Hi, Juniatha. I am unsure of your intent for the question's answer as you frame it, but apart from the match between the J1 and the UP Challengers, the nod generally goes to the other versions of the Challengers in terms of their overall speed with trailing tonnages. Their weight was more lightly distributed on the rails if I have it figured out correctly, so they were easier on the rails, and we all know they could use curvatures with shorter radius than could the all-flanged rigid 10-coupled Texas types. However, when we compare the work that any one pairing could do, there really isn't much difference between them when the mighty Bessemer & Lake Erie and the Santa Fe versions' tractive efforts at start and at speed are taken into account.
Crandell
selector Hi, Juniatha. I am unsure of your intent for the question's answer as you frame it, but apart from the match between the J1 and the UP Challengers, the nod generally goes to the other versions of the Challengers in terms of their overall speed with trailing tonnages. Their weight was more lightly distributed on the rails if I have it figured out correctly, so they were easier on the rails, and we all know they could use curvatures with shorter radius than could the all-flanged rigid 10-coupled Texas types. However, when we compare the work that any one pairing could do, there really isn't much difference between them when the mighty Bessemer & Lake Erie and the Santa Fe versions' tractive efforts at start and at speed are taken into account. Crandell
I certainly agree with your information and would like to add some addtional thoughts.
The higher speed capability is certainly the main factor with the Challengers replacing the UP 4-12-2's, but maintenance was also a factor. The third cylinder with the associated valve gear was always a high maintenance type of design. By the time the first Challengers were built, the 9000 class had run for ten years and were already being rebuilt with disc main drivers and other upgrades to allow higher speeds for the Overland main line. One more factor was the long wheelbase and the problems of using them in certain areas with tight radius cuves. They ended up on the main line and the KP line, which could handle large steam.
Did the Challengers provide a 100% substitute, I would say no since the 4-12-2's were used until they were no longer needed. I am sure others might have different opinions but the Union Pacific continued to use them until very late in steam operations. The 9000 class were used on the Union Pacific for thirty years. By mid 1954, GP9's were coming on line and replacing all steam and the Challengers also. Steam maintenance was always labor extensive and the diesels eliminated the major water problems along with the extensive back shop maintenance.
The 9000 class continued to be used until late 1954 and early 1955 almost to the end of steam, but they were removed from service and the tenders used to build the fuel tanks for both versions of the 4500hp turbines. We have the first 9000 at Pomona Fair grounds for all of us to visit. Nice locomotive.
By the way, the J1 you mentioned is one of my favorite locomotives having watched them run many times in Illinois where I grew up. The pictures of a J1 are mine and they were a great locomotive.
CZ
I think CAZephyr pretty much said it all about the UP's 9000's, except for one thing: That loooong wheelbase was just so cool looking! Twelve drivers! Wow! No half-measures as far as UP was concerned!
But that long fixed wheel base of 6 driving axles limited where they could be operated.
Firelock76 I think CAZephyr pretty much said it all about the UP's 9000's, except for one thing: That loooong wheelbase was just so cool looking! Twelve drivers! Wow! No half-measures as far as UP was concerned!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Hi Crandell
My question really focuses on actual tonnage limit ratings for daily service on a given ramp section – you name it .
If we put aside all those extreme opinions offered in various articles in the past about alleged slipping problems with T-1 Duplex it was generally agreed that they were to a certain degree more sensitive at starting because of 2 x 4 coupled wheels drive sets instead of 1 x 8 . Now , my question is if that wasn’t likewise true with 2 x 6 instead of 1 x 12 coupled wheels ?
..
Hi California Zephir
Well , yes , the Challies could rise to some respectable speeds with a formidable revenue load , no doubt , also sneaked round corners more easily than the straight twelve coupled Nines – sure . Further , there were some problems with the middle drive in the 4-10-2 and 4-12-2 engines – actually quite the same problems that were encountered in Europe with three cylinder engines having separated drive axles for inside / outside cylinders . We could go on listing compromises in the Chally and the Nine , then I would likely get into how this and that could have been improved and what it would have enabled the engine to do – but that’s not the point .
What I would really like to know : were the simple expansion Mallets really fully up to pulling capacity of a straight twelve coupled engine of comparable size or were they a match rather for a big Texas type ?
In general : could a divided drive be directly compared ( per number of coupled wheel sets ) to a straight frame drive set or didn’t such an engine need a somewhat larger adhesion mass – either by having one more coupled axle or by higher mass per powered wheel set – to compensate for lesser surefootedness *because* of the divided drive sets ? In such a comparison , considering historic engines inevitably has historical variations in quality of design intervening – however let’s not allow those to blur the picture , let’s boil down to the principal question of what the effect of each configuration was – straight frame / articulated frames . Mind , in modern synchronous electrics as in diesel-electric engines , not just wheel sets of a power bogie but wheel sets of front to rear bogies are being electronically coupled to achieve maximum adhesion and minimize effects of slip spots !
Seeing the J-1 locos at work must have been impressive , thank you for showing the photos !
Hi Firelock
Yes , no half-measures : it’s in the name , this railroad was on the *up* not down *g* and is still around going strong .
Only , why on earth they introduced that longer wheel spacing first to second coupled axle when already they had opted for larger wheels on the twelve coupled as compared to the ten coupled predecessor I will never understand ! Well , sure , obvious reason was that middle drive to second coupled axle : to accommodate a longer drive rod . However , with just a little bit further slanting of center line of middle drive , the leading coupled axle could have been set at the same spacing as the others , saving at least some length in an already long coupled wheel base . (By the way – this 67” , 68” and 69” staggering of drive wheel diameters in the Nine , BB and CSA – all of it smaller than diameter reduction by wear : was it really worth it?)
Further , why did the Union Pacific insist on having the conical boiler section with the slope turned on top in the Nines instead of at the bottom as it was with the predecessor 4-10-2 – an arrangement that was for good reason applied later in 1950s / 60s fully welded combustion chamber boilers designed for high specific steaming rates ? UP didn’t continue that feature in their Challengers and later power .
However , that’s just one point each about the middle drive and the boiler arrangement , so let’s stop it here or else I will end up with a re-design proposal and that wouldn’t be fair in view of long time elapsed since these engines roamed the rails .
Hi BaltACD
Well , sure – however that’s not the question since the long wheel base didn’t interfere with tractive effort on a ramp – except for sharp curves where the flange to rail angle of the leading or first two coupled axles might cause a certain reduction of adhesion available to transmission of tractive effort due flange friction and contact point of wheel wandering away from polished spur on rail head – but that would apply to tight yard radii , on mainline radii of curves these aspects have but limited influence .
However taking into account detailed aspects of adhesion would lead astray from the basic question – see my second answer , second and third paragraph .
( Sorry I saw your posting appear only when I had sent mine , so I edited it to include this answer to you )
Regards
Juniatha
edit : trouble getting my formatting to appear as set – hopefully straightened now
Thank-you for your clarification, Juniatha. I believe I understand better what you mean. I guess I would want to know the numbers. What weight would each driver bear in each case, and what horsepower would each driver take prior to slipping at a given speed with a standardized weight comparison. I am out of my depth, naturally, but how do the factors of adhesion compare across drivers between the 9000 and the 3900's? What tractive effort can each locomotive apply to the drawbar at 0.01, 1, 4, 8, 15, 20, 30, and 45 mph on a measured length of track in the districts where they shared work?
If time is a factor, which of the two needed more frequent stops for replenishment after the typical tonnages each was meant to trail at the same speed had been moved 200 miles?
Hi,
you asked:
"Was the UP Challenger a 100 % substitute for the UP 9000 class as concerns t.e.??"
This table may not answer all concerns about TE, however it shows, that basically 4-12-2's and 1936 built CSA 4-6-6-4 Challengers had similar tonnage ratings.
Heavy Challengers built after 1942 had some 100 tons higher ratings, reflecting their higher HP and better downhill capabilities. Example: Buford to Cheyenne is -1,55% grade, they could drift downhill with 1000tons (5100 vs 4100) more than the the 4-12-2.
So, the answer should be yes -edit- err no -equivalent -you name it
Tonnage ratings on the UP were usually only as high as a engine can start its trains on grades safetly from a full stop without stalling again.
Altough tonnage ratings were pretty similar between different classes, they certainly did achieve different road-speeds with their loads.
A wild guess of mine is, T1 and Santa-Fe Texas-Types and Q2-Duplexes would be rated quite similar like "Heavy Challengers".
These questions have been around for a long time and there really isn't a straight forward answer because of the wide range of pulling power and speed a locomotive goes through from start to finish.
A locomotives pulling power generally depends on the size of the wheels it is built with. The smaller the wheels the more tractive effort it can produce when starting a train. But a locomotive with smaller wheels it loses power by leaps and bounds as it moves faster. Locomotives with larger wheels on the other hand have a much harder time getting a train moving but can move a freight train at faster speeds with no problem at all. Doyle once told me starting his 4-8-4 SP 4449 was like "putting your car in 5th gear when you want to get moving".
Another big factor is the weight on the drivers. Both the Challengers and 9000's had a big advantage of having many wheels with a lot of weight on them. Both were excellent designs. Had we put much smaller wheels on the Challengers and the 9000's I am sure we would see record tractive effort being produced (much like the Virginian 2-8-8-8-2) which has very small wheels.
I am sure if we put two trains next to each other,both with equal lengths and tonnage and we put a 9000 on the front of one train and a Challenger on the other they would probably end up pulling about the same speed up until about 15 mph or so. I would say the 9000 would end up leaving the Challenger in the dust from that point on until it started hitting a grade. Then the Challenger would probably pass the 9000 and climb the grade way ahead of the 9000 due to it's much more heavier weight which would cause less wheel slip.
People often ask if todays diesels can out pull those Challengers and Big boys. I still say no way. Yes they have tractive effort way past anything the Big boys and Challengers can ever muster up. But all that horsepower and tractive effort is useless if you don't have the weight to keep the wheels from slipping. Show me a single diesel pulling a mile long train up a 2% grade at 20mph like the steam locomotives did.
Hi Thomas,
But the correct answer is yes.
Depending on how you define a 1 miile long freight-train, show me a steamer that can do that...
I don't want to get too far off the original topic here but we can forget the length and just talk about tonnage. Because tonnage is the same back then as it is now. The 2-6-6-6 Allegheny regularly took 10,000 ton coal trains over the mountains on a daily basis at 20mph using just a single engine. I would have to dig up by book on the Alleghenies but I remember a single locomotive took a 13,000 tons over the hill exceeding 15 mph several times.
The Norfolk and Western class A 2-6-6-4 locomotives were rated at 13,000 tons and could take 10,000 ton coal trains over the mountains with a single locomotive.
The big boys could handle a 10,000 ton up a 1% grade.
I don't know if you ever have worked for any railroad,let alone a class one railroad where you are taking 10,000 ton coal trains over a grade but I certainly have. I was also working for Union pacific when they were using the AC 6000 on our trains rated at 6000 hp and considered to be one of the most powerful locomotives in North america.
I can tell you with 100% certainty you are absolutely dreaming if you believe you can take a 10,000 ton coal train up a grade with a single locomotive. It would probably be coming close to stall speed if you used three locomotives no matter how new they are.
A diesel locomotive can have all the wheel slip technology in the world and all the tractive effort in the world. That still won't change the fact that we are talking a maximum weight of around 230 tons with the majority of them are sitting around 205 tons. They simply can not pull such a heavy load with out slipping the wheels. Even with the most advanced wheel slip technology trying to pull a 10,000 ton train up a grade( I would say pulling a 5,000 ton train up a grade with a single locomotive probably wouldn't work) the locomotive wheels are going to slip or not move at all (because of the constant reduction of the anti slip computer).
Steam locomotives like the Big boys and the Alleghenies weighed around 325 tons with out the tender. A full 125 tons more than your average modern diesel locomotive. It was because of all that weight a steam locomotive could pull 10,000 tons or more up a grade with a single locomotive.
So you can believe what you want to believe. To this day no single diesel locomotive has ever pulled anything close to what the steam locomotive did up a grade with the tonnage they used to pull. You can check all the records you want. Tractive effort no matter how great will always be limited to locomotive weight and the diesels just don't have it.
That may be true but you can plug two or three diesel-electrics together, controlled through MU or DP under ONE throttle, and match the pulling power of that steam locomotive, be it a Challenger, Allegheny or Big Boy.
The big boys could handle a 10,000 ton up a 1% grade
Thomas,
no offense meaning, but this is absolutely, certainly not true. They were rated 4800tons at 1% at unknown speed. At a 1,14% grade, 4000 tons, 15mph were attempted.
GE AC6000 is rated 5000 trailing tons at this grade and speed.
Thomas 9011The big boys could handle a 10,000 ton up a 1% grade.
Thomas 9011So you can believe what you want to believe.
It's a brillian full moon tonight ...
quite right
for a little walk in the still of the night
and a turn of cards in the silver light
Well , alright – that’s pretty much what I’m wondering about . Let’s forget ihp par what-ever for a moment , it’s really just a matter of tractive effort : did 2 x 6 powered wheels transmit an equivalent amount of t e as one set of 12 powered wheels – in actual conditions in actual daily traffic .
It’s quite simple if you boil down to it : would rails have a uniform , constant and invariable adhesion limit (real adhesion , not the formula FOA !!) and the same would apply to the locomotive structures indiscriminatingly – then it would make no difference at all how wheel sets were arranged . However , that’s clearly not so : rail surface conditions vari and with it possible adhesion limit ; how much of that a locomotive can realize also varies according to configuration . Point is , how much did this apply to Mallet compared with straight frame locomotives in actual daily service ? That’s something I hoped people who remember these locomotives in regular traffic could tell something about .
Hi Bigboy4017
Ok , that table tells Union Pacific understood the ’36 Chally as in fact a 100 % replacement of the Nines . My question , to be sure , is : was this realized in daily traffic at the same surefootedness as with the Twelve-Coupled ?
You guess by now : I think not .
It were , if actual rail adhesion factor would invariably be the same over the line and over the year , in sunshine and rain etc . ( everybody , please do not mix this with FOA used in steam loc data tables !! this is the REAL coefficient of friction between wheel and rail expressed as t e / adhesion mass , not the nominal quotient of adhesion mass divided by nominal cylinder t e , mind it ) However adhesion is NOT constant at all , in fact adhesion factor varies depending on conditions of weather , cleanliness of rail head surface , sort of steel used for wheel tires , attaining values between optimum of better than 0.33 and minima that can fall well below 0.1 under adverse conditions , that even with sanding can only be brought up to some 0.2 .. 0.22 – way below optimum condition without sanding !
With any local drop of adhesion due to fouled rail head surface , a longer coupled wheel base with a larger number of contact points – i e wheels – must of necessity be at advantage as with one or two wheels on a ‘slip spot’ the percentage of loss of adhesion is smaller than in a divided drive . However – now we get to influences of actual design – the three cylinder drive of the Nines was not an optimum design and thus it may be the Challies were in fact up to about the same low speed drag performance in actual traffic – in average conditions !
Hi Thomas
I’m not going to engage on that steam against diesel issue , I’ve commented on that in another thread earlier on – it totally leads away from the question at hand , nor is it questionable on a one to one basis a diesel unit even today does not match a Super Power steam loco in power at speed – never was intended to ( ok , except for the specialized few Do-Do units ) . American RRs move very heavy tonnage trains by using multi-unit diesel traction and piling up combined starting t e and also motor hp to suit the task .
