N & W The Norfolk and Western

[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

[Murphy Siding]

What I meant, was, were all the steamers built by N&W so *route specific* , that even if they could buy good, used steam, at pennies on the dollar, it wouldn't have worked? I would have thought that somewhere, there were steamers that would have been applicable on N&W that went to the scrapper?

[BigJim]

QUOTE: if they could buy good, used steam, at pennies on the dollar, it wouldn't have worked?

Actually Murh, they did just that. They bought the C&O's 0-8-0's. They liked them so much that they went on to copy the design and the last steam engine built for a Class 1 RR was N&W 0-8-0 #244.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigJim

QUOTE: if they could buy good, used steam, at pennies on the dollar, it wouldn't have worked?

Actually Murh, they did just that. They bought the C&O's 0-8-0's. They liked them so much that they went on to copy the design and the last steam engine built for a Class 1 RR was N&W 0-8-0 #244.

Said by the man that knows - PL

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigJim

QUOTE: if they could buy good, used steam, at pennies on the dollar, it wouldn't have worked?

Actually Murh, they did just that. They bought the C&O's 0-8-0's. They liked them so much that they went on to copy the design and the last steam engine built for a Class 1 RR was N&W 0-8-0 #244.

I figured C&O would have had at least some similar topography that would have produced similar steam designs.

[ValleyX]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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 [;)]

Give me three 1700's and stand back, course, there was always that low speed rock, especially with that long hood leading, right, Big Jim?

[Anonymous]

Testifieth Big Jim:

"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 ."

Actually, if you got an ol' South Side Virginian with a head full of snot, it sounded more like "honnids".

Dave Ingles of trains had a discussion some years ago about how C&O guys pronounced the name of their 2700-series 2-8-4 Kanawhas. Several folks weighed in with their versions (Kan-aw, Kan-aw-ah, Kan-aw-y, etc.), but the one that ended the discussion was the guy who said what they really called them was "twenny-seven-hunnerds" (no South Side Virginians there).

Murph sayeth: "I figured C&O would have had at least some similar topography that would have produced similar steam designs."

C&O bought engines not designed to fulfill the same requirements as N&W. According to Hrsimaki's history of Lima Locomotive Works and Dr. E. L. Huddleston's various writings, the famous 2-6-6-6 was actually designed to make a name for its designers, the vaunted Advisory Mechanical Committee - they wanted the reputation for designing
the most "horsepowerful" steam locomotive ever. They did it. But considerations of profitability for the C&O didn't seem to enter into the picture, and C&O's management evidently didn't know the difference.

This was the big difference; N&W's top managements (Presidents, etc.) up until 1957 were all guys who had had experience in the operating and other departments. C&O's top managers were lawyers, and not even located on line (Cleveland). They'd buy anything the AMC told them was good. They scored well with the 2-10-4s of 1930 and their 4-8-4s, but the World's Heaviest Hudsons looked a little out of place on a coal road, and the 2-6-6-6s were very expensive and very heavy and were out of place on Allegheny Mountain, which is where they were first used.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

Well said Old Timer, testimony of a truthfull sort is always a refreshing occurance. - PL

[beaulieu]

One thing a lot of younger fans don't understand is how important the Railroad's own mechanical personel were in the design of new Steam Locomotives. The most important new designs in the Twentieth Century were all designed by Railroad Mechanical staff rather than the Locomotive Builders. Both Alco's A. W. Bruce and Lima's Will Woodard contributed good ideas to locomotive design, but it was Railroad Chief Mechanical Officers and their staffs who created the signature locomotives. For example New York Central's Paul Kiefer is responsible for the design of the first Hudson type, and also NYC's Mohawks, and Niagaras. Nickle Plate's outstanding Berkshires are the work of Gus Ayers and the AMC, as was the C&O's T-1 Texas type. and the K-4 Kanawha. The UP's FEF 4-8-4s, Challengers, and Big Boys were designed by Otto Jabelmann. The Alleghany Types were designed after the breakup of the Van Swearingen roads and the deaths of two of the brightest members of the AMC.

[nanaimo73]

Did the N&W study electrification during the late 1950's when the merger with the Virginian was being planned ?

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Did the N&W study electrification during the late 1950's when the merger with the Virginian was being planned ?

Both the N&W and the Virginian had short electrifications over their toughest grades.

N&W considered extending the electrification, but the economics just didn't work out
The Virginian even had 12 modern rectifier electrics Class EL-C. N&W wrecked one following the takeover of the Virginian, and then following the removal of the electrification the 11 survivors were sold to the New Haven as their model E33C most of them survived to the Conrail era.

[daveklepper]

As reported in the Trains article on the Virginian's electrics, after the merger the two parallel main lines were used as one double track railroad, with grades determining directional flow. So either massive additional electrification or scrapping what was there was the choice. Possibly if railroads didn't have to pay real estate taxes and power companies would provide the electrification paid for out of current charges, expanding the electrification would have made sense. But the merger occured in the diesel era, and the economies and flexibility of dieselization made many railroaders call it "instant electrification." The N&W did investigate the matter, including electrification all the way to the Atlantic Shore.

