picture deleted March 27th
= J =
.
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 .
Regards
Juniatha
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
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.
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.
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!
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
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 ?
This thread has now long left the path of discussing locomotive aesthetics, so it´s time to move on.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
The government wasting my tax dollars? They wouldn't do that, now would they?
.....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
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
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!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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.
Crandell
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!
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.
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!
BigJim And what is the factor of adhesion on that GP40-2 that would have dropped its load in that same spot?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv34J8i5nOc
BigJim To quote your latest text : >> If you will go back and read what I wrote you will see that I referred to a limited cut-off.<< I herewith repeat my quoting of your text in your previous comment , the one I was quoting in my previous comment , word for word as follows : >> But then it didn't have full gear capability. Many modern steam locos were designed with limited cut-off. To note : referring to the topical N&W J class you wrote >> But then it didn't have full gear capability. << full stop . The following sentence you explicitly addressed to an unnamed >> many modern steam locos << not the J class nor any other class since you wrote >> many .. locomotiv4es << and as we all know a locomotive is not identical with a class , but a member of a class and that again not necessarily . To be sure : I knew what you wanted to say - only you didn't do it ! Since however in that particular post you let on you know so much better , I didn't want to try and correct you - I left that to yourself and you have done it well . For definition of terms as I understand and use them - open to correction : (a) cut-off : point of mechanical closing of intake given as percentage of total piston travel (b) short cut-off : valve gear closing intake at an early point of piston travel , most generally below some 40 % ( of piston travel ) (c) long cut-off : valve gear closing intake at a late point of piston travel , most generally above some 50 % ( of piston travel ) (d) full cut-off : the longest cut-off in the sense of (c) a given valve gear on a given type of locomotive will provide when reverser is put down ‘to the corner’ ; this by itself does not describe any definite cut-off in percentage of piston travel but just is the longest possible in an existing engine as set up (e) limited cut-off : valve gear by intention set up to provide significantly shorter than usual maximum cut-off in full gear position of reverser , such as 70 .. 65 .. 60 or lower maximum mechanical cut-off as in contrast to regular 75 .. 80 .. 84 , the latter presenting about a practical maximum of what can be designed with Walschaerts valve gear without special adaptations to low speed working or using starter or auxiliary grooves or other devices to lengthen effective cylinder filling over actual cut-off as given by main valve In this context , I read with surprise your note , to quote >> .. you will see that I refered to a limited cut-off. .. The J's were designed for a maximum of 82% cut-off. << Again , your second sentence would compromise your previous sentence since if full cut-off position in the N&W J class specifically provided 82 % then quite clearly this type of locomotive was not built with a limited cut-off feature ! Now , since you wrote you have actually driven # 611 – in second lease of life preserved running , as I presume – why don’t you just state definitely how long a max cut-off did you set it to ? By the way , to quote again from your latest comment : >> And you should well know what that means. For those who don't, it means that the valve gear was designed to not allow the admission of steam anywhere close to 100% full stroke. << Wherein >> it << refers to your previous sentence ending with >> limited cut-off.<< The Walschaerts valve gear by default did not allow admission or intake to attain that high a percentage of piston travel nor would it have been edifying to try and tailor it to do so by using rather odd proportions . Consequentially , not anything below near >> 100 % << was regarded as or defined as limited cut-off . So much for that . Second To quote >> Now as far as your engineering logic based on physical laws are concerned, .. << Thanks , but there are no such “my engineering logic” . Technology makes no distinction as to sex , the same old physical laws apply to anyone , everywhere and in all they do . Quote >> What I do question is your making a statement without knowing if it is actually true or not. << Sad enough if that is your assumption – need I point out it is of course not true . I made