I am enjoying this exchange and learning a little each time. Glad for everyone's participation.
N&W 611 barking up a steep grade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XYubcZV0Uc
Even better, if you advance the ball to the three minute mark, is this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv34J8i5nOc
Crandell
Hi Crandell
That's ther way we should look at it
and again :
we may agree to disagree but please keep it down to facts
no insults intended
Regards
= J =
Thanks Selector for those videos! Especially the one on the Geyser Grade! Did anyone notice the white exhaust, almost no black in it? The fireman on board that day really knew his trade!
Crandall,That's what happens when there is a rail greaser involved!
Juniatha,What is most apparent here is the differences in our cultures. I know what I am saying and you know what you are saying and one doesn't translate to the other the way it properly should.
.
BigJim Even better, if you advance the ball to the three minute mark, is this one: Crandall,That's what happens when there is a rail greaser involved!
...and an engine with a low factor of adhesion.
And what is the factor of adhesion on that GP40-2 that would have dropped its load in that same spot?
BigJim And what is the factor of adhesion on that GP40-2 that would have dropped its load in that same spot?
A lot better than the crappy pull on the 611.
Crrrrrrappy pull on the 611? Good sir, you are treading closely to the boundarys of blasphemy, heresy, apostacy, and any other impious "cy" that happens to escape me at this late hour. Fie upon you, FIE! FIE!
And to think not long ago I witnessed an eleven car Amtrak consist with TWO 4,000 horsepower diesels on the head end. 8,000 horsepower for eleven cars! How pathetic! I've seen 611 pull twice that number without breaking a sweat. Fie upon you again sir!
Firelock76 Crrrrrrappy pull on the 611? Good sir, you are treading closely to the boundarys of blasphemy, heresy, apostacy, and any other impious "cy" that happens to escape me at this late hour. Fie upon you, FIE! FIE!
LOL. Just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
The 611 did have a poorly engineered, not well thought out adhesion limitation. There I said it again.
It was a pretty good engine...as long as you were taking tonnage downhill.
I'm pretty sure we can all agree, or we should agree, that a steamer of a given tonnage that has even one load-bearing truck with no powered rod connected to its axle(s) is not going to apply the same tractive effort to the rails as would a diesel with a traction motor on all its axles. The diesel would be able to pull the steamer, its load, plus a hefty one of its own on startup. It might not make it to 40 mph, but it will lift that train. On the other hand, a steamer that spins in place all day long at startup (if such a travesty/crime could ever be countenanced) due to its heavy load, could accelerate away from the diesel, assuming it produced more horsepower, after speeds near 30 mph.
But, we digress....this is supposed to be Jim's topic, and he would reeeeeaaaaaaallllllyyyy like it to return to 'aesthetics'. Please and thank-yuh.
I have a video of a train stalled on a hill with 3 Amtrak P42DC locomotives and about 18 cars. The grade was around 2.2%. I talked to the engineer and asked him why he stalled. He told me it was too much wheel slip. He said he never even got it out of notch 4. They had to get two GP40-2's to aid the 3 Amtrak P42DC's just to pull the train up the hill.
The Norfolk and Western 611 pulled a train of at least 18 or more cars up one of the steepest grades( Saluda Grade) in America unassisted. It also stalled near the summit and managed to get the train rolling again from a dead stop! That is not only amazing it is almost unbelievable.
Steam is still king of the rails. Diesels may have more tractive effort and horsepower but they still can not get over the problem of wheel slip no matter how many anti wheel slip devices they have on the locomotive. They are also limited by weight with the majority of them topping out at around 210 tons. If your modern diesel locomotives weighed 325 tons like the Big boys then I would believe they could pull a 18 car up the Saluda grade unassisted. But as a former Union pacific conductor that traveled thousands of miles on the main line with many brand new locomotives, I can say 100% nothing in their inventory can come close to pulling what that J class steam locomotive ever did.
Firelock76 And to think not long ago I witnessed an eleven car Amtrak consist with TWO 4,000 horsepower diesels on the head end. 8,000 horsepower for eleven cars! How pathetic!
And to think not long ago I witnessed an eleven car Amtrak consist with TWO 4,000 horsepower diesels on the head end. 8,000 horsepower for eleven cars! How pathetic!
That's just Amtrak wasting your tax dollars. Back in the 1980s one little old F40PH could take 8 cars to 100 mph between NH and Boston. - even making all that HEP.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Beginning to sound like two typical 15-year old boys:
#1: A Ford will outrun a Chevy.
#2: A Chevy will outrun a Ford.
