Close enough Johnny. The man at Monitor's turret control wheel was leaning on the turret wall and was knocked unconsious by a shell impact. He was taken below and recovered fully.
Monitor's captain, John Worden, was looking out the pilothouse window when a shell from the Virginia hit close by and blinded him. He recovered the sight in one eye and went on to a distinguished naval career afterward.
Aside from the captain and turret man Monitor had no casualties. I believe there were no serious casualties on the Virginia as well.
Wayne
Firelock76 Well, a "monitor" wan't a submarine, although with that low freeboard it was darn close to being one. It certainly wasn't an easy target to hit, although that turret must have rung like a bell whenever a Rebel shot hit it! The "Monitor" gave it's name to a whole class of riverine and harbor defense warships, and interestingly enough the class lasted right up to the early 20th Century. Here's another wrinkle: During the First World War the Royal Navy had a class of ships they referred to as "monitors." Essentially a one-turret baby battleship they were intended as shore bombardment vessels. Whether they were actually used as such is open to question, somehow I doubt it, I'm not sure where the RN may have had the opportunity to do so. Just a little more useless knowledge there.
Well, a "monitor" wan't a submarine, although with that low freeboard it was darn close to being one. It certainly wasn't an easy target to hit, although that turret must have rung like a bell whenever a Rebel shot hit it!
The "Monitor" gave it's name to a whole class of riverine and harbor defense warships, and interestingly enough the class lasted right up to the early 20th Century.
Here's another wrinkle: During the First World War the Royal Navy had a class of ships they referred to as "monitors." Essentially a one-turret baby battleship they were intended as shore bombardment vessels. Whether they were actually used as such is open to question, somehow I doubt it, I'm not sure where the RN may have had the opportunity to do so.
Just a little more useless knowledge there.
The Royal Navy had a sizeable fleet of monitors during WWI and made heavy use of them in Northern Europe and in the Dardanelles Campaign.
Only two survived the inter-war period HMS Erebus and HMS Terror. Two more were built early in WWII (Using the biggest twin turrets from the WWI scrapline,) HMS Roberts and HMS Abercrombie. All four saw action, including shore bombardment. Terror was lost, the other three survived and were present (and active) at all the major WWII amphibious landings in the Medeterranean, as well as the D-day landings and the later landing at Walcherin.
In the Pacific the same service was performed by the older US battleships.
Chuck (sometimes naval historian)
Thanks Chuck, that's interesting! I knew those ships existed but was unsure of their actual utility.
I'm surprised the Royal Navy used the names Erebus and Terror for two of the monitors. Erebus and Terror were the names of the two ships lost on the ill-fated Sir John Franklin Arctic Expedition in the 1840's, and it's an old sailor's superstition that you NEVER name a ship after another one that came to a bad end, it's bad, BAD luck, loss in combat being the one exception to the rule, or maybe the RN didn't believe in old sailor's superstitions. I should say maybe the monitor Erebus broke the curse, the monitor Terror being lost.
HMS Erebus...
HMS Terror...
HMS Roberts...
HMS Abercrombie...
HMS Roberts bombarding Normandy on D-Day...
Royal Navy 15 Inch BL 15 Mark 1 Gun Turret used on monitors...mounted on a high barbette on the monitors to increase range...range purported to be 33,550 yards at 30 degrees of elevation...
This post went from how much coal a locomotive uses to warships.
Indeed.
And while the HMS Erebus and HMS Terror likely burned coal in WWI, they quite likely burned some form of fuel oil in WWII, somewhat like many Union Pacific locomotives or Southern Pacific 2-8-8-4 Yellowstones were converted from coal to fuel oil.
Okay, there was one feeble attempt at humor to swerve it back on track!
Back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Here is an H-6 class line drawing of the 1300-1309...
Notice it can be operated in simple mode to boost tractive effort up to 98,300 lbs from compound mode tractive effort of 77,900 lbs from its 56 inch drivers at 210 lbs PSI - these units have a Factor of Adhesion in compound mode of a hefty 4.63 on the front drivers and 4.79 on the back drivers...
