I find a lot to agree with. Again, I like the Daylights. Just like the N&W J and New Haven I-5 a bit better. If course I prefer to see the the SP's 4-8-4's as designed and streamlined. I liek the previous comparison of Pennsy steam streamlining with the Dryfuss J's. I am sorry no T-1 was saved. One should have been. Again, to me it is esthetically a steam locomotive GG-1. And its relationship to the N&W J, New Haven I-5, Daylights, and Royal Hudsons, to me is much liek the relationship esthetically of the GG-1 to the (to me) very beautiful New Haven EP-4 and EF-3 in their original green and gold as delivered.
I only rode once behind a J, and that was from Petersberg to Norfolk at night. I rdoe behind T-1;s on about four occasions, and behind K-4'a on too numerouis occasions to count.
Lets not call Pennsy Power (or Burlington, similar in oddity in general) ugly. Homey or odd, but still very, very lovable. One cananot call the "flying pumps" Pacifics of the C&O beautiful, but they are not ugly. And camelbacks.
And it is paint that makes a Southern PS-4 beautiful. Otherwise it would just be an average Pacific, no better or worse than a typical USRA Pacific.
Ah yes, the esthetics! Thanks Sir Madoq for posting the pictures of the 19.10 locomotive. When I saw the discussion starting of a Reichsbahn locomotive with V-2 motors on the side the first thing I thought of was "Was this a collaboration between the Reichsbahn and Werner von Braun and the Peenemunde boys?" Wouldn't THAT have been an interesting esthetic combo? A locomotive with two rockets on either side. However, the reality is just as fascinating. What a pity the thing was scrapped here in the US, what could they have learned from it?
And per DaveK's comment on the "Daylight", well I think the colors look just fine. The silver smokebox is a bit discordant, but still the whole concept works. Ever see pictures of one of those GS engines in the late steam era, all done over in basic black? Bleeeech! Ruins the look totally!
I can´t cook a decent meal, but I still like to eat one...
Can we come back to the issue of loco aesthetics, please?
Juniatha,If you will go back and read what I wrote you will see that I refered to a limited cut-off. 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. The J's were designed for a maximum of 82% cut-off. It could use all of that, so, I guess it depends on how one wants to define "Full Gear".
Now as far as your engineering logic based on physical laws are concerned, I have no question about that at all. What I do question is your making a statement without knowing if it is actually true or not. 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.
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.
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. This I have experianced over my entire 39+ years in train & engine service. As one of my engineer mentors would say "I've been there baby, up and down both sides of that street". And that is what qualifies me to disqualify your blanket statement about "no full gear starting for a J". And, ask why an intelligent person such as yourself would postulate on something you haven't experianced?
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. And yes to be fair, you will also hear one having problems gaining traction.
BTW, I did not "indirectly let on" to have operated both a J and T1. I have never operated a T1 and I don't brag about the time I operated the 611. Although, I will brag that the N&W Class J #611 is an amazing locomotive and I think that will stand for the entire class of 14 locomotives!
What! No comment on the T1 - Submarine comparison?
.
Man! You guys are incorrigable! Left to your own devices you wandered right back into the forrest of dense technical lacunae and automotive lore, no less. Still the discussion of the steam motor was an eye-opener to me and the photos something to conjure with although not particularly "aesthetic". The last three pages of the thread have been all over the ballpark but I will add a few not too technical points. Indeed the PRR did test the N&W J and on the racetrack from Crestline to Chicago via Fort Wayne at that. They agreed the engine did all that was wanted and was fine at 100 mph but they simply could not bring themselves to trust the 70 inch drivers. They had decided they wanted an 80 inch drivered machine since the larger wheel would reduce the rpm count at speed with correspondingly less strain on everything reciprocating and the track. Another little nugget: When C&O gave the Pennsy men the blueprints for the their T-1 they furnished the original drawings and made no mention of many modifications they had made to improve the beast. Pennsy had to go through the teething process all over again before their J-1 was fully up to the mark. Finally I sympathize with the crys of pain and anguish that arose when I ridiculed the Dreyfuss Hudsons but here's the thing. Dreyfuss gives the unmistakeable impression he was trying too hard. The "rocket" look ends up appearing contrived and over the top. Contrast Raymond Lowey's approach to the Pennsy T-1's. It's sleek, powerful, wonderfully appropriate for a fast locomotive and harmonizes with the railroading environment. In a word it's handsome.
