Let's not forget the N&W ran other trains besides coal trains. While it might not make sense to run a coal train at 70mph (after all, something that's been in the ground for a million years isn't likely to spoil before it gets to maket!) it DOES make sense to run fast freights as fast as track and traffic conditions will allow if for no other reason than to stay competitive. Shippers want their stuff to get to market in the most timely manner possible. If N&W designed the Class A's to run at 70mph we can be sure they had a pretty good reason to do so.
The A's high speed capability was used on merchandise freights, frequently called "time freights." They regularly cruised (!!??) at 60+ mph with these trains east of Roanoke. This has been documented in many ways, not the least of which are unpublished on-train recordings by O. Winston Link. These recordings are neither secrets nor urban legends. They can be heard at a listening kiosk at the Link Museum in Roanoke. In one recording, where the A is emulating a 747 at the head end, Link asks "How fast are we going?" The response was "About 60." Link responded, "It feels like 120." Sounded like it, too!!
The 70 mph figure on coal trains is an extrapolation and a false correlation between the use of A's in coal train service and their design speed of 70 mph. N&W would not have wasted the $$$ running coal trains that fast as a matter of course. As mentioned above, it would not be worth it. However, I have no doubt that the time freights could have approached that figure under "certain" conditions.
The trouble with saying that one steam locomotive is better than another is that the modern steamers were designed for specific applications. Unlike diesels there were many times that steam locomotives were restricted to one or two districts because they either wouldn't fit or were too heavy to travel elsewhere.
Can you say that SP's GS series 4-8-4s were better than NYC's Niagaras? Perhaps the GS's could haul more, but place a GS on the point of the 20th Centrury Limited at Harmon NY and you will have a spectacular wreck at the first tunnel. So for the service it was designed the Niagara is a superior locomotive. But put the Niagara on the point of a Daylight in California and it will not pull as much as a GS. So which was the superior locomotive? Depends on the service.
Likewise the N&W A 2-6-6-4s are magnificant locomotives but did the N&W ever put one on the point of the Virginia Creeper? If you ever drove or hiked the ROW of the Abingdon branch you will understand that an A wouldn't have traveled one mile before ending up on the ground. The 4-8-0s that N&W used on the Creeper did not have that trouble, but certainly could not haul as much as an A could on the mainline. So is the 2-6-6-4 better than the 4-8-0? Which service are you considering?
Does the NS authorize any of your coal trains to operate at 70 mph?
No, they are restricted to 50 mph. But, this is a very different age and time. I once worked with a machinist who related to me that he was on his motorcycle going down Rt. 460 east of Crewe, Va. running 80 mph when a Class A with coal train in tow passed him "like I was sitting still". That was a very different time. ABS territory and none of that techno-wizardry stuff like you see today. And it would have been a rare occurence. But, knowing what I know, I wouldn't put it past them! You wouldn't last long if you did that in todays world!
N&W would not have wasted the $$$ running coal trains that fast as a matter of course.
Good golly! Can you imagine the coal dust!!!
Jim do you notice a big difference in same tonnage trains when pulling mixed freight vs unit trains??
I run up the Shenandoah Valley and it has been a long time since we have had a unit train of any kind. Mostly mixed freight (time freight). We do run double-stacks. There is a difference in a mixed freight and a double stack. That being, on flat land or a slight downgrade a mixed freight is easy to get up to track speed and ease off the throttle or drift to stay at that speed, where a double-stack needs to be pulled to keep the speed on the "advertised".
Back when Freight Car America was building new coal hoppers here in Roanoke, we would on occasion get a unit train of 125 brand spanking new cars. The train was relatively light and would go up hill at a pretty good clip. But once you topped a hill or was on flat ground they had a lot of drag just because they hadn't be broken in yet. You had to pull those cars in places where you normally had to hold back a well used set of hoppers. Plus, a conductor watched us by one day and commented over the radio that we sounded like a huge swarm of bees as we passed by.
.
BigJim I once worked with a machinist who related to me that he was on his motorcycle going down Rt. 460 east of Crewe, Va. running 80 mph when a Class A with coal train in tow passed him "like I was sitting still".
I once worked with a machinist who related to me that he was on his motorcycle going down Rt. 460 east of Crewe, Va. running 80 mph when a Class A with coal train in tow passed him "like I was sitting still".