#1: A Ford will....
etc., etc.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
.....After seeing the video of 611 pulling that string of passenger cars up Saluda, I have no doubt it was as good with putting power to where it is needed as any type of locomotive. As stated by poster before me. And....the available power on tap TO put to work.
And yes, to witness it restart after it slipped and stalled.....I had a difficult time believing it actually restarted that train from a dead stop on that extreme grade. At first, I thought there might have been a time delay in the video, and an engine or two had been coupled on the rear end, and the both {or more}, engines then took the train on up to the summit at Saluda....But from what I see and hear others say, that was not the case. But we must give that engineer on 611 a bunch of credit too for his experience, talent, or whatever....getting out of the engine in just the extreme amount of power to the rail without slipping to get it started.
I've been there {several times}, and stood and looked down that grade, and cannot understand how the above scenario could ever take place....even with 3 engines against an 18 passenger car load.
It's difficult for me to believe my eyes, standing there looking at it, that, that really is a railroad {non cog}, I'm looking at.
Amtrak engines. I wonder with the comments of why several engines on certain non extreme heavy passenger trains, failing, stalling, and needing what seems overkill....power for certain trains, just might be partly due to economics.
We all know the financing policy for the last 40 years or so, for Amtrak, has been nothing but trouble. Yet, the "company" is expected to run trains whether they have the equipment and or finances to keep said equipment in condition to continue to perform as needed.
Hence, multiple engines where normally they wouldn't be needed, but for protection of breakdowns. Maybe the anti-slip mechanism on many of them is inoperative, and perhaps other problems, due to lack of funds to keep them properly serviced....Just my
Quentin
oltmannd Firelock76: And to think not long ago I witnessed an eleven car Amtrak consist with TWO 4,000 horsepower diesels on the head end. 8,000 horsepower for eleven cars! How pathetic! That's just Amtrak wasting your tax dollars. Back in the 1980s one little old F40PH could take 8 cars to 100 mph between NH and Boston. - even making all that HEP.
Firelock76: And to think not long ago I witnessed an eleven car Amtrak consist with TWO 4,000 horsepower diesels on the head end. 8,000 horsepower for eleven cars! How pathetic!
The government wasting my tax dollars? They wouldn't do that, now would they?
Hey GP-40, ME a Kool-Aid drinker? Perish the thought, never touch the stuff! The closest I get to Kool-Aid is a good red table wine, chilled or with ice cubes during the summer. Come to think of it, it IS kind of like Kool-Aid with a kick!
Oh, and did you know "Kool-Aid Drinker" as a description of a blind follower is a bit of an urban myth? The stuff those poor people at Jonestown actually drank was called "Flavor-Aid", basically a "Kool-Aid" competitor. It's no longer around as I understand, although I don't believe the Jonestown horror had anything to do with it's going off the market.
JMJ, enough of that gruesome subject!
Thomas 9011 The Norfolk and Western 611 pulled a train of at least 18 or more cars up one of the steepest grades( Saluda Grade) in America unassisted.
The Norfolk and Western 611 pulled a train of at least 18 or more cars up one of the steepest grades( Saluda Grade) in America unassisted.
So, you think the 611, with only around 280,000 lbs of weight on it drivers, and a low 3.6 factor of adhesion pulled 18 cars unassisted up a 5% grade. Really?
Calling Mr. Feltonhill. You have a big technical impossibility to address.
Firelock76 Hey GP-40, ME a Kool-Aid drinker? Perish the thought, never touch the stuff!
Hey GP-40, ME a Kool-Aid drinker? Perish the thought, never touch the stuff!
It's actually not bad with some home brewed Moonshine added in.
It tastes just like those fancy flavored Martinis you can buy for $10 apiece at some geek yuppie bar. Only a lot cheaper with a lot more kick.
This thread has now long left the path of discussing locomotive aesthetics, so it´s time to move on.
Hi BigJim
Ok , let's leave it at that , if my writing became somewhat pointed , may I assure you I wouldn't question value of your practical knowledge gained on many miles on the road in all kinds of weather and incidents - I still believe it's in combining the best of knowledge from both sides that train traction is being advanced .
regards
Juniatha
Hi folks
seems there is some degree of less than objective argumentation in this recent development of discussion .
May I suggest we all cease fire and drop our verbal guns , relax and have a drink or two - red wine , beer or whiskey as you prefer and mind a few basic guidelines :
(a) We are all but locomotive fans - although advocating different types - steam or diesel - and within these different classes of steam and within those again maybe finer variations - let's see it as varying angles of view on the same scene and reading of other's viewpoints might as well widen our own perspective on railroading - and who was to say to not like to get a wider scope of perception of our general topic of engines powering railroads ?
