ן SHARE YOUR CONCERN
What man served as president of a major railroad for the longest time? While not on the scale of James Hill or E. H. Harriman, he put together a railroad empire of over 2700 miles. Surprisingly, he did not "come up through the ranks" but became a railroad president after a brief career in the banking industry.
Mark
I would guess that William Deramus is the man in question, variously president of CGW, MKT and KCS.
Not Bill Deramus. The man I have in mind served as president of the same railroad all his career though the road underwent several name changes.
I think IGN is referring to Isaac "Ike" Tigrett, who was president of various railroads that ended up as the GM&O starting in 1916. He started as an assistant of some kind to J. Paul Getty. The country music guy IGN refers to is also Ike Tigrett, founder of the "House of Blues".
Tigrett consolidated the GM&N, NOGN, and M&O into the Gulf Mobile and Ohio, and eventually acquired the Alton from the B&O at a fire sale price.
Ike Tigrett is correct. He served for 34 years as president of the GM&O snd its predecessors M&O and GM&N. Either narig or Rob can ask the next question.
I'll poach this one. IGN - if you have a question and it's my turn, I'll yield any time.
The first five members of what became N&W's famous Y class were not built for N&W, but another railroad that already rostered 2-8-8-2's as well as other articulateds. Name the railroad, and the reason. The railroad later owned several ex-N&W Y class locomotives, though not these five.
I will a guess and say it was for the Virginian and that the track structure and/or bridges was not ready to support their weight.
Right railroad, wrong reason. VGN already had locomotives that were heavier and had higher axle loading. The original five were completed in 1919 by Alco (Schenectady).
I'll also guess Virginian. Weren't they assigned some USRA Mallets during WW1, Mallets which were a design based on the N&W Y2 2-8-8-2. During WW2, N&W was able to peddle some of it's older Mallets off to other, power short rail lines. PRR, AT&SF, UP and Virginian. I don't think the Virginian's track structure was a problem.
rfpjohn I'll also guess Virginian. Weren't they assigned some USRA Mallets during WW1, Mallets which were a design based on the N&W Y2 2-8-8-2. During WW2, N&W was able to peddle some of it's older Mallets off to other, power short rail lines. PRR, AT&SF, UP and Virginian. I don't think the Virginian's track structure was a problem.
Johnny
Virginian's Triplex weighed 844,000 pounds. 8 tons less than Erie's. And it was built as a simple engine, as opposed to compound for the Erie engines!
Even though all of the cylinders were the same size, it was a compound engine; the exhaust of each of the middle cylinders fed two cylinders; the exhaust of the cylinders of the lead engine provided the draft.
Mr Deggesty: In Fred Westing's book "The Locomotives that Baldwin built" he identifies the Erie engines as compounds, as you stated. All cylinders listed having dimensions of 36" x 32" and a tractive effort of 160,000lbs. The Virginian triplex is stated to have been built as a simple engine, six cylinders 34" x 32" and a tractive effort of 166,300lbs.
Maybe someone has another source to reference.
After Googling "Virginian Triplex," every reference I read indicates that it was a compound locomotive. Also, the article on pages 22-23 of the September, 1952, issue of Trains indicates that it was a compound locomotive.
The 2-8-8-2, one of the engines built from the triplex had 44 x 32 inch and 28 x 32 inch cylinders; the 2-8-2 that used the third engine had 26 x 32 inch cylinders.
That issue has a beautiful picture on the cover--the Sunshine Special and Texas Eagle coming in with PA's on the point and an EA and an EB ready to take the Missouri River Eagle out, all in St. Louis.
By the way, my last name is simply "Degges" (rhymes with "eggs"); the ty should be t/y, but the slash was unacceptable in a screen name.
Was the reason a downturn in business, so that the Virginian could not afford them or use them effectively? Possibly the Depression?