Hmmm, 80 mph? Did he say what the trailing tonnage was on that train? That is pretty flat country in that part of Virginia, so the A wasn't getting much help from gravity.
Feltonhill, what does the power curve of a Class A look like at 80 mph?
GP40-2 BigJim Hmmm, 80 mph? Did he say what the trailing tonnage was on that train? That is pretty flat country in that part of Virginia, so the A wasn't getting much help from gravity.
BigJim
Actually, it is downhill from Crewe to Norfolk, so, I would think that gravity had something to do with it. You might be surprised what a dip can do for you.
Uh-oh! Can't let this one go by! Those 2-10-10-2's were pondorous and slow but their real problem was that Santa Fe chose to articulate the boilers rather than the frames. In fact they did this with all the articulated types they tried back around 1910. The hinged boilers could not be made to work satisfactorily so the engines were remade into twenty 2-10-2's in the 1600 series. In the 'twenties one 3800 class 2-10-2 was given a four wheel trailing truck as a one-off experiment. In 1930 they built their first true 2-10-4, No. 5000 which got the nickname "Madame Queen". This engine was very successful but the Depresion prevented any more being added to the roster until 1941 when the first eleven of the 5001 class arrived. These were modified versions of No. 5000 and were followed by more identical sisters in 1944. They were probably the best Texas type engines ever constructed and also the largest and heaviest non-articulated engines ever built. They worked the Abo Canyon ( or Belin Cutoff ) line until diesels came and then did fast freight work on the Kansas and Oklahoma plains until the end of steam. They were great engines, Maybe the best, Who knows?
BigJim GP40-2: BigJim Hmmm, 80 mph? Did he say what the trailing tonnage was on that train? That is pretty flat country in that part of Virginia, so the A wasn't getting much help from gravity. Actually, it is downhill from Crewe to Norfolk, so, I would think that gravity had something to do with it. You might be surprised what a dip can do for you.
GP40-2: BigJim Hmmm, 80 mph? Did he say what the trailing tonnage was on that train? That is pretty flat country in that part of Virginia, so the A wasn't getting much help from gravity.
What's the grade through that area?
The 5000 was the genesis of the later 2-10-4's the Santa Fe got. There was a lot of difference in them though, including boiler pressure. At best the 5000 was a 45-50 MPH engine with 67 " drivers none of which were boxpok. Santa Fe used it a lot on Raton Pass in helper service and freight.. The fact that the other 2-10-4's were different in many respects shows that Santa Fe knew they could improve on the 5000 and balancing the drive was a large part of it.
The other 5001 and up engines were very large, had 74" boxpok drivers and could roll with the best of any engines if they had the track to do it. Regretably, their speed was restricted due to their weight vs track structure. One wonders what they would have done with 135 lb welded rail.
Thinking about it a bit more, I could understand the N&W running coal trains as fast as possible during the World War Two years, for the increased demand for fuel and to keep the lines as open as possible for war shipments. I've said this before, but I've spoken to some oldtimers here in Virginia who remember the "A"'s barreling down the four track racetrack between Petersburg and Norfolk at 70+ mph.
GP40-2 What's the grade through that area?
There are several general track charts in various books. Do some research and look it up. I cannot remember where exactly he said it was, if he said at all. That's been 38 years ago. There is well over one hundred miles of track, so take your pick.
However, from the track chart there are some nice grades in parts. One very near -.9%. That ought to get things rolling PDQ. Many in the -.6% range.
Another thing to consider is the use of momentum grades. Were downgrades used in order to attain enough speed in order to get over another hump with heavy tonnage? Just one other thing to think about.
I don't believe N&W rated the A above 60 mph, but let me look at the graphs. If you have N&W Giant of Steam by Jeffries, you have the best info available. He took the info from the curves and graphs at the N&WHS archives. The N&W's DBHP curves were relatively flat from 45-65 mph and began to decline above 60 mph, but not at a very rapid rate.
JimValle Uh-oh! Can't let this one go by! Those 2-10-10-2's were pondorous and slow but their real problem was that Santa Fe chose to articulate the boilers rather than the frames. In fact they did this with all the articulated types they tried back around 1910. The hinged boilers could not be made to work satisfactorily so the engines were remade into twenty 2-10-2's in the 1600 series.
