Compound Mallet Question

[Anonymous]

"According to the N&W guy who was on the engine when it failed (the 610), the valve froze in the cage due to lubrication failure. When the engine was hauled back to Roanoke and the cylinders and valve chambers opened up, the liners were colored yellow......" blah,blah,blah

Actually, the N&W guy who was with the engine had no idea why it failed. He was too busy trying to find a sheep to mate with to even care why it failed.

Speaking of sheep, how your mother doing, Oldtimer??

Also, please spew on concerning the mighty H8 vs. the girlyboy A Class. I need a good laugh. Oh, and you didn't address the superior NYC Niagara either.

[feltonhill]

Unless I missed something in this lengthy discussion, only BigJim has made the point that a Y5/Y6 was not limited to 30 mph all the time. Sure, they were at their best at 25 mph flat out upgrade, but once over the top or on relatively level track, they could easily make 40-45 and as much as 50 without tearing themselves up or damaging the track. Agreed, their HP curve dropped off very rapidly after 30 mph or so, but how much HP do you need downhill? In that situation, better counterbalancing rules, and they could definitely get out of their own way. There are many examples of this on video, particularly on the Shenandoah Valley line, where this type of 25-up and 45-down was commonplace. On the east-west main, many videos indicate that after passing Blue Ridge, the A/Y6 combo was not limited to 25 mph on the way to Lynchburg. There's many a scene of the lead A striding along with that big old thousand-legger right behind. Quite a contrast, but it was a many-times-a-day event.

[BigJim]

GP40 wrote; "Most famous compound was N&W Y6b. Had good low speed tractive effort but was a dog above 30mph"

I hate to knock your d*+# in the dirt, but, the engineers I worked with would run these puppies for all they were worth. One told me that 64 mph was about the fastest you wanted to run one. After that things started getting a little chancy as the rods were really flailing.

So don't ever think a Y6 couldn't get a train over the road in good time. Too bad the western roads didn't aquire the later Y's with the bigger valves and could really breath!

Now to get back to the original question. For those of you that would like to know how a compound mallet really worked check out the following web site;
http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/mallet.Html

[Anonymous]

Overmod

Thanks for the very informative reply on back pressure and MU'ing steam. I knew it wouldn't be easy and that someone probably tried it. Regarding drafting and front end design, it's my impression it was often a complex compromise that goes back to the particular fuel used and it's one thing that kept the mechanical departments busy tailoring steam locos to each road. Many of the USRA standard designs ended up as oil burners on the western roads. A telling example from the N.P. book I have is the Timken engine. At 30 mph it produced 3000 drawbar HP on the N.P. compared to 3800 as tested by Alco and some other roads that tried it. It sounds like the range of acceptable draft in the N.P. locos burning Rosebud coal was very narrow. An ideal fire is described as being almost a gaseous cloud. Too little draft would make the fire too cold and too much would pull it out the stack causing unacceptable errosion to the flues and a plugged up front end. Apparently the Q had similar problems with the Sheridan coal they used. I've sen that stuff on the current BNSF coal trains and it's pretty fine an powderey.

I don't share the negative view of the N&W or other eastern roads of another poster. The Eastern coal roads had to go to where the mines were, so sharp curves and stiff grades meant that track speed was a limiting factor. The western transcons were located to find the most advantageous routes. Their steepest most difficult grades were a very small portion of their operation and were often electrified(Milw, GN), dieselized(N.P.), or helper operations(Cajun). On the UP, the rulling grade at places like Sherman Hill was .82% and hauling perishables meant re-icing refers, livestock needed periodic unloading, and ATSF had the shorter route so speed became a major requirement leading to what were really fast freight locos rather than mountain maulers. The Rio Grande and the Missabee Iron Range were 2 western roads more comparable to the N&W and of course the Narrow Gauge roads were an extreme example of going to were the mines were.

[Anonymous]

Quoth Overmod, speaking of the tests of the N&W J on the PRR: "Note that what failed at 115mph on the PRR test plant was the valve drive, and THAT was probably due to unbalanced forces on the valves -- poppets, for example, would have fixed the problem there, even if they introduced other issues elsewhere..."

