N & W The Norfolk and Western

[Murphy Siding]

Did the Norfolk & Western have some sort of classification system that corresponded to what they called a steam locomotive? Y6, J,S1etc...what do they mean?
Thanks.

[Anonymous]

N&W's class letters did not correspond with what they called steam locomotives; nor did PRRs, Southern's, C&Os, NYCs . . .

There were railroads such as the MoP that tried to relate classes to names, usually with a number following that indicated the size of the driving wheels; a 63"-drivered Mikado was an Mk-63, etc. The UP had a letter classification using the first letter of the number of wheels with a number following denoting the chronological order of the acquisition; an original 800-series Northern was an FEF-1. A Big Boy was an FEEF-1 or -2.

But the N&W used the entire alphabet for class letters over the years; there were three class As, three class Js, two Ks, two Ms, etc. (not at the same time; the original class Js were all gone before the second ones were obtained, and they were all gone before the Northerns came). Often but not always locomotives of a given wheel arrangement were grouped under one class letter; Y included all the 2-8-8-2s in the various subclasses, but there were 2-8-0s in classes B, F, G, I, and W. Rarest of all on the N&W was the class L, which included just three Roanoke-built 4-6-0s.

The PRR used class letters much the same way; the ATSF didn't use class letters at all.

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

OK, I'm more confused. Why did they decide to call something a "J" or a "Y" class?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Asketh Murphy Siding:

"OK, I'm more confused. Why did they decide to call something a "J" or a "Y" class?"

In some cases, it's hard to say. When the Js were built, there were lower sequential letters available, but the letter J had been used for fast passenger engines before (the first ones were 4-4-0s, the second were 79"-drivered 4-4-2s) so that might have been the motivation.

In the case of the Y, the first experimental Mallets were obtained in 1910 and they were assigned to the lowest class letters available, which were X and Y (W's were a large group of 2-8-0s). The 5 0-8-8-0s were assigned the class X-1, the 5 2-8-8-2s were made Y-1. When the first of 190 2-6-6-2s were obtained in 1912, they were assigned the next letter, which was Z and were thus Z-1. N&W was not consistent in assigning numbers to the first examples of a class. All three series of Js were just Js (except the wartime J-1s later reclassed) and all three series of As were just As. But the first Mountains of 1916 were K-1s even though the original Ks had been off the roster for some years. The first M 4-8-0s of 1906 were just Ms; one might have expected them to be M-1s because there had been an earlier class M 4-4-0.

But the N&W fan just considers these to be endearing eccentricities . . .

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

Wow, those N & W people had a sense of humor.[:)] So, if one N&W is talking to another N & W fan about, for example, a "J", is it neccessary to differentiate between J's? ( "The J's of '06, were superior to the J's of '21!") It makes me think of a football team, where most of the players are named Mike,Ron,or David. Thanks for the info!
I can see you're a N&W fan, did you also work for N&W at one time?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

On most roads in the steam era, the class letter specified a specific wheel arrangement. PRR after 1900 was pretty well set in this matter: A=0-4-0, B=0-6-0, C=0-8-0, E=4-4-2, K=4-6-2, etc. Since most of PRR's pre-WW2 electrics had steam-type running gear, their class letters also used the corresponding steam letters.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Asketh Murphy Siding:

"OK, I'm more confused. Why did they decide to call something a "J" or a "Y" class?"

In some cases, it's hard to say. When the Js were built, there were lower sequential letters available, but the letter J had been used for fast passenger engines before (the first ones were 4-4-0s, the second were 79"-drivered 4-4-2s) so that might have been the motivation.

In the case of the Y, the first experimental Mallets were obtained in 1910 and they were assigned to the lowest class letters available, which were X and Y (W's were a large group of 2-8-0s). The 5 0-8-8-0s were assigned the class X-1, the 5 2-8-8-2s were made Y-1. When the first of 190 2-6-6-2s were obtained in 1912, they were assigned the next letter, which was Z and were thus Z-1. N&W was not consistent in assigning numbers to the first examples of a class. All three series of Js were just Js (except the wartime J-1s later reclassed) and all three series of As were just As. But the first Mountains of 1916 were K-1s even though the original Ks had been off the roster for some years. The first M 4-8-0s of 1906 were just Ms; one might have expected them to be M-1s because there had been an earlier class M 4-4-0.

But the N&W fan just considers these to be endearing eccentricities . . .

