Kevin; Thanks for the "unofficial" update. I'm new to this web site, but as I read through the posts on this and other threads, it looks like you're the only one taking the time to keep everyone with an interest updated on the progress of your 4-8-4 restoration project. Hats off to you. I look forward to seeing 2926 at speed under her own power on the mainline once again.
Changing the subject; There seems to be quite a few people making hard and fast declarations about the quality of the N&W 4-8-4 locomotives. I see also some commentary in regards to the quality of the N&W maintenance program. Is it possible they weren't of a higher quality build so much as it was that they just received better care?
OK, Disclamer time (Grin),
I am just one of a large club, (there are about 300 of us, and Ya'll are welcome to join ((Grin)) ). So any thing I say is not Absloute, just the way I see it.
Having said that, the work progresses well. We are close to putting the tender back together after over two years of work on it. The locomotive is next, and how fast it goes is dependent on funding and the amount of time we put in. (currently we have two work days a week) So I can't really give you a date or even a number.
The 2926 hauled the "Scout" from Argintene KS to ABQ untill 1953 when the AT&SF declared compleat conversion to Dismals (G). But Steam was still used for helper service and power shortfalls into 1957. The 2926 was put in to the park under its own power in 1956. Washed down and stored as a reserve locomotive in case the cold war heated up. I have heard that the last money run was pulling the "El Pasoan" from ABQ to El Paso and back in 54 or 55 But I don't know for shure.
Occasional posts in the Museum thread have updates and links to photos.
And the club web site is the source of the most Official informaton.
Hope this helps,
Kevin
Gunns wrote: In the 9 years the 2926 ran we have logs of 1.25 million miles, this was hauling both the name train the "Scout" (the No. 1,2 train out of Chicago to LA) and freight. making the runs about 11,500 a month, but probably more as all steam power has a yearly rebuild. The 2926 was one of 10, 2900s dedicated to passenger service, the other 2900s racked up 1.5 to 1.8 million miles in the same time period. tomikawaTT wrote: N&W ran the J's an average of 30,000 miles per month. What was the comparable figure for other 4-8-4s (especially those owned by railroads with longer runs?) (snipage) Chuck
In the 9 years the 2926 ran we have logs of 1.25 million miles, this was hauling both the name train the "Scout" (the No. 1,2 train out of Chicago to LA) and freight.
making the runs about 11,500 a month, but probably more as all steam power has a yearly rebuild. The 2926 was one of 10, 2900s dedicated to passenger service, the other 2900s racked up 1.5 to 1.8 million miles in the same time period.
tomikawaTT wrote: N&W ran the J's an average of 30,000 miles per month. What was the comparable figure for other 4-8-4s (especially those owned by railroads with longer runs?) (snipage) Chuck
N&W ran the J's an average of 30,000 miles per month. What was the comparable figure for other 4-8-4s (especially those owned by railroads with longer runs?)
(snipage)
Chuck
Gunns; Approximately when do you expect to be able to take 2926 out for her first test run? Please keep us updated here. A little history for us please, if you don't mind; When exactly was the last time 2926 moved under her own power?
jimrice4449 wrote:It is always chancy to make absolute statements about esthetics because it's so subjective, but anybody trying to argue me out of my position the the N&W J is the best looking 4-8-4 ever is going to have his work cut out for him (and I saw and rode behind SP GS-4s and admire them greatly). Add to the appearance the fact that they had more tractive effort than any other 4-8-4 and ran a test train 17 cars at a steady 112MPH on the Pennsy and you've got a combination of features that is hard to beat
Who cares what class was the most powerful or lasted the longest or was the easiest to wrench....by far and wide...LIMA C&O superpower looked the coolest!
Regards,
Tom M.
Mike C.
Ray Stilwell wrote:I'll go with the Lehigh Valley T2 also. Just because LV is not perceived as one of the major roads doesn't mean their locos weren't great ones.
Good choice. But the Daylights are, in my opinion, the most beautiful 4-8-4's built.
The UP Special Rules for at least some divisions did limit their 4-8-4s cutoff, but it was to a minimum of 35% (or thereabouts), not a maximum. I'd be curious to know exactly why, too.
UP's FEFs were restricted to 35% cutoff because more than that would overstress the main rod bearing.
I think you are very much mistaken.
.
daveklepper wrote: I like the New Haven I-5 streamlining. Is there anyone who doesn't like it and what are your objections?
I like the New Haven I-5 streamlining. Is there anyone who doesn't like it and what are your objections?
As a matter of personal preference, I don't care much for that look. I think it's overdone.
daveklepper wrote: For unstreamlined 4-8-4's I submit the RF&P, DL&W, ACL, and C&O appeal to my taste more than the Niagra. And it is not just the elephant ears.
For unstreamlined 4-8-4's I submit the RF&P, DL&W, ACL, and C&O appeal to my taste more than the Niagra. And it is not just the elephant ears.