According to the N&W guy who was on the engine when it failed (the 610), the valve froze in the cage due to lubrication failure. When the engine was hauled back to Roanoke and the cylinders and valve chambers opened up, the liners were colored yellow. It was felt that some component of the PRR boiler water didn't agree with N&W lubricants. But there was no failure of the engine due to design or production problems.

Mr. Big Ol' UP Man: If you would remove your head from your nether aperture, learn to read, and go through the literature you'd find some surprising (to you, anyway) data about the 2-6-6-6 and its comparison to the N&W 2-6-6-4. The data is out there; all you have to do is read it, and I'm not going to trouble this list with repeating it.

I did ask you for some data to compare UP's performance with N&W's, but I see you'd rather blather than do the research - oh, I forgot - you'd have to learn to read.

But I remain,

Your buddy, the Redneck Hickabilly Trailer Trash Old Timer.

Oh, yes - being president of the UP today is like being Emperor of the North Pole. But I guess you don't remember Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine, either . . .

[Anonymous]

Quoth Overmod, speaking of the tests of the N&W J on the PRR: "Note that what failed at 115mph on the PRR test plant was the valve drive, and THAT was probably due to unbalanced forces on the valves -- poppets, for example, would have fixed the problem there, even if they introduced other issues elsewhere..."

According to the N&W guy who was on the engine when it failed (the 610), the valve froze in the cage due to lubrication failure. When the engine was hauled back to Roanoke and the cylinders and valve chambers opened up, the liners were colored yellow. It was felt that some component of the PRR boiler water didn't agree with N&W lubricants. But there was no failure of the engine due to design or production problems.

Mr. Big Ol' UP Man: If you would remove your head from your nether aperture, learn to read, and go through the literature you'd find some surprising (to you, anyway) data about the 2-6-6-6 and its comparison to the N&W 2-6-6-4. The data is out there; all you have to do is read it, and I'm not going to trouble this list with repeating it.

I did ask you for some data to compare UP's performance with N&W's, but I see you'd rather blather than do the research - oh, I forgot - you'd have to learn to read.

But I remain,

Your buddy, the Redneck Hickabilly Trailer Trash Old Timer.

Oh, yes - being president of the UP today is like being Emperor of the North Pole. But I guess you don't remember Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine, either . . .

[Anonymous]

HA HA Oldtimer, your response is just like I expected from a jealous N&W fan who spends too much time in the trailer park watching Jerry Springer reruns. I doubt those clowns in Roanoke actually designed anything on their own. Inbreds can't think that much. They probably got the designs from Lima or Baldwin by trading moonshine for them.

By the way, as far as eastern locomotives go, the C&O Allegheny was way better than the underpowered crap the N&W had. I bet it just burns you up that the J was no match for a NYC Niagara either. You have spent the last 40 years fuming why nobody likes your hillbilly railroad.

But anyway, have a nice day.

UNION PACIFIC RULES THE RAILROAD WORLD

NORFOLK SOUTHERN "THE INBRED OF TRANSPORTATION"

[jchnhtfd]

Overmod -- someday maybe I'll completely understand the late Chapelon system; it did seem to work and produce decent results! Thanks for some clarification! But the older French compounds... !

The advantages of compounding are what drove shipping to triple and quadruple compounding. They are very real, and I think we all agree on that.

And yes, centre cylinder cranks and big end problems were probably the major factor there; three cylinder engines have certain interesting attractive points.

Quite right about KISS not being the only factor -- by any means! But it sure helps... and, one might note, that it is, in a very real way, the philosophy behind Dilworth and EMD's standardization. It was simple and standard.

[Overmod]

I'm tempted to add something: The Dilworth EMD philosophy was to design ONE locomotive, then modify it as little as possible for the railroad situations it had to deal with. The USRA committee chose the minimum number of standard designs that it felt could get the job done nationwide (leaving only truly special situations open). Seems like that's been the successful approach to locomotive building and dieselization. Even attempts to make "locomotives" via combinations of semipermanent drawbars didn't work as well as the 'MU unit' concept...

Cabless units or their contrapositive, the road slugs, are special cases... but how many of their parts are in common with other diesels? Not special incompatible designs customized... and all too often crippled for other purposes, even on the same railroad, in the process.