Ah, Juniatha, did I catch you out with the reference to the AC-9. Not to worry! Only twelve were ever built and they labored mostly in obscurity on the S.P.'s El Paso-Tumcacari and Modoc Lines. They were "conventional" because they originally burned New Mexico mined coal instead of oil. They were equipped with well proportioned C&O style tenders. Still, they were beauties even though their crews disliked them because the all weather cabs were very hot and stuffy for the mostly desert terrain they operated in.
One final caviat. Just because I say an engine strikes me as ugly doesn't mean I don't like it. All steam is noble! I model the PRR in my basement and one thing that draws me to that prototype is that the "plain to the point of ugly" look is also very purposeful. It bespeaks serious no frills heavy duty down-and-dirty railroading.with a heavy coat of weathering and that's what I try to capture! To see if I've succeeded, go to www.fmrrc.org, click on photo gallery and click on Jim Valle's basement layout. Hope you like it!
You don't tug on Superman's cape, and around here, you don't question Juniatha's technical insights.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Hey Big Jim, just 'cause Juniatha's never operated a "J" or a T-1 doesn't mean she's not qualified to comment on 'em. Look, you don't have to get pregnant to qualify as an obstetrician, do you?
And can you believe this thread's gone on to 22 pages? "Shovel in the coal boys, let her roll..."
Your comments on T1 contouring ?
Definately not a "Shark Nose". More like a "Chisel Nose" and even more like a "U-Boat" or I should say even more like a U.S. "WWII Fleet Sub".
PS Maybe someone can tell me why the font went to small and I'll fix it so a normal person can read these without a magnifying glass.
the N&W J class had a substantially higher t e per unit of engine mass on powered wheels than the K4s , in other words a lower adhesion factor , an absolute low one in relation to average US practice , which meant : no full throttle full gear starting with this engine
But then it didn't have full gear capability. Many modern steam locos were designed with limited cut-off.
Juniatha,As for the "no full gear starting with this engine". Even with its somewhat lower figure on the "adhesion" scale, the J, unlike the T1, has never been regarded as a slippery engine. Also, discussions on other forums and other threads have tried to dispell this rumor about the T1 (Feltonhill being one champion of this campaign).
Considering that you have never operated the J or T1, that is a statement that I feel you are unqualified to make. Still, all of this is beyond the scope of this thread and should be "chiseled" out somewhere else.
Per GP-40's comment about there not being a "one size fits all" 4-8-4, well certainly not. A NYC "Niagara" intended for the "Water Level Route" probably wouldn't have worked at all for the PRR, neither would a 4-8-4 used by the RF&P on its fairly level track profile aand short run from Richmond to Washington. HOWEVER, a 4-8-4 designed to handle mountains and the concurrant up-and-down track profile like the Class "J" of the N&W, or an FEF-3 used by the UP which was also intended for pulling power up hills would probably served very well indeed. In fact, the UP didn't find out how good the FEF-3 really was until they were downgraded from passenger to freight service and performed outstandingly.
At any rate it doesn't matter, diesels were coming and nothing was going to stop them. I suspect most of the roads that held onto steam for as long as they did did so for reasons that made sense at the time. Steam servicing facilities were already built and were long since paid for, if the road hauled coal it usually burned it as well and was probably getting a deep discount for it.
Juniatha Hi Erik >> It wouldn't be too difficult modifying a V type gas or diesel engine to work as the proposed steam engine << I'm afraid that very much depends on what you might consider >> difficult << if you mind the regular concept steam engine worked in double acting mode , i e produced power both sides of pistons going out and in while combustion engines usually only produce power on down stroke with pressure on topside of pistons - except for slow runnng very large ships diesel engines which also have piston shafts and crossheads as a steam engine . Because of that I'd find it hard to see how even the raw motor block could be used , not to speak of valve actuation having to be desmodromic since in contrast to combustion engines highest pressure is in the intake duct system , while in combustion engines it is within cylinder space during power stroke which serves to seal valves additionally to spring load . You could do away with the double action feature , using a single action concept and double the number of cylinders in compensation - we would be talking of a V12 steam motor then .