Old Timer

When N&W dieselized, did they ghive diesels N&W *names(?)*, or was a GP9 simply called a GP9? It seemed like some of the other railroads gave company designations to diesels that were different than what the builder called them. Sometimes, when I see a picture of a PRR ALCO diesel,for example, it wil have a DL305 designation verses an RS11 designation. (Note: I made up those numbers as an example.)

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Some railroads in the diesel era also had a class system. Most were roughly based on builder, wheel arrangement and horsepower. PRR, NYC, EL, CN, MILW, SP and perhaps others used variations of this system. Others used the builders models.

Alco and FM had two sets of numbers for their locomotives, the model number (RS1, S6, RSD35, H16-44, CFA16-4, etc) and the specification number (DL and E series on Alcos and ALT series on FM's).

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Some railroads in the diesel era also had a class system. Most were roughly based on builder, wheel arrangement and horsepower. PRR, NYC, EL, CN, MILW, SP and perhaps others used variations of this system. Others used the builders models.

Alco and FM had two sets of numbers for their locomotives, the model number (RS1, S6, RSD35, H16-44, CFA16-4, etc) and the specification number (DL and E series on Alcos and ALT series on FM's).

What's the difference between a model number, and a specification number?

Back to N & W: By waiting to dieselize, they were probably able to wait and see what worked and what didn't. Did they buy only EMDs?
Thanks

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Some railroads in the diesel era also had a class system. Most were roughly based on builder, wheel arrangement and horsepower. PRR, NYC, EL, CN, MILW, SP and perhaps others used variations of this system. Others used the builders models.

Alco and FM had two sets of numbers for their locomotives, the model number (RS1, S6, RSD35, H16-44, CFA16-4, etc) and the specification number (DL and E series on Alcos and ALT series on FM's).

What's the difference between a model number, and a specification number?

Back to N & W: By waiting to dieselize, they were probably able to wait and see what worked and what didn't. Did they buy only EMDs?
Thanks

N&W was a big buyer of Alco diesels, it was also fortunate to miss almost completely the 244 engine era of Alcos. They owned models RS3,T-6, RS11, RS36, C420, C628, and C630 bought new. They inherited other Alco models as well as FM through merger.

Regarding the Alco specification numbers, they would change even if the model didn't when for example the model of main generator changed or when the RS2 when from air-cooled turbo to water cooled turbo. There were some oddities in Alco use of spec. numbers. The DL600 was model RSD-7 with a 2250 hp 244F
engine, the DL600A was a model RSD-7 with a 2400 hp. 244G engine, seems ok so far but, the DL600B was a model RSD-15 with a 2400 hp. 251B. Strange.

[Murphy Siding]

FM through merger with The Virginian railroad?

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

FM through merger with The Virginian railroad?

Yes, plus some Trainmasters from the Waba***hat had an Alco heart transplant.

[Anonymous]

Asketh Murphy Siding:

"So, if one N&W is talking to another N & W fan about, for example, a "J", is it neccessary to differentiate between J's? ( "The J's of '06, were superior to the J's of '21!") "

No. If fans are discussing J's other than the 4-8-4s, or A's other than the 2-6-6-4s they'll specify in the conversation; otherwise it's assumed they're talking about the last examples using the class letter. The two A 0-6-2T switchers came in 1883 and were gone by 1899; the five A 4-6-0s came in 1902 and 1904 and were gone by 1928; the 2-6-6-4s started in 1936. The four J 4-4-0s came in 1879 as Shenandoah Valley locomotives and were gone by 1900; the seven J 4-4-2s came in 1902-1904 and were gone by 1935; the 4-8-4s started in 1941. So there was no overlap in either letter.

The most difficult thing with N&W classes is getting folks to realize that every N&W 2-8-8-2 wasn't a Y-6b.

They didn't have any names or classes for diesels other than those of the builders.

They also got FMs from the P&WV and, I believe, the AC&Y as well as the VGN. The Wabash re-engined TMs were all used up and out of service by the time of the merger; both WAB and NKP had some FM switchers, as I recall.

I did have a short career with N&W back in the dark ages.

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

I had forgotten about Wabash having FM's. I presume N&W shed themselves of the FM's pretty quickly?

[Anonymous]

Sayeth Murphy Siding"

"I had forgotten about Wabash having FM's. I presume N&W shed themselves of the FM's pretty quickly?"

Not overly. Wabash and NKP power was in pretty good shape, and the engines had some useful hours left in them. The replacements would have to have been Geeps, etc. A couple of the ex-Virginian H16-44s showed up at Decatur Yard in 1966, but I don't remember seeing them working.