Hi Timz Well , maybe the mythical Henderson Quintuplex project would have applied? At least until it's ten full size cylinders have drowned the boiler , which shouldn't have taken too long ..
Hi Timz
Well , maybe the mythical Henderson Quintuplex project would have applied? At least until it's ten full size cylinders have drowned the boiler , which shouldn't have taken too long ..
.
United we stand - God bless America !
Hi all
By the way – since there are hardly any sound recordings of UP and SP three cylinder engines , you might want to listen to this :
On March 25th 1995 four cylinder compound Pacific 18 316 leads a steam special on the ramp near Graefenroda , Germany , with (East-German) DR three cylinder Decapod 44 1093 pusher ; the Pacific then had only shortly returned to special service after being overhauled to running condition at Pila works , Poland - the quality of work had not been to standards , the engine’s cylinders or receiver are leaking badly , leaving most all of the train lifting work to the 44 class pusher – and that’s just what she did ! Listen to the vast difference in tempo of 18 316’s four beats per 83 ins dia drive wheel turn and 44 1093’s six beats per 55 ins wheel turn :
http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m18316/cd054s07.mp3
On a Plandampf steam event 44 1093 starts Dg 55610 regular freight at Triptis
http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44dr/bs01s10.mp3
44 class in regular service on (East-German) DR :
oilfired 44 with very heavy freight on the ramp to Unterwellenborn near Saalfeld on April 5th 1980 – outburst of slipping , thereafter slowed but keeping a steady ~ 15 mph
http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44dr/cd002s01.mp3
44 class in regular service on (West-German) DB :
043 469 (oil fired 44 in 1968 re-numbering) nearing the summit at Altenbeken of the long approx 1.2 % grade , 9:05 PM on July second 1971 – the engine is working at about 20 mph constant speed and some occasional roughness in the beats tell of near priming .
http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44db/cd008s07.mp3
On the same ramp at somewhat more speed another oilfired 44 in the early morning on September second 1971
http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44db/cd007s06.mp3
On February 6th 1975 , one year before the end for Ottbergen 44s , 044 591 with freight on the Hortheim – Ellrich-Nordhausen line is long to be heard through the valley on the ramp of Osterhagen – beautiful whistling with echo from forested hillsides , in the beginning of the recording speed is around 20 mph , coming nearer slows below 15 mph , after passing throttle is closed for a short time , then re-opened at almost walking speed ( there must be a cut in the recording , this could have been a slip , recording of train passing is also cut short in this trailer version of the recording ), in the distance the engine bursts into a mighty slip , accelerates powerfully as top of ramp is reached
http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44db/cd089s03.mp3
In the evening of June 28th , in the very last few weeks before end of steam traction on DB : 043 321 plus 043 381 on the ramp leaving Emden freight yard with 4000 t ore train – several times engines start to slip , valve timing is wanting , rough , fuzzy beats tell engines work at the fringe of priming and there is steam bypassing piston valve rings , clanky main rod bearings or cross heads , second engine with piston glands hissing .
http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44db/cd093s06.mp3
( This is a simplified version of my posting - I don't get the pictures to appear ) Hi Crandell Well , alright – that’s pretty much what I’m wondering about . Let’s forget ihp par what-ever for a moment , it’s really just a matter of tractive effort : did 2 x 6 powered wheels transmit an equivalent amount of t e as one set of 12 powered wheels – in actual conditions in actual daily traffic . It’s quite simple if you boil down to it : would rails have a uniform , constant and invariable adhesion limit (real adhesion , not the formula FOA !!) and the same would apply to the locomotive structures indiscriminatingly – then it would make no difference at all how wheel sets were arranged . However , that’s clearly not so : rail surface conditions vari and with it possible adhesion limit ; how much of that a locomotive can realize also varies according to configuration . Point is , how much did this apply to Mallet compared with straight frame locomotives in actual daily service ? That’s something I hoped people who remember these locomotives in regular traffic could tell something about . Hi Bigboy4017 Ok , that table tells Union Pacific understood the ’36 Chally as in fact a 100 % replacement of the Nines . My question , to be sure , is : was this realized in daily traffic at the same surefootedness as with the Twelve-Coupled ? You guess by now : I think not . It were , if actual rail adhesion factor would invariably be the same over the line and over the year , in sunshine and rain etc . ( everybody , please do not mix this with FOA used in steam loc data tables !! this is the REAL coefficient of friction between wheel and rail expressed as t e / adhesion mass , not the nominal quotient of adhesion mass divided by nominal cylinder t e , mind it ) However adhesion is NOT constant at all , in fact adhesion factor varies depending on conditions of weather , cleanliness of rail head surface , sort of steel used for wheel tires , attaining values between optimum of better than 0.33 and minima that can fall well below 0.1 under adverse conditions , that even with sanding can only be brought up to some 0.2 .. 0.22 – way below optimum condition without sanding ! With any local drop of adhesion due to fouled rail head surface , a longer coupled wheel base with a larger number of contact points – i e wheels – must of necessity be at advantage as with one or two wheels on a ‘slip spot’ the percentage of loss of adhesion is smaller than in a divided drive . However – now we get to influences of actual design – the three cylinder drive of the Nines was not an optimum design and thus it may be the Challies were in fact up to about the same low speed drag performance in actual traffic – in average conditions ! I’m not going to engage on that steam against diesel issue , I’ve commented on that in another thread earlier on – it totally leads away from the question at hand , nor is it questionable on a one to one basis a diesel unit even today does not match a Super Power steam loco in power at speed – never was intended to ( ok , except for the specialized few Do-Do units ) . American RRs move very heavy tonnage trains by using multi-unit diesel traction and piling up combined starting t e and also motor hp to suit the task . By the way – since there are hardly any sound recordings of UP and SP three cylinder engines , you might want to listen to this : On March 25th 1995 four cylinder compound Pacific 18 316 leads a steam special on the ramp near Graefenroda , Germany , with (East-German) DR three cylinder Decapod 44 1093 pusher ; the Pacific then had only shortly returned to special service after being overhauled to running condition at Pila works , Poland - the quality of work had not been to standards , the engine’s cylinders or receiver are leaking badly , leaving most all of the train lifting work to the 44 class pusher – and that’s just what she did ! Listen to the vast difference in tempo of 18 316’s four beats per 83 ins dia drive wheel turn and 44 1093’s six beats per 55 ins wheel turn : http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m18316/cd054s07.mp3 . On a Plandampf steam event 44 1093 starts Dg 55610 regular freight at Triptis http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44dr/bs01s10.mp3 . 44 class in regular service on (East-German) DR : . oilfired 44 with very heavy freight on the ramp to Unterwellenborn near Saalfeld on April 5th 1980 – outburst of slipping , thereafter slowed but keeping a steady ~ 15 mph http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44dr/cd002s01.mp3 . 44 class in regular service on (West-German) DB : . 043 221 coming from Paderborn with freight climbs the long ramp to Altenbeken viaduct , early morning in July 1972 - steady ~ 20 mph , beautiful whistling in the distance , exhaust resounding through the valley , coming nearer the engine suffers some priming ( hear hard noise in exhaust sound ) and cylinder cooks are opened - there is a cut in the recording of the train passing at 5:43 ( engine sound suddenly gone ) - in the distance engine accelerates powerfully through Altenbeken station ( gaining momentum for second climb coming up ) http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44db/phdirs01.mp3 . On the same ramp at somewhat more speed another oilfired 44 in the early morning on September second 1971 http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44db/cd007s06.mp3 . On February 6th 1975 , one year before the end for Ottbergen 44s , 044 591 with freight on the Hortheim – Ellrich-Nordhausen line is long to be heard through the valley on the ramp of Osterhagen – beautiful whistling with echo from forested hillsides , in the beginning of the recording speed is around 20 mph , coming nearer slows below 15 mph , after passing throttle is closed for a short time , then re-opened at almost walking speed ( there must be a cut in the recording , this could have been a slip , recording of train passing is also cut short in this trailer version of the recording ), in the distance the engine bursts into a mighty slip , accelerates powerfully as top of ramp is reached http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44db/cd089s03.mp3 . In the evening of June 28th , in the very last few weeks before end of steam traction on DB : 043 321 plus 043 381 on the ramp leaving Emden freight yard with 4000 t ore train – several times engines start to slip , valve timing is wanting , rough , fuzzy beats tell engines work at the fringe of priming and there is steam bypassing piston valve rings , clanky main rod bearings or cross heads , second engine with piston glands hissing . http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44db/cd093s06.mp3
( This is a simplified version of my posting - I don't get the pictures to appear )
043 221 coming from Paderborn with freight climbs the long ramp to Altenbeken viaduct , early morning in July 1972 - steady ~ 20 mph , beautiful whistling in the distance , exhaust resounding through the valley , coming nearer the engine suffers some priming ( hear hard noise in exhaust sound ) and cylinder cooks are opened - there is a cut in the recording of the train passing at 5:43 ( engine sound suddenly gone ) - in the distance engine accelerates powerfully through Altenbeken station ( gaining momentum for second climb coming up )
http://www.dampfsound.de/sounds/m44db/phdirs01.mp3
Hello Thomas 9011,
Please let me correct a little bit your dreams of what those steamers were able to output at the drawbar. Max drawbar pull just depends on weight on drivers and their ahesion on the tracks as long as indicated pull at max pressure may be in excess of this. Neither wheel diameter nor excessive hors power or steam preasure will overcome the physics!
For example those 10 000 tons at 1 % ruling grade needed more than 220 000 pounds of tractive effort, which is almost twice of the max of which a Big Boy could deliver on a 1 % grade.
As far as I know, the 4000 had been rated at 3 600 tons on 1.1 % of Sherman Hill.This feature already needed a factor of adhesion of about 0. 20 which is regarded to be the highest to achive in everyday service for steam locomotves. Some Diesels showed up to 0.40 on trials due to their sophisticated AC-drives featuring smoth torque and slip control devices.
No shame on those fine steamers but Diesel and Electrics seem to be the better solution going uphill!
wdh
Hey Juniatha,
Interesting discussion about the actual difference in performance between both 2 and 3 cylinders and rigid frame and articulation! In Germany we once had the by far biggest no. of 3 cylinder engines class 44 decapods, almost 2 000. Thus the difference in daily performance had been evaluated: Factor of adhesion had been rated at conservative 0.185 for all 2 cylinder types while the 3 cylinder types were rated slightly higher at 0.204. There was no difference by no. or diameter of drivers. By sure indeed those 44s could do such a performance while the pacifics suffered by slipping. This may be part of the answer to the question regarding rigid frames versus smaller groups of drivers.These features were used for calculation of max loads on mainline service, as long as resulting speeds didn't drop too much.
Those UP 9000s once had been seriously calculated to produce a max. factor o.a. 0.24 on sanded rails (Dr. Giesl Gieslingen) which haedly could had been achieved by an articulated.
I saw those links to above to sound recordings there are listed ... but please enjoy!
WDH
Thomas 9011 ...So you can believe what you want to believe. To this day no single diesel locomotive has ever pulled anything close to what the steam locomotive did up a grade with the tonnage they used to pull. You can check all the records you want...
...So you can believe what you want to believe. To this day no single diesel locomotive has ever pulled anything close to what the steam locomotive did up a grade with the tonnage they used to pull. You can check all the records you want...
Ok, let's check some real data.
On the B&O's Cranberry Grade, the 2-8-8-4 EM1s were rated at 1500 tons. An ES44AC is rated at 2900 tons on the same grade.
I'd say that blows your fantasy right out of the water.
GP40-2 we are talking about tonnage records pulled by a single locomotive. There is hundreds of steam locomotives that pulled hardly anything including the EM1 you are talking about. My point is that to this day no SINGLE diesel electric locomotive has ever pulled 10,000 or more tons over a grade.
You also don't need to tell me that you can hook up 4 diesels and out pull a single steam locomotive. Yes I know that and I think the entire world knows that. We can also hook up 4 Alleghenies and see who pulls the most tonnage.
If you can find some statistics that shows me any SINGLE diesel electric locomotive pulling 10,000 ton trains over a grade then I will believe you. But so far all I have heard is a unconfirmed post of the AC 6000 rated at 5,000 tons. Even if this is true it is still half of what the Allegheny did and not even close to matching the steam locomotive let alone surpassing it.
Guys you need to start posting some of your links and statistics. I will admit I was wrong on the big boy data but I wasn't wrong concerning the other locomotives.
Concerning the Allegheny pulling 10,000 tons at 15mph... http://www.steamlocomotive.com/allegheny
The Pennsylvania Q-2 4-4-6-4 had a horsepower of nearly 8,000 http://www.steamlocomotive.com/duplex/?page=prr
I'm not going to get into the Yellowstones,or the Norfolk and western locomotives because it is all coming up model railroad stuff.
That is all I am going to say on this subject so we can get back to the original topic.
I have been a sounds of trains collector since the mid eighties collecting vinyl,CD's,and cassette tapes. You are right that there isn't very many sounds of the 3 cylinder locomotives. Howard fogg (the famous railroad painter) recorded some of the 3 cylinder,big boys,and other locomotives and transfered it to a cassette tape. It was given to me by a friend of his and I am sure it was never released to the public. It has some very clear and good sounds of the UP 3 cylinder locomotives pulling freight and passenger trains. It is stored deep in my archives but if I find it maybe I can post it to you tube or something.
J: Hi Bigboy4017
Hi Juniatha,
J: My question , to be sure , is : was this realized in daily traffic at the same surefootedness as with the Twelve-Coupled ?
My comment has been edited from a pretty sure "yes", to a very uncertain "not so sure anymore".
J: ...was this realized in daily traffic... That’s something I hoped people who remember these locomotives in regular traffic could tell something about....
How we can get real data to compare those types? Test-datas are sooo rare....and often hardly to compare. I think 1 Big Boy engineer still lives, but did he had experiences with the 9000s?
J: I’m not going to engage on that steam against diesel issue , I’ve commented on that in another thread earlier on – it totally leads away from the question at hand , nor is it questionable on a one to one basis a diesel unit even today does not match a Super Power steam loco in power at speed – never was intended to
Soooorrry, for putting some comments on that, but some people seem to think one of those 1940ties or later built steamers had an output of 8000hp at a speed of 15mph ;-) It hurts my eye soo much, could not resist to give a comment on that. Promise to be silent now.
J: However – now we get to influences of actual design – the three cylinder drive of the Nines was not an optimum design and thus it may be the Challies were in fact up to about the same low speed drag performance in actual traffic – in average conditions !
And that is big problem: the Challenger had the advantage of being later built, though it seems that the Great Depression mostly stopped all development of steam-technology for a couple of years (9000s: built 1929, CSAs built 1936).
If another class of 9000s had been built, with ingridients of Jabelmann's design-philosophies, that would make a comparison more easier, and more interesting.
However: I see your points concerning FoA. However, basically, "modern" articulates were not so big different than a straight, rigid frame designed locomotive, except, their front drive could swing from left to right and had two independend drive sets like a duplex.
Example: 4000 Class: the front unit drive and rear unit drive, that had the connection rods, were set as a pivot, the others drivers had ALCO lateral motion (TM) devices. All vertical movement was done by springs and proper equalization.
Must correct this from Kratville:
"A tongue and-groove design was adopted for the early 4-6-6-4s for the UP and this basic design was used on the 4-8-8-4s.
