Dear Bigboy 4017,
some people like to dance on thin ice, odn't you?
If you quote Jeffries, you should read him right, or better first try, to understand the facts:
You say:
“From the Jeffries book it will tell you, they only did ~5400 DBHP at ~40mph, while the Allegheny put almost ~1000DBHP more., concerning a speed-range from ~35-60mph. It was, given a working speed range from zero to 70mph, the most powerful loco. Not at all circumstances, like starting or low speed tractive effort, but from 25mph and up, it really shined. It had also a way safer factor of adhesion, than the A, making it more sure-footed in the mountains.”
That's wrong, sorry. The A was able to produce more than 5000 dbhp (the last series with 315 psi boiler pressure more than 6.000) in a speed range between 35 and 65 mph, like the H-8 you name. Just read the diagrams in the book. However, what I said, was, that the A had much better specific power values than the H-8, eand even than the Bigboy, you like so much. I do too, btw.
Here are some numbers (as European I use SI-Values, but you can check the numbers, they are correct). I added the Y6b to your interest:
RR
N&W
C&O
UP
Class
Y6b
A
H-8
4884-I
Type
2-8-8-2
2-6-6-4
2-6-6-6
4-8-8-4
Driver-diameter ('')
58
70
67
68
Tr. Effort (max., kN)
738,7
507,3
490,4
602,4
max. dbh (kW)
4148
5037
5554
4667
at mph
25
45
42
41
weight on drivers (m. t)
248,8
196,1
230
244,5
engine weight (m. t)
277,4
259,9
352,9
345,6
Power/mass (kW/t)
14,95
19,4
15,74
13,5
Tha value of 5.037 kW for the A is derived from the test results of A 1239 vs. the four tuned F7 (F9) Diesels in November 1952.
Further you say:
“It is the same "rubbish", like one author published Big Boys or others could be easily substituted with the "smaller" Y6b classes. Basically, almost each loco could be substituted with another one, changing train wheight and speed. But whole train movements and operation needed to be changed, too. At 60mph, tractive effort was nil for Y6b, meaning power was just enough to keep them running level at that speed, without any car attached to them.
At the speed of 50mph you would need round about 2 and half men or Y6b-Classes, to substitue 1 Big Boy (or Class A, or AT&SF 5011 Class, or other modern Yellowstones), for example. You needed even more, to substitute one Allegheny at that speed.”
Well, that's true rubbish, I say, not at all, but in most aspects:
First: The Big Boy was rated on 1 percent grade with max. 4.800 t, an Y6b was rated with 5.150 tons on the same grade. That means the max. train weight, the enignes could pull steadily uphill. On Sherman Hill, the Big Boy made uphill some 25 mph, down hill 50 mph. The N&W-Mallet was exactly designed for that range of velocity.
I would bet, a competition of these engines on Sherman Hill would've resulted in a fair remis.
But, concerning speed: The Big boy could haul on level tracks such a train at higher speed than an Y6b, that's a fact. But to for speeding, the N&W had their A.
Now, concerning the Allegheny: The C&O rated them to haul max. 14.000 tons on level routes, they might've done more, but they weren't allowed. My pov is, the Allegheny was a huge waste of steel and money, they carried on their three-axle trailing truck the weight of on old N&W M1!
In technical and economical views, comparing late US-steam designs, the four modern N&Ws (A, Y6b, J and the S1a switcher) were second to none!
The Big Boy was an excellent engine, well designed, balanced and aesthetically well done, better than the A, far better than the H-8 with its Python-pipes.
Finally, let me recommend you another book: Ed King, “The A – Norfolk and Westerns Mercedes of Steam”. There you'll find a lot of background information on this engine.
Best regards, McS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UvOzsyty_E
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
mcsauerkraut_141 That's wrong, sorry. The A was able to produce more than 5000 dbhp (the last series with 315 psi boiler pressure more than 6.000) in a speed range between 35 and 65 mph, like the H-8 you name... Tha value of 5.037 kW for the A is derived from the test results of A 1239 vs. the four tuned F7 (F9) Diesels in November 1952.
That's wrong, sorry. The A was able to produce more than 5000 dbhp (the last series with 315 psi boiler pressure more than 6.000) in a speed range between 35 and 65 mph, like the H-8 you name... Tha value of 5.037 kW for the A is derived from the test results of A 1239 vs. the four tuned F7 (F9) Diesels in November 1952.