my point on a well known grounds of physics and therefore I know that it’s true , anything else would have to be regarded as a miracle and should get attention as to it’s circumstances or rather a check to see where the flaws are in human reception as compared to what really happened ( this applies more often than witnesses would like to admit especially with people maintaining a somewhat skeptical relation to engineering and physical laws ) Quote >> Just a because a design engineer can crunch some numbers on a slide rule doesn't mean that that is the way it is going to work in real life. << If that’s your idea of mechanical engineering , it’s less than appalling – it’s deplorable . We don’t >> crunch some numbers << and by the way >> slide rule << oh , yeah , I inherited one from my late father , however for work we use CAD . Engineering and calculations applied are ever so slightly different from the numbers drawn in a lottery . Third Quote >> Witness the so-called advanced wheel slip systems of today. It is not unusual that one has to ease off the throttle in order to not overpower track conditions. Or in other words Mother nature once again defeats the best laid plans of mice and men.<< There is a saying : you can’t design fool-prove against everything or everyone . Or in reverse : No engine can be designed in a way it can’t be destroyed if an operator so chooses – it’s all result of human brain and effort – of limited knowledge , limited resources , limited construction . If you take a negative look at what >> advanced wheel slip systems of today << cannot do ( really you mean the opposite, I guess – but that’s a Freud’s misspeller that bespeaks intention : wheel slip !) then you look at it the wrong way . Just because a system cannot deal with any possible situation including the most extreme and unlikely one doesn’t mean it is useless , less does it prove engineering in total is nonsense , useless or doesn’t work . You seem to hate engineers , yet in your work – presumably as a diesel driver – you owe a lot of simplification , help and safe-guarding , not to forget comfort to engineering brains having spotted , investigated , designed , tested and finally overcome existing problems , in fact your entire work situation is a result of engineering progress and driving a locomotive out on the road you fully depend on what engineers have designed as a train traction work tool for you ! If an electronic anti-slip control defies to answer an extreme situation it may also be a result of economics having decided to do without a more sophisticated self-controlling system , by intent deciding to leave a wider scope of control to the human factor to avoid drivers would feel disabled or patronized by engine electronics deciding on its own which orders of a driver to comply to and to which extent . So don’t complain if there are situations where you have to use your wits to keep your tonnage rolling . Forth Quote >> Given the wrong rail conditions any locomotive (steam or diesel) can have massive problems with adhesion. So too, given the right rail conditions a loco will have absolutely no problem with adhesion.<< First sentence is trivial . Second is wrong . There is a definite limit of adhesion ( to use the colloquial term – really it’s not adhesion but friction ) that steel wheels can find on steel rails . If tractive effort demand is above that , there is trouble : the locomotive cannot keep up with demand . That can happen any time there is a misjudgment in actual traffic of load / speed / rising grade and engine performance limit . >> This I have experianced over my entire 39+ years in train & engine service. << You mean in 39 years you have never experienced a stall or overload ? >> And that is what qualifies me to disqualify your blanket statement about "no full gear starting for a J".<< Nope , Sir ! (a) you are again misquoting me ! I never wrote you couldn’t drop down to full gear starting a J , in fact that’s what you wrote by yourself , remember your previous comment , to quote : >> But then it didn't have full gear capability.<< So , fair play : don’t shove your miscomposed sentences over to my side ! Why should it not have been possible to use full gear in a N&W J class ? However , what I wrote was : provided there was full boiler pressure available at that moment it would be unwise to use full throttle i e apply all boiler pressure minus small enough throttling pressure drop to steam chest . Based on specific dimensions of this class of locomotive I can clearly state it was more prone to slip under this sort of handling than was a Niagara for instance simply because at that extreme setting of controls a N&W J would exert a much higher specific tractive effort per unit of adhesion mass than the latter and based on average dry rail conditions this extra amount of specific torque at wheel rim would provoke at least a borderline case if not more likely it would be above adhesion limit . My statement is not >> blanket << but based on facts , therefore I keep that up , full stop . (b) As you choose to use misquotations you disqualify yourself for offering a better view on the matter at hand . Side remark : You seem to retain a notion it were telling of a specific quality in the design of a steam locomotive if the engine would allow for this rude sort