Uh-oh! Can't let this one go by! Those 2-10-10-2's were pondorous and slow but their real problem was that Santa Fe chose to articulate the boilers rather than the frames. In fact they did this with all the articulated types they tried back around 1910. The hinged boilers could not be made to work satisfactorily so the engines were remade into twenty 2-10-2's in the 1600 series.
And I can't let this one go by, either. I'm not a Santa Fe guy, but I believe those boilers were not hinged. I think only seven of their 2-6-6-2's had hinged boilers. And the frames of the 2-10-10-2's were hinged in a conventional manner.
Ed
Firelock came up with the answer as why the N&W was running a one-speed railroad and why they ran 70 mph coal trains. I thank him for settling the argument.
First a correction. N&W's line through the Dismal Swamp was double track, not 4-track.
Checked the graphs in Jeffries book, N&W Giant of Steam, revised Edition, and I was correct - N&W didn't rate the A above 60 mph. The best I could do was extrapolate the next 20 mph to 80. The DBHP curve would look like this:
10 mph - 3000 DBHP
20 mph - 4800 DBHP
30 mph - 5200 DBHP
40 mph - 5300 DBHP
50 mph - 5200 DBHP
60 mph - 5100 DBHP
70 mph - 4700 DBHP
80 mph - 4200 DBHP
The estimated unit evaporation rate for these figures is somewhere around 65-70 lbs of water/SF of direct heating surface, which is an extremely conservative rate. Most texts such as Johnson's book, use 80 lbs/hr/SFDHS for modern locomotives.
This should be a total evaporation of about 100,000 lbs/hr and 91,000 lbs/hr to the cylinders.
Keep in mind that N&W did not develop BTTW/absolute maximum perfomance figures for its locomotives. It preferred to use a figure it could count on all day, every day.
You're welcome, Dave!
There is no evidence that N&W ran a "one-speed" railroad. Most of the eye-witness reports of high speeds while pacing an A do not specify the consist type or size, not even a car count. What no one seems to realize that 70 mph with a coal train of the size N&W ran (15,000 to 18,000 trailing tons by 1958) required DBHP inputs of upwards of 15,000 even with a slight downgrade. Sometimes merchandise freights were "filled out" with hoppers, so that chasing an A with some hoppers in front, may not tell the whole story. Be careful what you believe. The A's had considerable capacity, but let's not exaggerate into imaginary numbers.
feltonhill First a correction. N&W's line through the Dismal Swamp was double track, not 4-track. Checked the graphs in Jeffries book, N&W Giant of Steam, revised Edition, and I was correct - N&W didn't rate the A above 60 mph. The best I could do was extrapolate the next 20 mph to 80. The DBHP curve would look like this: 10 mph - 3000 DBHP 20 mph - 4800 DBHP 30 mph - 5200 DBHP 40 mph - 5300 DBHP 50 mph - 5200 DBHP 60 mph - 5100 DBHP 70 mph - 4700 DBHP 80 mph - 4200 DBHP The estimated unit evaporation rate for these figures is somewhere around 65-70 lbs of water/SF of direct heating surface, which is an extremely conservative rate. Most texts such as Johnson's book, use 80 lbs/hr/SFDHS for modern locomotives. This should be a total evaporation of about 100,000 lbs/hr and 91,000 lbs/hr to the cylinders. Keep in mind that N&W did not develop BTTW/absolute maximum perfomance figures for its locomotives. It preferred to use a figure it could count on all day, every day.
Thanks, feltonhill.
Those numbers sound very reasonable and accurate for everyday running.
I'm not going to be too hard on Dave. Those "old timer" stories can be quite entertaining in the same way the fish we have all caught always seem to get bigger when hanging out with the guys (especially after a few beers!)
The old-timers who told me about "A"s running away from them didn't specify what the locomotive was hauling. They were probably too busy looking for speed traps to pay particular attention to what the freight consist was, and not always successfully either! They saw what they saw, and I see no reason to doubt their word. They were there, I wasn't. At any rate, I didn't suggest N&W was a "one-speed" road, I DID suggest they would have run as fast as track, traffic, and customer demand would dictate they run. Then as now, the fastest and most reliable shipping companys were the ones who were going to get the business. It's the same reason the "Weary Erie" bought "Berkshire" type locomotives, to speed up the freight hauls and get back the business they were losing. Once the "Berks" were on the property no-one called them the "Weary Erie" anymore, and the business did come back. And like I said, it was probably fast freights that did the hi-speed running. No reason to rush coal shipments, unless it was under wartime conditions as I said earlier.