I've always said the N&W steamers were the very best. Why would they go shopping for second-hand power when they had the best? The C&O 0-8-0 was the exception that proved the rule. You are right about the C&O and N&W having similar but not identacle needs. The Y-5 and Y-6 would have done far better for the C&O coal drags than the obsolete Mallets the C&O continued to used and also far better than the Allegainies, which were really a poor match for the service, more like the N&W A's, but even there the N&W A was a more economical performer on merchandize runs.

Also, much of the steam technology of the N&W duplicated what was true about diesels. A high degree of standardization (also true of PRR to a large degree) and run through service bays with specialized tools.

To me, the dieselization of the N&W was the final proof the diesel was superior to steam for USA railroading.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Did the N&W study electrification during the late 1950's when the merger with the Virginian was being planned ?

Both the N&W and the Virginian had short electrifications over their toughest grades.

N&W considered extending the electrification, but the economics just didn't work out
The Virginian even had 12 modern rectifier electrics Class EL-C. N&W wrecked one following the takeover of the Virginian, and then following the removal of the electrification the 11 survivors were sold to the New Haven as their model E33C most of them survived to the Conrail era.

Were the electrics used soley for helpers, or were they used on road hauls accross the electrified lines? What caused them to be phased out? Am i right in guessing that they were replaced by N&W's first GPs?
Thanks

[beaulieu]

The electrics were used as road locomotives. The N&W's electrification of Flattop Mountain (Elkhorn Grade) was to move EB coal trains. At the summit was a single track tunnel (Coaldale Tunnel). EB coal trains were being hauled by Class Z-1 Mallets and the congestion and problems with smoke in the tunnel caused the N&W to electrify the line west from Bluefield to Iaeger, WV in 1915. Merchandise trains and Passenger trains contiued to be steam hauled. The line was electrified at 11Kv/25 hz. , the same as the Pennsy
used. No Commercial power was available so the N&W built their own powerplant, later the N&W and Virginian tied their systems together for more efficiency. After WW2 with the powerplant and electric locomotives getting old and requiring great expense to maintain along with increased EB coal traffic, the N&W looked at either expanding the electrification or abandoning it. The decision was taken to do a major line relocation and bore a new tunnel at a lower elevation reducing the EB ruling grade on the Elkhorn with this N&W's Y6 Mallets replaced the electrics on the mountain. The electrification was abandoned in 1950. The Virginian was acquired in 1959 so the N&W never operated both electrifications at the same time. The Virginian had acquired new electric locomotives in both the 40's and the 50's but their powerplant was begin to suffer the higher operating expenses that caused the N&W to abandon their electrification. In 1962 the N&W abandoned the former VGN electrification and sold the near new EL-C rectifier electrics to the New Haven.

[Murphy Siding]

Does that mean that EB N&W coal trains had to trade power at each end of the electrified section-like PRR had to do at Harrisburg?

[Murphy Siding]

What happened to Virginian's big honkin' motor-generator electrics? Did they go to N&W for a while, before being sold off?
Thanks

[Anonymous]

Asketh Murphy Siding:

"What happened to Virginian's big honkin' motor-generator electrics? Did they go to N&W for a while, before being sold off?
Thanks"

They were all scrapped. The first was retired at Mullens in July, 1961, the others retired at Roanoke in June 1962. They were VGN class EL-2b. The rectifiers (class EL-3a) were all sold to the New Haven after being retired in June, 1962.

Old Timer

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Does that mean that EB N&W coal trains had to trade power at each end of the electrified section-like PRR had to do at Harrisburg?

Yes

[daveklepper]

Again, the modern Virginian electrics served five railroads: Virginian, Norfolk and Western, Neew York New Haven and Hartford, Penn Central, and Conrail.

On another thread, I've commented that diesel engine failures in service were almost unknown on the Boston and Maine. I think this was true of the both the Santa Fe and the New York Central, but my observations were not as thorough. They were more common on the UP, SP, WP, and PRR. Did they occur on the N&W? I would hope and expect the answer would be very rarely.

[Murphy Siding]

There is no doubt that the N&W is famous for having seemingly the best steam power and mechanical department. What happened to the *steam people* at a railroad when their specialty disappeared? Did they become *diesel people*? Or retire? Over a 15 year period, it would appear a lot of steam motive power experts became unneeded?

[Anonymous]

Diesel failures on N&W, at least in the '60's, were rare. In 1964 some were surprised to find that both NKP and Wabash had high standards of diesel maintenance, too.

Old Timer

[waltersrails]

ditto

[coalminer3]

Old Timer and others. I have really enjoyed reading through the material on this thread -my compliments to all involved.

