Southerngreen1401 Great shots of 611. I wish 611, 4501, and 630 would storm toward Charleston. I could get photos of them going through the tench at St. Matthews, SC. I am gald she is running without diesel help.
Great shots of 611. I wish 611, 4501, and 630 would storm toward Charleston. I could get photos of them going through the tench at St. Matthews, SC. I am gald she is running without diesel help.
More that likely it has to do with the geography. I would imagine, that in the vastness of the west, if the 844 breaks down, it may be a very long wait for a helper to show up.
PhelpsA few years ago when the Roanoke Chapter of the NRHS was running diesel-powered excursions out of Roanoke to various places, Amtrak aways provided three units. I don't recall what the train lengths were, not the 20 of the recent 611 trips (and about 1/2 were lighter Amfleet cars) but well into the teens.
3 4200 HP units is total overkill for an excusion trip. Back in the 1980's the PTMS ran excursions from Pittsburgh to Cumberland, MD (in the fall for the leaf peepers, or the spring for maple syrup festivals), we gave them 1 GP40-2 for 20+ car trains. That was for a trip that went over Sand Patch Grade. If it was a shorter train, maybe 10-12 cars, they got a GP9. Seriously, that's all the power they got from Chessie, even up the east slope of Sand Patch.
Amtrak overpowers their trains for 3 reasons: (1) Unlike an excursion trip that has a dedicated power car to supply electricity, Amtrak trains use some of the nominal traction rating for train electricity. (2) If an engine goes off line, there is extra backup power right there. (3) Their schedules demand fast acceleration from stops and out of speed restrictions. High horsepower = acceleration, there is no way around that. Excursion trains need none of the above, so adding all those units is overkill.
Diesels? Hey, that reminds me! When I saw Mighty 611 in Petersburg the weekend before last they didn't have a "panic diesel" in the consist a 'la Union Pacific.
Suppose the NS crew has a lot more confidence in the equipment?
And the diesels were also manned by one crew. Plus, they could be separated to operate smaller trains, quite unlike a steam locomotive.
Firelock76 Question 3: I suspect all that smoke was the head end crew hamming it up for the cameras. Common practice during photo run-bys.
Question 3: I suspect all that smoke was the head end crew hamming it up for the cameras. Common practice during photo run-bys.
blue streak 1 According to news wire 611 did a ferry back to Spenser with a short freight. Does that mean that an EOT link is installed in 611 ?
According to news wire 611 did a ferry back to Spenser with a short freight. Does that mean that an EOT link is installed in 611 ?
Don't know about NS rules - on my carrier if train is less than 4000 tons a two way EOT is not required unless the train is being operated in territory with greater than 1% grades for 3 or more consecutive miles. A flashing light EOT is sufficient, however such an EOT will no permit the releasing of track authorities in non-signalled territory until the rear of the train has been observed by the crew or other qualified employee.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
One point that may bear addressing:
In late American practice, at least, the 'fit' of driving boxes with roller bearings had to be very precise over a considerable range of adjustment of the Franklin 'compensating' wedges. That was extra-specially true when Timken (as opposed to SKF) roller-bearing rods were fitted.
The 'datum' face of the pedestals, opposite from the 'wedges', was hardened on both faces (the box liners on that side being made of manganese steel alloy in the case of the class J). On the opposite side, the liner was bronze, and any wear to 'fit' was accommodated on that side. I'd presume the arrangements on the NYC Niagaras, which ran so many miles each month in high-speed service, would be similar. To my knowledge, which is admittedly not extensive, there were no particular issues with wear of the Timken bearings associated with Franklin wedge adjustment (on modern power designed for those bearings) -- and Timken bearings, if I understand the conventional wisdom, are NOT very tolerant of misalignment under load. The spherical mountings in the rod eyes are good for accommodating lateral motion, but I would expect NOT tolerant of fore-and-aft play of more than a few thou.
JuniathaUnfortunately I can’t make the drawing’s figures readable , enlarging the picture makes it become blurred : did they keep given lateral distance between main rod center lines as I would expect in view of piston rods given lateral distance ?
The full-size drawings are available from the NWHS; the pictures I posted are just the 'example' scans they put up to 'show off the merchandise'. They're not intended for careful reference, just to show the arrangement of the components.
The short answer to the question is "yes" -- the main-rod end position on the crankpin is determined by two things: the lateral piston-rod spacing, which is very determined by the frame and saddle construction of the cast bed, and the big-end construction including the roller bearings (which I also took to be a 'given' -- although I did not check to be sure).