Great choices. Actually, I prefer the looks of the unstreamlined 4-8-4's over any that were streamlined.
tomikawaTT wrote: Several 4-8-4s had certain limits to their operations caused by inadequate mechanical design (UP's FEFs were restricted to 35% cutoff because more than that would overstress the main rod bearing.) If the J had similar issues I've never heard of them. What the J DID have was a reputation for reliability that was the envy of the steam-running world. Norfolk and Western had a well-earned reputation for building locomotives that were adequate (serious understatement) for their tasks, then running them within their design limits. If other railroads' managers weren't smart enough to do that... (I will admit that designing the J for a theoretical maximum speed of 140mph might have been overkill.) Chuck
Several 4-8-4s had certain limits to their operations caused by inadequate mechanical design (UP's FEFs were restricted to 35% cutoff because more than that would overstress the main rod bearing.) If the J had similar issues I've never heard of them. What the J DID have was a reputation for reliability that was the envy of the steam-running world.
Norfolk and Western had a well-earned reputation for building locomotives that were adequate (serious understatement) for their tasks, then running them within their design limits. If other railroads' managers weren't smart enough to do that... (I will admit that designing the J for a theoretical maximum speed of 140mph might have been overkill.)
That's interesting. IRT to UP FEF's being restricted to 35% cutoff, was that something that was corrected over time? Is UP 844 still operating under the same limitation? Where did you read that? Were there any other design problems that put limitations on 844? I've seen videos of it operating, and it seems like it was pulling a good sized train at good speed. When would this cutoff limitation have been an operational problem?
feltonhill wrote: The westbound approach to the Kenova Bridge is 0.30% straddling MP N-568. The eastbound approach is 0.65% and 0.663% approaching N-569. Not quite 1% but impressive eastbound nonetheless.
The westbound approach to the Kenova Bridge is 0.30% straddling MP N-568. The eastbound approach is 0.65% and 0.663% approaching N-569. Not quite 1% but impressive eastbound nonetheless.
My memory obviously doesn't serve me correctly here regarding the grade, I see, as the train was headed westbound. Nevertheless, starting 30+ cars on a .30% still isn't bad, especially when the train is strung out over a slight curve. Not sure whether the rear of the train went all the way back into the yard or not, but it's possible.
Feltonhill,
He might have been refering to the Kenova yard, which has a steeper climb up to the Ohio River bridge. The east end of the N&W Kenova yard is at the same level as the C&O main line.
The N&W J's in freight service is covered in detail in the May/June 2006 issue of N&WHS magazine, The Arrow. In early 1958, N&W started a serious effort to place the J's in freight service west of Williamson . Several of these runs are documented on time freight, loaded coal and empties, and the performances are noteworthy. This was not a fluke. The J's tonnage ratings were included in Employee Timetables at that time. The program soon after April 1958. The reason should be pretty obvious.
The Niagras had more opportunity to run up mileage because the New York Central ran an intense passenger service at the time, with lots of scheduled mainline trains exceeding 55mph origin to destination including stops, while the N&W had at the most two expresses each way and with mountainous terrain at origin to destination speeds of about 45 mph including stops (plus two or three more Southern through trains). A lot more opportunity on the NYC.
I like the New Haven I-5 streamlining. Is there anyone who doesn't like it and what are your objections? But despite the good performance (except for banging the track out of shape) it is definitely a failure, and mainline and suburban steam on the New Haven was closed out by the relibable 1920's I-4 Pacific. The New Haven never owned a Northern, but more than made up for it by the best electric ever built, the EF-3, especially those equipped with boilers for passenger as well as freight service. More horsepower than a GG-1 and far better facilities for the crew. If steam had had a future, undoubtadly the I-5's problems would have been solved.
Just because I think the J is best, doesn't mean I don't appreciate the virtues of the Niagra as an excellent locomotive, and certainly the Santa Fe, UP, CN, DL&W, C&O, RF&P, and ACL Northerns/Poconos/Greenbriars. Rode behind all of them at one time or another. Never rode behind a Daylight 4-8-4, but I agree they are fine locomotives and look great also.
The Niagra was never streamlined. For unstreamlined 4-8-4's I submit the RF&P, DL&W, ACL, and C&O appeal to my taste more than the Niagra. And it is not just the elephant ears.
Personally, I've never given a lot of thought to this topic before now; there were a hell of a lot of high-quality 4-8-4's built by many different builders for different roads with different needs. In reliability the J is certainly at or near the top, though I'm not ready to say it was the finest mountain passenger service 4-8-4 ever built, not when one considers the competition: ATSF 2900's; D&RGW M-68 an engine that was very similar to the J in grate area, heating surface, cylinder size and BP; and the C&O J-3A, which performed brilliantly over mountainous terrain and probably could have clocked similar 100mph+ figures had they been used on the flatter sections of the road, as N&W used its J's.
Dual service wise, as history stands the 2900's were peerless...not to say that the J's couldn't have equalled their performance had they been seriously put to the task.
The thing one must love about the J is that it proves the N&W engineering staff was on to something revolutionary, namely that it didn't take two different classes of locomotive to handle passenger trains, one for the low grade end of the road and one for the mountains. This of course was a lesson that competitor C&O never learned (no big deal, the world was a few Hudsons richer for their ignorance). Making low drivers universal for high-speed running on the flats and consistent passenger speeds on tough mountain grades was a great concept, and it's amazing that other roads didn't pick up on it.