[Overmod]

Jamie, the effective control issue is at the heart of the late Chapelon proportioning reservoir. The operating principle is to equalize both the supply and pressure of the steam going to the LP pistons, precisely so that the variation can be minimized to the point you don't need an Ecole Polytechnique degree to run the thing. (Don't be fooled by the way French compounds traditionally required tinkery fiddling to run them! This was different...)

Long and well-established practice proves compounding has advantages with high-pressure steam; advantages with low-pressure steam are there too IF your valve gear doesn't assure long expansion to near-atmospheric pressure in a single cylinder and stroke. Over the full range of operating cutoff and steam mass flow. As you point out, though, it isn't thermodynamic efficiency that rules at the end of the day; it's overall cost per ton-mile, and in-service readiness and reliability.

There are reliable ways to fix a Holcroft/Gresley conjugated v.g. so it works reliably with minimal slop. Neither the Americans nor the British used them. The principal problem with inside-cylinder engines is much more related to cranks and big-end maintenance than it is to valve-gear problems, particularly if you're using cam-activated poppets.

I'm tempted to note that KISS doesn't always produce the lowest cost or the best-operating alternative. Remember that track geometry is part of the cost of running a railroad. There are reasons other than MU and General Motors conspiracies why diesels can make better locomotives... even though more complex and expensive...

[jchnhtfd]

We seem to have gotten a bit off the track here... in places! May I (very gently!) remind folks that, from the engineering standpoint, one defines the problem, in the cases that the N&W and UP boys are going on about, and then determines the solution. In both cases, the problem was how to get a certain type of load from point x to point y most efficiently. The problems, in the two cases above, were radically different (one could say the same thing about the PRR vs. say the Great Northern, also alluded to above!) -- and so the solutions, naturally, were different, too. Both the N&W Y-6b (and its predecessors) and the UP's Challengers and Big Boys were very fine engineering designs, and did what they were intended to do very well indeed. Likewise the GN's superb Northerns and the PRRs equally superb -- but very different -- Pacifics. Don't knock any one of them -- it's a little like saying that a Chevy Corvette is better than a Chevy Silverado (sticking to just one make here, so folks don't get into the Ford/Chevy/Dodge hassle!) because it goes faster, or the other way around, because it hauls more freight. There were very few real dogs in the late steam engine field (there were some real losers earlier, though... but that's another story).

And no one should argue that, in theory, a compound engine (either articulated or on a rigid frame) will be more efficient in terms of fuel used per ton of load hauled. And it is possible to overcome the instability problems of articulated engines with big low pressure pistons. If you have enough money to spend on the design and construction. The problem with compounds is rather fundamental (at least from this PE's benighted standpoint): maintenance and operation. Operation first: to get the best performance out of them, they require a considerable amount of thought and care in operation. You can't just open the throttle and reverse gear and go! As someone noted above, cross-compounds have to be started simple, and shifted over as they gain speed. Most others had a simpling valve to help starting -- they have to be shifted properly. Then the reverser has to be handled just right to get the best cutoff -- in both high and low pressure cylinders -- to ensure that you aren't starving the low pressure cylinders or the high pressure ones -- and this changes constantly with load on the engine. Not that this can't be done, but the question is, can it be done sufficiently consistently to gain the efficiency benefits? Then there is the maintenance problem...

It is worth remembering that one of the great features of North American (and, dare I add, Russian?) style railroading is that the equipment is simple, rugged, and will run forever given pretty simple care. Compounds don't fit that description. Neither, incidentally, do most three cylinder engines (e.g. the UP engine noted above), as the valve gear for most of them was a conjugated motion from the two side valve gears, and any wear in it at all led to horribly unbalanced forces from the three cylinders, with predictably lamentable results.

One of the first things I learned as an apprentice professional engineer -- more decades ago than I care to think about -- was... KISS! (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

[Overmod]

UP829, HP back pressure is a noble thought, but I think misplaced.

Remember that what the HP cylinders "see" is not different from a lower boiler pressure exhausting, say, to 15psi. It's what they're exhausting into that creates some of the problems... but even then, the exhaust is 'cushioned' by the steam pressure in the intermediate pipes. Remember that 'compression' due to early exhaust cutoff is useful for decelerating the mass of the piston and rod, etc.... but also needed so that gas cutting at early opening of the intake valves is minimized.