... The Big Boys employed the three point suspension system. This lever priciple uses a certain point in the wheelbase (3rd driver of the rear unit on the B.B.) as a pivot or fulcrum point about which the loco. rotates in curves. No lateral play was allowed these drivers, but all other had proportionately greater lateral movement. The front engine's wheels guided the locomotive and controlled front engine movement, the rear engine wheels controlled the boiler, firebox and cab movement. Total effect on the lever principle on B.B's produced a rigidly guided loco. on tangents and a cushioned action as they traversed into curves. With such a long locomotive, the running gear had to be designed to allow vertical movement such as at the top of grades (...). Without special springing, the lenght would tend to overload the drivers springs as the engine crossed convex vertical hump and also overload the trucks and trailer springs at a low spot. The springs themselves, were designed to standard practice with a 60 to 70 % load factor which allowd up to 40 % additional load before the springs would flattern.
...The suspension system was designed J. Blunt, chief engineer of the builder (ALCO), and the springing system by the UP, which also worked out the Challenger springing. On the 3 point springing system, the ftront engine drivers were equalized on both sides and then the sides cross-equalized at the front to the suspension on the rear end of main equalizer beam. Each side of the loco. was equlized as a unit from front to back, including the trailer. The front end rested on the Bissel type center pin of the engine truck. The front truck was a standard ALCO design with Bissel pin. A cross housing, designed by the roller bearings manufacturer (SKF), was used for the journals. The front truck provided for an initial 17 % resistance, then increased gradually as the curve sharpened.
...The drivers were of UP-ALCO design.
..., they were designed with longer stroke the diameter and no wheel failure were ever recorded in this location with the new design. The wheel was designed symetracally, then calculations were made for overbalance wheight to take care of the main crank pin overhang. The driver size on the 4000s was dictaded by the total clearance height of the loco. and 68inches is the biggest diameter that would fit although the road would have desired even larger dia. The drivers were all GSI castings of Boxpok design which at the time, was an ALCO feature. The axle journals were fitted with roller bearings...
...ALCO lateral-motion boxes were used on the first 3 driving axles of both engines (BB4017:errr, well, now, this conflicts of what Kratville reported above that the 3rd driver of the rear unit was set as a fulcrum point) and Franklin compensators and snubbers used throughout both engines."
(.)
Sorry for the long post, BigBoy4017 supposes "Heavy Challengers" were designed with same principles.
It was intended to show how many efforts went into "modern" steamloco-design, that this all simply may overkilled any theoretical disadvantage inherent with articulated design in comparison to a long, rigid wheelbase, dispite of their (theoretical) advantage in FoA.
You can still see 3985 running ~70mph without any effort in 2010 at Youtube. Skipw shoots the most exciting videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH4xZXskLIg
Is this not a better design over all? Or not at all? Can you give a comment on that?
4017
Deviation first then back on topic.
It took TWO Alleghenies to get a 10,000 ton train (140 50-ton capacity cars weight about 9,800 tons), up the 0.55% grade from Hinton to White Sulfur Springs.
Re: the Q2 - referring to steam locomotive horsepower without an adjective (indicated, drawbar, etc.) is meaningless. The quoted figure at steamlocomotive.com is indicated horsepower.
Discussing "grade" doesn't mean anything either unless the percent is given. A 0.5% grade is vastly different than 2%, but they are both still within the family of "grades."
Back to the Challenger vs 9000. - As far as delivering the rated or actual tractive effort to the rail, I agree with the idea that the more coupled wheels, the better at low speed. However, with such an extremely long wheel base on the 9000s, perhaps the articulated 4-6-6-4's could do more than expected because each engine set could find a better footing on less than perfect track. Would this compensate for the greater number of rigidly coupled contact points on a 9000??
With all the equations that are shown , should there be any hogger experiance noted in those facts and figures??. Or is this a given ??
Respectfully, Jim
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Much of this discussion neglects track maintenance. Also, the only Texas type mentioned was the C&O-PRR. The AT%SF was even better as proven by direct comparison on the PRR Sandusky coal trains. But on "my" thread propositioning the AT&SF Texas as the very best non-articulated steamer (with the C&O-PRR a very very close second), the point was raised by others that Texas types were hard on the track, and the track they used required constant maintenance, so N&W A's, Yellowsstones, Allegainies, and of course all the various Challengers were really better. If Texas types required lots of track maintenance, certainly 4-12-2's would require even more! With the Texas Type one can argue, sure more track maintenance, but much less locomotive maintenance. With the 9000's this argument dissapears and the Challenger is clearly the winner.
If Texas types required lots of track maintenance, certainly 4-12-2's would require even more!
Not nessessarily. And they were moved above 50 mph, in later years more reguarly. It did cost loco-maintance, but not damaged track.
Hello Juniatha
Been away. No doubt about it; on an equivalent trative effort basis, the single set will always outperform divided drive at starting. All the other factors mentioned (e.g. three cylinder drive maintenance, route availability, ...) are separate issues.
It is somewhat unfair to compare the 9000 against the challenger given the rate of development then taking place. I think a modern, roller-bearing, three cylinder 2-10-4 (perhaps based on the ATSF 5011class?), and not a north american simple mallet, would probably have been the next step in steam super-power development.
Per DaveK's comment on locomotives and track maintanance, remember whether an engine pounded the track or not depended on how well the running gear was balanced to begin with. Certainly the loco builders didn't get it right all the time. Sometimes the poorly balanced engines were put under operating speed restrictions, sometimes the poor balance was corrected by simply increasing the driver diameters. Certainly an engine that leaves miles of wrecked track behind it is of little use to anyone.
Alco's solution to balancing was the three-cylander design, which they pushed during the 1920's, the UP's 9000's being the most famous example. The 9000's were certainly a very successful design, but most roads didn't want the maintanance headaches of that third cylander. Improvements in engine design and new steel alloys in the '30's made the third cylander un-nessary anyway.
BigBoy4017 "Was the UP Challenger a 100 % substitute for the UP 9000 class as concerns t.e.??" This table may not answer all concerns about TE, however it shows, that basically 4-12-2's and 1936 built CSA 4-6-6-4 Challengers had similar tonnage ratings. Heavy Challengers built after 1942 had some 100 tons higher ratings, reflecting their higher HP and better downhill capabilities. Example: Buford to Cheyenne is -1,55% grade, they could drift downhill with 1000tons (5100 vs 4100) more than the the 4-12-2.
From Kratville's book on the Challengers...
4-12-2 TE 96,650 lbs
4-6-6-4 TE 97,400 lbs (3800's) 97,350 lbs (3900's)
The 4-12-2's only had 355,000 lbs on the drivers, while the 3800's had 386,000 lbs on the drivers, so the 9000's had a better factor of adhesion than the 3800's and 3900's. On the other hand, the Challengers were intended for use on passenger trains in addition to the fast freight role, having a higher maximum speed rating than the 9000's.
Interestingly enough, the 9000's were intended to replace the older and slower Mallet's.
- Erik
The point about the third cylinder reducing track maintenance is a valid one. But the answer still has to be YES, the Challenger did essentially replace the 9000's. Once Challengers were built and in use, no more 9000's were added. And only a portion of the 9000's were modernized. This would indicate to me that the UP preferred the Challenger design to that of the 9000's.
Hi Erik, you said:
The 4-12-2's only had 355,000 lbs on the drivers, while the 3800's had 386,000 lbs on the drivers, so the 9000's had a better factor of adhesion than the 3800's and 3900's.
...and that is the point...the Challengers had more mass on drivers, and a small advantage in starting te, yet they had same tonnage ratings.
Any train, leaving east-Ogden starts on a grade (meaning the yard itself is on grade) . Quite similar situation at west-Cheyenne. The question how good they could start a train is difficult to answer, in the case of UP. 9000's can slip too, however.
Question still open: How fast they were on a grade with a given tonnage,.hard working at 10-15 mph ?
4-12-2 were designed to match 2-8-8-0 Mallets at the Wasahtch grade and had twice the hp at speeds.The Mallets, in past '34 simplified version, had same tonnage ratings as the 9000's (see table).
Consider, Bullmooses were X-8-8-X types, C&O recieved quite simlar results in a H7 (simple, 2-8-8-2) and 2-10-4 T1 comparison. Same pull, and better road-speed go to the rigid type engine, again.
-editid to clerify-
BigBoy4017 Consider, Bullmooses were X-8-8-X types, C&O recieved quite simlar results in a H7 (simple, 2-8-8-2) and 2-10-4 T1 comparison. Same pull, however better road-speed gone this time to the rigid type engine.
Consider, Bullmooses were X-8-8-X types, C&O recieved quite simlar results in a H7 (simple, 2-8-8-2) and 2-10-4 T1 comparison. Same pull, however better road-speed gone this time to the rigid type engine.
The C&O T1 2-10-4s had better road speed than the 2-8-8-2s because the T1 had a larger firebox thus producing more steam and horsepower at speed.
The UP 4-12-2s and Challenger were the opposite with the Challenger having the larger firebox, and more power at speed.
The key to producing HP at speed in a steam locomotive is a large firebox area, and that's why locomotives with really large firebox areas such as the Allegheny, Big Boy, and Yellowstone types had such high HP outputs at road speed.
There are some interesting aspects coming up . Questions of speed on grade with given tonnage behind tender is jet another interesting subject that would deserve looking at in a thread of its own . It tends to somewhat blurr the picture however as concerns starting and sure footed low speed work at the very limit of actual wheel to rail adhesion . Nothing is for free in mechanical engineering and solutions tend to be less than perfect or else engineers wouldn't be human and engines wouldn't have to work in a real world , even in modern times of CAD .
I feel like there was a price to pay for easing curve inscription with a Mallet type of articulation ( compound or simple expansion ) - one price ? maybe more than one ...
I will come back on it asap , I'm somewhat busy with daily life presently . Just keep it boiling
Hi GP40-2,
Yes, certainly. My point was,to clearify, that the H7 had 2x8 drivers, with lots of wheight on them, yet a rigid x-10-x type was quite equal at a low speed-pull - in my eyes an astonishing figure...
With these kind of engines (2-10-4 and 4-12-2) it was the first step for both companies to become a horsepower related road. The locos were designed to help the road doing that.
The artculates came first on the C&O und UP, then handsome, massive rigid style locos were developed to replace them. Then again, the (ultimate) articulates made a comeback:
C&O: 2-8-8-2, 2-10-4, 2-6-6-6
UP: 2-8-8-0, 4-12-2, 4-6-6-4
Double the power was in comparison to the older 'Mooses. However, I do not think that the early Challengers had such a great advance in HP to the 9000's , like the T1 had versus its H7 predecessor. Can somebody supply ihp for the 9000 and early Challengers?
In the tonnage ratings-table provided is an easter-egg of engine-type, did anyone noticed it?
Hi Juanitha,
My guess, examination on goodies and baddies of both designes will show up a 50:50 distribution and which one to choose should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
-4017-
From a UP tonnage rating chart it lists the early Challengers (classes CSA-1-2) at 5100 cylinder horsepower and the later Challengers (classes 4664-3-4-5) as 5400 cylinder horsepower.
For the UP Type 4-12-2, max cylinder horsepower 4750.
The Challengers (all classes) had about 40,000 lbs more weight on the drivers. See comparison chart below. Note that the 4664-3 Challengers had the least heating surface (but it had the greatest percentage of that heating surface in the firebox and superheater ~41%) and the largest grate area.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
To "Blue Max" Burgard: Thanks for posting that wonderful chart! And to simplify the discussion was the Challenger a better locomotive than the 9000? Well of course it was. Why'd the UP keep the 9000's in service almost to the end of steam? Well, they were still good, serviceable engines, right? Why throw out something that can still more than earn its keep? So it proved, until the diesels came along and more than proved their worth.
Being so bold as to speak from no more than a high school education, and setting aside the problem of getting a 9000 around a sharp curve, I offer the following comments:A graph on Page 186 in Volume 1 of the 'Union Pacific Type' by Kratville and Bush shows a 60,000 static load on the rail. At 336 rpm (diameter speed) of 63 mph, a 2-10-2 was 11,880 pounds out of balance. A 9000 was only 4,840 pounds out of balance at 336 rpm (diameter speed) of 67 mph.The chart also shows that during one revolution of the drivers the tractive force of the 2-10-2 varied 23% above and 23.6 % below the normal force of 70,400 lbs. The 9000 varied only 9.7% above and 11.5% below its normal tractive force of 95000 lbs.With the crankpins spread out at 120 degrees (plus or minus the angle of the center cylinder) the unavoidable out of balance conditions were spread out. This also must have made for a smoother running locomotive.As far as gripping the rails, the lower variation in tractive force and the lower out of balance force per driver revolution ought to tip the advantage to the 9000s. A fellow U.P. employee had worked in the roundhouse in Caliente, NV. He once mentioned about a hard headed know-it-all. The Foreman told him to get help before removing the last bolt on the middle rod of an 8800. Later they heard a gigantic crash. Pete said that he was afraid to look, but the Foreman came running out of his office and met the know-it-all crawling out from under the locomotive. Fortunately, all he got was a gash on the scalp from the tool he was using at the time. Pete went on to say that the 8800s were a working man's friend, they always needed a lot of maintenance.My father once met an elderly retired U.P. employee who must have been on the losing side of the argument over the 9000s. He was still angry. He said that the 9000s has cost the U.P. a lot of money.Eugene Crowner
Hi Juniatha: Thanks for your sympathy regarding Hurrican Irene. The eye of the storm passed within 100 KM of my house, I had a huge mess in my yard afterwards and a big tree limb on my roof. My next door neighbor had a really large tree fall into his backyard, fortunately missing the corner of his house by about one meter. Clean up took several hours but we had no flooding and my basement train room stayed completrely dry! During the peak of the storm the cats wanted to go outside. The reason: The storm was blowing the squirrels out of the trees right into their paws, so to speak. Weird things happen in hurricanes!
Shafty Being so bold as to speak from no more than a high school education, and setting aside the problem of getting a 9000 around a sharp curve, I offer the following comments:
Being so bold as to speak from no more than a high school education, and setting aside the problem of getting a 9000 around a sharp curve, I offer the following comments:
Eugene,
I wouldn't worry too much about your formal education ending at high school, looks like you've gotten a pretty decent informal education in things mechanical. Looking forward to your posting more often.
Hi Eugene,
thank you about the story of the 8800's, resulting in...they were simplified.
As Imentoined, keeping the 9000's running fast, did cost maintance, and Juniatha wrote, their overall 3-cyl. design was not optimal.
On an articulate, all 4 cylinders are outside ;-)
And they could maintain 70-80 mph, proved by engines of various types....
....the 9000's were however an interesting middle course...and UP owned 2 types of rare examples of 3-cyl. machinies, unusual designes and that not only in the US.
They saved, and produced cost but had really long lives.
Nr.9000, that one now preserved in California, was on of the first U.P-engines to pull a "Rocky Mountain"-Railfan-train in 1956. Photos at denvers's digital library.
9029 heading freight train in evening glow .
I colored the picture and modified one design feature I have never liked
- who can tell which one ?