Hi Erik
>> It wouldn't be too difficult modifying a V type gas or diesel engine to work as the proposed steam engine <<
I'm afraid that very much depends on what you might consider >> difficult << if you mind the regular concept steam engine worked in double acting mode , i e produced power both sides of pistons going out and in while combustion engines usually only produce power on down stroke with pressure on topside of pistons - except for slow runnng very large ships diesel engines which also have piston shafts and crossheads as a steam engine .
Because of that I'd find it hard to see how even the raw motor block could be used , not to speak of valve actuation having to be desmodromic since in contrast to combustion engines highest pressure is in the intake duct system , while in combustion engines it is within cylinder space during power stroke which serves to seal valves additionally to spring load .
You could do away with the double action feature , using a single action concept and double the number of cylinders in compensation - we would be talking of a V12 steam motor then .
That's pretty much what I was intending - the only internal combustion engines suitable for conversion to double acting steam would be double acting diesel engines. Also note that I didn't think such a conversion would be optimal, as per your comments on mean equivalent pressure.
There would be a "simple" modification to make the intake poppet valve work. The valve seat would be on the outside of the cylinder head, with the valve opening away from the piston. Assuming pushrods and rocker arms, the pivot point for the rocker arm placed on the far side of the valve from the pushrod - so the valve goes up instead of down when the pushrod goes up.
As for using a steam turbine , that would change the whole picture since in contrast to a steam piston engine the steam turbine is weak in torque from standstill start and high in steam consumption at the same time , thus in my view unsuited by principle for interrmittend hard push / pull working followed by coasting as typical with shunting or for widely varying loads and running speeds as required for rapid acceleration of commuter trains and mixed traffic secondary lines working .
Note I said coupled to a multiple speed transmission, e.g. the part of an automatic transmission after the torque converter. One report on the Baldwin S-2 showed that the steam rate (in lbs/hr) for a given tractive effort was almost constant for speeds between 0 and 60 MPH. While the gearing would greatly improve the low speed efficiency, it still would suffer if the locomotive spent most of its time at crawling speeds.
- Erik
Juniatha ...Yet , the N&W J class had a substantially higher t e per unit of engine mass on powered wheels than the K4s , in other words a lower adhesion factor , an absolute low one in relation to average US practice , which meant : no full throttle full gear starting with this engine... Regards Juniatha
...Yet , the N&W J class had a substantially higher t e per unit of engine mass on powered wheels than the K4s , in other words a lower adhesion factor , an absolute low one in relation to average US practice , which meant : no full throttle full gear starting with this engine...
Regards
Juniatha
This is a great point that many of you are forgetting about the N&W J Class. It also applies to the N&W A for that matter. Was the J a very good design? Yes, without a doubt. Was it the best 4-8-4 for the N&W? Perhaps, as that question really can not be answered with out a extensive test of every 4-8-4 design out there. Even if one assumes that the J design was the absolute best for the N&W's operating profile, does that mean by default that it was the best 4-8-4 design for every railroad? Absolutely not. A design that was operationally and economically good for the N&W, very well may have been an operational and economic disaster for another railroad with vastly different operating conditions.
There were many very good steam designs out there, but there was never one "best" design that would work equally well for all railroads.
daveklepper Bah, visually another inverted bathtub. No match for a J, I-5, Daylight, or T. -or CP Royal Hudson The bautfiul Daylight evening photo is marred by one item: The loco has a flat pilot/cowcatcher. I don't think all SP 4-8-4's had this type and those with more pointed ones were esthetically better in my opinion.
Bah, visually another inverted bathtub. No match for a J, I-5, Daylight, or T. -or CP Royal Hudson
The bautfiul Daylight evening photo is marred by one item: The loco has a flat pilot/cowcatcher. I don't think all SP 4-8-4's had this type and those with more pointed ones were esthetically better in my opinion.
Not much different or worse from this one:
I have to agree to you, however. I am not really fond of those streamlined steamers.
Wow....Madog added a nice group of those photos I have been scanning for recently. I had some of them several years ago, but they escaped me this go around. Thanks.
Beautiful shots of the mechanical prototype arrangement to power this engine. I think it's really sad it was distroyed here in the States back in '52. What a museum piece it would be if it was here now.