In any case, back pressure per se isn't likely to be causing problems related to high rod thrust... in most cases I think it would actually reduce their magnitude. Note that the very high peak pressures that were the bane of the Duke of Gloucester (BR 71000) were not explicitly related to back pressure in the sense you mean.

Driver box pounding is addressed through maintenance (and Franklin wedges), and imbalance is inherent in the design of any 2-cylinder double-acting steam locomotive, I think. The quest to reduce back pressure was properly addressed by Chapelon et al., who understood that clearing the exhaust steam properly was a different engineering issue from creating the most 'automatic' draft in the locomotive's front end. A related problem was that you could be 'too good' at optimizing back-pressure reduction; some '40s locomotives (and I recall UP FEF-3s being a notorious example) used so little steam at 80mph in some services that there was insufficient draft for good firing to maintain that steam.

But I think the point of the 'back pressure reduction' keenness was for economy more than performance per se. Note that UP was keen on using exhaust-steam injectors on some of its late power, which don't work well with a back pressure lower than about 10psi gauge (which is about 25psi absolute). What they were "reducing" was the waste in the steam's capability to induce draft -- which is the (somewhat misguided) point of the larger and multiple stacks. There has been some interesting discussion recently concerning the 'best' ways to design a steam-locomotive exhaust and front end (Porta's Kylpor and Lempor designs being examples).

BTW, when you see high-drivered engines spin wheels with a heavy train, it means that smaller drivers MIGHT have made a difference. Very recent article in Trains just argued that evolution of modern steam power would have followed N&W practice (no overbalance with tight lateral compliance on lead and trailing trucks; fairly low drivers; lightweight rods and running gear; good valves and front end) much more than the 80"-drivered 'classical' express locomotive designs. Note that what failed at 115mph on the PRR test plant was the valve drive, and THAT was probably due to unbalanced forces on the valves -- poppets, for example, would have fixed the problem there, even if they introduced other issues elsewhere...

The technical issues of MU control of steamers were solved long ago -- effective ATC for steam locomotives as early as the 1920s essentially contained all the elements required except automatic firing control, and various theoretical designs had solved the latter by about the mid-Thirties. The first problem involves operation with indifferent maintenance (ghastly!); the second problem involves crew acceptance (less than nonexistent... anybody remember how 'sabotage' got its name?); and the third involves legal liability for unattended boilers -- even in states that don't require a licensed person physically next to each boiler.

It's more complicated than you may think to run steam locomotives 'in parallel' via remote. You're constantly adjusting throttle vs. cutoff -- nice as it might be in theory to open the throttle all the way and run the engine entirely via valve adjustments! You really need a computer to accompli***he fine adjustments, but it doesn't have to be a particularly sophisticated one -- an Amplidyne-enabled version of a Valve Pilot is a reasonable first approximation. Then a couple of strain gages in the draft gear front and rear can give you the inputs needed to 'normalize' power...

But would it work reliably day in, day out, regardless of weather, and would it fail safe? Particularly the latter? That was the issue with ATC for over 60 years, and that's really the issue with steam MU control... in a nutshell, the 'big savings' turn out not to be there in the long run, on the bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer

Yes a Big Boy could pull one of those coal drags although the curves on the N&W would be a problem. In Ed King's Classic Trains Steam Glory article on the Y's, he shows that a Big Boy has the same drawbar horespower as a modern Y at 25 mph! But IMO the Challenger types were much better locomotoves than the Big Boys. They could and did haul a coal drag at 10 mph, but could also handle a hot shot refer train, a mail and express train, and even a roads passenger trains. They were like the Dash-9's of the steam era.

And lets not forget that the N&W non-compound A's were basically a home grown version of a Challenger. Also the J wasn't a compund 4-4-4-4, so even N&W knew there was something incompatible between the compound design and higher speeds.

I don't claim to know the answer, but I'm beginning to suspect back-pressure in the high pressure cylinders may have been responsible for driver pounding that virtually every road who tried them encountered at speeds over 25-30 mph. I can find no direct references to support that, but the builders and various railroads were very keen on reducing back pressure in the super-steam locos. N.P. in particular had to run more back pressure than they would have liked in the Yellowstones & Challengers because the lightweight coal they used would lift off the grates with too much draft. Company dyno tests and performance data in the book "Northern Pacific Supersteam" show a clear loss of horsepower and they talk about driver box pounding and hard running as a result of back pressure. U.P. went on a virtual quest to reduce back pressure. The large Sweeney stacks on the modernized older power and the double stacks on the Northerns, Challengers, and Big Boys were U.P.'s way to do it without creating so much draft the coal was sucked off the grates.