Hi folks
Just a note in between :
First of all -
- thank you Burgard 540 for putting up that interesting table , I like tables because they just provide the data and leave studying and conculsions to the reader ;
- thank you Eugene for that colorful glimpse back at roundhouse work on these three cylinder engines – I can imagine when a main rod like that went earth bound it was known in all the roundhouse . What did the guy think to loosen up that last bolt , maybe he relied on the rod sticking to jounal on half bearing because of glands friction ( I wouldn't want to test that while under the engine ) , maybe he thought he could hold the rod ( ... !!? ) ;
- Firelock , well , sure the Challenger was fast , daemon fast – just look-a-here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyiFQEIVPxo coming UP and “rrrreeeWAUwooooo…” ( mmmh , u-hm-yeah – that’s speed ! just listen to the BigBlock V8 alive and kicking – s-sorry ? this is not an ALCO Chally ? .. uhm – well , yes : no it isn’t .. yet , gee – I just love it ! it’s pixel-magic , sure-sure – still : it’s not totally unrealistic as concerns engine power , however as concerns cornering with all that chrome jewelry on .. well , if only Chrysler had built cars back then that had held the road half as good as this valiant Chally fantasy fighter they would not … They did much later .. ok , that’s another story )
- Jim , it’s good to read you got tolerably spared by Irene’s rage – cat’s wanted to go out : isn’t it amazing how these little cuty-cuty ceatures ( to us ) have for ever kept a wild heart deep inside and are not intimidated by a natural theatre like a hurricane ...?
- BB 4017 : the 9000s , a design link between earlier power and later high performance types : I guess so , too .
I know the book by Kratville and Bush . You should not take these old ALCO claims about smoothening torque all too serious , this was an advertising claim , although it conveyed the idea as the graph under-rated torque variations of both the two cylinder and three cylinder machine alike . The 4-10-2 prototype # 8000 j-u-s-t made the expected extra load above 2-10-2 loads , as much by better traction as by higher steaming rate which allowed a larger percentage of starting t e to be kept than with the earlier 2-10-2 , even at slow speed .
In this prototype engine , deficiencies of the chosen configuration of three cylinder drive showed up early and they were consequently fought back by detail design improvements in each of the five batches of 4-12-2s , yet flaws were never fully resolved because they were rooted in the basic configuration . That was not just ALCO's fault , the same deficiencies were already present in the LNER Gresley Pacifics with this type of conjugated valve gear and divided drive inside / outside cylinders from which ALCO had derived their own concept . The same divided drive , though with independent valve gear for each cylinder of three , was also chosen in DRG three cylinder Decapod 44 class and the 2-10-2 ramp tank engine 85 class derived thereof as well as in all the following three cylinder types of DRG and DR origin . The fact all these European engines worked tolerably well was basically because they were much closer observed and maintained – not without some weaknesses showing up as soon as these conditions slackened in British Railways times after 1960 and on Deutsche Bundesbahn when simplified works tolerances for steam maintenance were introduced in the early 1960s .
One major drawback of the 9000s were their built up frames and cylinder blocks groups , except for the UP-5 batch which got an early application of cast steel locomotive bed with one piece frames and cylinder blocks combined . This was crucial for a three cylinder machine working at 3 x 120 ° ( effective phasings ) because of inherent tendency of this type of machine to work loose bolts of built up frames structure and cylinder block joints , even with serrated flanges . Frames structure working loose turned out a big problem with the DB oil-fired 01.10 ( later 012 ) class Pacifics ( not so much with the coal fired engines of that class ( later 011 ) because they were not run as hard and they were withdrawn earlier sparing them some five to seven years of running in badly neglected condition .
Another drawback inevitable with divided drive was a shortish inner con rod with steep angle of cylinder inclination . In the 9000 and I think in a couple of other ALCO three cylinder types this has lead to reduce stroke in middle cylinder – unfortunately without compensation by somewhat larger bore , a concession to simplified work at overhaul , not unwelcome in view of middle big end trouble experienced early on yet violating the principle of even output in all three cylinders . What it meant to drive the second of six coupled axles you may visualize if you imagine driving second coupled axle on the outside – feels wrong , doesn’t it ?
A further regretful compromise was shortened valve travel to ease mechanical load factors in the valve gear rod system and to fight slack developing pretty progressively in the conjugation leverage bearings . If you mind dirty location of Gresley leverage , small wonder simple unsealed bearings wore rapidly – this was later fought by using roller bearings on small and large lever fulcrums , however it was still an uncomplete improvement as outer ends were left with plain bearings . However , since it reduced valve port openings on the middle cylinder leading to uneven output of cylinders at speed , reduction of valve travel on inner cylinder was a ‘solution’ that meant capitulation of design facing wear and consequently aberrant valve timings , which Gresley or actually any type of derived valve gear was inherently prone to develop in traffic as long as unsealed plain bearings were used . Besides , valve timing errors by lever flexion were noted and also fought by designing more sturdy levers for the later batches UP-3 , 4 and 5 – yet in the end it must be said that any derived valve gear could never compete with independent sets of valve gear for each cylinder . Not only in the middle cylinder was output and efficiency reduced by compromised valve characteristics but outside cylinders were also affected since each of the outside valve gear rod system had to carry approximately half the mass inertia loads caused by conjugation leverage and middle cylinder piston valve – which clearly meant valve travel on these cylinders also had to be kept shorter than with idependent valve gear . As I use to say : nothing is for free in mechanical design and you can’t get the advantages of dividing power on three cylinders instead of two – extra margin of adhesion , larger specific engine power output , higher rpm ceiling – without paying for it one way or another : if design and construction won’t pay by fully going all the way for it ( because the customer shys the bill ?) , daily maintenance has to – if maintenance won’t pay either , bang , there goes engine integrity and with it power and utility in traffic ! That was what you can hear in sound recordings of DB ‘two-and-a-half cylinder’ 44s in the 1970s – see links in earlier comment .
However , what-so-ever – let’s not be too hard : we are talking of engines built many decades ago , they could only be as good as technical knowledge then allowed . And I think that’s pretty much what they were ! They pulled an awful lot of payload tonnage for Union Pacific , that’s for sure – right ?
I colore the picture and modified one design feature I have never liked
You set the firebox behind its last rear driving wheel and draw it deeper to give it more height.
Sorry, I really like square like boxes on them, this does not look likely to the 9000's.
However, the 8800 had boxes really behind the rear driver
In his book "My First 50 Years With Steam", Don Young, mentions the Gresley Valve Gear. He completed an apprenticeship on the LNER in England, He states that the maximum tolerances allowed on the blueprints of a Gresley Pacific would produce close to 7/8 inch lost motion at the valve of the middle cylinder . It only gets worse as wear takes place.At higher speeds the center valve would be thrown to the limit of the tolerances, producing a longer cutoff for the middle cylinder. The result is that at higher speeds the difficult to maintain center cylinder, crankpin, and rod bearings do significantly more work than either of the two outside cylinders.O.S. Nock also mentions the problem in his two volumes, "The Gresley Pacifics". In a 1947 test, at 43 mph the three cylinders of a Gresley Pacific were doing roughly equal work. At 75 mph (not quite diameter speed for 80 inch drivers) the left cylinder was putting out 402 ihp, the center cylinder 585 ihp, the right cylinder 480 ihp.As quick search found that the 9000's and later Challengers both had 7 inches of valve travel.To repeat what Juniatha said, for all its captivating qualities, a steam locomotive was an exceedingly blunt instrument.Eugene Crowner
Big Boy4017; nice touch to the 9029. This a fine thread on the " Chally" And other engines. ~~ On the comical side, did you forget to replace the burned out headlight bulb or just turned it off. As I said this thread is very educational to myself as I don't have all the books mentioned . Hoping you take the headlight comment in fun.
Respectfully, Jim ( Cannonball)
Hello Jim
Uhm - sorry , it was me who revised the technical feature - yes , it's the firebox - and put the colors into the picture .
Revising the firebox , same as it was in the 4-10-2 and in all Mountain type engines , was for a good reason .
Prolonging it forwards above the rear coupled axle demanded to install a Gaines wall which cut off pretty much all of the extra length from grate and made this part of the firebox another form of combustion chamber , which effectively nullified the idea of enlarging the grate area . The Gaines wall make the combination of front part of firebox plus combustion chamber arguably too long for best boiler proportions with coal firing . On the other hand UP insisted on shorter tubes than in the smaller 4-10-2 .
As the b&w photo was originally a full daylight scene I guess the headlight was not on .
= J =
Juniatha; please forgive my grevious social blunder. I just got really wrapped up in the post and picture.
BB 4017 I apologise to you also.
No problem at all Jim,
Juniatha is really a creative and skilled artist...these machines were indeed an art-form itself.
Like the nice sky's colourisation and in contrast the engine is so dark as it looks Darth Vader is coming around...
I encourage you and everybody interested to find the "easter egg" in the U.P. tonnage table on the first page of this thread...
Interesting photo of that 9000, especially the colorizing giving it an awesome, unstoppable aspect. However, I think for the best views of a 9000 you have to see movies shot of one in broadside, that mile-long main drive rod going up-down-up-down-up-down. 9000's were just so cool! And don't be concerned about the headlight not being turned on, burning the headlight constantly didn't really start until the diesel era began, at least on the eastern roads.
Hi Jim
Ok , no problem , Jim
– at least as long as that didn’t indicate you were hammering the keyboard with your laptop on the steering wheel , diesel idling , at a set of lights turned green , horns sounding behind you and an important looking police officer heading straight for the cab of your truck ..
BB 4017 & Firelock
Thanks for compliments and : sure , length was a main factor of impressiveness in the Nines . However , for longest main rods there were two European contenders – or should we call them challengers ? – that by chance both featured a formidable 13’ 11 5/16” between bearing centers , although both were engines of 14 wheels instead of 18 of the 4-12-2 .
Just one little , canny riddle
On the way side to the bright sight
Which locomotive types
Got these long-rod hypes ?
Thanks, for posting the picture.
This is a facinating thread. Thanks to all of you who have been participating in the conversations.
I thought that this link might be of interest to some of you. It is a recording by Howard Fogg recording the UP 9009 near Brady Neb in the late 1950's It was posted on Utah Rails.net and is linked here:
http://utahrails.net/up/up-4-12-2.mp3
Hope you will enjoy it!
Hi Sam
That’s a most interesting sound recording ! I had heard another one some years ago – which was equally “outch-a-woodoo” . In this one you hear valve timings really badly wanting . I would suspect middle cylinder valve timing was worst because it had indirect valve actuation by combination linkage and thus largest sum of bearings play plus additional error by valve stem heat expansion .
However , as the engine walks at slow speed in the first recording you hear three beats in , u-well , tolerably even timing , then there is a considerable gap followed by two rushed beats and a third that sort of stumbles behind . But that rhythm isn’t repeated exactly the same way per turn of wheel . Sometimes there is more than one beat behind , sometimes one or the other (!) beat gets half-swallowed and another pronounced . If the beats most markedly asynchronous were by middle cylinder , then – (a) the one retarded beat and the counterpart more to cadence but half lost tell , there was a lot of play summed up at middle piston valve stem actuation plus valve regulation was leaning heavily to one side – (b) erratic degrees and pattern of asynchronous cycles tell , valve was partly sticking or got kicked so that it was not always following retarded travel as by sum of play but was some times more / sometimes less behind / was ahead at various points of its travel – (c) half dropped beat means the valve’s leading edges were not conforming to true measure – (d) occasional additional erratic accumulations and stretches of beats sequences mean at least one of the outer cylinders also suffered from erratic valve events .
Now in the second recording # 9009 travels not much faster but at larger power output . This has a distinct ‘shaping up’ effect on the asynchronous pattern of beats : again expecting the middle cylinder , one side is markedly emphasized and also retarded , making the engine sound as if dragging behind and then stumbling forward heavily and hastily while on the other three beats the counterpart of the pronounced beat gets somewhat muffled but remains inconspicuous for cadence . This pattern is much akin to the one common with the last of Emden 44 class three cylinder Decapod in the final year of steam on DB . It’s known in these Decapods this was due to bad neglect mainly of middle valve gear (these engine had independent valve gear for each cylinder) , so we can draw from that it was in fact mainly the middle cylinder in # 9009 that was off cadence and at the same time erratic as pattern of irregularity is unexpectedly changed from ‘WU-wuu-wuuh-w-wuu-wuu’ to ‘WU-wuu-wuu-WU-wuu-(wu)’ which means in this instance the loose middle valve did not remain short of nominal valve travel on the far side but got kicked and over-traveled by sum of play in linkage . Small wonder , there were problems with middle big ends , it was no less so in British and German three cylinder engines when valve events were off-set .
Ok , ready to take the heavy dose ? Hobbling along at about 30 mph the beats are toppling off the chimney as they happen to come by chance , there are approximately five beats per turn of wheel on average , some behind , some of them sometimes ahead , all in all sounding somewhat like a jigsaw and a stone mill combined . Impossible to think of the engine in this ill condition running as they formerly did at 60 mph , 65 and in cases 70 mph ! Ou-rr-outch-rwm-outcha-chroutch-atchouka-outch-outch-aw : poor engine !
Well , the recording was made in 1954 and very much tells of steam’s very end closing in .
Juniatha;
Thank you for 'splainin' it to me.
My sensitive hearing is about shot. Too many years riding around in trucks with loud exhausts, and no air conditioning. So, I really thank you for the detailed explanation. :
Thomas 9011 GP40-2 we are talking about tonnage records pulled by a single locomotive. There is hundreds of steam locomotives that pulled hardly anything including the EM1 you are talking about. My point is that to this day no SINGLE diesel electric locomotive has ever pulled 10,000 or more tons over a grade. You also don't need to tell me that you can hook up 4 diesels and out pull a single steam locomotive. Yes I know that and I think the entire world knows that. We can also hook up 4 Alleghenies and see who pulls the most tonnage. If you can find some statistics that shows me any SINGLE diesel electric locomotive pulling 10,000 ton trains over a grade then I will believe you. But so far all I have heard is a unconfirmed post of the AC 6000 rated at 5,000 tons. Even if this is true it is still half of what the Allegheny did and not even close to matching the steam locomotive let alone surpassing it. Guys you need to start posting some of your links and statistics. I will admit I was wrong on the big boy data but I wasn't wrong concerning the other locomotives. Concerning the Allegheny pulling 10,000 tons at 15mph... http://www.steamlocomotive.com/allegheny The Pennsylvania Q-2 4-4-6-4 had a horsepower of nearly 8,000 http://www.steamlocomotive.com/duplex/?page=prr I'm not going to get into the Yellowstones,or the Norfolk and western locomotives because it is all coming up model railroad stuff. That is all I am going to say on this subject so we can get back to the original topic.
Well, I can't quote statistics to you, although I've heard that 63% of them are made up on the spot. I will relate to you what happened to me one night. I had the C&NW 6803 (an SD40-2) and an ex-Springfield Terminal GP39-2 on just shy of 10,000 tons going from Butler, Wisconsin to Proviso Yard near Chicago. Leaving Butler, the line goes downgrade through West Allis on a slope with a maximum of 1.1% (if the track charts are correct). The line bottoms out in a sharp curve at Chase (where the old passenger main split off toward the station at Wells Street and the location of a former roundhouse; both are long gone). The curve is rated at a maximum of 25 mph and the grade goes up from there through the interlocking at St. Francis and up the hill past Airport (Mitchell Field). About midway down the hill through West Allis, that geep gave up the ghost, leaving the 6803 to do all of the work. When we started up the grade past St. Francis, the trainspeed was right at 6 mph. She never stopped lugging that train and I never took her out of the eighth notch the entire trip. Once over the hill, she picked up her speed but never got above 30 mph. It took longer to get to Proviso than usual, but that locomotive never quit. It's but one reason I've always admired the SD40-2 and virtually any Dash Two locomotive (I run F40PH-2's just about daily; I know they'll give me less trouble than the Dash Three rebuilds). In short, if steam could do all of the things you claim, the railroads would have been slower getting rid of it, but as a rule, the mountain railroads went diesel first, probably due to the wonderful tractive abilities of the technology. And as Steve Lee said to me once when the 844 was in town, "Smitty, would you want to run a railroad with these things?" I replied truthfully that I wouldn't, no matter how spectacular it might be.