That entire fable (modified A @ 315 PSI producing 6700 HP vs. EMD's "souped up" diesels) only occurred in the imagination of one Robert LeMassena, probably the most incompetent choo-choo book author ever. Most of the railfan books / articles out there are filled with plenty of garbage, but his generally rise right to the top of the trash heap.
I could post a sarcastically detailed Engineering rebuttal to the rest of your uninformed post, but I'm short on time. Actually, I don't have too since the N&W Historical Society did the job for me when they examined LeMassena's claims about the make-believe "modified" Class A years ago and came to the same conclusion that they are pure garbage.
But, you keep reading and believing the choo-choo authors. After all, they have to sell these fiction based entertainment books to somebody to make a living.
Best regards, GP40-2
What is the most authoritative reference source to use for the axle loadings on an H-8?
Dear, mcsauerkraut, dear all,as GP-40 commented already, Ed King's and LeMassena's books created whole generations of misinformed steam enthusiasts.Even without a full engineering background, a careful and unbiased look of related locomotive's power-output and related train operations of their railroads will tell you the truth.
I have to honestly apologize to hijack BIGJIM's thread in this case, but I want to settle it once for all:You wrote:"First: The Big Boy was rated on 1 percent grade with max. 4.800 t, an Y6b was rated with 5.150 tons on the same grade. That means the max. train weight, the engines could pull steadily uphill. On Sherman Hill, the Big Boy made uphill some 25 mph, down hill 50 mph. The N&W-Mallet was exactly designed for that range of velocity."
Learn something about the history of Union Pacific's operations by yourself first, and forget what Ed King and LeMassena wrote.Just to argument with tonnage ratings is nonsense, without concerning speed. I know, Y6b drawbar pull was better than Big Boy, but this was true to low speeds, 0-~10mph, only. Obviously Union Pacific keeps running trains above that speed, otherwise, N&W's coal trains were doing probably as low as 5mph at some points and only there, advantage to Y6b.From 10-25mph they were equal and above Big Boy was running away, more powerful than Class A, but now, here comes the Allegheny in it's power curve and stayed on top until 60-70mph. At speeds 45-60, Class A and Big Boy were pretty swappable, meaning Big Boys could easily move that N&W mammoth coal trains, as the Class A did. It is also nonsense to argument with locomotive's specific output vs weight. All N&W's engines had higher axle loads as Union Pacific would allow and had lower adhesion. Coefficent of friction of steel is equal on every railroad, or did N&W put some glue on their rails?About Sherman Hill:Sherman Hill was not the only line, Big Boys were used, their home territory was Ogden - Wasatch - Green River - Cheyenne + Denver (and yes, they were System Locomotives).That is 500 miles space and mix of various grades, high speed segments up to 70mph and heavy duty mountain railroading, and they did occasionly perform run-throughs between those endpoints. In other words: Horsepower! Durability! Versability!Put any other big, modern Yellowstone (M4, AC9, EM-1, some big SA 2-8-8-2) on that road, adjust some speed and tonnage, fine.Y6b, and only those "improved" ones, which did not occur before 1950, fine on some grades and only there. Nor the Class A could shine there btw. If you think, Allegheny is too much of a locomitve, OK, but not all were super heavy (Virginian AE), but they represent the ultimate step in locomotive design, of their time.Look at their pipings, they were designed this way for better and more steam-flow than any other locomotive. They were proably the only ones to beat 6000HP AC diesel-locomotives at speeds 30-60,70mph, yetCSX is running them in pairs on their coal trains.Thinking, they were misused, is the same prejeduce. I am sure there were plenty of occassoins, where they could operate within their power curve and did it economally.The Class A was also misused on some grades, running them beyond 20mph, but here, nobody blames them,this it what I do not understand...
4017
First, 315 psi for any A is incorrect. The pressure was always 300 psi, even during the 1952 tests.
Most rail historians probably agree with GP40-2's assessment of the "Fable of the Steam vs Diesel Tests". N&W Historical did indeed refute this story in two issues of its magazine, The Arrow: May/June 1994 (Vol.10, #3), and Jan/Feb 1998 (Vol.14, #1). The first article was written by an ME who was present during the tests and kept detailed notes as to what was going on in a diary. He still has the diary and writes from it, not just his memory. The second article was written independently by an IE/PE who took another tack on the subject and came up with the same conclusion - there were no adjustments made by N&W during the test. Why? Because there wasn't any need. Y6b 2197 and A 1239 did well enough on their own.