I'm suffering from impossibly slow Internet tonight, combined with wacky Google-search 'choice' of drawings from NWHS, so I don't have the specific drawing of the rear crankpin arrangement for the single intermediate rod arrangement. But it is not difficult to see what the arrangement on the #4 pin will be from the intermediate pin arrangement. The double-intermediate-rod #4 pin is second:
I'd be very interested to see precisely where the 'extended' #4 pin was exhibiting the cracking failure.
I'm going to try to pull up the two plans that show all the rods together (they exist in the archives, but it may take me a while to find the drawings again).
Thanks again to the NWHS for having made the higher-resolution scans of these drawings available whenever someone orders a copy!
Back to smokin'...
I've got a video of the late lamented Burlington 4-8-4 5632 and some of it's excursions back in the '60s. That thing's putting out enough black smoke, and I mean BLACK brother, to turn Mount Vesuvius green with envy.
"Well," I says to myself, "either they've got a BAD load of fuel oil, or that engine's in serious need of work, or the fireman doesn't know what he's doing, OR, they're hamming it up for the people trackside during the runbys." I suspect it was the latter.
Hey, Civil War and Revolutionary War re-enactors usually ham it up a bit to make the "battles" look like battles. Pilots re-creating dogfights at airshows do the same thing.
The drawings are very interesting , and your note of all the components exchanged is putting some light on what happened , thank you for posting .
I’m still surprised the #4 pin should have been the problem . Being at least not *longer* than the main pin and certainly loaded much lighter there should have been no problem designing it to demands and amply so , if necessary . Generally , as I mentioned before , the tandem rod arrangement demanded a highly correct geometry to be kept in service within close tolerances – perhaps tolerances too tight for steam service to keep them up , just mind the influence of Franklin auto wedges as they adjust individually to wear of each the axle boxes and guides , thereby introducing inexactitudes in axles spacing as the main driver axle boxes tend to wear more heavily . If you get but a slight difference between axle spacing and rod length with roller bearings on both you may end up with high stresses in rods and consequently – pins . Again , just the very length of the #4 driver pin should have made it more forgiving to some degree of small misalignment – why wasn’t it ? Would be interesting to learn .
I see the redesign was done with N&W typical care to keep the engine’s rpm speed potential . Unfortunately I can’t make the drawing’s figures readable , enlarging the picture makes it become blurred : did they keep given lateral distance between main rod center lines as I would expect in view of piston rods given lateral distance ?
Regards
JuniathaNow I would like to see your logical prove of how the main crank pin should...
JuniathaAs far as I remember the question why N&W had rebuilt the rod layout and what exactly were the specs of the new layout had never been answered ( main pin should have been beefed up – jet again how this should have been done in a given wheel remains to be investigated ) . My guess would be it was done as a simplification for maintenance at a time when 100 mph ability was no longer asked for ; mind the tandem rod design was not without its very special and high demands on precision in production , up-keep and repair – the revamped simple layout did away with these special demands . Also , wasn’t it left pretty vague how many engines had been rebuilt and why ? could it have been a make-shift repair used in case of failed tandem rod roller bearings in view of end of steam coming up close ?
The following is from former Scioto Div. Engineer Tom Dressler: "A deceased close personal friend of mine who ran the powhatan Arrow and the Cavalier between Portsmouth, Ohio and Williamson, W. Va. used to run them at 110 plus between Wheelersburg and haverhill, OH each and every day until the ICC imposed the 79 mph speed limit on passenger trains without cab signals. They still ran them at 95 to 100 on that run even after the new rules were implemented."
Then there is the 611 running a special excursion back in September 1959 when Engineer A.C. Phelps got her up over 100 mph on the flatlands of eastern Virginia (Pocahontas Glory Vol. 5).
.
JuniathaAs far as I remember the question why N&W had rebuilt the rod layout and what exactly were the specs of the new layout had never been answered ( main pin should have been beefed up – jet again how this should have been done in a given wheel remains to be investigated ) .
I have been assured that this was answered in some detail a couple of years ago. I have no idea how to find that, but my understanding was that the 'single intermediate rod' redesign did NOT compromise the 100-mph capability of the locomotive. I hope that Dave Stephenson or Hugh Odom remember the documentation of this.
Here are cuts of the N&W drawings for the main-pin arrangement of the double- and single-intermediate-rod arrangements:
Note the relative offsets and overall length of the main pin. I do note that the eccentric crank for the 'single rod' application seems to be made very light compared to previous versions, and this may be part of the design accommodation.
If anyone has a link to earlier discussions, here or elsewhere, provide them.