(b) A slip spot of adhesion reduced by unknown extent (!) can lead to wheel slip with practically any engine - steam , diesel-electric , electric - and that by itself means little if anything can be concluded as to quality of engine design from slipping at such a spot .
(c) A Co-Co diesel-electric loco having - pleonasm - twelve powered wheels of higher adhesion mass total than any given 4-8-4 and using it with a uniform or constant level of torque at wheel rim - or tractive effort - must of necessity provide a superior basis for exerting high pulling force at drawbar - and by all common sense is usually powered to realize it's potential to the fullest , thus making it a superior dragging or grade climbing engine - however at the expense of speed : that extra-strong drawbar pull can only be reached and maintained at much lower speeds than a 4-8-4 steam loco can tolerably well upkeep her full drawbar pull to . The classic reciprocating steam locomotive was at disadvantage in that low speed range by having no means of increasing torque other than using long cut-off and - arguably - full throttle or the highest steam chest pressure just acceptable before surpassing actual adhesion limit as present on rail .
For definition : Please mind this is not the same as the 'adhesion factor' usually found in steam loco literature which by definition is just a quotient of adhesion mass by cylinder tractive effort - disregarding actual conditions of mechanical adhesion at rail ! Also , please mind a locomotive class having a 'low' adhesion factor by this definition is *not* less strong than one with a higher such adhesion factor , on the contrary : if compared loco type's adhesion mass is identical then the engine with 'lower' adhesion factor has the more powerful engine unit , i e as concerns steam piston forces and quotient of stroke / wheel dia can put up higher torque at wheel rim - although in practice it may by *actual rail adhesion* be limited to the same *applicable* drawbar pull - if doing so at lower factor of mean cylinder pressure / boiler pressure !
This and it's comparatively low number of powered wheels are inherent conceptional limitations that contain maximum steam loco's power output at low speed while diesel locos having electrical power transmission providing almost perfect 'torque conversion' if you like can apply full motor power output at the same low speed range until resulting traction motors torque may surpass actual rail adhesion limit again . Yet , typical attainable factor t e / adhesion mass is significantly larger by default than in a reciprocating steam locomotive .
Consequently , a typical 4000 motor hp Co-Co diesel is principally bound to have a superior maximum drawbar pull as compared to the most valiant of 4-8-4 steam loco . As the 4-8-4 should live up to - say - 6000 ihp at optimum speed , with speed rising inevitably there will be a point where the steam loco becomes superior to the diesel in keeping up drawbar pull - that's why steam fared better in flatland while diesels did compare the better the steeper a grade .
There is no need to get at loggerheads about that , no need for meeting on main street at High Noon - successful railroading is an art of harmonizing power , line profiles and loads to obtain an optimum and that applies with any principal type of traction .
Although matters tractive effort do bear a relation to aesthetics - the resulting locomotive looks differ consideraby when designed for some 30.000 lbs as a rule of thumb for European Pacifics , or when designed for some 80.000 lbs as the N&W J class was - this aspect has not become all to clear in the recent 'branch line' of this thread .
So , if participants would agree we might preferably either cut this part of the discussion off here and I would agree to add it to my "Chally to the Nines" thread - minus the more personal addresses - that is , or we might just delete it . Either one is fine with me ( although deleting means less work some t e topical aspects worth noting have been brought up )
Participants in this part of the discussion - what' s your thought about it ?
Juniatha, you're right, people take this stuff WAY too seriously, hence my efforts on occasion to inject some humor into the discussion. As I've said before, I try to keep some sillyness in my hobbies so I don't get to the point of losing sleep over them. You should see me when I'm running the "O" gauge layout, but that's another story.
We can all agree on the fact steam is dead, dead beyond recall except for those locomotives that were lucky enough to survive the torch and the sledge hammer. It's not coming back, a whole industry that took 100 years to rise to the level it did would have to be re-created from nothing, and that's not going to happen, ever. For now diesel rules, as it will probably rule until something, who knows what, comes along to take its place.
But we can always remember the sheer power, the glory, the unquestioned magnificence of the steam locomotive. We can remember it through books, films, excursions, and the memories of those who were lucky enough to see it in it's prime. And we can look at the living examples and say to ourselves, "Forget computers, forget Artificial Intelligence, forget nano-technology, the closest man has EVER come to creating life is the STEAM LOCOMOTIVE!", because it's true.
I love you all, keep up the commenting, keep up the high-spirited discussions, it's just pure fun to see what shows up here.
And Juniatha, "pleonasm"? Sounds like some kind of nasty disease, but then, all diesels are diseased! Relax folks, I'm just being silly again!