For comparison, 2-8-0 734 is reported to have 55,948 lbs of tractive effort from its 57 inch drivers at 185 PSI with a Factor of Adhesion of 4.25...
One would think with that tractive effort and factor of adhesion that 1309 should be able to practically lope up the mountain with long trains with no pusher unit needed at the drumhead...
A pair of C&O 2-6-6-2 units with Vanderbilt tenders on a caboose hop - perhaps heading on mine run to pick up a loaded train?...
C&O 1309 in working order, looking to be fresh out of the shop...it will look great with the fireball on the tender...
pajrr This post went from how much coal a locomotive uses to warships.
Well yes, these discussions can get pretty free-wheeling after a while, sort of like a bull session around the depot stove with the coffee and doughnuts passing around freely, but as long as we're all entertained and learn something it's all worthwhile.
At least in my humble opinion.
As David the Great (as in David P. Morgan) once said, "Big things that move are a lot more interesting than big things that don't!"
They're all expensive to feed and run. And expensive to rebuild and maintain. I don't see the point of the discussion. She's not an unwieldy size, and she ought to get the job done, if this project can just get off dead center and move along.
Tom
I recall a TV program about the Hunley when I was a kid, I recall it as a Disney production but it may have been the one you mention. It kept sinking with all hands, then it would be salvaged and used again. Then it would sink again. The crewmen cranking the propellor were the same guys each time! I absolutely remember that.
ACYThey're all expensive to feed and run. And expensive to rebuild and maintain. I don't see the point of the discussion. She's not an unwieldy size, and she ought to get the job done, if this project can just get off dead center and move along.
Two interesting threads on RyPN that touch on this:
1) in an account of a recent WMSR shop tour, it was mentioned that some of the state funds have been 'unlocked' and work on the boiler will be recommencing as a result. ISTR the "12 week" figure is to the hydro test; I would think some of the remaining mechanical work would be happening in parallel so the critical path to road testing may not be much longer than that.
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40673&sid=b97d65a21af0d818b72f76483b01d5f7
2) Brazilians have restored a charming 1950 Baldwin simple articulated and, justly proud, have a number of Facebook and YouTube videos of her. The fuel situation is ... interesting. But not viewed as a critical showstopper either to operation or economics.
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40669&p=261559
ACYThey're all expensive to feed and run. And expensive to rebuild and maintain. I don't see the point of the discussion. She's not an unwieldy size, and she ought to get the job done, if this project can just get off dead center and move along. Tom
When dealing with industrial activities, one's personal 'household sense of scale' has to be done away with. In our world we get a tank of gas - 25 gallons or less a week and use that amount of gas to go 400-500 miles or more. The current generation of diesel locomotives has a 4000-5000 gallon fuel tank and a range of 1000-1100 miles with a full tank when used in bulk commodity (drag max tonnage) service. In a home we complain of a electric bill of $200-500. What do you think the electric bills are for the facilities where we earn our incomes. The bigger the facility the bigger the bill.
Going into a project meeting for a new operation (as a junior member) and listening to the cost, maintenance and operating numbers being discussed is mind blowing your first time.
It takes money to make money!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
C&O 2-6-6-2 steam locomotives at work:
1479...
1479 again...
1307...
1404...
1301...
Three or four GP9's would look just as good in the mine-run service for which the H-6's were designed. And the GP9's would work just as well on a manifest freight.
My boss cringes when the spot price of diesel fuel goes up 2 cents a gallon. He knows for the week that means about an extra 2500 bucks going out the door to cover the costs. For us a good week in fuel costs for our fleet is between 800K to 1 million in fuel costs before Fuel taxes are figured in.
Shadow the Cats ownerMy boss cringes when the spot price of diesel fuel goes up 2 cents a gallon. He knows for the week that means about an extra 2500 bucks going out the door to cover the costs.