of handling . It does not . If an engine does not slip on dry rails using full gear ( provided for now this was 75 % or over ) and full throttle at the same time when starting , there is but one thing it tells an engineer and that is : cylinder volume is inadequate for getting best low to medium speed performance from a given boiler output . If you want to look at it this way , that condition was present in the production series Niagaras . Yet , it was allowed for since main interest was in continued daily high speed running and to optimize performance in the upper speed range a degree of loss in low speed hard pulling output was allowed for . Mind that any reduction in full pressure piston load allows for accordingly reduced reciprocating masses and that directly leads to reduction of mass inertia forces in running gear , axles and chassis – a big advantage to maintenance , lower wear and improved longevity of an engine ( if in the end it became meaningless because of premature scrapping this was not for technical reasons but in consequence of commercial decisions to abandon steam ) Add,: Quote >> If you would like to spend the money on a few recordings, I think you will hear that there are at least a couple out there that has a J making a maximum effort start and not slipping a wheel.<< I have a few recordings – although I missed out one LP I saw in an antiques shop in Goodge Street in London when I strolled around fashion and vinyls shopping . As far as I remember it was titled “Steam and thunder” and featured a night picture of a N&W A or Y , the flip-side read it contained recordings of N&W freight on grades in the Alleghennies in a thunderstorm . Sounded promising , yet I found my money was all spent with that last pair of jeans and fancy pullover , I asked the guy to put it aside , intending to return the other day – but that was when we had to leave . Still I can imagine the sound of a J class pulling at all out effort - yet that doesn’t prove anything about using full throttle and full gear at the same time when it would appear more sensible to use something around ¾ of b p while at full cut-off . Side remark : If you would have tried the like on any . but any ! , European Pacific you’d have got a vicious wheel spin and gained nothing but trouble . As by what I have learned from knowledgeable engineers and loco crews in France , Germany and Poland and by some – admittedly quite limited first hand experience by my own ( I have come late but not too late ) I may summon : Typically , an SNCF four cylinder compound Pacific was started on no more than half throttle ( meaning half of b p ) until receiver filler valve was closed and the engine worked in compound mode – then on dry rails something like ¾ throttle was applied until cut-off was brought in and throttle fully opened . On a German 01 class Pacific , usual starting procedure was to drop down to some 60 % or over according to train length ( of a maximum of 81 % ) and throttle would be cracked open to admit some 50 – 60 % of b p to steam chest ( on wet rails ; no more than 2/3 of b p on dry rails ) – very much likewise on 52 class light Decapods . This does not indicate these engines were lacking power in relation to engine service mass – on the contrary : they exerted full tractive effort at these throttle settings already . Now , when notching up , it was possible to compensate by opening throttle further and that allowed to much keep up tractive effort than if there was no reserve as with full throttle / full gear starting . Also , it allowed for running a 44 class three cylinder heavy Decapod up a ramp at some 25 mph on full throttle and no more than 40 % cut-off since that already gave all the tractive effort that was safe to apply in view of adhesion limit – thus using steam more economical than in an engine that would do the same only on much longer or full cut-off and full throttle and since in reciprocal saving steam increased power output per mass unit of steam per hour it provided for a very high percentage of maximum output present in high effort / low speed ramp performance . No insult intended , by all means I’m prepared to discuss steam loco specs and design – only : it should be down to facts , the real McCoy , no vague reproaches or affronts please . Regards
BigJim
To quote your latest text :
>> If you will go back and read what I wrote you will see that I referred to a limited cut-off.<<
I herewith repeat my quoting of your text in your previous comment , the one I was quoting in my previous comment , word for word as follows :
>> But then it didn't have full gear capability. Many modern steam locos were designed with limited cut-off.
To note : referring to the topical N&W J class you wrote >> But then it didn't have full gear capability. << full stop . The following sentence you explicitly addressed to an unnamed >> many modern steam locos << not the J class nor any other class since you wrote >> many .. locomotiv4es << and as we all know a locomotive is not identical with a class , but a member of a class and that again not necessarily .
To be sure : I knew what you wanted to say - only you didn't do it ! Since however in that particular post you let on you know so much better , I didn't want to try and correct you - I left that to yourself and you have done it well .