Deggesty BigJim: Milwaukee's F7 Baltics make my favorite list of coolness, and the colors were absolutely gorgeous! Yes they were. But, I'd still like to see one done up like this (without the "L" of course): Yes, it's a nifty locomotive, especially if it did not have that "L." By the way, I have forgotten the purpose of all those windows; I remember there was some discussion about them a while back, but I cannot recall the resolution of the question.
BigJim: Milwaukee's F7 Baltics make my favorite list of coolness, and the colors were absolutely gorgeous! Yes they were. But, I'd still like to see one done up like this (without the "L" of course): Yes, it's a nifty locomotive, especially if it did not have that "L."
Milwaukee's F7 Baltics make my favorite list of coolness, and the colors were absolutely gorgeous!
Yes they were. But, I'd still like to see one done up like this (without the "L" of course):
By the way, I have forgotten the purpose of all those windows; I remember there was some discussion about them a while back, but I cannot recall the resolution of the question.
Obviously water level sight glasses to conform to new FRA rules.
Pat.
Yardmaster01 Deggesty: BigJim: Milwaukee's F7 Baltics make my favorite list of coolness, and the colors were absolutely gorgeous! Yes they were. But, I'd still like to see one done up like this (without the "L" of course): Yes, it's a nifty locomotive, especially if it did not have that "L." By the way, I have forgotten the purpose of all those windows; I remember there was some discussion about them a while back, but I cannot recall the resolution of the question. Obviously water level sight glasses to conform to new FRA rules. Pat.
Deggesty: BigJim: Milwaukee's F7 Baltics make my favorite list of coolness, and the colors were absolutely gorgeous! Yes they were. But, I'd still like to see one done up like this (without the "L" of course): Yes, it's a nifty locomotive, especially if it did not have that "L." By the way, I have forgotten the purpose of all those windows; I remember there was some discussion about them a while back, but I cannot recall the resolution of the question.
Johnny
I kinda remember a discussion about the windows, too, but I'm also not sure of the answer. I'm thinking it might have been just a styling thing to match the passenger cars, but I don't know why there would be a double row of windows.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
It is my own opinion that it is a wonderful photograph, and what I see of the engine is also very stunning. However, I also know what it looks like away from the loading platform with all the funky stuff showing below the skirting, and I don't happen to like that combination. To me, the running gear bears its own attention, and it should be displayed on another type of faired boiler.
They couldn't please everybody.
Yes, that picture of the Baltic looks waaaay cool, but I think we have to remember it's a "Fantasy" shot. Looking at the clothing, the luggage, and the people kind of gives it away, to say nothing of the "L" on the front of the engine. (Suppose there's a third rail under there between the outer two?) Just the same, great picture!
Bah Phoo
Hey, after wandering all around, we're back to the original subject: aesthetics. A few subjective comments:
Streamlining: I have never cared much for any of the streamlined designs; I like to see the works.
To my eye, the Berkshires (765 & 1225) seem to be proportioned just about right.
A few little details seem to be able to make a big difference in eye-appeal. White-sidewalled tires and a white stripe on the edge of the running board really dress up a locomotive. Headlight placement should be centered on the smokebox or at the top of it. Just above the pilot on the articulateds is OK. To me, the placement of the headlight slightly below the center of the smokebox, which didn't seem to be that unusual, ruins the look of the whole locomotive. It gives it a droopy look.
(Purely subjective comments)
Firelock76:
"(Suppose there's a third rail under there between the outer two?) "
______________
Forget the third rail; where are the other two?
Modified bah phooey:
A Superliner mated with the Rexall NYC Mowhawk, and this was the offspring.
@ daveklepper
quote : >> A Superliner mated with the Rexall NYC Mowhawk, and this was the offspring. <<
Owh my gawd - what was it that had come from outer space to seize hold of the modest Mohawk ?
Wonder what the obstetrician at Beech Grove said when they got this intergalactical something out of her tender ..
Guess they would never have allowed that in Pennsylvania ;-)
= J =
Note : text modified July 22nd
Obviously the Mohawk was the male. It has power and exudes stuff. With reciprocating motion, yet! The superliner has openings.