And with that kind of budget, he hasn't arranged long-term contracts for fuel supply in the areas he'll need to refuel? Hasn't set up language in at least the boilerplate of the contracts for appropriate surcharges based on spot pricing for operations that involve that?
My guess would be he hasn't been to business school. For better or worse, they teach people how to sterilize downside risk, or 'pass it along' in such a way that there is no long-term bottom-line downside ... and likewise, if he doesn't have the right combination of short-term preapproved lines of credit and business-interruption insurance, to the point where a factor increase of that magnitude in fuel poses a 'cover the costs' issue, I would start to wonder about how effectively the operation is capitalized.
It might be valuable for some people following this thread to have you actually state what those 'fuel tax' costs will be, including the NPV of all your own costs in processing, negotiating, and when necessary arguing about them, adjusted as appropriate for the times the fuel tax is actually payable. I don't think people quite realize the full expense involved in this, as most are probably used to having all their 'fuel taxes and surcharges' included in the pump price, and if in small business don't carefully work through arranging credits through their state business-tax agency.
That is with our discount. Fuel taxes are 24 cents a gallon Federal and it varies in the states. Here in IL it is 19 cents a gallon plus the State Sales tax of 6.25% http://www.truckmiles.com/FuelPrices.asp
That lists every single states fuel tax and any other tax we get hit with on top of that. He does hedge his fuel costs as much as possible we buy fuel in bulk for our terminal and require all drivers to have full tanks leaving here. We do save 20% off retail doing it that way alone. He buys his fuel in 10 million gallon lots from which ever truckstop chain will give him the best price. I figured out each one of his trucks pays in over 40K a year in fuel and highway usage taxes and fees alone. That figure does not include the fees paid to run toll roads or cross any bridges with a toll on it either. Those as an estimate would be about 4K a truck more fleet wide several trucks as it varies from truck to truck and where they are running. Certain states do not have tolls others we have tell ourselves it is only money.
I was thinkng that since this engine is bigger it has more movig partsmore money to maintain nd custum machine parts and also heaver it would cause more track wear. As i recall steam engines beat the heck out of track
CandOforprogress2 I was thinkng that since this engine is bigger it has more movig partsmore money to maintain nd custum machine parts and also heaver it would cause more track wear. As i recall steam engines beat the heck out of track
Well, 1309 does not weigh measurably more than NKP 759.
A few general comments about your assumptions:
Yes 1309 has a few more moving parts, but as I and others indicated earlier, she is not any bigger than a number of other "medium sized" steam locos.
"Steam locos are hard on track" - Yes and no. More modern locos like 1309 or NKP 759 are better balanced, have stronger frames which mean less flexing and vibration, have better bearings, etc.
And, most mainline trackage today is heavier and better than when these locos ran daily - so it is not really an issue for rail fan service. 1309 will be no harder on the WMS trackage than their current 2-8-0 loco, mainly because the axle loads are similar and 1309 actually has a shorter rigid wheelbase which means she will actually go through the curves easier.....getting back to why these "small" articulated locos were built in the first place - nimble and powerful.
Sheldon
Yeah, welded rail was only just coming in as steam was on it's way out. Modern rails are considerably better than most of their steam era versions.
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
I wouldn't call her a modern locomotive.
She doesn't have a cast frame for one example, nor roller bearings for another (Despite what Wikipedia and SteamLocomotive.com say, pictures of her teardown confirm conventional bearings on all axles). Both are innovations that came about after the USRA era, but weren't applied here.
She's pretty much straight out of 1920 or so, despite her late build date (And I guess C&O was acquiring similar locomotives a decade earlier than even that, making her 40 years out of date in many regards). I'm sure that there's some sort of application of post 1920 steam era technology on her, but not much.
Sounds like what the C&O wanted, and what the C&O got, was a basic, no-frills, no "gee-whiz" accessorized, easy to run and maintain steam locomotive.
A draft horse instead of a race horse.
Firelock is right, C&O ordered a specific design for a specific service in a specific area. C&O also ordered 25 of them initially, the last 15 were cancelled due to dieselization.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.