For definition of terms as I understand and use them - open to correction :
(a) cut-off : point of mechanical closing of intake given as percentage of total piston travel
(b) short cut-off : valve gear closing intake at an early point of piston travel , most generally below some 40 % ( of piston travel )
(c) long cut-off : valve gear closing intake at a late point of piston travel , most generally above some 50 % ( of piston travel )
(d) full cut-off : the longest cut-off in the sense of (c) a given valve gear on a given type of locomotive will provide when reverser is put down ‘to the corner’ ; this by itself does not describe any definite cut-off in percentage of piston travel but just is the longest possible in an existing engine as set up
(e) limited cut-off : valve gear by intention set up to provide significantly shorter than usual maximum cut-off in full gear position of reverser , such as 70 .. 65 .. 60 or lower maximum mechanical cut-off as in contrast to regular 75 .. 80 .. 84 , the latter presenting about a practical maximum of what can be designed with Walschaerts valve gear without special adaptations to low speed working or using starter or auxiliary grooves or other devices to lengthen effective cylinder filling over actual cut-off as given by main valve
In this context , I read with surprise your note , to quote >> .. you will see that I refered to a limited cut-off. .. The J's were designed for a maximum of 82% cut-off. <<
Again , your second sentence would compromise your previous sentence since if full cut-off position in the N&W J class specifically provided 82 % then quite clearly this type of locomotive was not built with a limited cut-off feature !
Now , since you wrote you have actually driven # 611 – in second lease of life preserved running , as I presume – why don’t you just state definitely how long a max cut-off did you set it to ?
By the way , to quote again from your latest comment : >> And you should well know what that means. For those who don't, it means that the valve gear was designed to not allow the admission of steam anywhere close to 100% full stroke. <<
Wherein >> it << refers to your previous sentence ending with >> limited cut-off.<<
The Walschaerts valve gear by default did not allow admission or intake to attain that high a percentage of piston travel nor would it have been edifying to try and tailor it to do so by using rather odd proportions . Consequentially , not anything below near >> 100 % << was regarded as or defined as limited cut-off .
So much for that .
Second
To quote >> Now as far as your engineering logic based on physical laws are concerned, .. <<
Thanks , but there are no such “my engineering logic” . Technology makes no distinction as to sex , the same old physical laws apply to anyone , everywhere and in all they do .
Quote >> What I do question is your making a statement without knowing if it is actually true or not. <<
Sad enough if that is your assumption – need I point out it is of course not true . I made my point on a well known grounds of physics and therefore I know that it’s true , anything else would have to be regarded as a miracle and should get attention as to it’s circumstances or rather a check to see where the flaws are in human reception as compared to what really happened ( this applies more often than witnesses would like to admit especially with people maintaining a somewhat skeptical relation to engineering and physical laws )
Quote >> Just a because a design engineer can crunch some numbers on a slide rule doesn't mean that that is the way it is going to work in real life. <<
If that’s your idea of mechanical engineering , it’s less than appalling – it’s deplorable . We don’t >> crunch some numbers << and by the way >> slide rule << oh , yeah , I inherited one from my late father , however for work we use CAD . Engineering and calculations applied are ever so slightly different from the numbers drawn in a lottery .
Third
Quote >> Witness the so-called advanced wheel slip systems of today. It is not unusual that one has to ease off the throttle in order to not overpower track conditions. Or in other words Mother nature once again defeats the best laid plans of mice and men.<<
There is a saying : you can’t design fool-prove against everything or everyone . Or in reverse : No engine can be designed in a way it can’t be destroyed if an operator so chooses – it’s all result of human brain and effort – of limited knowledge , limited resources , limited construction .
If you take a negative look at what >> advanced wheel slip systems of today << cannot do ( really you mean the opposite, I guess – but that’s a Freud’s misspeller that bespeaks intention : wheel slip !) then you look at it the wrong way . Just because a system cannot deal with any possible situation including the most extreme and unlikely one doesn’t mean it is useless , less does it prove engineering in total is nonsense , useless or doesn’t work . You seem to hate engineers , yet in your work – presumably as a diesel driver – you owe a lot of simplification , help and safe-guarding , not to forget comfort to engineering brains having spotted , investigated , designed , tested and finally overcome existing problems , in fact your entire work situation is a result of engineering progress and driving a locomotive out on the road you fully depend on what engineers have designed as a train traction work tool for you ! If an electronic anti-slip control defies to answer an extreme situation it may also be a result of economics having decided to do without a more sophisticated self-controlling system , by intent deciding to leave a wider scope of control to the human factor to avoid drivers would feel disabled or patronized by engine electronics deciding on its own which orders of a driver to comply to and to which extent . So don’t complain if there are situations where you have to use your wits to keep your tonnage rolling .