Looks wise the J isn't even close to perfect, but in power they are quite incredible. About twenty years ago I stood trackside watching the 611 start a HEAVY fan special of 30+ cars, some of them heavyweights, while on the approach to the Ohio River bridge at Kenova, WV, which is at least a one percent grade. She did it unassisted, not a slip in her anywhere. Not effortless, but an effort put successfully to the test. The J may indeed be the closest thing there is to answering this impossible question.
The J's ran 15,000 miles/month, not 30,000. NYC's Niagaras ran 18,000-20,000 miles/month in regular service and when put on a priority turnaround program a selected group ran up to about 28,000 miles/month.
The J's were counterbalanced for a maximum machinery rotational speed of 140 mph. That's a different situation from running 140 mph with the machinery under load.
The first five J's in 1941 were essentially the same as the final three built in 1950. They were an extremely progressive design in 1941. Eleven of the J's, nos 600-610, were in service during WW2.
cooslimited wrote:Very good points made by feltonhill and jlampke. No poop there! As a matter of personal opinion, I don't care for the streamlining applied to the N&W J's. That nose job is just too much. Reminds me of that space rocket that used to be at Disneyland in the 50's and 60's. Also, I doubt if the N&W used, or should I say abused, their 4-8-4's the way the Southern Pacific did. Would the J's have performed as well in the same demanding service? All 70 of the SP's GS locomotives were in service during the demanding years of WW2.
feltonhill wrote: "Finest" and "most tastefully streamlined" can't be defined in terms of right or wrong. What does "finest" mean - technologically identical (N&W Js, NYC Niagaras, some of ATSF's 2900s all had roller bearings everywhere and same type of FWH), high mileage, high DBHP (now there's a real can of worms!!)? Sort of like "best" or "how high is up." Streamlining is an esthetic preference. What's tasteful to me may not be tasteful to you. I like the J because it has virtually no styling "hooks". Others prefer the SP Daylights because of their very striking color scheme. There are also many examples of streamlined non-4-8-4's - NYC Dreyfuss J3a's or MILW's Kuhler 4-6-4's. Different styling schools-of-thought go on and on debating the relative merits and liabilities of each. So it depends. There isn't any right or wrong. The sources you have seem to agree on the subjective quantities they choose to discuss. That doesn't make them right or wrong, either. They just have similar opinions. And these types of comparisons tend to sell books, whether they mean anything in the larger sense or not!
"Finest" and "most tastefully streamlined" can't be defined in terms of right or wrong.
What does "finest" mean - technologically identical (N&W Js, NYC Niagaras, some of ATSF's 2900s all had roller bearings everywhere and same type of FWH), high mileage, high DBHP (now there's a real can of worms!!)? Sort of like "best" or "how high is up."
Streamlining is an esthetic preference. What's tasteful to me may not be tasteful to you. I like the J because it has virtually no styling "hooks". Others prefer the SP Daylights because of their very striking color scheme. There are also many examples of streamlined non-4-8-4's - NYC Dreyfuss J3a's or MILW's Kuhler 4-6-4's. Different styling schools-of-thought go on and on debating the relative merits and liabilities of each. So it depends. There isn't any right or wrong.
The sources you have seem to agree on the subjective quantities they choose to discuss. That doesn't make them right or wrong, either. They just have similar opinions. And these types of comparisons tend to sell books, whether they mean anything in the larger sense or not!
Very well put.
Everybody seems to more or less agree that all 4-8-4's were great locomotives. Streamlining is definitely an aesthetic preference. The SP applied just the right amount of streamlining to their GS-2, 3, 4 & 5's. Choice of colors is definitely a contributing factor. There is no right or wrong, just personal opinions. Addressing the question of highest quality though, is another matter. My understanding is that the N&W continued to develop steam into the 50's. With that in mind, It stands to reason that their's were the best in the end. But were they the best when the SP was developing and building the GS-4's & 5's? From what I've read, the GS-5's (with roller bearings) were considered top of the line when they rolled out of the Lima plant. Consider too, that the SP ran the GS locomotives hard right up to the very last. SP used them over their various mountain passes as well as on commute service, with frequent stops and hard, fast acceleration. Taking into consideration the period they were developed and the harsh, demanding service they were used in, surely the GS-5's have to be considered equal to any, if not THE best.
I think anyone who admires the streamlining of the J, as I certainly do (and also consider it not only the finest 4-8-4, but possibly the very finest steam locomotive period) will also admire the streamlining of the New York New Haven and Hartford I-5, 4-6-4.
Boiler weld cracks and inadequate driver counterbalancing at high speed took these otherwise fine locomotives off high-speed New Haven - Boston runs in 1950-1951, and they were retired shortly after. I was lucky enough to ride parlor, up front, on the Yankee Clipper in late summer or early autumn 1949, behind an I-5 on a Boston - NY trip.
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