As for the design of the sheet metal, all that I've read seem to indicate the main thrust of that design was intended to allow the speed they were trying to accomplish. Seems to have worked as they did do "speed" with it on tests.
Bathtub or not....it seemed to enable it to cut thru the atmosphere. I too think there were many more "beautiful" machines in this catigory, but for what this one was intended for, perhaps the "design" was successful.
Still all aspects of it has been a major interest to me in reading, learning of the unusual engineering direction it was using. I have no facts, but the design had no rotating heavy side rods to work out the balance for....Pounding of the track, etc.....
Quentin
Thanx for showing the photos ,
Sir Madog
- I think they show the concept of the V2 motors pretty well . The idea of hinging them outsides was of course to continue a good thing found in the two cylinder SE engine .
Dave ,
while you rightly remind us of topic , of which we tend to meander a bit off topic , in this engine it's really just the steam motors interest focusses on . The streamlining was sort of standardized DR design , also - if much later - called 'Stahlhelm' since it was considered reminding of a WW-II soldiers steel helmet - not exactly a compliment for a streamliner and not intended to be one by the sharp tongued critics . As for me I believe it's well known I prefer steam in plain and honest 'work cloths' , i e with streamlining kept decent and functional , advancing actual engine lines by smoothness and elegance , not too much of fancy shrowding it in non-functional voluptuous or pretentious sheet metal applications . I will apply these criteria to some engines - you may apply them to others as you prefer , no problem .
= J =
Mind also , mean pressure in a steam engine , or motor in this instance , was several times lower than mean pressure during ( hot ) power stroke in both a diesel or gasoline engine - which again is one reason why steam engines ( or motors ) had very low outputs per unit of piston swept volume , with the best historic loco types reaching some 12 ihp / ltr of piston swept volume while more modest designs 'easily' failed to reach half that figure ! This contrasts with about 35 - 50 ihp / ltr in typical 1960s gasoline V8 engines , 70 - 90 in modern diesel , 80 - 120 ihp / ltr in present day gasoline engines , to name but typical rule of thumb values . Low specific output of the steam engine demanded high piston swept volumes to attain demanded power and that again - while having an advantageous effect on starting tractive effort - was largely responsible for the other drawback of the steam engine : low rpm working range , typically like 6 - 9 % of rpm speeds of contemporary gas and diesel engines . Now , if on top of that you wanted to use very short cut-offs for improved efficiency in a steam motor , mean pressure would tend to become lower again and you would quickly end up with a motor block although fairly reminiscent of a combustion engine having quite collossal proportions in relation to a diesel of equivalent output - that's probably why in his concept he hung the steam motor underneath frame beams , instead of setting it on top of them between boiler and frames - accessibility would also have been severely hampered there - while for overhaul the underslung motor could be made detachable in a bay equivalent to the one used for dropping a wheel set , the locomotive in exchange receiving an overhauled motor from shelve stocks within a matter of hours .
Just adding a few pictures of Reichsbahn class 19.10 "steam motor" loco, to visualize what we are talking about:
In 1943, she already looked sad:
Juniatha,
I have a mental picture of the frame from the 1961 K-M units for the Espee and D&RGW with what I think a DB tank engine would look like. A bit different than a Pacific Coast Shay to say the least.
It wouldn't be too difficult modifying a V type gas or diesel engine to work as the proposed steam engine, though probably not the optimal solution. The camshaft drive would need to be modified to open/close valves once per crankshaft revolution as opposed to every other crankshaft revolution, which would allow for the steam to be supplied via the intake manifold and exhausted through the exhaust manifold. I kind of doubt that the standard intake valve could hold off much steam pressure...
Hmmm, another possibility would be using a steam turbine driving through a multi-speed planetary transmission. This would be a larger scale version of what was proposed for gas turbine cars, the power turbine would be connected directly to the planetary gearset of an automatic transmission, with the turbine taking place of the torque converter.