Forth
Quote >> Given the wrong rail conditions any locomotive (steam or diesel) can have massive problems with adhesion. So too, given the right rail conditions a loco will have absolutely no problem with adhesion.<<
First sentence is trivial . Second is wrong . There is a definite limit of adhesion ( to use the colloquial term – really it’s not adhesion but friction ) that steel wheels can find on steel rails . If tractive effort demand is above that , there is trouble : the locomotive cannot keep up with demand . That can happen any time there is a misjudgment in actual traffic of load / speed / rising grade and engine performance limit .
>> This I have experianced over my entire 39+ years in train & engine service. << You mean in 39 years you have never experienced a stall or overload ?
>> And that is what qualifies me to disqualify your blanket statement about "no full gear starting for a J".<<
Nope , Sir !
(a) you are again misquoting me ! I never wrote you couldn’t drop down to full gear starting a J , in fact that’s what you wrote by yourself , remember your previous comment , to quote : >> But then it didn't have full gear capability.<< So , fair play : don’t shove your miscomposed sentences over to my side !
Why should it not have been possible to use full gear in a N&W J class ? However , what I wrote was : provided there was full boiler pressure available at that moment it would be unwise to use full throttle i e apply all boiler pressure minus small enough throttling pressure drop to steam chest . Based on specific dimensions of this class of locomotive I can clearly state it was more prone to slip under this sort of handling than was a Niagara for instance simply because at that extreme setting of controls a N&W J would exert a much higher specific tractive effort per unit of adhesion mass than the latter and based on average dry rail conditions this extra amount of specific torque at wheel rim would provoke at least a borderline case if not more likely it would be above adhesion limit . My statement is not >> blanket << but based on facts , therefore I keep that up , full stop .
(b) As you choose to use misquotations you disqualify yourself for offering a better view on the matter at hand .
Side remark :
You seem to retain a notion it were telling of a specific quality in the design of a steam locomotive if the engine would allow for this rude sort of handling . It does not . If an engine does not slip on dry rails using full gear ( provided for now this was 75 % or over ) and full throttle at the same time when starting , there is but one thing it tells an engineer and that is : cylinder volume is inadequate for getting best low to medium speed performance from a given boiler output . If you want to look at it this way , that condition was present in the production series Niagaras . Yet , it was allowed for since main interest was in continued daily high speed running and to optimize performance in the upper speed range a degree of loss in low speed hard pulling output was allowed for . Mind that any reduction in full pressure piston load allows for accordingly reduced reciprocating masses and that directly leads to reduction of mass inertia forces in running gear , axles and chassis – a big advantage to maintenance , lower wear and improved longevity of an engine ( if in the end it became meaningless because of premature scrapping this was not for technical reasons but in consequence of commercial decisions to abandon steam )
Add,:
Quote >> If you would like to spend the money on a few recordings, I think you will hear that there are at least a couple out there that has a J making a maximum effort start and not slipping a wheel.<<
I have a few recordings – although I missed out one LP I saw in an antiques shop in Goodge Street in London when I strolled around fashion and vinyls shopping . As far as I remember it was titled “Steam and thunder” and featured a night picture of a N&W A or Y , the flip-side read it contained recordings of N&W freight on grades in the Alleghennies in a thunderstorm . Sounded promising , yet I found my money was all spent with that last pair of jeans and fancy pullover , I asked the guy to put it aside , intending to return the other day – but that was when we had to leave .
Still I can imagine the sound of a J class pulling at all out effort - yet that doesn’t prove anything about using full throttle and full gear at the same time when it would appear more sensible to use something around ¾ of b p while at full cut-off .