The N&W had some up-to-date infrastructure to maintain their steam power as well. I am thinking specifically of the "lubritoriums" and the way that their power was moved through these facilities.

BTW, I remember NKP SDs working at Elmore in the late 70's. They still had NKP trust plates attached.

work safe

[Murphy Siding]

Did N&W get any steam engines through mergers? If so, how did they compare to N&W's own home-grown designs?
Thanks

[Anonymous]

Murph asketh:

"Did N&W get any steam engines through mergers? If so, how did they compare to N&W's own home-grown designs?
Thanks"

There were still some VGN engines physically on the property at merger date in 1959, but all had been retired before then and were soon sold for scrap. Some of the Blue Ridges, Berks and if I'm not mistaken a couple of the Pacifics and 0-8-0s were still around. It must be understood that at that date, very little N&W steam was still around.

The last non-excursion road steam operated out of Roanoke was an A on an eastbound in May, 1959. Some yard jobs drew steam power after that, but not many and not for long. So no N&W steam was around to operate over the VGN lines after the merger.

Old Timer

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Did N&W get any steam engines through mergers? If so, how did they compare to N&W's own home-grown designs?
Thanks

The only steam engines to come to the N&W by merger, came in the very early days, before WWI, back in that era the N&W was not the icon of steam that they later became. Of course there is the one enigma that proves the rule, the N&W did buy one batch of post WW1 secondhand steam locomotives, the 5 Class E-3 Pacifics were bought from parent Pennsy. They were built as Pennsy Class K-3 Pacifics, the predecessor to Pennsy's K-4 Pacifics and had similar specs, except for 72" Drivers. They were built in 1913, and were bought in 1930. Depression economics caused the purchase.

[nanaimo73]

Old Timer-
Stuart Saunders got a lot of credit for the way he ran the N&W, and then a lot of the blame for what happened when he ran the Penn Central.
Does he deserve both, or was it that the N&W was easy to run and PC was impossible ?

Do you have any thoughts on his replacement at N&W ?
He came from the Wabash, and I believe his name was Herman Pelver.
I can't recall reading anything about him.

Could you, or Big Jim, have a look at this-
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=54409

[Anonymous]

beaulieu:

N&W bought five PRR class K3 Pacifics in 1930 to replace their class J Atlantics operating between Norfolk and Petersburg and Richmond (via ACL). The K3s had 80" drivers. This was a specialized engine for a specialized service, and since the K3s were available, why should N&W have designed and built an engine for that service? I'm certain they got 'em cheap . . .

nanaimo73 -

I'm not certain Saunders got a lot of credit for the way he ran N&W; he was a merger architect, and a good one, and he was there at the right time. He had a cadre of extremely capable transportation and operating and mechanical and engineering officers to run the railroad for him while he put together the N&W-Wab-NKP merger. Fans blame him for the quick N&W dieselization, but that was going to happen no matter who sat in the President's chair. The time had come, and nothing was going to stop it.

He ran into problems when he went to PennCentral. He could not rely on the PC people to run the railroad for him, and they didn't - all the NYC people wanted to do was fight with the PRR people, and vice versa. Of course, by that time, I don't think anything could have saved PC. One problem was that they had to divest their N&W stock, the dividends from which had paid them over $400 million dollars since 1901. There was no way to replace that income.

Herman Pevler was an empty suit who'd come from the PRR to the Wabash, and became president of the post-merger N&W by prior agreement. He benefited from the same group of folks that ran the railroad for Saunders. Pevler got to be at mandatory retirement age, and kept getting extensions from the Board of Directors, until ousted by a palace coup and replaced by John Fishwick.

Old Timer

[nanaimo73]

Thanks for the answers, Old Timer.
Why was the Wabash included in the 1964 merger ?
Had the N&W been trying to get it for awhile, or did they take it because the PRR had it up for sale ?

[Murphy Siding]

I've read some things about N&W that imply that they simply *got lucky*, by way of being a conveyer belt for coal from mines to tidewater. (It appears to me, that they did quite well at that too!) Yet, N&W seemed to have transformed into much more than a coal-hauler, without missing many steps along the way. Any thoughts about how N&W successfully changed, when so many other railroads failed?

[daveklepper]

Well trained, professional, hard-headed railroaders. Always had huge respect for the N&W from teenage on. And it was the N&W and D&RGW (similar style management) that proved to me the dieselization was an economic blessing and not the result of sales pitches, because these railroaders could not be bought to do their jobs in unprofessional manners and knew enough to resist any sales pitch that wasn't full of facts and figures that made sense.

[Anonymous]

nanaimo73 asketh:

"Why was the Wabash included in the 1964 merger?"

NKP had the best route east to Buffalo, but the Wabash was best to St. Louis. Plus, the Wabash was the only eastern carrier (that went east of Chicago) that had a line to Kansas City. The two routes complimented each other, and were naturals to go together. Wabash had much more automobile traffic than NKP.