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

Some of the info I've read on other threads about N&W leave me curious. The steam/diesel thread talks of N&W merging (as in taking over) Virginian and Nickel Plate,by virtue of being the stronger, healthier road. I think it was suggested that N&W was in such good financial shape at the time, that the railroad simply *bought* the other roads. Now, the info I found for today's(Jan. 1st) today in railroad history thread makes it sound as if Southern merged N&W. Was this so? I had always thought N&W was the dominate road? After all, it's not the "Southern & Norfolk".[;)]
Thanks

[Anonymous]

Murph: They were both very well run and profitable roads to start with and had been amicable neighbors for quite some time. You might check Railway Age Magazine's (January 2005) Railroader of the year 2005 on Mr. David Goode the soon to be, if not already retired, Chairman of the NS. He gives a good thumbnail sketch of that merger of equals as well as the adventure (if you can call it that) on their latest merger when they (NS) absorbed a little more than half of Conrail.

[Anonymous]

Murph:

The N&W had coveted the VGN's easy grades over Alleghany Mountain (0.6% compared with N&W's 1.0%) and its skirting of Blue Ridge Mountain by following the Roanoke River (VGN's grade was 0.2% up to Abilene, Va., compared to Blue Ridge's 1.2%). An unsuccessful attempt was made to merge during the '20's. By 1959 the merger climate in the US showed signs of becoming more favorable, and VGN's stockholders (by then their majority stockholder was Koppers Co., I believe) were worried about their coal reserves running out. So the merger was effected, and the combined company immediately built connections at strategic locations and began to reap operating savings because of the easier grades.

The next five years showed a perceived need to diversify N&W's traffic base and get more merchandise traffic. In 1964 N&W merged with the NKP, leased the WAB for 99 years (I believe) and absorbed the P&WV and the AC&Y. N&W bought PRR's Columbus-Sandusky line for $111 million to connect the former N&W properties with the NKP at Bellevue. The combined system was more profitable, and the wisdom of the action was proven when the coal business went to heck in the 80s (it shows signs of rebounding now).

The N&W-SOU merger of 1982 came about because of the necessity to survive in a world with a monstrous CSX in it. The 1982 merger took the name of the old regional carrier Norfolk Southern.

As a sidelight, N&W and ATSF held merger talks around 1980, and a good friend of mine who worked for the Santa Fe (when it was disclosed that the N&W would be the dominant corporate entity) griped that it would be like "the tail wagging the dog". I told him that the N&W had a billion or so in the bank, and if it was a tail it could wag not only the ATSF but a lot of third world countries . . .

Old Timer

[ValleyX]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

that the railroad simply *bought* the other roads. Now, the info I found for today's(Jan. 1st) today in railroad history thread makes it sound as if Southern merged N&W. Was this so? I had always thought N&W was the dominate road? After all, it's not the "Southern & Norfolk".[;)]
Thanks

For clarification, that was Norfolk Southern, what we would now call a regional carrier, that operated south out of Norfolk, VA, into the Carolinas. The merger between the N&W and the Southern happened on June 1, 1982, and they took the old name, after considering several others. I've seen a list and don't remember any of them but some of them didn't sound much like railroad names.

[BigJim]

Another way N&W folks spoke of engines between themselves was by the "Hunerd" system! The A's were 12 Hunerds, the J's were 6 Hunerds, the Y's were 20 or 21 Hunerds, the SD45's were 17 or 18 Hunerds and so on and so forth [;)]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ValleyX

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

that the railroad simply *bought* the other roads. Now, the info I found for today's(Jan. 1st) today in railroad history thread makes it sound as if Southern merged N&W. Was this so? I had always thought N&W was the dominate road? After all, it's not the "Southern & Norfolk".[;)]
Thanks

For clarification, that was Norfolk Southern, what we would now call a regional carrier, that operated south out of Norfolk, VA, into the Carolinas. The merger between the N&W and the Southern happened on June 1, 1982, and they took the old name, after considering several others. I've seen a list and don't remember any of them but some of them didn't sound much like railroad names.

You mean something goofy, like: NSX ?[;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by ValleyX

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

that the railroad simply *bought* the other roads. Now, the info I found for today's(Jan. 1st) today in railroad history thread makes it sound as if Southern merged N&W. Was this so? I had always thought N&W was the dominate road? After all, it's not the "Southern & Norfolk".[;)]
Thanks

For clarification, that was Norfolk Southern, what we would now call a regional carrier, that operated south out of Norfolk, VA, into the Carolinas. The merger between the N&W and the Southern happened on June 1, 1982, and they took the old name, after considering several others. I've seen a list and don't remember any of them but some of them didn't sound much like railroad names.