Awesome video for sure, Big Jim and thx for sharing. I'll be riding with her this Sat and am really excited about it. A friend will be taking videos too. I think the smoke is for runbys, #4960 used to do them. One time we had to climb a hill where there was a bridge. Dad wisely had us stand to the side and not directly over where the train would pass. He said they'd get a face full of cinders and they did. He knew from working at Frisco during the steam days what could happen. They always seemed to pour on more smoke when she'd be doing a "movie run" as it was called in those days. Dad had 8mm movie camera and was filming it along with a bunch of other people. Mom stayed on and would wave at us as she passed by. Fun times.
Since I wrote this post, I've returned from riding #611 on Sat 6-13 trip, watching other railfans film us passing. And we did the same thing on Sun, found a good spot to video and chased for a short distance near Appomattox. Awesome trip, she's a beauty for sure. We also met Bob Saxten and Cheri George and had pics taken with them. She's small for a woman fireman but she gets the job done.
Hi Selector
While the engine only appears at 1:40 or so , it's true there is but dark grey smoke as compared with the straight black smoke then appearing ( as the crew spot the photographers ? or just as the fireman asks the stoker to add some on ? ) then there are phases of black smoke alternating with lightening emissions . This would seem to indicate a good amount of coal was added and then possibly the setting of the steam distribution valves was modified and further it would appear the stoker then was at least eased if not shut off as the engine makes her final approach and runs by . As the trains proceeds to climb in the distance the exhaust is decently clear . As to the ability of the fireman , I believe all we could say he manages to keep boiler output to demands and apart from an episode of black smoke , which might at least partly be attributed to show making , emissions aren't too bad - never forget about the quality of coal and the tendency of stoker archimedes screw to rub off a lot of fines from lumps of coal which both add to smoking .
Anyways - welcome back among the living , # 611 !
Juniatha
Hello ,
BIG Jim
First , for sure you’re free to misinterpret whatever I write any time and to any extent , I have no intention to keep you from blowing your mind , everybody will see what's in it and if it keeps track or jumps rails .
That said , we come to the issue of revamped rod layout – once again .
There was a vital and important reason for application of the tandem rod design in the first place : it was to lighten both piston force and mass inertia loads on the main crank pin since just those loads had become critically high in Super Power types of the 1940s , so much so as to cause an alarming increase of main pin failure – and not just when an engine had been pushed to speeds beyond 100 mph but also at regular speeds of some 80 .. 85 mph , run in daily service . Effectively , reciprocating load – we’re looking at load in horizontal longitudinal direction here , as you will kindly care to mind – was halved by the rod layout , since the tandem center coupling rods enclosing main rod big end at combined lateral center line exactly in extension of that of the main rod , meant half of the thrust was directly taken to third and fourth driven axle leaving only that part of thrust to power second and first driven axle to go through main pin inwards of main rod big end / tandem rods bearings assembly .
Now I would like to see your logical prove of how the main crank pin should be able to take the *same total* (!) amount induced by main rod big end as before by steam plus reciprocating mass forces , yet now without above mentioned 50 % alleviation ?
If we accept as given , the original tandem rod design was safe for everyday running up to 100 mph , then clearly the same cannot be said with the revamped design lacking exactly that important stress distribution feature . A simplified first approach shows , without it , in fact the same mass inertia as at 100 mph before is now acting on the main pin inwards the stand-alone main rod big end at Ö0.5 x 100 = 70.7 mph because as I’m sure you know mass inertia increases by square of increase of rotational speed .
As far as I remember the question why N&W had rebuilt the rod layout and what exactly were the specs of the new layout had never been answered ( main pin should have been beefed up – jet again how this should have been done in a given wheel remains to be investigated ) . My guess would be it was done as a simplification for maintenance at a time when 100 mph ability was no longer asked for ; mind the tandem rod design was not without its very special and high demands on precision in production , up-keep and repair – the revamped simple layout did away with these special demands . Also , wasn’t it left pretty vague how many engines had been rebuilt and why ? could it have been a make-shift repair used in case of failed tandem rod roller bearings in view of end of steam coming up close ?
As for the Bulleid Pacific : we will fully agree in your being absolutely right in remarking it was a Bulleid Pacific and a Bulleid Pacific was not a N&W J nor in fact any 4-8-4 . Still , the Pacific type of w/a was generally considered well suited for high speeds and has proven so beyond doubt . However , w/a was not the end of the story as for good riding at high speeds , rather it could be considered a first intro to a field that besides vehicle layout has to comprise considerations of trackwork layout and precision of alignment too .