So far RFPJohn was the closest. The N&W Y2's were actually the engines built for the Virginian (900-904) while under USRA control. Virginian wanted 2-10-10-2's like the 800 series AE class already on the property, and preferred Alco-Richmond products when available. N&W was more than happy to take them. Virginian's 700 series engines in the USA-USD classes were virtual duplicates (built by Alco-Richmond) and arrived only a few months after the refused 900's, and the USE class were ex-N&W engines acquired from the AT&SF near the end of WWII.
Virginian's triplex had lower axle loading (466,730 lbs on 24 drivers) than the 2-10-10-2s (617,000 on 20 drivers). The XA triplex 700 was split in 1921 into two locomotives, AF class 2-8-8-0 610 (487,390 lbs on 16 drivers, 2-8-8-2 after 1942), and MD class 2-8-2 410 (233,810 lbs on 8 drivers) both of which had much higher axle loadings than the original triplex.
Were these the Clinchfield Class L-1 2-8-8-2's? I think both the L-1's and the first N&W Y-2's were put in service in 1919. If the L-1's beat the Y-2's it was probably because the USRA authorized their construction ahead of approving building of the N&W engines.
The Virginian/N&W engines were the first USRA 2-8-8-2's. They were actually lettered in Virginian orange and numbered in the 900 series before being diverted to the N&W.
I believe the N&W Y2 preceeded the USRA Mallets. The USRA Mallet was based on the N&W Y2a, which had higher boiler pressure and larger cylinders. I'm still hung up on that Virginian Triplex thing. Fred Westing states in two separate captions that the Virginian's X-A triplex was built as a single expansion locomotive. I've always thought he was a pretty accurate author. The X-A was a 2-8-8-8-4, weighing slightly less than the Erie engines, with cylinders 2 inches smaller in diameter, yet she is credited with a higher tractive effort. A simple engine should exert a greater starting tractive effort than a similar compound.
There's got to be some Virginian experts out there, somewhere.
Would the difference in driver size have made the difference in starting tractive effort?
My understanding is that with same weigiht on drivers and same factor of adhesion, and the same cylinder dimensions and pressure, tractive effort, starting or under way at specific speeds, is directly inversly proportional to driver diamenter, based on the standard principles of how a lever operates. But note the other variables, not just driver diameter alone.
All of the cylinders in Virginian's XA were the same size. The "middle" pair took high-pressure steam and exhausted to both the front and rear cylinders. The XA was even less successful than the Erie's triplexes, but once broken up in 1921 was considered to be two good locomotives. The resulting 2-8-8-0 was a more conventional mallet, with larger low-pressure cylinders in front. MD 410, the 2-8-2 rebuilt from the former tender section, had a not-so-polite nickname. Both halves lasted into the 1950s.
Does anyone know of two classes of locomotives practically identacle in every respect except for differences in driver diameter ---- except the NYCentral's J! and Boston & Albany (lettered NewYork Central System) J2? J1s and J3s were 79 inches and J2s 74, in deference to the Berkshire Mountains, needing more tractive effort and not requiring as high top speed.
Are weawaiting RFPJohn'squestion?
I left the award to you guys. RFPJohn, Dave awaits your question (and so do I!)
Sorry guys! I was up the road for a couple of days.
Here's one: This line started constuction prior to the Civil War, Its roadbed featured in one campaign, partially constructed as a standard gauge line after the unpleasantness, converted to 3' gauge and completed, reconverted to standard gauge and ended its days with a little over a mile of track (it had been much longer) and a large boxcar fleet.
Name the railroad, both its narrow gauge and standard gauge titles.
As for Dave's post, I know the PRR D16 (68"), D16a (80"), D16b/sb (68") D16c/d (80") represented locomotives identical except for wheel diameter and constructed to fit specific service requirements. Pennsy did that alot in earlier engine classes, too. There was also the K2s(a) with 80" drivers with two K2sb engines with 72" drivers built for heavy graded divisions. PRR decided the performance edge wasn't worth the deviation from their quest for standardization.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter