired various NS rulebooks from 1990 to 2012 I believe being my lastest. All those rule books specificly state "steam excursions" or "steam locomtoives" depending on the book are restrictive to 40 MPH. Who has the authority to just allow a rule to be broken?

 

 

 

Probably just needed the authority of the Div Supt. or GM for the region .  Wouldn't a bulletin order do the job?  

It's a good thing, generally, to allow excursions the same speed as freight trains.  Slow trains are a drag on line capacity.

 



I guess a with authority from the Superintendent a bulletin could get the job done stating that a certain section of track would allow steam locomotive a greater speed.

TG3 LOOK ! LISTEN ! LIVE ! Remember the 3.

  • Member since
    September 2008
  • 1,112 posts
Posted by aegrotatio on Saturday, May 30, 2015 11:25 PM
The 611 is doing a long-distance excursion and short excursions to and fron Manassas, VA the weekend of June 6, 2015, during the Manassas Heritage Railway Festival. Great timing, too! This is an annual event with immensely popular VRE excursions to Clifton, VA, and back on this historically important Norfolk Southern route.
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,013 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, May 31, 2015 3:58 AM

Regarding speed, 611 post-overhaul may be regarded as a special case and not need to be restricted to what the rules were for steam operating in 1992.  I doubt that we will see at 79mph, but running at normal freight-train speed for a specific section of track seems a very wise course indeed.   Whether either or both of the other locomotives currently involved in NS's revived steam program get the same dispensation is another matter. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,924 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, May 31, 2015 6:03 AM

Can't speak to NS practice.  On my carrier the only sub-divisions that have Passenger train Speed, have scheduled passenger trains.  All other sub-divisions only have freight train speeds and intermodal speeds.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

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