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

The 1964 merger took in Wabash,Nickel Plate and Pittsburgh&West Virginia. It would seem that these 3 roads were not "coal roads". Was this merger done to expand the reach of N&W, or to alter the mix of traffic? Surely, these were friendly connections before the merger? At the time, wasn't N&W in pretty good shape, so that merger wasn't a neccesity, the way NYC and PRR thought theirs was? Thanks

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

The 1964 merger took in Wabash,Nickel Plate and Pittsburgh&West Virginia. It would seem that these 3 roads were not "coal roads". Was this merger done to expand the reach of N&W, or to alter the mix of traffic? Surely, these were friendly connections before the merger? At the time, wasn't N&W in pretty good shape, so that merger wasn't a neccesity, the way NYC and PRR thought theirs was? Thanks

Yes, the merger was done to alter the traffic mix of the N&W. No the N&W did not directly connect with any of the roads listed, they had to buy a section of Pennsylvania Railroad to connect to their new acquisitions. BTW both NKP and P&WV hauled and originated coal out of the coal fields in eastern Ohio.

[gemperfilm]

Jumping in here late, can't control myself. Big time N&W fan here and grew up in Portsmouth, Ohio in 60's and 70's.

The N&W had various classes of steam (and I admit I am doing some of this information sharing from memory. I do have some books for further clarification). The big 3 classes were the A, the J and the Y6b.

The A was the simple articulated dual engine freight locomotive for fast freight heavy trains and pinch hit passenger and troop trains. It is not a mallet. It was a 2-6-6-4. This loco arrived on the scene in the late 30's. Ed King's book the Mercedes of Steam is an exceellent book about the A. The last 5 made had roller bearing rods just like the J's. I believe there were 42 or 43 A's made. The 1218 is the only example left.

The J was the most famous. Only 1 remains of the 14 that were built. The best 4-8-4 built with the only close rival was the Delaware Lackawana Pocono. There was a war-baby J which was the J-1 There were 5 made 605-609. They had clunky side rides and tore the crap out of the rails. The N&W convinced the War Board to change the rods but it was close to the end of the War. After WWII the 605 - 609 were streamlined to look like their brothers. Also, the early J's at least up through 607 had spoked leading truck wheels. After 1950 when the 610-613 came out with solid leading truck wheels the other Js had there leading trucks switched over to solid. There were also the Baby J's which were in fact streamlined k class mountains. After they got the J type streamlining these 4-8-2;s were classified as K-1's.

The Y was the most numerous and confusing of the class. The Y-3 model was the longest lived. The Y-3 came out in the late 20's early 30's and were the most numerous of the Y's. Some of them were rebuilt to become Y-5's. I am not sure how many pure Y-6's there were but the Y-6's above number 2171 were Y-6b's. There is one Y-3 left in the Illinois Transportation museum and a Y-6a 2156 sitting in The St. Louis Transportation Museum.

As for diesels. The N&W started with some RS-3s then they split the next order between the RS11's and GP-9's The N&W was not fond of cab units having leased some for passenger service when they removed the J's. The N&W decided that the cab units were not good on switching so they went with passenger geeps. The main reason was management (Stuart Saunders) did not want a passenger diesel sitting up at Columbus for a whole 8-12 hours doing nothing. They needed switching power up there and decided a passenger geep could do the duties.

The N&W was the largest owner of Fairbanks Morse locomotives and it never bought one new from FM. They got FM's from the Virginian, Wabash, AC&Y, P&LE and NKP. They did not dump these units, and some FM trainmasters were active up into the mid seventies. They paired one up with the N&W bicentenial unit for an excursion in 74 or 75. Some other Trainmasters were traded to ALCO for the 628's and 630's. I believe the last C-630's came equipped with the trucks off the trainmasters because the N&W hated the trucks ALCO used.

I think I covered enough for now.

[gemperfilm]

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!

During the 1930's the N&W remained profitable when everyone else was hurting. This was mainly due to their coal field holdings. The President of the N&W at the time new the depression would not last forever and if the country was going to rebound it would need the railroads. The N&W wanted to keep its talent, so when other builders were laying their designers the N&W kept theirs and probably hired a few of the out of work designers from other locomotives. The N&W had been building locomotives since the late 1800's. Sure it bought some from Baldwin and ALCO, but they also had their own shop the Roanoke Locomotive Works which was later brought into the N&W fold.

There is a credible theory that the N&W kept the Pennsy afloat, because the Pennsy owned a large interest in the N&W. Pennsy was smart enough to let the N&W take care of itself and just reap the dividends. This ownership led to cooperation, especially in the late 40's early 50's when both roads experimented with each other's engines. Anyway when all the mergers and restructuring took place in the mid 60's, Pennsy had to divest its share of N&W stock and leased the Waba***o the N&W. This was in order so the infamous Penn Central could be stillborn. The Penn Central no longer had dividends to help offset its bleeding.