WOW! I think this is the first time I've ever seen a thread unlocked before!
Moving along to just behind the loco cab. Last last night I was looking at a model of the Pennsy Q2. I noticed that, much like the Pennsy's J1a, the tender contours didn't come close to matching the contour of the loco cab.
After putting so much effort into styling the Q2, I wonder why the Pennsy didn't take the time to design a tender that would look better behind their locos? On some roads, the tender looks like it was just made for the loco. On other roads, the tender looked as though it was just an afterthought.
After all, the engine has to have a tender (tank engines excepted). The design of the tender adds to the overall appearance and the making of an overall "Handsome" locomotive.
I am glad this thread is now back on track!
I locked to give you folks a break, sit back for a moment and relax. I enjoyed the discussion very much & I hope to see more.
Hi Ulrich
Good to see you unlocked - I appreciate .
I will come up with another picture to discuss , uhm aesthetics , that is ...
See you later
alligator
picture deleted March 27th
Hi Big Jim
Here is a modification I had made earlier thinking along a similar line : "Why did they care to get 'a few gallons' extra of water space by fitting those water leg 'low rider' sides to the tender when they didn't care to built it up to loading gauge ?" ( Answer , probably : the tender was developed to fit to the M1 and I1 classes as well and was simply kept as it was when used for the J1 and Q2 - arguably a somewhat stark simplification )
In order to fix both , I 'took' the tank and 'mounted' it some 4 ins higher up - in other words : no more water legs along the sides however higher deck level and inwards bending angle of coal compartment in line with cab roof line above window . In my view this is still a bit low a tender and I would have preferred to wash away that dog's hut , too , yet I wanted to keep it to a strictly aesthetic variation , no modification of specs included , except for that smoothened cylinder sheet metal . If the locomotive looks cleaner than on the original photo it's because I couln't resist to 'wipe' off the more offending spots of cinderella's wear and generally darkened the locomotive for a cleaner appearance as if there still were loco cleaners taking care .
.....I'm certainly not the expert here, but just peeking at the engine to the right might be a T1.
And if any locomotive looks like "power".....that Q2 {I believe}, certainly does in your photo = J =. The size of those rods and steam boxes. And driving wheels. Awesome. Even with your "smoothing" things a bit....
I know -
Quentin , it's a wide spread phenomenon with pictures posted : bady adjusted cut-out ! In this instance it's the big locomotive in the middle taking up so much space ! Even with my smoothing *g*
The tender is one thing that NYC did get right with the J3A (non-streamlined and streamlined, both) and J1A. There certainly are better looking Hudsons. The New Haven I-5 being tops for streamlined (and with a good tender too), and the Lackawanna and Nickle Plate 4-6-4's for non-streamlined. But no one can complain that the NYC didn't get their 12-wheeled tenders right. Not so sure about the Boston and Albany 600's with their smaller tenders, of course centerpeed long-distance tenders from the Mowhawks and Niagras do look out of place behind the Hudsons.
Quote >> of course centerpeed long-distance tenders from the Mowhawks and Niagras do look out of place behind the Hudsons. <<
Dave ,
a tender having the same number of wheels as the engine unit IMHO has always been a concession to long distance running , in an international scope clearly was a case for the LWWA ( Locomotive Weight Watchers Anonymous ) Me , as for one I'd appreciate the eight wheel tenders on Pacifics at least - only , the bogies and wheel diameter showed off rather mince . The Centipede PT tenders intriguingly missed out the Mohawks , maybe because they were designed for high speed water pick up and the Mohawks were not considered first in demand .
(this was written on i-pad , and .. you know the rest )
Aesthetics are very much a matter of personal views and liking - difficult to discuss, as what might be appealing to you , may not be appealing to me.
Discussing design principles puts the discussion on a more objective level.
When we take a look at steam locomotive designs of the heydays of steam, we see quite a big difference between various countries and cultures.
Looking at Britain, locomotives always had a very "clean " look to them - hardly any external piping, pumps or anything a steamer needs. They usually also sported an elaborate paint job, topped with multi-color lining and brass accessories, like exhaust stack rims, brass dome covers etc. Operating a steam loco is no clean business and it must have been a heck of an effort to keep them in this clean-shaven look.
Even narrow gauge locos sported that look:
French steam locomotives had a more utilitarian look to them, but still had a certain "elegance" in their design:
Though being more "Germanic" by culture, the Swiss followed French design principles - basically utilitarian, but with a touch of elegance:
The US, in my humble view, as well as Germany, followed a strict utilitarian approach to steam locomotive design, exceptions limited to those top name trains and their motive power:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.