Unfortunately all of these monster engines were about as big as was practical to build without rebuilding major portions of the railroads. I don't think there was significantly more H.P. or T.E to be gotten and I've also seen plenty of video where a high drivered Northern, Challenger or Big Boy could spin it's wheels with a heavy train, so lower gearing in the form of smaller drivers wouldn't have made much difference. One feature of the diesels that really killed steam was the MU cable. Maybe instead of bigger locos, the steam builders should have figured out how to MU the operation and firing of multiple engines???? Maybe they tried???

[Overmod]

Guys, the question had, and still has, to do with compound articulated locomotives (I follow DPM and JDI in reserving "Mallet" for compounds).

BTW, my comments on 'hunting' were intended to apply to Mallets with the LP engine in front, with the large piston mass and thrust characteristics causing the problem. A simple articulated, particularly with lightweight running gear, doesn't have as much problem, and I might note that modern practice (including Jabelmann's locomotives) took vertical play out of the hinge joint between the engines, which helps damp out the rolling component of any hunting tendency.

There's no call to po-mouth the N&W just because UP had good late-era steam designs, and not much reason to disparage UP power in revenge. I've always thought that an A class could hold its own anywhere UP ran Challengers... provided the Fabreeka springs were in that two-wheel lead truck, of course... which is not to disparage the Challengers. The contrary situation is easily proved of course... both 3985 and the Pocahontas Division are still there; the only problem would be to bring them together... but the A's did their best work on the west end and on passenger. And are not compounds.

Something to remember is that some of the late French work with 'practical' compounds came too late to influence effective practice in North America -- heck, in a railroad world that rejected Franklin poppet valve gear (a far greater contributor to efficient locomotive operation than compounding, given the relatively low practical steam pressure that can be carried in conventional firetube boilers when long-term maintenance is a recognized operating cost) what chance would proportionally-balanced IP steam injection have?

American Mallets, from Muhlfeld's forward, usually had a simpling valve that allowed HP steam (often through some form of restriction) enter the LP cylinders for starting. You find this kind of arrangement mandatory on something like a von Borries cross-compound (the thing wouldn't start if near a dead center on the HP side!). A point to remember was that high steam demand would call for this valve to be closed long before heavy lateral thrust would be causing stability or track problems, at least with 'typical' boilers and drafting as used on Mallets in their heyday.

The very late improvements on the N&W included front-end design (demonstrably better than anything UP had, btw)... but even so, the "Y7" follow-on was a simple articulated, not a Mallet...

[Anonymous]

Oh, Mr. Big Ol' UP -

While were on the subject, I heard a rumor the other day - from a reliable source knowledgable about the industry - that the Big Ol' UP was contracting out the haulage of some hot LA-Chicago container traffic, because of capacity and power shortage problems. What's disturbing is that Big Ol' UP was contracting this work out to TRUCKERS.

Now, I'm sure that it's not true, but would you check on it and let us know?

- YF,THTT Ol' Timer

[Anonymous]

Wa'al Hidy, Mr. Big Ol' UP!

Glad I could provide some fodder for your first post!

Now, I wasn't born yesterday; I know a little about rail history and other railroads besides UP. And I know something about hauling tonnage. And I've observed something of railroads over the years that believed their own press clippings.

Of these, the two that share first place are your Big Ol' UP and the Standard of the World PRR. Others include the old C&O and the Wabash.

Now, here's what I want you to do. Take a look at your UP and its steam power and, in your mind, take those Big Boys and Challengers down to that piddling little N&W and put it on their grades and curves and tell it that it had to move 5000 loads of coal every day, five days a week, over that minor-league layout, plus bring enough empties back to load tomorrow, plus haul a good mix of passenger trains and time freights, and see what you could do with it. While you're at it, take your big 800s down there and tell me how they'd do getting a 15-car Pelican out of Marion, Va. on a rainy December night, on its curves and upgrade; or how it would do picking its train back up to track speed after slowing down for the 25MPH curve on Bluefield Mountain.