Oh , yes - it was in a way a refinement of the Heisler - not so much the Shay in that the Shay had engine unit and drive shafts outsides including sliding elements . In the V6 C-C design power bogie tank engine , drive was fully derived from contemporary diesel-hydraulic engines minus torque converter minus gear speeds . The steam motor itself was also much looking like a diesel in that it was fully closed and had intake and exhaust lines much like a combustion engine - only that it's inner secrets would have worked substantially different with a whole different valve gear , too . I don't remember if the motor was to be reversible , though , or if change of direction was to be by reverse gear . The effect was that of a unique engine , looking from lower to upper starting much like a diesel-hydraulic C-C unit , then having side tanks full length and above them a conventional steam loco boiler , cab and rearward fuel tank . Surprisingly , it all combined in pretty agreeing ways and produced a stunning yet harmoniously looking little engine . Even if I would , I needn't even ask , the guy would not want to see a technical drawing of his posted - the 'Make a Flame' picture , see 'Chally to the Nines' thread page nine - was about as far as I got with my encouraging .
Hi Quentin
Well , that's pretty much what I wrote before - it was Duplex one step further - both in smooth running and in slipperiness . It sems however they were able to tackle that problem or were just about managing it when it all came to stop because of war . Slipperiness in an engine of individually powered - non-coupled - axles is a question of (a) keeping mass on axles even and balanced at all times and (b) providing for good sanding to secure a certain minimum of adhesion factor on rails (c) keeping axle boxes well aligned and free of play and geometry of wheel tires within decent limits . With PRR T1 engines slipping preferredly their first set of drivers I wonder if it didn't create differences in tire profiles first to second set which would have ever more encouraged premature slipping of leading engine .
....Hi = J = :
Just a question / comment...When I first saw this proto design several years ago I suppose I was fascinated with something so different.
Then...finally finding actual prints and photos of the arrangements of the "V" engines on the ends of each axle, It really caught my interest.
Now, I'm wondering how "slippery" that configuration might have been, especially in starting a load. Drive axles not connected....{Believe I'm correct on that}, it seems each axle would have spun easier than when all four would have been connected...Or am I remembering it wrong...
I briefly tried to find a photo of the "V" cyl. arrangement up close today, as I've seen in the past, but the short time I searched, I didn't come up with any, but I know it's out there.
Anyway....I think this was a fascinating experiment, and it was happening back 70 plus years ago.....Interesting.
That's starting to sound like a cross between the Shay and Heisler designs, using three cylinders per side as the Shay (though the Shay only had them on one side) with the cylinders in Vee formation as the Heisler. The torque from the V-6 would have been smoother than the torque from the Heisler's V-2, so we would expect some improvement in adhesion. My understanding was that Shay's generally had a higher tractive effort than early diesel switchers of equivalent weight.
I seem to recall that Doug Self's "Loco Locomotives" website had some variations on the multiple Vee type steamers.
V8 - well , numerically , yes . However they were four separate V2 engines - and yet again you are right in that these were double action two stroke engines - that makes as many power strokes per revolution as in a gasoline V8 four stroke engine - *g* - however in that way any two cylinder SE steam engine was equivalent to a gasoline V8 engine , and if you think of their low rpm torque abilities there is something in that comparison that can't be denied .
A friend of mine many years ago had developed a concept for a V6 steam motor double bogie shunting and secondary line all purpose tank engine that was to drive axles the way geared diesel locos do . The V6 engine was to be hung underneath main frame beams between bogies , it had a particularly smooth torque profile which in connection with drive shaft and bevel gear coupling of driven axles provided for high adhesion factor ( defined as limit of adhesion on rails - not to be mixed with traditional steam 'factor of adhesion' which was defined as quotient of given adhesion mass by cylinder tractive effort , disregarding actual adhesion conditions on rail ) The concept allowed for a steam locomotive of widely adapting versatile performance parameters with diesel competitive starting tractiv effort .
Hi folks J , J & J – I’m afraid it tends to get ever so slightly confusing : Roanoke J – Pennsy J – Central J – Duesey J – J class yacht ( America’s Cup formula in the 1930s ) – just to mention some coming to mind …
Ok , here’s a link to the Duesenberg J :http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/1833/Duesenberg-SSJ-LaGrande-Roadster.html
And could you have run your saw mill by a Duesey – ah but absolutely so – and it would have turned into a speed saw like you never saw before ! You can also use a Rolly to climb Pikes Peak – leisurely and with a glass of champagne – or use your Ferrari for shopping – with the additional effect that it will help you avoid buying unnecessary things because you won’t get them into it .