[gemperfilm]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigJim

QUOTE: if they could buy good, used steam, at pennies on the dollar, it wouldn't have worked?

Actually Murh, they did just that. They bought the C&O's 0-8-0's. They liked them so much that they went on to copy the design and the last steam engine built for a Class 1 RR was N&W 0-8-0 #244.

I figured C&O would have had at least some similar topography that would have produced similar steam designs.

N&W new a good deal when it saw one. The only role topography played with the switcher was that the C&O and N&W were neighbors.

Don't forget, N&W dieselized its shop forces with modern facilities almost 15-20 years before the first diesel arrived on property. The N&W could take a steamer just fresh off a train, and clean the fire, drop the ashes, fill up the tender, and lubricate it in about 45 minutes. It other roads 3-8 hours to do something similar. The N&W designed its facilites and locomotives for keeping the engines out on the road. They came in had their fired cleaned/ashes dropped, lubricated tender topped off in assembly line fashion. They had modern lubritoriums similar to today's jiffy lube only better. The lubritoriums were well lit and the N&W locomotives had different fittings for each type of lubrication, so no lubrication mistakes could be made. The later classes of Y's, A's and especially J's had modern self lubricating mechanisms to further reduce maintenance time. In the mid 50's the N&W's operating ratio, percentage of locomotives available and in use and profits were better than a lot of roads that had fully dieselized.

Why did they dieselize, the N&W knew its fleet was getting old. So over a period of 5 years they slowly dieselized, getting every last hour of flu life it could out of its remaining steamers before ordering more diesels.

[gemperfilm]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Did the N&W study electrification during the late 1950's when the merger with the Virginian was being planned ?

Both the N&W and the Virginian had short electrifications over their toughest grades.

N&W considered extending the electrification, but the economics just didn't work out
The Virginian even had 12 modern rectifier electrics Class EL-C. N&W wrecked one following the takeover of the Virginian, and then following the removal of the electrification the 11 survivors were sold to the New Haven as their model E33C most of them survived to the Conrail era.

The N&W was the only class one railroad to replace electric with steam. N&W had a stiff grade over Elkhorn mountain with one long nasty tunnel that would aphixiate the steam engine crew. In the early 50's the grade over this mountain was reduced and a new tunnel was put in place thereby eliminating the need for electrics.

When they merged with the Virginian, the N&W almost kept the Virgininian line electric. In the short term electric was cheaper, but the N&W wanted to take advantage of the Virginian easier eastbound grades and use the N&W main for westbounds. This traffic pattern played into the final economics and the lines were taken down.

[nanaimo73]

agemper-
Thanks for the posts.
Murphy and I (and probably dozens of quiet members) would certainly like to read anything more you want to tell us about the N&W.
Would you, feltonhill or Old Timer know if the N&W looked at belpaire fireboxes for their modern steam ? The PRR liked them, and was sort of a parent.

[daveklepper]

I agree with this posting comletely, and the N&W experience is one reason I can say that USA railroading switch from steam to diesel made sense. If there was any railroad that knew how to get the most out of steam technology, its was the N&W. The merger took place both to reduce it being a one-commodity railroad and also to be ina good position when other railroads merged which seemed inevitable. From what I understand, the N&W first had experience with diesels when Southern E units operated over the line during a coal strike, Bristol-Lynchburg. Then later they decided to by road switches for a branch line instead of rebuilding the line to take the weight of more modern steam power. Their experience with those diesels indicated profits would be increased if the railroad were diesilized and they set about doing so in rational and workmanlike manenr. Although orders were split, they ended up with more GP-9's then any other type (possibly more than all others put together) at the time the final steam locomotive was retired. And the GP-9's were the longest lasting. And like the B&M, they used passenger road switchers in freight as well as passenger service. The passenger GP-9's were painted red to match the coaches.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by agemper

Jumping in here late, can't control myself. Big time N&W fan here and grew up in Portsmouth, Ohio in 60's and 70's.

[:D] Thanks

[waltersrails]

I also like the old coal trains and the class J.

[Murphy Siding]

agemper: Do you mean to tell me, that with all the photos I've seen of J's, that there were only 14 built? They must have really gotten around.[:)] Much has been written about N&W being almost exclusively freight and almost no passenger trains. Yet, there were several named passenger trains in their mix. How extensive was N&W passenger service? Thanks

[Anonymous]

nanaimo73 asks:

"Would you, feltonhill or Old Timer know if the N&W looked at belpaire fireboxes for their modern steam ? The PRR liked them, and was sort of a parent."

The Belpaire firebox had its advantages, among which were having the crown staybolts all the same length. But flanging the "shoulders" at the front end made it more expensive to manufacture, and evidently N&W didn't feel the advantages offset the cost. PRR was sort of a parent, all right, but wisely didn't interfere with N&W's operating practices or mechanical policies.