Then go and add up the Big Ol' Uncle Pete's common stock dividends for the period 1901-1982 and tell all of us how much it was. Then, go back in your Railway Age magazines where they printed the operating statistics of all the railroads, and tell me how badly the Big Ol' UP beat the piddling li'l N&W every time in such things as Gross Ton Miles per Train Hour and operating ratio.

I know, there ain't no urgency hauling coal, but if you don't get the 5000 loads out of the way that they loaded today and get them 5000 empties back to the mines, they won't have anything to load tomorrow and you won't have any place to put it if they do.

Now, Big Ol' UP man, I haven't been out west for quite a while, but I do know how to read. And if your Big Ol' UP has done a bang up job assimilating the CNW and the SP and satisfying all its customers, as well as competing with the BNSF, they've done a heckuva job hiding it from the press.

- your friend, the Hickabilly Trailer Trash Ol' Timer

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MR UP

On the contrary, Oldtimer, it is you who is blathering on about a railroad that nobody outside of trailer park in Appalachia even cares about. Even using N&W and the mighty UP in the same sentence is a joke. The UP’s history, national importance, and motive power is legendary. The N&W was nothing more than a glorified conveyer belt of dirty eastern coal from even dirtier mining towns. The mountain grades you glorify are an even bigger joke. You call 9 miles of 1% grade a mountain? No wonder they got away with using those outdated compounds. I think it is you who needs to take some time and come out west and see what real mountain railroading is about. You can blab all the figures you want, but nothing you say will ever put the N&W in the same league as the UP.

In 10 years, the UP will still be around. The NS will be long gone, absorbed into some western road, its history and management forever forgotten.

Every railroad that wasn't forced to live on hand-me-downs bought and/or built the locomotives that would do the job that needed doing. It is useless to try to compare them within the contexts in which they worked. As has been mentioned in other threads, and in the trade press, even a railroad's "signature" locomotive may not have been suitable for the entire railroad. NKP's Berks were restricted to the eastern end of the road. Challengers and Big Boys rarely strayed off their usual haunts.

As for UP still being around in 10 years - that will be decided in the board rooms. If the powers that be decide that the next big merger should create a new railroad, we may be grousing about "Union Southern..." History argues against that route, but you can never tell...

[Anonymous]

On the contrary, Oldtimer, it is you who is blathering on about a railroad that nobody outside of trailer park in Appalachia even cares about. Even using N&W and the mighty UP in the same sentence is a joke. The UP’s history, national importance, and motive power is legendary. The N&W was nothing more than a glorified conveyer belt of dirty eastern coal from even dirtier mining towns. The mountain grades you glorify are an even bigger joke. You call 9 miles of 1% grade a mountain? No wonder they got away with using those outdated compounds. I think it is you who needs to take some time and come out west and see what real mountain railroading is about. You can blab all the figures you want, but nothing you say will ever put the N&W in the same league as the UP.

In 10 years, the UP will still be around. The NS will be long gone, absorbed into some western road, its history and management forever forgotten.

[Modelcar]

.....Must have been real railroad people that knew what had to be done and accomplished after the merger.

[daveklepper]

The Norfolk and Western and Southern merger was one of the smoothest and least troublesome of any of the major railroads.

[Modelcar]

...PS: Along the same lines of engines....Referirng to similar design [articulated], engines can anyone talk a bit of the type of sealing that was used in the joint where front and rear engine would pivot on a curve and require a pivot in the steam supply line to the cylinders. Was it some sort of ball joint with some kind of seal or perhaps just a tight fitting steel ball and joint....?

[Modelcar]

....The question of compound design engines using steam from one steam cylinder to the next has alwasys been a question in my mind as well as some others in above posts. Couldn't imagine the "used" steam being routed to the larger cylinders to be "used" again without having a bunch of back pressure in the process and losing almost what they gained....I do remember seeing some of the compounds in action and those front cylinder boxes were huge in size...! Interesting question and comments above.

[daveklepper]

Don't forget that some of the old C&O compound Mallets lasted in mine rund service as long as the much younger Allegainies on the main line. Also, didn't some compounds, possibly the N&W's Y-5's and Y-6's, have a valve that allowed supplimenting second-hand steam with direct injection for certain operating conditions? I seem to remember reading that, but it was a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

Quoth GP40-2: "Well guess what, the PRR never missed a dividend payment to its shareholders, even during the Great Depression. Can the N&W or any other RR say that???"