Juniatha; I thought your comment was very funny and I laughed . That would be of great interest to the lawman to see what was going on. There are so many rules and regulations in DOT that some would conflic to others. The DOT book has more than a few rules that go that way.
Jim
To samp1943, thanks for that wonderful recording of that 9000! Interesting "drum-beat" of the exhaust: "BOOM-buh-buh-buh-BOOM-buh-buh-buh-BOOM!" Reminds me of Redcoat drummers beating a charge on an 18th Century battlefield. And if that was Howard Fogg narrating, what a magnificent speaking voice he had!
Uphogger , I can read from your lines you are one full-hearted diesel dude , no doubt – and why not , if you have come to like it and do a good job then you are positively contributing your share in keeping American economy going ! Well , I’m not a business manager , from my engineer’s technical viewpoint however , the underlying basic element in making a railroad perform with either steam , diesel or electric traction clearly is : keep the staff motivated , maintain locomotives in good technical upkeep , put up clever schedule tables to keep trains moving and never overload engines . Thunderous Fefiii # 844 though called dual purpose back then , always was a runner and clearly prefers to swing rods at good speed over laboring at a slow , heavy pull . So , mentioning this engine in connection with your experience of faithful hard lugging by # 6803 is somewhat off the point as concerns steam . Probably it would have taken one of the 2 x 8 coupled Mallets to compete with that SD40-2 saving the day for you as well as for the line dispatcher . In other words , it could have been done with steam – only , you would have had to use the right type of locomotive , no less than with diesel traction . However I’d like to point out two aspects that are often missed in discussions relating to diesel / steam , which are : (a) The classic direct drive type of steam locomotive by concept had its limitations in tractive effort , in consequence of comparatively limited numbers of powered wheels as much as by variations in torque over a turn of wheel , causing an inherently incomplete use of theoretical adhesion . On the positive side , actual tractive effort at speed decreased far less from maximum at starting t e than it does in diesels – i e if you compare performance of a 4000 motor hp diesel locomotive with a 4000 cylinder hp steam locomotive at medium speed or above then you will see t e advantage of diesel has vanished – it has evaporated , so to say . Because of that , traffic handling with a fleet of steam locomotives would have had to be differently organized than with diesels , principally running shorter trains at faster pace – likely ending up with much the same ton-miles production on average . (b) Comparing 1940s types of steam locomotives with diesel locomotives like SD40-2 or present day types , mind you compare old power with new power . Just imagine you have bought a fairly new Ferrari California – 4.3 ltr V8 of 460 hp (net) , 0 – 60 below 4 sec , top speed 200 mph – and compare it to what you had before : a 1966 Corvette Stingray – 427 Big Block V8 , 425 hp (SAE) . 0 – 60 in 5.6 sec , quarter mile in 13.4 sec – and then remark upon how the Ferrari holds the road so much better , taking curves faster than you dare while the old Corvette seemed to be squealing tires when only it saw a curve . What could steam have become , had its development been continued ? Just hop into a present day Corvette C6 Grand Sport – 6.2 ltr V8 , 442 hp (net) , 0 – 60 in 4.0 sec , top speed 190 mph , cornering faster than you dare … See what I mean ? Always have good road trips and power to spare ! Sam , Jim I guess riding steam locomotives wasn’t any better for hearing , as with the hogger asked “Isn’t it pretty noisy up in the cab ?” “What ?” “I mean , running the engine , isn’t LOUD ?” “No , why ?” “Well , I just thought so , maybe .” “Oh-no-no ..” “Ok .” “.. I didn’t shout .” Well , now there are encapsulating headphones that provide excellent acoustic insulation – I think it’s not exactly encouraged to wear them while driving , yet in case you did and the police officer turns up at you cab , as a well mannered citizen you open the window and lightly lifting headphones politely inform him “It’s Chopin : piano concerto No 2 , f-Moll opus 21 , third movement in allegro vivace – just five more minutes and I’ll be there for you , Sir – thank you for understanding !” Different countries – different problems , see : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_zMyHAGMwI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmFpmSJI1s&feature=related Oh , as for the DOT book , I heard there are some girl truckies who found the book of quite practical use : to put under the seat pad for having a better outlook . Well , it’s probably one of these stories … Always have a free road and keep on trucking ! Regards Juniatha
Uphogger ,
I can read from your lines you are one full-hearted diesel dude , no doubt – and why not , if you have come to like it and do a good job then you are positively contributing your share in keeping American economy going !
Well , I’m not a business manager , from my engineer’s technical viewpoint however , the underlying basic element in making a railroad perform with either steam , diesel or electric traction clearly is : keep the staff motivated , maintain locomotives in good technical upkeep , put up clever schedule tables to keep trains moving and never overload engines .
Thunderous Fefiii # 844 though called dual purpose back then , always was a runner and clearly prefers to swing rods at good speed over laboring at a slow , heavy pull . So , mentioning this engine in connection with your experience of faithful hard lugging by # 6803 is somewhat off the point as concerns steam . Probably it would have taken one of the 2 x 8 coupled Mallets to compete with that SD40-2 saving the day for you as well as for the line dispatcher . In other words , it could have been done with steam – only , you would have had to use the right type of locomotive , no less than with diesel traction .
However I’d like to point out two aspects that are often missed in discussions relating to diesel / steam , which are :
(a) The classic direct drive type of steam locomotive by concept had its limitations in tractive effort , in consequence of comparatively limited numbers of powered wheels as much as by variations in torque over a turn of wheel , causing an inherently incomplete use of theoretical adhesion . On the positive side , actual tractive effort at speed decreased far less from maximum at starting t e than it does in diesels – i e if you compare performance of a 4000 motor hp diesel locomotive with a 4000 cylinder hp steam locomotive at medium speed or above then you will see t e advantage of diesel has vanished – it has evaporated , so to say . Because of that , traffic handling with a fleet of steam locomotives would have had to be differently organized than with diesels , principally running shorter trains at faster pace – likely ending up with much the same ton-miles production on average .
(b) Comparing 1940s types of steam locomotives with diesel locomotives like SD40-2 or present day types , mind you compare old power with new power .
Just imagine you have bought a fairly new Ferrari California – 4.3 ltr V8 of 460 hp (net) , 0 – 60 below 4 sec , top speed 200 mph – and compare it to what you had before : a 1966 Corvette Stingray – 427 Big Block V8 , 425 hp (SAE) . 0 – 60 in 5.6 sec , quarter mile in 13.4 sec – and then remark upon how the Ferrari holds the road so much better , taking curves faster than you dare while the old Corvette seemed to be squealing tires when only it saw a curve .
What could steam have become , had its development been continued ? Just hop into a present day Corvette C6 Grand Sport – 6.2 ltr V8 , 442 hp (net) , 0 – 60 in 4.0 sec , top speed 190 mph , cornering faster than you dare …
See what I mean ?
Always have good road trips and power to spare !
Sam , Jim
I guess riding steam locomotives wasn’t any better for hearing , as with the hogger asked “Isn’t it pretty noisy up in the cab ?”
“What ?”
“I mean , running the engine , isn’t LOUD ?”
“No , why ?”
“Well , I just thought so , maybe .”
“Oh-no-no ..”
“Ok .”
“.. I didn’t shout .”
Well , now there are encapsulating headphones that provide excellent acoustic insulation – I think it’s not exactly encouraged to wear them while driving , yet in case you did and the police officer turns up at you cab , as a well mannered citizen you open the window and lightly lifting headphones politely inform him “It’s Chopin : piano concerto No 2 , f-Moll opus 21 , third movement in allegro vivace – just five more minutes and I’ll be there for you , Sir – thank you for understanding !”
Different countries – different problems , see : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_zMyHAGMwI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmFpmSJI1s&feature=related
Oh , as for the DOT book , I heard there are some girl truckies who found the book of quite practical use : to put under the seat pad for having a better outlook . Well , it’s probably one of these stories …
Always have a free road and keep on trucking !
Can somebody solves this Riddle? Myself is respcetfully giving up...
Just one little , canny riddle On the way side to the bright sight Which locomotive types Got these long-rod hypes ? Regards Juniatha
To Juniatha: Offtopic: About your car comparison: better waiting until batterie's ranges will improve and have a mercedes sls e-cell ....swoooosh...392 kW / 880 Nm
Leaving Butler, the line goes downgrade through West Allis on a slope with a maximum of 1.1% (if the track charts are correct)....When we started up the grade past St. Francis, the trainspeed was right at 6 mph.
uphogger,1.1% down, but, what kind of grade up? The SD40 has always been my favorite and I've had some pull some pretty good tonnage over what they were rated, but, I highly doubt that one will pull 10,000 tons + a dead GP39 up a 1.1% grade.
"Smitty, would you want to run a railroad with these things?" Well, I've got nothing but respect for Steve Lee, who probably knows as much if not more than any man living about running steam locomotives, but the fact remains, it WAS done, and quite sucessfully.
Kind of reminds me of modern day soldiers and Marines looking at a flintlock musket, all .75 caliber bore and 16" bayonet, and saying, "Can you imagine fighting a war with that?" Well, it wasn't easy, but the flintlock musket can still hold its own in the proper hands.
You know, every once in a while I see an Amtrak train coming through with two diesel units and eleven cars in tow, and think to myself, "A Norfolk and Western Class J could pull 23 cars unassisted. How pathetic!" My tongue is firmly in my cheek, I might add.
Yes, steam locomotives and flintlocks, it had to be done with them, and it WAS done. Semper Fi.
Firelock , that’s true : it could be done , it was done and nobody felt nothing wrong about it in no way .
However , there is one deciding point forever overlooked since the days when EMD salesmen browsed the railways and did exactly that for a purpose :
Usual comparison is invariably : ‘Old Steam against New Diesel’ ! As for fact finding , I think there isn’t much in it , it’s really not edifying . It did however firmly fix a formula : ‘Steam = Old / Diesel = New’ ; wherein according with general economic savvy new = profitable and old = in deficit , concluding ‘Steam = in deficit / Diesel = profitable’ . No regards to technology in this .
Compare old cars with new cars or old bicycles with new bicycles , old computers with new computers or old telephones with new headsets , old shoes with new shoes or old oranges with new tomatos – compare anything old with new and the old what-ever will always look old against the new what-ever .
That’s the plain and simple fact about all these age old flawed-by-default comparison sales techniques that salesmen are being trained in . You can sell a new Ford to an owner of an old Chevy that way as you can sell a new LandOver to someone driving and old Wrangled or a new Mini for an old Mazza , swap a new Jag for an old Saad , a new Wolfo for an old Toyojo or lease a new Merc for an old GlenMiller , Or-well , any Old’s Mobile as you can trade a new tasty BigMac for an old leathery T-Bone steak – it doesn’t matter . The point is : compare old with new and the verdict is prefixed .
Why , I have heard people say : “New steam locos were impractical because classes like the Niagara or the N&W J or the ATSF 2900 each were but a few engines .” So , back in 1945 ..48 if a RR Co should have wanted to replace their fleet of old Consol type of locomotives by ordering new steam all they could get were some 10 , 20 , at best 30 engines a class and that didn’t work ( when all at the same time 1340 new Mikes got built and shipped overseas for service on the SNCF ) – so RRs just haaaaaaaaad to order diesels to stop that deluge of age-old Consols forever occupying yards ? I mean , hey folks , dunno – I just feel insulted being offered that sort of ‘arguments’ .
As I say : the way things went , diesels did become fully proven , worthy and versatile tonnage mover tools for American RRs – yet that doesn’t say anything about post 1950 type of steam that got abolished , was never built . To be sure : this neither precludes it could have also been done with steam , nor indicates it could not have been done .
Just a food for thought – you’re free to have your own viewpoints .
BigBoy 4017 and all invited to participate with the riddle – here’s a little feed to the fire :
Both the requested classes were engines of 14 wheels ( without tender ) each sporting comparatively large *beep* and *beep* drive wheels diameters for their respective *beep* and *beep* types of w/a that were pretty rare in Europe . Both were simple expansion engines – one with two , the other with three cylinders ; also , both had Walschaert’s valve gear , although in one case controlling regular piston valves and poppet valves in the other case . Ironically , of the class with poppet valves more engines were built not just by the works of origin but by a second works in licence for a second national railway .
On the other hand , in 1945 only one of the three cylinder engines was working and then just for a very short time as she had left works in all a new shape that had turned a Cinderella into a Princess – although a Princess in a world of apocalypse , which must have been unbearable to her since with her installation trip just finished she became Sleeping Beauty for the rest of the conflict and except for a transient brake in 1947 , kind of sleep-walking battered rails of a land in ruins , only was to wake up for a second lease of life later on .
Proving the regular case , the two cylinder engines outlasted the three cylindered : on the second railway that had built the class in licence engines happily continued to storm hilly grounds way into the ‘70s , while on the original railway at least the last members of the class did make it into the early ‘60s , even though electrification on that railway sent steam away early for the journey of no return , to join their ancestors in the Eternal Railroading Fields – leaving the last chapter of steam to be written by one single class of engines that were once spread all over places and had been nick-named ‘Marlene’ by some Italian locomotive crews .
But that’s another story …
Juniatha BigBoy 4017 and all invited to participate with the riddle – here’s a little feed to the fire : Both the requested classes were engines of 14 wheels ( without tender ) each sporting comparatively large *beep* and *beep* drive wheels diameters for their respective *beep* and *beep* types of w/a that were pretty rare in Europe . Both were simple expansion engines – one with two , the other with three cylinders ; also , both had Walschaert’s valve gear , although in one case controlling regular piston valves and poppet valves in the other case . Ironically , of the class with poppet valves more engines were built not just by the works of origin but by a second works in licence for a second national railway . On the other hand , in 1945 only one of the three cylinder engines was working and then just for a very short time as she had left works in all a new shape that had turned a Cinderella into a Princess – although a Princess in a world of apocalypse , which must have been unbearable to her since with her installation trip just finished she became Sleeping Beauty for the rest of the conflict and except for a transient brake in 1947 , kind of sleep-walking battered rails of a land in ruins , only was to wake up for a second lease of life later on . Proving the regular case , the two cylinder engines outlasted the three cylindered : on the second railway that had built the class in licence engines happily continued to storm hilly grounds way into the ‘70s , while on the original railway at least the last members of the class did make it into the early ‘60s , even though electrification on that railway sent steam away early for the journey of no return , to join their ancestors in the Eternal Railroading Fields – leaving the last chapter of steam to be written by one single class of engines that were once spread all over places and had been nick-named ‘Marlene’ by some Italian locomotive crews . But that’s another story … Juniatha
These can only be the Austrian Federal Railways Classes 114 (3 cylinder 2-8-4) and 214 (two cylinder 2-8-4)
These became classes 12-1 and 12 respectively during the German occupation.
The copies were built for Romania as class 142.
M636C
Juniatha,
German's DR/DB 2-10-2 classes?
M636C :
Uuuhm - exactly the 114.01 was poppet valve equipped too and was just one engine from the beginning . Also , as I wrote they were of two different w/a .
BigBoy 4017 :
The 2-10-2 was the 45 class , a three cylinder simple with piston valves , that's ok . However the main rod was not as long as that and I don't know how many of them were running in 1945 if any .
Yet , both of you are at least not really lost focussing the railways concerned ...
Edit , Oct 6th : replaced "Geee - nope the .." with "Uuuhm - exactly the .."