Murphy Siding asks: "How extensive was N&W passenger service? Thanks."

In the heyday of passenger service, N&W had four Norfolk-Cincinnati passenger trains. In addition, there were three Southern trains that operated between Monroe, Va. (Lynchburg) and Bristol. By the time the J came along, the Norfolk-Cincinnati service had shrunk to three each way. All these trains were Pullman and head-end traffic heavy except the Powhatan Arrow. The Js were cycled in these services; if you can get hold of Prince's N&W book, the engine cycles are in there. The longest run was Norfolk to Cincinnati, 676 miles, and the cycling (as well as other factors) enabled N&W to get 15,000 miles per month out of the Js; lots of other roads in that era didn't get that much out of their diesels.

In addition, there were two trains between Roanoke and Hagerstown, and Portsmouth and Columbus; these rated streamlined 4-8-2s after WWII. There were also locals on the main line and the Bristol line, and other passenger and mixed services on branches.

Old Timer

[BigJim]

QUOTE: They had clunky side rides and tore the crap out of the rails

AJG,
I'm sure you mean "clunky rods", but, may I ask where you got the information about them tearing up the rails? I knew they had a little trouble with some rod bearings, but I've never heard of them tearing up the rails.

[rrnut282]

Didn't N&W build the J's with light-weight aluminum-alloy side-rods to reduce pounding and rail wear?

[feltonhill]

I believe there's some mixup regarding the Y3 and Y5. The Y3's were a USRA design and were not rebuilt into Y5s. The Y5 was an separate design, the first with a larger grate area and 300 psi boiler pressure. However, they were initially built with fabricated frames, which were not up to the stresses exerted by the machinery. As a result, all of the Y5's received cast frames and roller bearings. The front engines were reused on a like number of Y3's (about 9-10??). They can be spotted by the A-shaped bridge pipe above the LP cylinders. The orignal Y3's didn't have that feature.

Also the K1's were not streamlined although they were modernized over the years. The K2's were USRA heavy 4-8-2's and were streamlined just after WW2.

[samfp1943]

Old Timer, Feltonhill, agemper; If any of you could provide information. In many place in this thread is a mention of a Pennsylvania RR/Norfolk and Western tie-in, I know there was mutual ownership lthrough stock ownership, but both railroads were considered to be mechanically well operated and equiped with excelent home grown motive power. The Pennsy was considered to be "The [ Nation's] Standard Railroad" and N&W had a fine rep for its operating dept.
Question: Which railroad was the senior partner in the stock ownership area?
Question: Was this influence carried practically into the operations/mechanical area?
Question: Was there a crossin of management lines, from one road to the otrher?
Question: When the Southern Rwy and N&S merged, which was the senior partner?
Question:
The Southern employees whom I have spoken to seem to be divided on their feelings about management. Engineers and firemen seemed not to think much of management and most of the others seemed to be pro management. What was your impressions?
Thanks, Appreciate all the info on this thread. Sam

[Anonymous]

Sam asks:

"Old Timer, Feltonhill, agemper; If any of you could provide information. In many place in this thread is a mention of a Pennsylvania RR/Norfolk and Western tie-in, I know there was mutual ownership lthrough stock ownership, but both railroads were considered to be mechanically well operated and equiped with excelent home grown motive power. The Pennsy was considered to be "The [ Nation's] Standard Railroad" and N&W had a fine rep for its operating dept.

Question: Which railroad was the senior partner in the stock ownership area?

The PRR bought 39% of N&W common stock, enough for control, in 1901 and kept it until forced to divest before N&W's 1964 merger and PRR's merger with NYC. During that period, N&W paid PRR $408,000,000 in dividends (that's almost half a BILLION dollars), not missing a dividend even during the Great Depression. Therefore, a good case can be made that N&W paid for PRR's status as the Standard Railroad of the World. One can also make the case that N&W's dividends helped keep PRR afloat; it was going under anyway, but after it was cut off from N&W's money, it went faster.

Question: Was this influence carried practically into the operations/mechanical area?

PRR exercised negligible influence on N&W's operations or mechanical policies. It was interested in the money, and didn't mess with N&W's ability to make it. This is the second smartest action PRR ever took; the smartest was to buy the N&W stock and keep it.

Question: Was there a crossin of management lines, from one road to the otrher?

No. There were PRR people on N&W's BOD and Director's meetings were held in Philadelphia, but there was no cross-movement of managers.

Question: When the Southern Rwy and N&S merged, which was the senior partner?

N&W was by far the most wealthy partner.

Question:
The Southern employees whom I have spoken to seem to be divided on their feelings about management. Engineers and firemen seemed not to think much of management and most of the others seemed to be pro management. What was your impressions?

Don't have any input, except that Southern's management didn't like or understand N&W's way of marketing coal; they ignored the fact that that was a great factor in N&W's profitability over the years; it made them several billion . . . Southern folks were hipped on running unit coal trains, but N&W didn't have any customers that could receive coal in that manner.