If you would have tried the like on any . but any ! , European Pacific you’d have got a vicious wheel spin and gained nothing but trouble . As by what I have learned from knowledgeable engineers and loco crews in France , Germany and Poland and by some – admittedly quite limited first hand experience by my own ( I have come late but not too late ) I may summon : Typically , an SNCF four cylinder compound Pacific was started on no more than half throttle ( meaning half of b p ) until receiver filler valve was closed and the engine worked in compound mode – then on dry rails something like ¾ throttle was applied until cut-off was brought in and throttle fully opened . On a German 01 class Pacific , usual starting procedure was to drop down to some 60 % or over according to train length ( of a maximum of 81 % ) and throttle would be cracked open to admit some 50 – 60 % of b p to steam chest ( on wet rails ; no more than 2/3 of b p on dry rails ) – very much likewise on 52 class light Decapods . This does not indicate these engines were lacking power in relation to engine service mass – on the contrary : they exerted full tractive effort at these throttle settings already . Now , when notching up , it was possible to compensate by opening throttle further and that allowed to much keep up tractive effort than if there was no reserve as with full throttle / full gear starting . Also , it allowed for running a 44 class three cylinder heavy Decapod up a ramp at some 25 mph on full throttle and no more than 40 % cut-off since that already gave all the tractive effort that was safe to apply in view of adhesion limit – thus using steam more economical than in an engine that would do the same only on much longer or full cut-off and full throttle and since in reciprocal saving steam increased power output per mass unit of steam per hour it provided for a very high percentage of maximum output present in high effort / low speed ramp performance .
No insult intended , by all means I’m prepared to discuss steam loco specs and design – only : it should be down to facts , the real McCoy , no vague reproaches or affronts please .
I am going to offer up this information and that will be end from me on this off-subject part of this thread.
Pick up the DVD "Hooters on Blue Ridge". At about the six minute mark, you will see engine 605 start a heavy train on the 1.6% grade at Ada, W.Va. on Oct. 10, 1957. As the engine passes you will see valve gear in full forward and no slipping.
This is an excellent DVD in all color & sound. It is one of the best you will find. You won't regret getting this one.
Big Jim: No reason not to brag about having run "The Mighty 611". As the saying goes "It ain't bragging if you can do it!" However, you MIGHT have saved everyone some trouble if you'd said at the outset (if you haven't done so in the past) that you've GOT hands-on experience with the old queen. Establishes your credentials right at the outset, know what I mean? Could save other folks some embarassment too.
It's the reason also that when I make a statement about something I usually mention it's the books that form my opinion, so that folks don't get hot and bothered when they disagree.
....Oh so nice....both of 'em. Would be pleased to have either or both as a model on display in my home office here....Very nice units.
A person's interests and tastes are mutable. I entered the rail model hobby about seven years ago and quickly decided which railroads appealed to me and which did not. Narrow gauge with their culture and looks...not for me (not yet, I should say). When I first encountered the N&W's J in photographs, I thought to myself, "Yikes! What were they thinking?" Then I saw that Rocket Man style NYC Pacific or Hudson, not sure which, with the great woodman's axe-head runing vertically through the bulbous smokebox. To meself, "Holy crap...what were they thinking?!" Suddenly the J looked much more demure and reserved...even classy. A thing can be tarted up too much...if you know what I mean. And, just as suddenly, my mission for an entire month was to find an HO J to add to my roster...I liked that gal that much. Odd, eh?
I hope you'll agree that, in this photo at least, it looks sleek and fast.
As for the T1, it is one of my favourites, and I will agree with its comparison with a chisel. I have also seen it look a bit like a U-boat, sure, but the nose is what appeals to me. The bulbous intercooler fairing, assuming it hides a couple of pumps and an intercooler , is almost unfortunate, but not fully...it adds to the quirkiness of the entire design. Similarly, the short and sculpted siderods, and the weird valve actuators, also add to the mystique...particularly the left side rear actuator linkage....you have to admit it is a bit odd.
I also find appealing the bevelled side-casing along the 'shoulder' of the boiler. The nose and that casing make the engine look like it was meant to punch through the atmosphere with brute force behind it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.