Hi Juniatha! (Sorry I haven't written in "Coversations" but my brain's been burnt out the past week), I fully agree with your analysis of "old steam vs. new diesel". You make exactly the same points railfan author Ron Ziel did in one of his books, that is compared to the steam engines worn out in World War 2 service, the new diesels couldn't help but look good. Comparing them with new postwar steam, ah, THAT was another matter. The new postwar jobs held their own pretty darn well. From what I've read, and I have to read it, I wasn't there, one of the factors that pushed the railroads into diesel purchases, if not THE important factor, was the rash of coal miner strikes in the years after WW 2. I can't blame the miners for striking, as a group there's very few American workers who've been so shabbily treated, but if you're a rail executive, and you've GOT to have a reliable fuel source, well, the oil fueled diesel started to look better and better. Who's ever heard of a strike in the oil business? I haven't.
Plus, we have to remember diesel fuel was dirt cheap in those days. Gasoline retailed for about 19 cents a gallon in the '40s, diesel fuel was even cheaper. So cheap fuel, not likely to be affected by strikes, the choice got pretty simple. Even a steam freak like me would have to make the hard choice, but I think I would have made the transition a bit more slowly and kept more money in the bank.
Early diesels didn't win the "war" against steam on the road, they won it in the shops. Many a road foreman was dismayed at the number of diesels it took to equal the performance of a steam locomotive at speed, but loved how easy it was to keep the diesels running. Cheap fuel was an added bonus.
Pat.
Geeee - nope , the 114.01 was poppet valve equipped too and was just one engine from the beginning . Also , as I wrote they were of two different w/a .
was it (akind of) a Tank-Engine? Helper, pusher service on trains? Did you mean a single part or connected (splittet) side-rods?
Big Boy 4017 :
Main rod or con rod is the one that connects from cross head to main pin on drive wheel ( I write this in singular , as seen from aside ) - coupling rods are generally much shorter . It would make for a curious wheel spacing if coupling rods were over ten feet long . None is a tank engine as these generally had rather smaller wheels , even passenger tank engines rarely had wheel diameter above six ft - or wait a minute , there were two that had wheels appreciably larger than 80 ins .
Uhm , and they were not Chinese , Russian neither and forget about Indian Railways on any of their three gauges : broad cast , Meter gag or Narrow cage , or the Darling Geeling steam railway which uses blends of tea for water treatment according to a traditional ayurvedic recipe , or the Cat-Man-Doo - also called 'The Cloudy Choo-Choo' , or the Himalayan Eight Gateways to Heaven cog railway with their famous 897 % grade with their saturated snow engines that were generally believed to be some 125 years old , until conservative scientist using a revolutionary new testing method have recently revealed at least one of them to be approximately 548 to 563 years old - which has raised some controveries in learned circles ...
Hey , folks - it can't be too hard : of each class there are one or more examples preserved today , one of them had as many coupled axles as cylinders - the other as many as piston strokes per drive wheel turn and the inside cylinder was almost horizontal . Both had round chimneys , wore wind wings of various fashions , had open cabs with inclined window planes and were coal fired using a shovel - well you could have used more shovels if you had brought more hands but the railways ordered one is enough - full stop .
I should have listen to this song first,
"Dry Bones - The Delta Rhythm Boys" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVoPG9HtYF8 ), before answer, and tech. connecting the head-bone with the knee-bone. Of course, you knew meaning. - First attempts were a quick guess of mine. It can not be not the "Charlie" Chape-leon French 2-12-0 and ...ooorrr? - and German Württemberg locomotive Type K
BigBoy4017 I encourage you and everybody interested to find the "easter egg" in the U.P. tonnage table on the first page of this thread...
I'm not sure what is meant by "an easter egg" except that they are sometimes hidden....
Earlier 4017 posted
"Consider, Bullmooses were X-8-8-X types, C&O recieved quite simlar results in a H7 (simple, 2-8-8-2) and 2-10-4 T1 comparison. Same pull, and better road-speed go to the rigid type engine, again." The obvious hidden locomotive is the second most powerful locomotive on the table, the UP Class 3570, which is of course the same C&O H-7 mentioned above. This does raise the question that the 3570 is considerably more powerful than either the 9000 or 3800 or 3900 (as might be expected). However, it strains the bounds of credibility that the C&O T-1 could be more powerful than a 9000 or 3900.... So a T-1 can't have been more powerful than an H-7, although it may have been able to do the same work as the H-7 was used for by the C&O. If the T-1 had been that powerful, UP could have used them instead of the 4000 class.... M636C
"Consider, Bullmooses were X-8-8-X types, C&O recieved quite simlar results in a H7 (simple, 2-8-8-2) and 2-10-4 T1 comparison. Same pull, and better road-speed go to the rigid type engine, again."
The obvious hidden locomotive is the second most powerful locomotive on the table, the UP Class 3570, which is of course the same C&O H-7 mentioned above.
This does raise the question that the 3570 is considerably more powerful than either the 9000 or 3800 or 3900 (as might be expected). However, it strains the bounds of credibility that the C&O T-1 could be more powerful than a 9000 or 3900....
So a T-1 can't have been more powerful than an H-7, although it may have been able to do the same work as the H-7 was used for by the C&O.
If the T-1 had been that powerful, UP could have used them instead of the 4000 class....
Dear M636C,
Your intention have brought you on the right track in both cases. Some words about the 2-8-8-2 H7: these 30 engines were aquired from C&O 2nd hand in 1945. Together with 5 2-8-8-2 Y3 from N&W, they had become UP's final aquired, steamers. #844, the last new built engine, had been delievered '44
M636C And you pointed out as well, it was the second most powerful locomotive on the table, related on tonnage ratings (on home terrority, they moved trains of almost 10000tons. Maybe not 100% figure.)
This does raise the question that the 3570 is considerably more powerful than either the 9000 or 3800 or 3900 (as might be expected). However, it strains the bounds of credibility that the C&O T-1 could be more powerful than a 9000 or 3900....So a T-1 can't have been more powerful than an H-7, although it may have been able to do the same work as the H-7 was used for by the C&O."
The table just contains plain tonnage ratings. There are some general comments about handling trains (fast freight, tonnages with double-headers on step grades and maximum downhill capabilities) in addition. But no hint, of average speeds between those sections. The H7's higher starting TE than any other of UP's engines, except of the 4000-class, can not tell the whole story: Maybe not on all circumstances, like real starting TE from stop to crawling speed, on the other hand C&O T1 generated more HP.
This is why I like the table: it tells you everthing, but nothing all:
2-8-8-0-SA type was an older class than a challenger, but on steeper grades, tonnages remain same for both, as well as for 9000class.
For what is worth: from 1900 Built engines to Big Boy, Steamtech looks like a pretty linear development about HP. Big Boy is twice as big as an old 2-10-2-TTT, and could pull twice tonnage on steeper grades. Nothing great about that.
Come on, lets play with some trains here.
M636C:"If the T-1 had been that powerful, UP could have used them instead of the 4000 class...."
I am thinking this is true for certain speeds. They had '68-'69 wheels. But not as a replacement.
Hi -
Well as concerns adhesion limit starting tractive effort , I can see an advantage worth the equivalent of one driving axle in a straight frame engine as compared to an articulated ( always at same adhesion mass per coupled axle ) - however a relation of five to eight would seem far fetched . I think when C&O was rating their T-1 2-10-4 as 'powerful' as the H-7 it's very much the product of ton-miles that they had in mind , i e the maximum tonnage on a given grade may have been somewhat lower with the T-1 , yet in the end they handled their loads a that much higher average speeds , their ton-miles production was much the same or even better .
To unravel a mystery and solve the riddle –
the locomotive types with the long main rods – likely the longest in the world – were :
1st DR 05 class three cylinder piston valves high speed special series 4-6-4 of 7’ 7” drivers (2300 mm new tire diameter) – one of which is preserved in the Nurnberg railway museum .
2nd ÖBB series 214 two cylinder poppet valves passenger 2-8-4 , with 79 built in licence by Malaxa works for Rumanian railways – an original Austrian 214 is preserved at the Vienna transport museum , an ex CFR version has been bought by the Austrian railway historical society .
Interestingly , both locomotive designs independently came to use same length of main rods of 4.25 m ( 13’ 11 5/16” ) although stroke differed at 660 mm ( 26” ) and 720 mm ( 28 11/32” )
The one three cylinder 2-8-4 built by Sigl works at Vienna in competition with the Floridsdorf two cylinder type had slightly shorter main rods as can be seen on photos since cross head position is set back in relation to center of first coupled axle . In this way naming the 114.01 was a near miss .
By the way : although comparison of European and American locomotives of rather different sizes and specifications must be viewed with some caution , 26” stroke DR standard two cylinder types disproved N&W theory of longer stroke reducing specific steam consumption , since all of the DR engine classes showed ssc – or more precisely specific heat consumptions – way below those found in long stroked N&W classes . Without intending to extend on what were the thermo-dynamic reasons for this , may I just mention cylinder volume in relation to hourly steam volume at nominal output rate was basically larger in the DR engines and this , besides other differences in design specifications in superheater , valve gear and draughting , helped to improve steam expansion and reduce back pressure .
On the other hand , with the notable exceptions of LNER A4 ‘Mallard’ and some of the BR standard class 9 Decapods , none of the European engines was ever run on rotational speeds as high as those realized with the N&W J class although smaller absolute cylinder volumes and lower piston thrusts should have favored it – however , delicate mechanical design often stood against high mass inertia forces involved with high rpm running , DR standard engines were handicapped by relatively heavy main rods of plain sorts of steel , white metal plain bearings of – uhm – rather ‘traditional’ design , principally an evolution of pre WW-I Prussian railways standards , and exceptionally low degree balancing of reciprocating portions of rod masses , causing hard longitudinal rocking or ‘galloping’ , although rotating portions of rod masses were fully balanced and there was full cross balancing , making nosing virtually absent in these engines , even in badly run down condition . Problems with plain main rod big ends and rough riding effects by low balancing of reciprocating masses were main reasons for turning development towards three cylinder engines in the later 1930s mainline standard types 44 class 1936 production type 2-10-0 , 45 2-10-2 , 01-10 and 03-10 streamlined Pacifics plus the 05 and 61 classes streamlined high speed engines . Still , with dual axle drives of much differing rod lengths inside / outside , DR three cylinder types suffered from principally the same unaccomplished design features as did the ALCO three cylinder types , additionally there was no counterbalancing on crank axle , instead it was allowed for by size and setting of counterweights in wheels of that axles – which did not help mass inertia effects on the crank itself , although this appears to have proven of little consequence with moderate rotational speeds of these engines .
While development of American steam left the three cylinder type to concentrate on pursuing purely outside-cylindered power for the benefit of ruling system of engine maintenance and servicing , the Germans principally repeated the same uncomplete mechanical concept in their 1957 class 10 ‘Super-Pacific’ that was to be the final steam loco design for DB , although the two engines were fully equipped with roller bearings on rods and axles and featured very low specific steam consumptions competitive with those reached in British Railways poppet valved three cylinder Pacific 71000 ‘Duke of Glouchester’. While in Britain , Gresley’s successors introduced some improvements on his concept of three cylinder engines with conjugated valve gear drive , with exception of said sole 71000 BR’s final design solution really was a retreat to plain two cylinder design that by default avoided all the technical challenges implicit with engine types featuring cylinders and drives between frames .
Or – design of the classic steam locomotive at the twilight of the era retreated to it’s very initial Stephensonian concept . I leave it to each of you to draw your own conclusions as to what that meant in view of competitiveness and future perspective offered by steam locomotive design at the time of emerging other engine concepts for railroad traction …
.. and so – how are we to sum up the thread’s comparison – the Challies to the Nines ?
To pull – or not to pull
that’s the question !
Shakesgear
Hi Juniatha: Thanks for the e-mail comeback concerning my "mystery" engines at Vienna! It's a sad but common story. More than one American steam loco restoration has foundered on the rocks of hard-headed individuals unable to resolve philosophical or practical differences while the engine rusts into junk or gets evicted from its storage place and ends up finally at the scrap dealer's yard. I hope that will not be the ultimate fate of these three engines which seem to be good candidates for restoration. I've tried to follow the arguments about the 9000's and the Challengers but they have gotten into some very rarified territory. Just thinking as a layman I'm sort of surprised that it's such an issue. The 9000's represent rather old fashioned thinking with the engine merely adding a extra pair of drivers to a post drag freight design. With only two wheels supporting the firebox it must have had somewhat limited steaming capacity. The Challengers, especially the latest examples, were much more modern in concept with an adequate firebox supported by a four wheel truck, a flexible articulated frame, a divided drive resulting in less dynamic augment ( hammerblow, we call it ) and dual service capability. Furthermore, I notice you and your threadmates keep comparing these engines with the C&O T-1. I can see how a 2-10-4 could be in contention but why not consider the Santa Fe's 50ll Class 2-10-4. This monster is reputed to be the largest and heaviest non-articulated engine ever built yet it had larger drivers than the T-1 and was capable of faster speeds. A very interesting comparison occurred when the Pennsylvania railroad leased several Santa Fe engines and ran them alongside their J-1's ( virtual copies of the C&O T-1 ) in coal drag service. I'm betting that neither the 9000's or the Challengers could outperform the 5011's as freight haulers.
Quote >> The 9000's represent rather old fashioned thinking with the engine merely adding a extra pair of drivers to a post drag freight design. <<
Well , it was a little bit more than just adding up that extra axle to the 4-10-2 predecessor , or else the type would not have been a success : curve inscribing had to be solved and was by introducing an ALCO lateral motion device to the sixth coupled axle , too ( beforehand it was only used on the first one ) and by using a firebox with Gaines wall – both have done the job , although in hindsight they were less than complete design solutions . Keeping that single axle Delta truck below the firebox can be viewed as a sign of traditional thinking , on the other hand I feel both ALCO and the Union Pacific were reluctant to add yet another axle to what seemed a rather long wheel arrangement already .
>> I can see how a 2-10-4 could be in contention but why not consider the Santa Fe's 50ll Class 2-10-4. <<
Well , I actually had this class in mind when I first wrote somewhat cryptical of “a big Texas Type” being the equivalent of a 4-6-6-4 in tractive effort . However as for drive wheel diameter as well as for year of construction the C&O T-1 seemed to offer a good comparison to the Fetters Challenger . There is little question the Jabelman Chally was an improvement over the first series , no doubt .