Hey, are we havin' fun here or what?
At this point in my life and at a considerable distance from the site of these high-speed runs, I cannot really defend against the "there is no evidence" charge. I happened to live through the period. The husband of the maid who took care of my niece and nephew had worked for the N&W as a fireman, and I continue to believe what he told me a bout the N&W's one-speed railroad operations, especially during WWII. I recall myself how railroads tried to get any train over the road as quickly as possible to clear the tracks for other movements. Like the regular operation of the Advanced Congretional with COACHES for anyone arriving from Washington to New York Penn in exactly 185 minutes, even though the Congressional itself was supposed to be all Parlor and this kind of running, non-stop from Washington to Philly to Newark required lots of 100 mph operation, if not faster. Most of the reports of high-speed coal trains don't specify the exact consist? But some have. And just as a yardmaster might fill out a merchandize train with some loaded or empty hoppers up front, so he might fill out a coal train with some hot merchandize cargo that needed prompt delivery. The fact remians that A's ran at 70. And so did PRR M-1's on freights and I suppose Nickle Plate Birkshere's and lots of other USA freight locomotives also did so. They are all good locomotives, but I still think the A is the best all-around steam USA freight locomotive with the Sante Fe 2-10-4 the best non-articulated..
Lets not forget that great mountain railroad," The New Haven".
To pull long freights over the Berkshire and Ticonic Mountain ranges to the Hudson River bridge at Poughkeepsie, "The New York, New Haven, & Hartford" maintained a fleet of 50 2-10-2 Santa Fe Class locomotives (New Haven type L-1). To add to the action, at Hopewell Junction one of the New Haven's 70 "R" Class 4-8-2 Mountains would move in behind for "Pusher Service". And this was only 60 years ago!
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Important correction. New York - Washington times were scheuled at 235 minutes for most of the hourly expresses, 225 minutes for some including the Senator through to Boston, and 215 minutes for the Congressional. The very best time I experienced for the Advance Congressional was 185 minutes from leaving Washington Unions to stop at Penn Station, considerably faster than scheduled time.
On occasion one of the hourly expresses would leave Washington 5 minutes late, usually making up time by 30th Street Philladelphia. This was because it loaded on a lower level platform track, at the front of the platform with the Champion, Southerner, or Silver Meteor running late tacked on behind. And any of the regular hourly trains, usually with the exception of the Congressional and the through Boston trains, could have Pullmans from connecting trains from the South tacked on, in this case usually at the front behind the head-end cars.
To the GG-1's the added train weight seemed to make no difference in ability to make time. And Passenger GG-1's did occasionally show up in freight service and visa versa. (100 mph vs 90 mph gearing.) But the New Haven EF-3 could outpull any GG-1.
Any electric would not be greatly affected by additional train weight because of higher short-term ratings. The comparison between an EF-3 and a GG-1 is a bit unfair since it compares a freight motor with what was designed as a passenger motor.
Except that the EF-3 did regularly haul passenger trains in and out of Penn Station and over the Hell Gate Bridge. After some operating time, they were finally allowed 70mph track speed and this was exceeded unofficially quite often. Not all were quipped with train-heating boilers, about half the fleet, and then only after they had been in service one or two years only on freight trains. Some may have gotten the boilers from the 2-4-4-2 "Ponies" sent to help out the B&M Hoosack Tunnel electrifcation during WWII. They were designed to accomodate the boilers, but the War Production Board prohibited the construction of passenger locomotives.
The B&M had a similar delimna. and installed boilers in some FT B-Units after they had been in freight only service for a while, so FT A and B two-unit locomotives could be used as passenger power. This was necessary because the B&M often had crews and power run one way on a freight and return on a passenger, or visa versa. The B&M was the only railroad where I am absolutely certain this was done. Others can tell me if it was done elsewhere.
The B&M Tunnel electrics lacked boilers because the passenger trains were hauled through intact with the steam locomotive remaining in place. The B&M electrics were otherwise an almost exact copy of the early New Haven electrics, with details such as headlight placement, number boards, etc., different. The ex-New Havens were changed to suit.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.