Well, yes.

Here's a little information that may interest you:

N&W was reorganized out of bankruptcy in 1896, and began paying dividends on its common stock in 1901. It paid dividends on its common every year, not missing even a quarterly, until its merger with the Southern in 1982.

The total amount paid, from the Annual Reports to the Stockholders, was $1,970,378,285.81. That's $1.97 Billion. With a B.

In 1900-1901, PRR paid $17.9 Million (with an M) for 39% of N&W's common stock, which it held until forced to divest in 1964 because of the N&W's mergers, and the Penn Central merger. Residual payments continued on a decreasing basis until completed in 1974.

Adding up 39% of N&W's annual dividends for each year from 1901 to 1974 means that the PRR received a total of $406,676,041.98 from the N&W. A nice return for a $17.9 million investment, don't you think?

Now, during the years 1930-1940 - that covers the Depression, you may remember - the dividends paid the Pennsy by the N&W totalled $73,859,152.38. Lore has it, but I haven't been able to confirm it, that in one of those depression years the PRR made no money on its own operations, but paid its own stockholders the same amount that N&W paid it that year. So if the PRR "never missed a dividend payment to its shareholders" it has the N&W to thank.

Now, here's another point for you to ponder. After the N&W dividends were withheld after 1964 with just a shrinking stipend to be paid until 1974, how fast did the PC go into the toilet? Post war, 1946 to 1964, N&W's payments to the PRR totalled $193,856, 647.19.

N&W's Annual Reports for its entire corporate existence - 1896-1982 - are available from the N&WHS on CDRom. If you care to confirm this information, go ahead and buy the CDRom and add them up for yourself. If you would blather about N&W's dividends, it would be nice if you knew what you were blathering about.

I'd like to hear from somebody from the C&O or UP with information about what dividends they paid during the same periods.

Remember. That's $1.97 Billion. With a B.

Old Timer

[GP40-2]

"It's just that I suspect the steam departments at many Class I roads were a whole lot smarter than many steam buffs give them credit for."

I'm with you on that, UP829.

I always get a laugh when steam buffs harp on the Pennsylvania RR for their "boring" fleet of 4-6-2 K4 Pacifics and 4-8-2 M1 Mountains. "What a bunch of fools" they say.

Well guess what, the PRR never missed a dividend payment to its shareholders, even during the Great Depression. Can the N&W or any other RR say that???

[GP40-2]

UP829 said:

"It's interesting to speculate what a Yellowstone could have done on eastern coal"

They did, it was called the B&O EM1.

Fantastic locomotive. They could drag freight up the nearly 3% grades on the West End, and cruise at 70+ mph on flatter sections. The B&O even used them in passenger service on occasion!

They were so well designed and free rolling, 3 men could pu***hem on level track in spite of their 126 foot length and nearly 1.1 million pound weight.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer

Another thing people often forget in comparing these locos is the difference between eastern & western coal. One reason for those big boilers and 4 wheel training trucks on western engines was to support the jumbo fireboxes needed to burn the stuff. The BTU output was lower, it burned slower and cooler, and with too much draft it would get sucked out of the stack. A U.P Allegheny would need an 8 wheel training truck, an even bigger boiler, and they'd have to bore out the tunnels. It's interesting to speculate what a Yellowstone could have done on eastern coal, but the reality was both U.P. amd N.P. owned their own coal mines and that's what the locos were designed to burn. Besides the Yellowstone and first series Challengers had built-up frames, no roller bearings and the running gear wouldn't take higher speeds.

The later Challengers and Big Boys did have running gear set up and balanced for higher speeds and there are quite a few anecdotal stories of Big Boys going 80 and Northerns hitting 130 on tangents downgrade with a tailwind [:)] It's more likely the running gear was done that way to reduce wear and tear at more typical speeds of 60 & 100 respectively.

The compounds U.P. borrowed were N&W USRA 2-8-8-2's. They quickly ended up in MOW service. The C&O simple 2-8-8-2's fared only slightly better. The compound 2-8-8-0's were U.P.s own, plus the Harriman roads had plenty of experience with the S.P. compound mallets, which were all simpled. Also St Paul to Livingston on the N.P. is 1006 miles, the only service stops were for coal & water.