>> A very interesting comparison occurred when the Pennsylvania railroad leased several Santa Fe engines and ran them alongside their J-1's ( virtual copies of the C&O T-1 ) in coal drag service. I'm betting that neither the 9000's or the Challengers could outperform the 5011's as freight haulers. <<
Oh yes , that’s right and it seems most people would agree the AT&SF 5011 class had an advantage as concerns attainable speed on the level with a given heavy freight . Much of that however should be attributed to larger drive wheel diameter and greater boiler capacity – not to any superiority in valve gear . Actually , I have always wondered why Baldwin had built such massive engines for the Santa Fe and then provided them with valve gear design .. which .. kind of .. uh-m , well , wasn’t really up to the task , to put it mildly . This must have robbed the huge 2-10-4 of some 1600 ihp at least – at same fuel heat energy consumption , mind it – compared with a more adequate valve gear design as of that era and that is not to mention design of a piston valve Walschaerts or Baker valve gear which would really have reached into high efficiency steam distribution ! ( This wouldn’t have come easy to design with the enormous cylinder volumes and piston thrusts realized in large two cylinder Super Power types of steam locomotives and would have called for some re-thinking from scratch including changes in cylinder tribology itself and draughting , inevitably , to trim down back pressure .) Inadequacy of valve gear effectiveness in large Baldwin 4-8-4 and 2-10-4 in view of hourly volume of steam entering cylinders at nominal boiler output rate was highlighted by need to work with valves having positive exhaust clearance for to get steam out of cylinders without excessive back pressure and , notably , to avoid over-compression . Some railroads seem to have encountered back pressure and consequential over-compression large enough to cause big end trouble by knocking due to rapid changes of directions of bearing loads at engine traffic speeds during opposing quarters of a turn while main crank pin goes past 90° towards 180° / 0° = back / front dead center in the second halves of forwards and backwards piston stroke . Minding , in a double acting piston engine such as a steam locomotive’s , mean effective pressure not only varies over piston stroke but also changes direction it will be easy to see what bad effects to mechanical running the resultant forces from excessive back pressure and over-compression could have when they were allowed prematurely to exceed opposing mass inertia forces , temporarily while passing through critical crank pin positions . That is why high back pressure and it’s usual intake counterpart of degressive filling pressure not only were a waste of energy depraving the engine’s power output for a given steaming rate but had a backlash on drive mechanics about as destructive as pinging or detonation is to a gasoline engine . However , steam locomotives were built extremely enduring and more railroads / railways than not ignored the cause of the problem while happily repairing the effects of it at overhauls and re-repairing and re-re-repairing .. until dumping steam altogether to order diesels off stock where it could be left to the builders to iron out initial troubles .
Yet – let’s take big steam for what it was , and an impressive sight the black locomotives must have been as they were thundering up and down the mainlines , continuing a tradition of high pedigree until going on their final journey of no return to the eternal plains of steam railroading while in our minds we keep up memories of steely giants which proudly repelled to adapt to the times when they were a-changing …
Hi Juniatha: Interesting remarks about the Santa Fe 5011's American railroads were totally indifferent to the idea of any type of valve gear other than the usual Walchaerts or Baker arrangement driving spool valves. Only the Pennsylvania experimented with Caprotti gear and Franklin rotary cam poppet valves, type A and B. They found, as you have indicated, that there were significant gains in power and efficiency but the gear itself just could not stand up to the rigors of American operating conditions. Maintenance costs were very high and when valve stems broke out on the road you had an expensive engine failure to deal with. Santa Fe used the traditional techlology on their big engines. The 5001 and 5011 classes were intended to cover the territory between Belin, New Mexico and Wellington, Kansas. This involved a sustained climb of 1.27% ruling grade through Abo Canyon and long stretches of flat tangent running so the engine had to be versitile. They carefully measured cylinder back pressure and found it to be less than 10 psi except when the engine was working really hard. They assumed that these engines would spend some of their time drifting downgrade so they equipped them with Wagner Drifting Valves to relieve back pressure. In photographs the Wagner cylinder can be seen on top of the valve cylinder. I believe Santa Fe was the only American railroad to use this system which was practical for them because they had a lot of sustained mainline grades in their territory.
The Santa Fe mainline ranked high among the most arduous in America and even worldwide – no doubt . If there was a good technical case for dieselization then it was the combination of heavy ramps with long level stretches through dry territory , all of it aggravated by a long total mileage to cover per run .
No question they were correct about searching for the most reliable of engine configurations .
The Walschaert’s type of valve gear was well adapting for designs aiming at low internal steam flow resistance / high cylinder efficiency – some of the most efficient steam locomotives used this type of valve gear . No need to venture into poppet valve gear , less so if design incorporated gear boxes between frames ( let’s leave alone discussing these designs by themselves , it would only distract from point essential)
What was important , though , was not to compromise on attainable efficiency of steam distribution – that’s what I wanted to say . This applies to any type of valve gear – that’s why replacing an indifferent kind of Walschaert’s with some mediocre design of poppet valve gear gave little advantage or may have changed weak points for other weak points – mostly to some unwelcome surprise .
So , in any steam locomotive , whatever valve gear was chosen – it had to be excellent , nothing less . Or that’s my parol – difficult enough to find examples of it in historical engines . Instead , an indifferent attitude largely prevailed . I find this hard to understand in view of sometimes almost desperate efforts to maximize power output by enlarging to the utmost some other power related features , such as grate , heating surfaces , boiler volume , as concerns engine unit : cylinder volume , piston stroke and consequentially wheel diameter , adhesion mass and – inevitably – locomotive serviceable mass ( engine complete with tender ) .
If obviously there was every desire to maximize engine capacity for traffic handling , why then wasn’t quality of valve gear design given more engineering thought ?
Valve gear was the means of distributing live steam – or in other words : it was the very control of how all the amount of steam produced at high costs was to be used for conversion into the one thing that decided on engine value as a means of traffic handling : power output !
For example , what would you say about a guy who back in the Sixties would opt on customizing his T-Bird to be competitive with all the newer muscle cars springing up and to do so he would take the 352 Small Block engine out , modify the engine bay to hold a mild compression 462 cid Lincoln engine , then take the standard dual carburetor off the 352 and put it on the Big Block , adapt and connect the standard exhaust lines to the manifolds and look forward for a dashing performance . You know the answer .
Point is : you can only have so much performance as you allow an engine to live up to – and free breathing is the vital point .
For the Santa Fe , lower specific steam consumption would have directly translated into longer runs on a fill of water and fuel , more power to be had for free to maintain a faster pace up ramps and easier speed keeping on the level – allowing to vary between higher speeds or lower consumption as considered best . There are the same parts involved in an advanced Walschaert’s , only dimensions , proportions , bearing design . contouring of piston valves and possibly material specifications make all the difference – no extra complication , no drawback in reliability . Within engines in ‘Old Europe’ ( can’t keep from citing Rummy’s immortal line ) an example of what I mean were the Riddles types of British Railway standard engines as compared with elder two cylinder engines of the Big Four . Wait a minute , sure BR engines were no match to late American steam as concerns sturdiness and mileage between overhauls , sure . However as seen in relation to the engines they replaced the Riddles engines definitely presented a good step forward . Equivalent valve gear improvements could have been ‘translated’ into American design and would probably have been realized in some ways had steam design and construction continued into the Fifties as it did in Europe .
Hi Juniatha: Well yes, that is the fascinating hypothetical question. What kind of progress might have been made in steam technology had development not been arrested circa 1949. Some of the American lines actually hoped that they would be able to stay with steam in order to show solidarity with the coal companies that they were closely allied with. This was particularly true of the eastern roads like the Pennsylvania and the Norfolk & Western and, ironically, the latest steamers could often outperform the diesels in every way except starting heavy trains. But there were other factors. Steam engines need a lot of unskilled and semi skilled laborers and labor was expensive. The heavy wartime traffic had worn out most of the older steamers and diesel building capacity was available to replace them while the steam erectors were busy knocking out thousands of locomotives for shipment to Europe. Diesels represented so many advantages that even conservative minded railroad executives couldn't hold the line against them for very long although some of them did try! A small new chapter was written a few decades ago when oil prices and supplies caused a passing crisis. A consortium of engineers attempted to rethink the coal fired steam engine and came up with the ACE 6000 project. After establishing a data base utilizing a heavy ex C&O 4-8-4 they produced a plan that called for an articulated 4-6-6-4 ( if I recall correctly ) with many interesting innovations but no new ideas where valve gear was concerned. Oil prices dropped again before a prototype could be built but this probably counts as the very last word in American steam engine technology.
Hi Juniatha: OOOps! I'll have to correct that last post. The ACE went through several proposed wheel arrangements. The 6000 version actually featured a 2-10-2 configuration with a divided drive. You probably are on top of this anyway. Sorry for my faulty recollection! JIM
As far as Santa Fe going diesel, let's remember that the SF ran through some very arid areas of the country. Water was always a problem, it had to be treated and piped long distances where thirsty steam engines could get at it. No water problems with diesels to speak of. Also, since the SF ran most if not all of the locomotives with oil fuel, well, if you're going to burn oil you may as well burn it in the most efficient manner possible. Again, back to diesels. As a matter of fact the oil fuel situation would have applied to any road that burned oil in the steamers.
As to poppet valve and Capriotti valve systems, I've read that they arrived here in the US just a little too late for American locomotive designers to master them. They might have done so but for the advent of the diesel. Had the steam era not ended in 1949, who know what might have happened?
Hello Jim! This is the neverending discussion of what could have been with steam without the diesels. Please read the whole story in D.Wardale's "RED DEVIL"! He was the one being engaged in most of those projects as ACE 6000 - and had resignated at the end. The development of steam locomotives had com to a zenit during the late 1930s. All modern equipment had been added then to locomotves like those of the N&W. Standard stokers, Worthington heaters, Timken running gear, mechanical lubrication and others. In addition, long travel precise Baker valve gears with slightly limited cutoff led to improved performance at very high rpms. No way, they didn't try every innovation making sense due to lower cost per tonmile! None of the improvements coming later like turbines, late poppet valves, nickel steel boilers or extreme high pressure boilers were successful. The diesels and electrics surpassed all modern steam before WW II, both in performance and overall cost, worldwide. Nearly all the "Last Of Steam" were of 2 cylinder classic locomotives of Stephenson's design due to cost of maintainence. No way back - just think of energy waste and polution. Lest enyoy what had been (and still is running life) instead!
Hi Steamhead: I'm going to have to dispute your allegation that the early diesels outperformed the last generation of steamers. The first cost of a steamer was considerably lower than a comparable diesel lash up and the diesels needed to be lashed up because they couldn't match the horsepower output of any of the big steamers. In fact it's only now that individual diesel units are being built that match steamers in horsepower rating. The steamers could at least equal the diesels in speed potential and were better able to handle the quick stops and accelerations involved in commuter service. Early diesels tended to overheat their traction motors doing this job. The steamers could also butt their way through heavy snow and wade through flooded areas more readily than an early diesel. On the other hand the diesel could start a heavy train more efficiently, squeezed more miles out of a gallon of fuel, needed less infrastructure and manpower to support them and maintenance costs were lower, especially when the units were new. In brief, the latest steamers were generally better out on the road than the early diesels but the diesels were more economical to operate.
You have to remember the ATSF 5011's and 2900 Clas were built with limited cutoff, and were much more powerful in actual paractice than their published ratings. On test, the 5011 Class put out over 100,000 lbs. tractive effort (vs. the published 93,000 lbs.) and the 2900's put out more than 77,000 lbs. tractive effort ( vs. the 66,000 lbs. published rating.) I have relatives who fired them and have talked to engineers who have run them, the opinion is that on the flats, diesels couldn't catch them.. In the mountains, however, the four unit FT diesels could and did out pull them.
Hi txhighballer
Do you have detail data / technical drawing of
setup of these engine's valve gear and piston valve events ?
I'd like to check them ...
Juniatha:
I wish I had them...the only person I would know who might would be Stan Kistner (sp) who is an expert on ATSF steam. As soon as I can find his e-mail address, I'll see if he has any information he would be willing to share.
SFe's 3765-and-later 4-8-4s were supposed to be 60% maximum cutoff; the 5000 was 60% and the 5001-5011 classes were 67%.
Well , thank you , timz , yet the question is : at which cross sections / valve travel and all ...
Point is : they had formidable 'Arnold Schwarzenegger' sized boilers - yet how free did their engine units 'breathe' ?
One thing I think being missed here:
There have been statements regarding which steam locomotives lasted how late in UP service...and at least implied attempts to equate that information to which engines were somehow deemed to be "better" by the UP management.
We all these years later cannot fully appreciate the complexities involved in why some of the 4-12-2's operated late, after the other classes of steam were well on their way out--except that they apparently did a really fine job of moving freight on the portions of railroad east of Cheyenne. There were issues with servicing and reduction of steam facilities, rising labor costs, the dates various engines or classes received major overhauls, etc. all of which played a role as to which engines survived late.
Kratville commented in his excellent 4-12-2 books that I think as late as 1952, Union Pacific's motive power department fully intended to keep the last group of "improved" 4-12-2's, the Challengers, and Big Boys in revenue service into the 1960's. However, the availability of diesels and phasing out of steam-related facilities, combined with recessions late in the 1950's all played a role in accelerating the final end of these marvelous machines.
Rehor, in his excellent work Nickel Plate Story, reports the costs of servicing a steam engine more than doubled from 1950 to 1957, mostly based upon the skyrocketing labor costs in America.
Sadly, several of the awesome Santa Fe 2-10-4's and 4-8-4's went to scrap in very fine condition, some having never run after final heavy overhauls, and some having accumulated as little as only 10,000 miles.
John
Does anyone know the statistics from Ross rowlands experiment with the 614 back in 1985? I know they did a lot of testing and put sensors all over the locomotive trying to convince the powers that be that steam locomotives hauled coal trains better that diesel locomotives. I remember reading a article about it a long time ago and the only thing I remember was " one thing we have gathered from our tests is that the rails really do take a pounding from a steam locomotive".
I know Ross is a regular on one of these forums but I don't think it is the Trains forums unfortunately.
Hi , Thomas
Not sure what you mean by statistics , I guess you ask for data & results . I may tell you some ‚echoes’ of the steam freight running days of 614 for these ‚tests‘ :
When my father took me with him to visit the Vienna 150 years celebration of Austrian Rys in the summer of 1987 , we also went for a couple of train rides . On one of the trains headed by freshly restored 310.23 dad got to talking with one thinly silver-haired old engineer of whom I best remember that sharp , narrow nose vivid eyes and low whispering voice , chuckling when he or dad had made a sarcastic remark on something topical as dyed in the wool engineers sometimes do . I was not present during all of the conversation however I later learned this had been Prof A Giesl , the inventor of the known oblong shaped 'ejector' as he used to call his draughting device . Besides other things they had also spoken about ACE , the tests and a certain Argentinean steam loco engineer who claimed he had revolutionized steam loco efficiency . Dad later retold me what Giesl had commented on these tests : principally it summed up to the following :
1 – Loads :
Ok , # 614 did manage to do the jobs asked , however , to quote dad quoting Giesl "only by reckless overcharging and coming razor-sharp on edge to stalling at places" . In spite of long years since passed I'm pretty confident his words very closely were as stated here , I recall what an alarming impression they made on me , instantly I visualized an American steam loco strained to the utmost , yet in peril to lose the battle - and then what ? I probably vastly over-dramatized the situation , they did have constant worries, though , including thermo-mechanical trouble with firebox staybolts .
2 – Traction and Efficiency :
Prof Giesl clearly discarded anything useful could be gathered by these trips : „It’s not edifying in any way“ , only thing Giesl acknowledged : „ALCO had done a good job“ with designing and building this engine ( add =J= : actually it was a Lima engine ) ; on carrying through test runs in severe winter , annoyed : „It was a stupidity! Cannot think of anything useful they have demonstrated by that“ . Interestingly , the runs were done with firing fully left as it had always been – including cinder throwing , black smoke and all . No GPCS or part-gas-production combustion , in case you might think of it .
3 – Measuring :
As told in David Wardale’s book ‚The Red Devil and other Tales of Steam‘ , from which I have occasionally quoted ( and clearly stated so when I did ) , many of the testing parameters could not consistently be collected , on some days of very icy low temperatures , measuring lines were iced up and not working , on other days some calibration was lacking and was mainly replaced by educated guessing . Personally , I think what could be measured must have told of a vintage engine strained to the very limit of its output as regards tractive effort at adhesion limit , including – of necessity – very uneconomic running at long cut offs and lots of wall effect losses in cylinders as the engine creped over the hard parts of the line . If not something really radical had been applied to the cylinders , and I have not heard or read of anything changed , nothing new should be expected from whatever data was collected .