Thanks, Appreciate all the info on this thread. Sam"

Old Timer

[beaulieu]

The Pennsy's reputation was made by the end of the Samuel Rea era. He was the one who bought the N&W stock. The leaders that came after him were fair to poor and the railroad started sliding. W. W. Atterbury was a decent leader. Those after him allowed the property to run down. Symes was more socialite than railroader. Saunders was the last Chairman of Pennsy, when he became Chairman of Penn Central he lost control of the company and you know what happened.

[ValleyX]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Sam asks:

"
Question:
The Southern employees whom I have spoken to seem to be divided on their feelings about management. Engineers and firemen seemed not to think much of management and most of the others seemed to be pro management. What was your impressions?

Don't have any input, except that Southern's management didn't like or understand N&W's way of marketing coal; they ignored the fact that that was a great factor in N&W's profitability over the years; it made them several billion . . . Southern folks were hipped on running unit coal trains, but N&W didn't have any customers that could receive coal in that manner.

Thanks, Appreciate all the info on this thread. Sam"

Old Timer

You're not often going to find T&E people who will profess to be fond of management, that would be across the board, whether you're talking to N&W people, UP people, MP people, SP people, C&O people, B&O people, etc, etc. If you talk to N&W T&E people about this merger, you'll get an opinion diametrically opposed to the opinion you would get from Southern T&E people. I would say that is true systemwide and you would also get a lot of opinion from hearsay and second-hand information, we're far enough away from that 1982 event that I have to wonder what the percentage of the total employees are that worked for either Southern or the N&W.

[Murphy Siding]

I'm re-reading The wreck of the Penn Central, by Peter Binzen. The history that leads up to the PC mess is quite interesting. Among other things, it's mentioned, that in 1895, a total of 169 railroads with 37,855 miles of track were in receivership. Included were: B&O, NP,UP, Erie,SF Reading, and Norfolk & Western! That surprised me. I knew that the country went into a depression in 1893, but never knew that N&W went through receivership.

[waltersrails]

I got a real cool athrean coal car it says virgian on it then right on top of it it says Norfolk Western. it real cool.

[ValleyX]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I'm re-reading The wreck of the Penn Central, by Peter Binzen. The history that leads up to the PC mess is quite interesting. Among other things, it's mentioned, that in 1895, a total of 169 railroads with 37,855 miles of track were in receivership. Included were: B&O, NP,UP, Erie,SF Reading, and Norfolk & Western! That surprised me. I knew that the country went into a depression in 1893, but never knew that N&W went through receivership.

That's when the Norfolk and Western Railroad became the Norfolk and Western Railway.

Virginian hopper with Norfolk and Western written over top of it? As in above it? Never saw one like that, it is not authentic, remember seeing newly repainted Virginian hoppers that, at the right angle, you could still see the Virginian underneath the black paint.

[Anonymous]

beaulieu sayeth:

"Saunders was the last Chairman of Pennsy, when he became Chairman of Penn Central he lost control of the company and you know what happened."

Saunders never really had control. There was no control to be had; each of the two factions were determined not to let the other dominate. Saunders had no real administration experience; he was a lawyer and a merger architect, as noted earlier. When he was on the N&W he could depend on his managers to run the railroad efficiently for him. At PC he had no managers who were interested in doing anything but fighting with each other.

It took the formation of Conrail under USRA (not the WWI one, but the 1970s one) to get the railroad shaped up and everybody pulling in the same direction. Anybody who wants to take Saunders to task for the failure of PC after he took over needs to let us know what administrator, available at the time, could have done any better.

PC was a catastrophe waiting to happen, and with the ICC and everything else going on at the time, it didn't have a chance. And don't let the partisans fool you; neither NYC nor PRR could have made it on their own. Too much railroad, too little business to support it, too many employees to run it. It took USRA and the changes in regulation that came with it, and the abandonment of a lot of redundant track, to make any difference.

Old Timer

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

ook the formation of Conrail under USRA (not the WWI one, but the 1970s one) to get the railroad shaped up and everybody pulling in the same direction. Anybody who wants to take Saunders to task for the failure of PC after he took over needs to let us know what administrator, available at the time, could have done any better.

You have a good point. My guess is that even the redoubtable D. W. Brosnan (Southern) would have had his hands full trying to run PC. It sure would have been interesting to watch, though; someone once said of Brosnan, "There was no status quo with him - you either moved up or moved out". My guess is that those managers from the NYC and PRR camps who refused to work together would have been booted out, quickly.

Not to point the thread in a different direction, but from what I've gathered the NYC management team was better than that of PRR. Is that accurate?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

beaulieu sayeth:

"Saunders was the last Chairman of Pennsy, when he became Chairman of Penn Central he lost control of the company and you know what happened."