To be sure : I didn't mean to say anything about the quality of design of the Bulleid Pacific , in fact I didn't enlarge on any reasons as to why this trip had been so scaring to Helmut – so don't argue on words that just weren't there .
One last word ( although my keyboard works silently and then again I couldn’t hear my typing because I’m listening to orchestral music at the same time ) : in the report on test runs with a Pennsy T1 , N&W themselves emphasized that any superiority the Duplex showed around 100 mph , speed run especially for the occasion (!) was pretty irrelevant to them because they simply didn’t apply such speeds to any extent .
Wishing you only good road trips in diesel cabs
edit : some words put to the point
I have enjoyed watching many videos about the various steam excursions run now and in the distant past. They clearly show much more smoke near locations where there are planned/repeated runby opportunities for the gathered photogs, some of whom disembark from the excursion itself prior to the locomotive backing around a bend 400 yards distant. I don't believe the people running this recent excursion would have placed an inexperienced fireman in position, even if the term is relative....like age, beauty, and smarts. One can clearly see the stack in this image as it rounds the bend with a modicum of smoke, and it stays that way for another five or six seconds until there is an obvious darkening. That sometimes happens with a change of cut-off setting, or a change in stoker settings. It can even happen when a change of coal type suddently gets intaken by the auger, the previous type having been exhausted in the hopper as the coal level drops. I doubt that anything more than a simple tweak of the firing rate is at play here, and only to please the fans. That is, purposeful. If one were to ask the person in that seat, it would all be settled. Until then, my guess is only as good as anyone else's here.
Wizlish The smoke 'problem' is easily enough resolved by observing the exhaust in the video from just before the engine reaches the crossing. It may be a bit difficult to tell with the strong backlighting, but significant smoke then would be even more markedly dark... The "issue" with the rod redesign has been covered here before. It is not difficult to calculate the augment forces for the original and redesigned layouts. I doubt there would be any difficulty in achieving 100 mph safely with the redesigned rods, as the N&W staff indicated at the time of the redesign. But I also have no doubt the balancing (and overbalance conditions) were better with the original layout than the revision, as was indicated.
The smoke 'problem' is easily enough resolved by observing the exhaust in the video from just before the engine reaches the crossing. It may be a bit difficult to tell with the strong backlighting, but significant smoke then would be even more markedly dark...
The "issue" with the rod redesign has been covered here before. It is not difficult to calculate the augment forces for the original and redesigned layouts. I doubt there would be any difficulty in achieving 100 mph safely with the redesigned rods, as the N&W staff indicated at the time of the redesign. But I also have no doubt the balancing (and overbalance conditions) were better with the original layout than the revision, as was indicated.
I have watched a number of 611 videos. It seems to me that when the train is coming to a expected or known picture zone, the fireman is laying on the smoke for picture effect. When the train is approaching in the far distance, the exhaust is near clear, as it gets closer to the picture zone, out comes the black smoke.
Paul Milenkovic1. 18 trailing cars, including the "canteen" water tender. Would Amtrak dispatch 3 P42's for that?
Probably! (although they'd only need 2)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Firelock76I don't want to lose her off this Forum due to petty sniping, and I daresay neither does anyone else.
Now, it should have been very obvious that "stdgauge" had the smoke problem nailed to begin with. There once was a time when black smoke was a no-no and could result in disipline to the crew member. Sadly, the practice of a clear stack seems to have changed just to placate railfans. But, since all of this smoke is probably due more to inexperiance let's cut the fireman some slack for now.
Further more, somehow speed got tangled up in this thread and I will beg to differ with Juniatha's premise that the singled up rods of the 611 preculde it's ability to run 100mph or more. And let's keep in mind that even though she has never seen videos of J's running 100mph doesn't mean it didn't happen. Keep in mind the timeframe and that movie equipment was not a part of peoples everyday household equipment.
One old guy who had travelled the footplate of a Bulleid Pacific in the Sixties with the crew only pushing it to some 80 mph wrote never in his life did he get as scared as when on that engine , believing it was plain inevitable wheels would jump rails soon or sooner and had ‘soft knees’ when finally they made it into the next station alright and he took the chance to leave for solid ground below his feet .
That was a "Bulleid Pacific" not a smooth riding N&W Class J!
I'm on her side on this one, Jim.
Tom
Back off Mr. Jim, Juniatha's a friend of mine and I always enjoy reading her posts and her technical insights. She's got a better brain for this stuff than I'll ever have.
I don't want to lose her off this Forum due to petty sniping, and I daresay neither does anyone else.
Respectfully, Wayne
Thanks again for the video.
Juniatha,Sometimes, it seems like you write just to hear yourself type.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.