The Duesey J roadster even became an SSJ , a lettering that put it in competition with the Mercedes SSK (Super Sport Kompressor) – the Double S theme was much later picked up by Chevrolet with the 2nd body Sara Simpson edition Camaro and there was a song by Bill Anderson to go with , too - oh , uhm , wait a minute , stop , no-no-no , that’s another story .
Check out this one , too : Bobby Gentry – Mississippi Delta (on album Chickasaw Country Child) with her incredible voice singing about a mysterious Double SI ( sorry I didn’t find but this cover version on youtube :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okjj1qtkmqEfor Bobby’s fascinating singing , see : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHpkYI5_FYOde to Billy Joe – uhm , I somehow imagined the bridge much higher …)
Before it gets even more confusing I saj jeah , so ljong ! = J =
Before it gets even more confusing I saj jeah , so ljong !
( this is written on a Mac in Apple font – let’s see what effect it will produce on PCs - *g* edited and re-formatted on PC ) edit : I hope the links are now active
Production of the model T ended before Delco the first widely used fuel pump - American practice before then was to use a vacuum tank, where engine vacuum sucked fuel out of the main tank. The model T's also did without water pumps and oil pumps, using a thermic siphon for circulating water (essentially the same principle as thermic siphons in fireboxes) and splash dippers on the crankshaft for engine lubrication. Electric starters were available in the last couple of yeas of production.
Connection with locomotive aesthetics? Model T's, as most American locomotives at the time, were painted black.
BaltACD I believe Dusenberg had a Model J - however, Ford T was never near the class of the Dusenberg Model J. Deggesty: Quentin, when I first saw, in my email, that you were discussing "J" & "T," I thought you might be discussing Henry Ford's most famous car and some other car (I do not recall ever hearing of a Model J car, though).
I believe Dusenberg had a Model J - however, Ford T was never near the class of the Dusenberg Model J.
Deggesty: Quentin, when I first saw, in my email, that you were discussing "J" & "T," I thought you might be discussing Henry Ford's most famous car and some other car (I do not recall ever hearing of a Model J car, though).
Quentin, when I first saw, in my email, that you were discussing "J" & "T," I thought you might be discussing Henry Ford's most famous car and some other car (I do not recall ever hearing of a Model J car, though).
One thing is certain: you would never have to run your Model J in reverse to ascend the W Road up Signal Mountain (there was a certain design flaw in the Model T--the gas tank, with cushioning on top, was the front seat, and there was no fuel pump. Ford's Model A also had no fuel pump, but the gas tank was just below the windshield.
Johnny
Deggesty Quentin, when I first saw, in my email, that you were discussing "J" & "T," I thought you might be discussing Henry Ford's most famous car and some other car (I do not recall ever hearing of a Model J car, though).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Firelock76 Well thanks Big Jim, Felton Hill, and Juniatha! I had no idea the PRR tested a Class J. I'm not really a big Pennsy fan myself, just an interested bystander, and in my readings on the Pennsy never saw any mention of this. I still think the PRR missed out on a good thing with the "J". They couldn't have been seriously considering running 100 mph trains on a regular basis, could they? And yes Juniatha, the "J" was a superbly designed engine, probably the best "Northern" type ever built by anyone. Maybe that was the problem after all, the Pennsy couldn't, wouldn't admit that "wooden-axle coal hauler" was better at steam locomotive design than they were. By the way, there was NO WAY a Virginia road was going to call their 4-8-4 a "Northern"! Not with some people still living in 1941 who remembered the Civil War, excuse me, the "War of Northern Agression." Class "J" it had to be!
Well thanks Big Jim, Felton Hill, and Juniatha! I had no idea the PRR tested a Class J. I'm not really a big Pennsy fan myself, just an interested bystander, and in my readings on the Pennsy never saw any mention of this. I still think the PRR missed out on a good thing with the "J". They couldn't have been seriously considering running 100 mph trains on a regular basis, could they? And yes Juniatha, the "J" was a superbly designed engine, probably the best "Northern" type ever built by anyone. Maybe that was the problem after all, the Pennsy couldn't, wouldn't admit that "wooden-axle coal hauler" was better at steam locomotive design than they were.
By the way, there was NO WAY a Virginia road was going to call their 4-8-4 a "Northern"! Not with some people still living in 1941 who remembered the Civil War, excuse me, the "War of Northern Agression." Class "J" it had to be!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.