My point is that N&W wasn't the only road with 'smart' steam people. As mentioned, U.P. owned their own coal mines so there was plenty of motivation to experiment and I think you'll find they did quite a bit including the coal turbines. They didn't build their own in-house but were always heavily involved with the designs. If such a compound would have been the answer to their prayers, they would have considered it. Another factor that killed steam on the western roads was bad water, particularly on the far western districts. Those were the first to get diesels, so the roads found out first hand what they could do. But don't get me wrong - I love steam, Big Boys, Challengers, Alleghenys, Y6bs, Niagras, right down to lowly 280's and yard goats. It's just that I suspect the steam departments at many Class I roads were a whole lot smarter than many steam buffs give them credit for.

[GP40-2]

At this point, it's an academic question only. N&W could of made all the "improvements" they wanted to their steam power, but the end result would be the same. A one way trip to the scrap yard.

[Anonymous]

Quoth GP40-2: "The old N&W made most of its money by hualing coal down hill from the coal fields to the tide water. You could make a tidy profit from this type of operation using just about any type of locomotive."

Beg to differ, forty. N&W had three mountains to deal with on the main line: Elkhorn, which was a maximum of 2% before 1950, 1.4 after that; Alleghany, which was 9 miles of 1%, and Blue Ridge, which was 1.2%. There were others on major coal-producing branches. Making money hauling coal downhill was a myth, propagated by people who either didn't know what they were talking about or had their own reasons to belittle the N&W's accomplishments. What are your reasons?

At the end of steam, N&W's mines were producing about 5000 cars of coal per day, 5 days per week. A little more than half of that went east, over those three mountains; the rest went west, over a couple of hills between the coal fields and connections at Columbus. How would you deal with that?

King has never said that a Y-6 as configured would be the answer to everybody's questions. But he did say that a compound with, say, 63" drivers, and all the improvements incorporated in the Y-6, might be. And don't forget - the Y-6's boiler was about the same size as a UP 800s; and it weighed 80 tons less than Big Boy.

But nobody except the N&W ever tried. You flatly say that the compounds would be too slow getting back down the mountains, but you're talking about UP and B&O 2-8-8-0s and others that the steam gurus gave up on. You refuse to consider that a higher drivered compound with a low-restriction Low Pressure exhaust system could have done the job, and that if it could, it would have used a lot less fuel and water in so doing.

The Y-6 was designed for N&W. N&W had curvature to cope with, as well as grades.

Do you think Big Boy could have done the job on the N&W? First of all, he'd need an extra joint to get him around N&W's curves.

You talk about the Western engines having to make those long runs, and run fast between the mountains. How long did they run between servicing stops? Did they run farther than the 150 miles from Roanoke to Bristol? How fast did they run between the mountains? Fast enough for the Big Boy to really NEED to be good for 80MPH?

Oh, and if you really believe that N&W made money hauling coal down hill, read King's story about getting them up the hill in April 2004 TRAINS. If you're still not convinced, give me about a week's notice and I'll meet you in Williamson, W. Va. and take you on a little tour.

Old Timer

[GP40-2]

The Y6b had a downward spiral of HP above 30 mph. End of story.

The N&W choices of steam locomotives might have helped their profits on the MARGIN, but they, by themselves, did not create all those years of profits. The old N&W made most of its money by hualing coal down hill from the coal fields to the tide water. You could make a tidy profit from this type of operation using just about any type of locomotive. The N&W escaped, for the most part, the de-industrialization and loss of traffic that crippled many of the other eastern roads. If the N&W had the same traffic mix and loss of business as the PRR, it would of suffered the same fate regardless of the Class A, Y, and J locomotives.

UP829 is dead on right. While the N&W locomotives might of been a good choice for their type of operation, they would not work the same way for other railroads. Not only for western roads, but even other eastern roads such as the PRR, NYC, B&O etc who hualed a lot of fast freight. A fleet of plodding Y6b's would be a disaster in that type of operation. To simply say "Follow the N&W lead to make money" concerning the Y6b is down right false. Many other RR's would of lost even MORE money on steam operations using the Y6b.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. The steam locomotive was doomed for many reasons as soon as the first diesel-electric hit the rails in revenue service.