You mean something goofy, like: NSX ?[;)]

WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT[B)][;)][(-D]

[nanaimo73]

How did the N&W manage to design the A, J and Y ?
Did they get a lot of help from Alco, Baldwin and Lima ?

[PBenham]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

How did the N&W manage to design the A, J and Y ?
Did they get a lot of help from Alco, Baldwin and Lima ?

They most certainly did talk to the big three builders,but the builders knew that they weren't going to get any orders from N&W, so they likely did not tell them very much. But, N&W had very highly skilled design engineers, some of whom had talents equal to that available at any of the commercial builders. The performance of the As, Js and Y5/6s are all the proof one needs to prove their design engineers skills!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PBenham

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

How did the N&W manage to design the A, J and Y ?
Did they get a lot of help from Alco, Baldwin and Lima ?

They most certainly did talk to the big three builders,but the builders knew that they weren't going to get any orders from N&W, so they likely did not tell them very much. But, N&W had very highly skilled design engineers, some of whom had talents equal to that available at any of the commercial builders. The performance of the As, Js and Y5/6s are all the proof one needs to prove their design engineers skills!

In short, If you can design it, build it and run it yourself: Do it

[samfp1943]

This is really interesting stuff for a "kid" that grew up at the "end of track" on the Southern Rwy's Forest Yard in Memphis. It provided my earliest railfanning from benches at Buntyn Station and at the Fire Station at Southern and Parkway.

The best part of this is there has been a real discussion and the forum does not look like the aftermath of Shiloh. Thanks [^]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

How did the N&W manage to design the A, J and Y ?
Did they get a lot of help from Alco, Baldwin and Lima ?

Do I take it that N&W built ALL their own steam locos?

[feltonhill]

Based on workpapers in the files at the N&WHS archives, N&W was very aware of what was going on in the industry. There are records of many specifications sheets, articles from RME, and comparisons of various type of locomotives from other railroads. N&W was not an ostrich in any sense of the word. They even hosted reknowned French designer Andre Chapelon in the very late 1930's. He was very impressed with the Y6's performance (documented in this book La Locomotive a Vapeur, Engli***ranslation currently available). N&W covered a lot broader swath of knowledge than most people know.

N&W got virtually no help from any of the major builders in the US. They didn't need it. N&W had very specific operating conditions, and knew enough to design locomotives to exactly match what its operation required. This is one of the reasons they were so successful with steam power.

In 1936 there was no high-speed freight locomotive with the power requirements N&W wanted. So they designed the A.

At about the same time, they had found over the preceeding 15 years or so, that the USRA compound 2-8-8-2 had qualities they needed, but had a downside they wanted to avoid. So they designed the Y6 and kept tinkering with it until they had the ultimate compound 2-8-8-2, the Y6b. The improvememnts developed in its design were retrofitted to the Y5, Y6 and Y6a, so all the modern 2-8-8-2's were essentially equivalent in performance and operating efficiency.

PBenham's reference was right on the money.

In 1940 there was no commmercialy available passenger loco that would match what it needed. So N&W designed the J. It had lots of low speed dig and git, plus the ability to sprint to 90 mph or so when the situation demanded.

As far as N&W's modern power is concerned, yes, they built all of their locomotives (Y5, Y6, Y6a, Y6b, A, J, S1a). They also built a lot of the older power. They even designed and built their own whistles. Hooters, that is, not the post-war passenger jobs. They were off-the-shelf from Hancock.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by feltonhill
N&W had very specific operating conditions, and knew enough to design locomotives to exactly match what its operation required.

Does this also mean, that in the late 40's/early 50's, when every other railroad was racing to get rid of steam,N&W didn't or couldn't buy up good, used steamers?

[Anonymous]

Murph: With all due respect, I would only ask Why would a successfull railroad doing things on its own so well do something like that?????If what I have read about the N&W in the 40's and 50's the so called good and used steamers posessed neither the qualities or met the requirements that were wanted or appropriate for their operating environment. As Ed King has alluded to in his writings. For the N&W (Steam Glory from Classic Trains) Pretty was not important and what the other builders equipment did not matter to them. What mattered was making money and they did their own way with their own locomotives, run for their railroad, on their own operating requirements and their own terms not owing any other builder the credit for doing what they knew how to build and do better than anyone else. That was making money and that they did quite well. By the way that tradition continues today with NS keeping locomotives repaired, rebuilt and running on its own from its own shops with their own people for their own purposes and uses, ie making money. - PL