Still bah phooey is only modified, not eliminated.
Sorry , Daveklepper – ;-))
– I disagree . Steam is generally regarded feminine – in spite of some somewhat – uh – shady aspects and forms of American steam leaning slightly into hefty proportions sometimes . Let's spare discussing details here ;-) however the movement of the rods and wheels would be the engine equivalent to arms and legs , especially since the two cylinder steam loco has the quasi 'natural' number of each of it , like two sets of valve gear plus two sets of drive gear – or also : smaller carrying wheels and larger driving wheels .. and that's where similarities (or resemblances) end , I guess .
Prove :
Drivers internationally (!) refer to their steam as 'she' - read D Wardale wondering about it , yet recognizing it's just so .
In German the article is femine – 'die Dampflokomotive' (the steam locomotive) and likewise used for classes 'die 41er / die 52er ..' (the 41 / the 52 ..) , likewise in French 'la vapeur' / 'la locomotive à vapeur' (the steam / the steam locomotive) , while in US / UK English we don't use articles that much , so it's undecided there (Wardale uses 'it' for it - by which it is clearly reduced to neutral machine status)
As for the 'Super-trooper finer-liner light-weight something I leave it to you to define as you like from where in space it may have come upon the poor unsuspecting Momwalk – I will modestly restrain myself .
Any more ideas on aesthetics of steam locomotives – I mean as concerns the locomotive ..?
Regards
= J=
As to locomotives being "she" in France and Germany, remember that the French and German languages are more particular in gender than the English language is. In both French and German, the form of the word determines its gender; consider that the German word for girl--Mädchen--is neuter in gender, because it ends in the diminutive "chen." Likewise, the word for woman--Frau--is feminine, whereas the word for young woman--Fraülein--is neuter. Perhaps locomotives in this country were referred to as "she" because they could be quite cantankerous?.
There is the story of a road foreman of engines who was riding an engine that had just come out of the shop and, because of failure to do something properly, was riding quite roughly, and the engineer was not able to tame her. After a time, the road foreman put his crocheting down, crossed over to the engineer's box, sat down--and proceeded to tame the engine so that she rode smoothly.
I do not think that my post was worth repeating--and this time I did not get a warning that the system is configured to prevent duplicate posts. I'm innocent!
[Edited]
I believe that steam locomotives are historically referred to as female by their crews because they demand a fair bit of care and attention if you want to stay on their good side. Let us say they don't like to be ignored, certainly not for long?
Crandell
Hi Deggesty
Cantankerous – gee I like that word .
Clankering cantankerously across the switch like a witch with a beam of steam from cylinders to cinders down on the ground , with an able sound she turned up on new socks from engine shops , puffing lightly going round about the roundhouse in the enlightening morning light , lightly grazing her tender side and tenderly touching the turning wheels of shiny steels and gently swaying rods in latest color mods …
(nope – I won’t say which one – you make your own choice)
Cantankerous – who , the Germaniac lokomotiven ? Oh why – if that driver didn’t do his job right , it was alright to act up a little to shake and wake him up – no?
A word on Deutsche Sprache : never take those articles too serious – there are serious flaws in how they happened to have been haphazardly dispensed long ago . Yet , I had never accepted that neuter article for Mädchen and Fräulein , why , it’s not so for Boys (don’t mix that with a similarly sounding word that does have a neuter article) . I feel it has to do with that old >> diminutive << notion of girls . ‘Fräulein’ has become completely obsolete , is practically out of use , except with some well-mannered people of the elder generation where it has acquired an old-fashioned charme .
Juniatha
Hi Crandell
Ok , I’ll add one , too :
Before leaving (round-)house facilities they have to prepare for at least an hour .
They may start slowly but once getting under way they really pick up speed – while diesels start up zestfully and then – uhm – well …
They don’t like sudden changes to the schedule .
Etymology aside, I've just never thought of steam locomotives in a "feminine" sense. Least not American freight steam locomotives. Big Boys, Allegheny's & Y6's were all business brutes with heavy jowls and burly features; the loud bark of the exhaust and the minor tones of the whistles hardly evince feminine attributes.
No offense to my British cousins, but maybe some of thier steam loco's can be called a "she."
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
Ooohhhhh....and the gloves have come off.
Juniatha, good one on the (looks at his wristwatch...) waiting for her to emerge from the roundouse.