Saunders never really had control. There was no control to be had; each of the two factions were determined not to let the other dominate. Saunders had no real administration experience; he was a lawyer and a merger architect, as noted earlier. When he was on the N&W he could depend on his managers to run the railroad efficiently for him. At PC he had no managers who were interested in doing anything but fighting with each other.

It took the formation of Conrail under USRA (not the WWI one, but the 1970s one) to get the railroad shaped up and everybody pulling in the same direction. Anybody who wants to take Saunders to task for the failure of PC after he took over needs to let us know what administrator, available at the time, could have done any better.

PC was a catastrophe waiting to happen, and with the ICC and everything else going on at the time, it didn't have a chance. And don't let the partisans fool you; neither NYC nor PRR could have made it on their own. Too much railroad, too little business to support it, too many employees to run it. It took USRA and the changes in regulation that came with it, and the abandonment of a lot of redundant track, to make any difference.

Old Timer

What possessed Saunders to leave the N&W, which must have been a good gig, and go to NYC,which he must have known had some problems on the horizon?

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

beaulieu sayeth:

"Saunders was the last Chairman of Pennsy, when he became Chairman of Penn Central he lost control of the company and you know what happened."

Saunders never really had control. There was no control to be had; each of the two factions were determined not to let the other dominate. Saunders had no real administration experience; he was a lawyer and a merger architect, as noted earlier. When he was on the N&W he could depend on his managers to run the railroad efficiently for him. At PC he had no managers who were interested in doing anything but fighting with each other.

It took the formation of Conrail under USRA (not the WWI one, but the 1970s one) to get the railroad shaped up and everybody pulling in the same direction. Anybody who wants to take Saunders to task for the failure of PC after he took over needs to let us know what administrator, available at the time, could have done any better.

PC was a catastrophe waiting to happen, and with the ICC and everything else going on at the time, it didn't have a chance. And don't let the partisans fool you; neither NYC nor PRR could have made it on their own. Too much railroad, too little business to support it, too many employees to run it. It took USRA and the changes in regulation that came with it, and the abandonment of a lot of redundant track, to make any difference.

Old Timer

What possessed Saunders to leave the N&W, which must have been a good gig, and go to NYC,which he must have known had some problems on the horizon?

Murphy, Stuart Saunders went to the Pennsylvania RR (Pennsy) not the New York Central (NYC).

Old Timer, I agree that the Penn Central was likely to fail, it became a certainty with the inclusion of the New Haven. I do think that Saunders should have made a choice much earlier regarding who was going to lead the railroad and end the infighting. The chairmanship of the Pennsylvania RR is the key to high social standing in Philadelphia Society and I believe that this is what Stuart Sunders wanted and why he left the N&W. But he also allowed through poor oversight things like the Executive Jet fiasco to happen.

As to which company had better management you only have to look at how many people from each company's upper management went on to have successful careers after PC. Al Perlman went to Western Pacific and turned it around. Mike Flannery went with Perlman to WP and later was VPO of Union Pacific. Harry Bruce went on to become CEO of Illinois Central RR, Wayne Hoffman became Chairman of Tiger International which merged with Federal Express. Earlier Perlman rescued John Barriger's career from languishing and made him President of the P&LE.

[Anonymous]

Murphysiding asketh:

"What possessed Saunders to leave the N&W, which must have been a good gig, and go to NYC,which he must have known had some problems on the horizon?"

Simple. He wanted to be head of the largest railroad in the world. He made it there. It wasn't to his liking, though. Perlman was generally recognized as being a fine manager as has been noted, but he wanted nothing to do with the merger or Saunders. I don't know if that was Saunders' doing or Perlman's, but in either case it was a waste of Perlman's talent. It still wouldn't have saved the day, though.

There's a good point about Brosnan; the trouble with him would have been that by the time he got finished firing everybody there wouldn't have been enough of them left to run the railroad. A lot of the people he fired on the Southern didn't stay fired very long; the people he'd have fired off PC would have stayed fired.

The comment has been made about the side rods on the J. They were made of a lightweight alloy known as "Timken High-Dynamic Steel" (no aluminum); the steel was provided by Timken and the rods manufactured in Roanoke Shop. The first five Js were equipped with it but for the six wartime engines it was not available, hence the wider "clunky" looking rods. They were replaced with the Timken rods when rebuilt and streamlined after WWII. The biggest problem with the wartime rods was that the War Production Board did not allow them to be equipped with roller bearings; they had standard brasses, which weren't up to the job. But neither the wartime rods or the others produced the effect of being hard on the track. Of course, the last three Js were built with the Timken Alloy rods. The only N&W engines that were hard on the track were the ten K-3 4-8-2s of 1926.

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

Murphy, Stuart Saunders went to the Pennsylvania RR (Pennsy) not the New York Central (NYC).

Duh! I must have been asleep at the key board.[:I]

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

• Reply