Forget, "he" or "she", I've always thought of steam engines as big friendly dogs. They eat, drink, bark, drool, slobber, chuff, let you know if something's right or wrong, will work their hearts out for you if you treat them right, or sometimes like Basset Hounds they MAY aquiesess instead of obey!
IN Hebrew, the word for a steam locomotive comes from the word for steam. "Katar", which is a masculine word. A diesel locomotive is called "katar-diesel". All masculine. A railroad passenger car is generally called a Karone, which I think is also masculine, although I am not absolutely sure. (I'll check.) A streetcar. and by extension an electric mu car, is called by a name from electricity, hashmal, a word coming from Bible, used for aura surrounding the head of an angel, interpreted by Chrstians as a halo, thus hashmalit, which is feminine. Now why would a trailing coach, unpowered itself, be called by a masculine word, but one that is self-powered and could pull others is faminine? Just language.
Oh yes, a woman's *** is rakhim, a masculine word.
Yes ,
let'’s go back to steam –
the locomotives , I mean .
Hi , Jim Valle
Sorry for answering late . On your proposed ‘unconventionals’ :
Actually , the UP double set 4-6-6-4 high-pressure turbine-electric was a daring effort and to me looked quite attractive – if you consider it a contribution to (what was then considered) modern traction . Obviously , these trial locomotives could not be valued by scales of classic steam – rather I would rate them by criteria of contemporary diesel streamline units and compared to those I find them quite an attractive set in front part styling , vehicle proportions and interesting wheel arrangement .
The Chessie 500 ‘class’ : Hmm , I had always thought they had been 2-8-2-8-2 wherein bold figures powered – but , Lord , no ! Take power away from the rear axle of the eight wheel truck and put the motors into the last of the bogies – that configuration probably was much more .. uhm .. confusing . As for looks , they have remained my visual idea par excellence of the ‘hyper-complex high pressure steam turbine condensing and all extras included’ type – although they weren’t neither high pressure nor condensing . But the w/a was intriguing , strangely perplexing yet seemingly symmetrical . With ‘a head full of coal’ , so to speak , and a reversed boiler etc the actual arrangement appeared slightly 'tongue in cheek' , less than harmonious and in that way again just admirably fulfilled specifications for a veritable rail monster . A lot of the causes for electrical equipment failures by short circuits could have been amended by (1) fully welded boiler and welded sections of water and steam piping and (2) oil-firing . That way , these giants could have been put in actual service for the advertising dept on permanent show business with real-live-steam display and Sunday special attraction-traction in summer seasons …
About tractive effort Jawn Henry probably did show it to the diesels ! He was a long fellow , sure enough , with his four powered six wheel trucks and the contours foretold later hood unit diesel sty.. uhm , shapes .
Pennsylvania 6200 – the only 6-8-6 type ever built , a comparatively minimized deviation from the classic concept wherein strictly the cylinder engine unit was replaced by a steam turbine engine unit , with everything else remaining very nearly as it used to be with reciprocating steam locomotives . I think she (sic , allow for an occasional tall figured one) looked just great , the symmetric w/a provided a balanced basis for well proportioned boiler and engine entity . Seen face on , she could use large type smoke deflectors (or wind wings , as I prefer to call them) , since lack of ‘shoulders’ in form of cylinders spanning crossways at full loading gage width then became evident . However , I have never understood why they didn’t place the turbine(s) where the cylinders were in a classic concept steam loco : between bogie and smokebox –, if between frames , naturally . Ok , that would have meant to drive the front coupled axle or use a longitudinal transmission shaft which would have asked for bevel or worm gearing at the drive axle – something that was perhaps seen skeptical back then in view of the envisaged power output . Remarkably , the inner two coupled axles had been connected by tandem coupling rods plus gear unit between frames . That critical combination could have caused trouble but I have never read about anything of the like – if maybe just because during the few years the engine was in traffic all the functional unit likely remained in as-build assemblage when the unit had never been fully disassembled in a classified repair with re-alignement of axles , axle bearing horn guides , coupling rods and gear necessary .
I include a Shell advertising with a fiting theme , I couldn't resist to modify it insignificantly .
Uhm , one last word – how do you know a she-loco ? Well , by the hand-bag* of course … zzhh
Uhm , one last word – how do you know a she-loco ?
Well , by the hand-bag* of course … zzhh
(* up front)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.