4 – My comment :
In an earlier thread I had commented on these test runs . In fact the runs were more or less a repetition of what most American RRs had regularly done in the late hour of steam traction – to load engines to the nines no regards to consumption or wear as anyways the locomotives were doomed to be phased out pretty soon . Same as back in late 40s all power at speed potential was wasted on slow speed dragging , the very range of traction that inevitably was and always must remain the major weakness of classic steam – i e direct drive – as against any power using full adhesion arrangement with electric traction motors on all axles of powered bogies . Mind , of a total of fourteen axles in # 614 but four were powered , or 29 % ! What can be learned from bidding such an engine against 100 % adhesion modern diesels specifically designed for awesome pulling power and realizing just that , more so when those very steam locomotives had already lost competition against diesels of much simpler technology and lesser power some forty years earlier ?
Overload still was overload forty years later . Although sure enough there were some variations , expectably so , when reading through the ACE chapter in his book I noted Prof Giesl’s viewpoints were by and large confirmed by Wardale’s reporting and summation of this attempt .
edit : one add remark inserted
Ah, David Wardale, "The Red Devil and other Tales of the Age of Steam." Would that a person who did not have that book be able to read it. I have my name and e-mail to the fine folks in the United Kingdom who promise to make another printing of it . . . some day.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul ,
It's quite interesting - especially if you read it in some relation to Giesl's book 'Die Dampflokomotive - international' . Each German language steam loco engineer has - or wished had - written a book by this 'fundamental title' 'The Steam Locomotive' .
Unfortunately , as I was told in Giesl's book a whole lot of tables and calculation examples of the original Giesl manuscript are missing , the editor threw them out on judging "they are not interesting to most readers and only make the book more expensive to print" - a most belated (miss-) judgment fragmenting this tech-historically important book .
Maybe I should write one The Steam Locomotive' too , perhaps with a subtitle 'an epilogue to the type of engine that started it all' …
Juniatha Overload still was overload forty years later . Although sure enough there were some variations , expectably so , when reading through the ACE chapter in his book I noted Prof Giesl’s viewpoints were by and large confirmed by Wardale’s reporting and summation of this attempt .
The question is, what is one trying to accomplish with an ACE 3000 type locomotive?
What was the Union Pacific trying to accomplish with the Big Blow gas turbine locomotives? They were often run in consists with Diesels, and I assume they were restricted to portions of the Union Pacific transcontinental main line, so gas turbines were not going to replace Diesels in the same way that Diesels swept away steam.
Maybe the Union Pacific was trying to reduce the large number of units in first-generation Diesel consists so as to reduce maintenance costs? Maybe they had an eye on fuel costs because even though the gas turbines had much higher fuel consumption, their fuel was Bunker C, at the time an almost waste product of oil refining, or as the story goes, until the plastics industry bid up the price?
So what is the ACE 3000 supposed to accomplish? Lower fuel cost, substituting coal for #2 Diesel fuel in mainline freight operations. It was never going to eliminate Diesels, their servicing facilities and the need for their liquid fuel.
So instead of complicated boiler controls to allow MU operation, how about optimizing the steam locomotive into something like the last generation Big Blow -- a unitary 10,000 HP articulated locomotive with some number of trailing Diesels in the consist? Maybe a Super Challenger? The Diesels can act as booster engines supplying powered axles to get over ruling grades whereas the steam locomotive can lay down horsepower it is able to. Maybe such consists could be optimized with regard to axle count, starting tractive effort, and sustained HP for purposes of reducing the need for oil-based liquid fuel.
Railroads have experience in excursion service with unitary steam locomotives with trailing MU'd Diesels, operated from the steam locomotive cab.
Multi-traction capability with diesels was a major point with ACE3000 , sure , since with diesel traction being the starting point , clearly the state of the art was to slip in a different type of engine without too much irritation .
Imho , clearly too , this was a design challenge never fully met – it resulted in propositions loaded with hitherto untried components or components untried at least in this combination and context . The answer was modular design , accepting to have to replace failed components , aiming at making this as easy as possible .
I believe lower fuel costs than with diesels were aimed at , this would have provided a logic reason for being of a new generation steam locomotives – again I don't see how the #614 hard test runs did provide hope or basis for this .
Optimizing the steam locomotive into something like the BigBlow UP gas turbine engines : as for me , this would reverse design path : Once I got fascinated with increased thermic cycle efficiency promised in a high temperature high pressure condensing steam turbine loco with electric transmission and running of full adhesion bogies ( I had mentioned it in an earlier longer comment ) . I had chosen a BoBo-BoBo wheel arrangement and worked on it in my past time for about a year , while friends spend great times at discotheques asking where and when I had disappeared from view I was torturing my brain on voluntary night shifts over problem solving and finding some elegant solutions for arrangements or , ok half way elegant solutions, too – all for the proverbial 'golden pineapple' so to speak . In the end I threw out boiler , condenser and steam turbine ("hey , it wasn't my fault" she sang out) and replaced it by a gas turbine , beefed up electrical sychronous equipment to meet gas power and – whooosh – there it was : 8000 hp at turbine shaft at 160 t loco service mass .
So , don't ask me for a favourable comment on perspectives of steam turbine loco design : I call it a wonderfully complex and intriguing machine as such – yet not competitive .
UP's BigBlow - yes , I guess they wanted something more akin to BigBoy power at speed they had become used to , without having to pile up half a batch of diesels fresh from assembly line . If bunker oil provided a cost saving I cannot say , although it did do so as late as in the 1970s with oil-fired steam versus diesels on DB and this was the reason why on the Emsland line with heavy traffic from the North sea via Emden to Rheine and Muenster at the south end all freight including heavy ore trains and all passenger trains remained steam until the last six surviving 012 Pacifics fell to the reaper in May 1975 – from what I learned it was an end more of necessity with engines completely run down than a willful stopping steam by pressure of extending electric traction . As it was , oil-fired 042 Mikes and 043 Decapods labored on until in September 1977 the last hoarse cry of whistle from the last 44 class three cylinder Decapod , 043 196 , marked the very end of steam traction on DB .
Optimizing steam from Challenger design on and use diesels as booster power on hard sections - yes , sounds good to me – although , we have to accept this was a concept that could have worked well in an extended lease of life for steam through the 1960s , maybe into the 1970s in America . In the wake of environmental considerations in a world past peak oil having to be careful not to get at war over fuel reserves – which I feel would be absolutely fatal – the engine concept of our wishes does no longer fit modern demands with offering maybe 10 % of thermic efficiency in actual traffic , at best some 14 .. 16 % from heat content of fuel at tender to power output at wheel rim ( leave alone at drawbar with a 500 t machine !) with possible peak efficiency just reaching some 20 % as I have read in a paper on a 4-6-4 29 bar re-superheated four cylinder compound by one of the remaining never surrendering steam advocates .
Paul Milenkovic Juniatha: Overload still was overload forty years later . Although sure enough there were some variations , expectably so , when reading through the ACE chapter in his book I noted Prof Giesl’s viewpoints were by and large confirmed by Wardale’s reporting and summation of this attempt . The question is, what is one trying to accomplish with an ACE 3000 type locomotive? What was the Union Pacific trying to accomplish with the Big Blow gas turbine locomotives? They were often run in consists with Diesels, and I assume they were restricted to portions of the Union Pacific transcontinental main line, so gas turbines were not going to replace Diesels in the same way that Diesels swept away steam. Maybe the Union Pacific was trying to reduce the large number of units in first-generation Diesel consists so as to reduce maintenance costs? Maybe they had an eye on fuel costs because even though the gas turbines had much higher fuel consumption, their fuel was Bunker C, at the time an almost waste product of oil refining, or as the story goes, until the plastics industry bid up the price? So what is the ACE 3000 supposed to accomplish? Lower fuel cost, substituting coal for #2 Diesel fuel in mainline freight operations. It was never going to eliminate Diesels, their servicing facilities and the need for their liquid fuel. So instead of complicated boiler controls to allow MU operation, how about optimizing the steam locomotive into something like the last generation Big Blow -- a unitary 10,000 HP articulated locomotive with some number of trailing Diesels in the consist? Maybe a Super Challenger? The Diesels can act as booster engines supplying powered axles to get over ruling grades whereas the steam locomotive can lay down horsepower it is able to. Maybe such consists could be optimized with regard to axle count, starting tractive effort, and sustained HP for purposes of reducing the need for oil-based liquid fuel. Railroads have experience in excursion service with unitary steam locomotives with trailing MU'd Diesels, operated from the steam locomotive cab.
Juniatha: Overload still was overload forty years later . Although sure enough there were some variations , expectably so , when reading through the ACE chapter in his book I noted Prof Giesl’s viewpoints were by and large confirmed by Wardale’s reporting and summation of this attempt .
IIRC, you are dead on in regards to the economic advantages of Bunker C when UP acquired the GTEL fleet vs. later as demand from the plastics industry drove up the price of that grade of fuel. I've read in a number of sources that it was the fuel price issue that caused UP to go all diesel..
I was going to quip: "OH NO,NOT ANOTHER BRING BACK STEAM THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", but you do raise some interesting points......................................................
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Juniatha does raise some interesting points and does really appear to know what she's talking about.
I must confess that Thermodynamics was not my best subject in engineering college--perhaps that's one reason I became a civil engineer. We deal with things that generally do not move--which is generally much easier to comprehend--though still specialized.
In any case, even if the never-surrendering steam advocate's claims of 20% thermal efficiency could be actually achieved in real life at the railhead/drawbar, sadly the infrastructure to bring back steam power in the form of a high efficiency, even more complicated (than in the past) machine just is lacking, at least in the U.S. And even if we did, the maintenance forces would need retraining or replacement...So while the concepts may be intriguing, may show the best of what might have been, I don't think there's any danger of a "bring steam back" thread.
It's just too late.
Juniatha Hi , Thomas Not sure what you mean by statistics , I guess you ask for data & results . I may tell you some ‚echoes’ of the steam freight running days of 614 for these ‚tests‘ : When my father took me with him to visit the Vienna 150 years celebration of Austrian Rys in the summer of 1987 , we also went for a couple of train rides . On one of the trains headed by freshly restored 310.23 dad got to talking with one thinly silver-haired old engineer of whom I best remember that sharp , narrow nose vivid eyes and low whispering voice , chuckling when he or dad had made a sarcastic remark on something topical as dyed in the wool engineers sometimes do . I was not present during all of the conversation however I later learned this had been Prof A Giesl , the inventor of the known oblong shaped 'ejector' as he used to call his draughting device . Besides other things they had also spoken about ACE , the tests and a certain Argentinean steam loco engineer who claimed he had revolutionized steam loco efficiency . Dad later retold me what Giesl had commented on these tests : principally it summed up to the following : 1 – Loads : Ok , # 614 did manage to do the jobs asked , however , to quote dad quoting Giesl "only by reckless overcharging and coming razor-sharp on edge to stalling at places" . In spite of long years since passed I'm pretty confident his words very closely were as stated here , I recall what an alarming impression they made on me , instantly I visualized an American steam loco strained to the utmost , yet in peril to lose the battle - and then what ? I probably vastly over-dramatized the situation , they did have constant worries, though , including thermo-mechanical trouble with firebox staybolts . 2 – Traction and Efficiency : Prof Giesl clearly discarded anything useful could be gathered by these trips : „It’s not edifying in any way“ , only thing Giesl acknowledged : „ALCO had done a good job“ with designing and building this engine ( add =J= : actually it was a Lima engine ) ; on carrying through test runs in severe winter , annoyed : „It was a stupidity! Cannot think of anything useful they have demonstrated by that“ . Interestingly , the runs were done with firing fully left as it had always been – including cinder throwing , black smoke and all . No GPCS or part-gas-production combustion , in case you might think of it . 3 – Measuring : As told in David Wardale’s book ‚The Red Devil and other Tales of Steam‘ , from which I have occasionally quoted ( and clearly stated so when I did ) , many of the testing parameters could not consistently be collected , on some days of very icy low temperatures , measuring lines were iced up and not working , on other days some calibration was lacking and was mainly replaced by educated guessing . Personally , I think what could be measured must have told of a vintage engine strained to the very limit of its output as regards tractive effort at adhesion limit , including – of necessity – very uneconomic running at long cut offs and lots of wall effect losses in cylinders as the engine creped over the hard parts of the line . If not something really radical had been applied to the cylinders , and I have not heard or read of anything changed , nothing new should be expected from whatever data was collected . 4 – My comment : In an earlier thread I had commented on these test runs . In fact the runs were more or less a repetition of what most American RRs had regularly done in the late hour of steam traction – to load engines to the nines no regards to consumption or wear as anyways the locomotives were doomed to be phased out pretty soon . Same as back in late 40s all power at speed potential was wasted on slow speed dragging , the very range of traction that inevitably was and always must remain the major weakness of classic steam – i e direct drive – as against any power using full adhesion arrangement with electric traction motors on all axles of powered bogies . Mind , of a total of fourteen axles in # 614 but four were powered , or 29 % ! What can be learned from bidding such an engine against 100 % adhesion modern diesels specifically designed for awesome pulling power and realizing just that , more so when those very steam locomotives had already lost competition against diesels of much simpler technology and lesser power some forty years earlier ? Overload still was overload forty years later . Although sure enough there were some variations , expectably so , when reading through the ACE chapter in his book I noted Prof Giesl’s viewpoints were by and large confirmed by Wardale’s reporting and summation of this attempt . Juniatha edit : one add remark inserted
The account of the C&O 614 pulling coal in the ACE tests as told to you was pretty much spot on as I witnessed it myself.
Is the C&O 614 one amazing, rugged and powerful 4-8-4? Yes. Was watching the 614 pull 5000+ tons of coal at 50 to 60 mph impressive? Yes. Was using a Thoroughbred, 100+ mph, state of the art passenger steam locomotive to pull heavy tonnage through the mountains of West Virgina in -20 F weather a smart or even useful thing to do? Absolutely not.
I not bashing Ross for doing this. It is his locomotive, and he can use or abuse it any way he wants to.
The big problem with ACE, was they had no idea what was coming down the pike in a few years with diesel-electric technology. Everyone needs to understand, the locomotive the ACE3000 was designed to compete against was Chessie's "high tech" road unit at the time, the GP40-2. We used them on everything at that point. SDs were primarily used in pusher assignment, and while we were getting the new SD50 at the time, they were junk from the start.
Ross had no idea that a short time later, the super fuel efficient, microprocessor controlled, frequency drive, high horsepower AC unit would become CSX's standard road locomotive. Something that a traditional steam locomotive would never be able to compete against.
If you want to see how abused the 614 was even before the ACE tests, watch this link showing the 614 pulling 24 cars up the 17 Mile Grade (2.6%) unassisted. The blue smoke you see pouring off the front end of the 614 is Ross burning up the cylinders and valves with the 614's 810 degree F Superheated steam.
watch?v=UxdIyihG46U&context=C4e7398bADvjVQa1PpcFOxjCsNFUF9fYJmSUtiVvMfExJ0SUIybo=
Hi SD40-2
Interesting and rational comments – seems like with your mentioned improvements >> coming down the pike in a few years with diesel-electric technology y<< the case would have been more questionable , yet it always was one dependant on volatile fuel costs coal against diesel and these relations appear to have been floating sand banks in a waterway for most of the times .
614 suffering on steep grade ( btw would you let me know the total train mass and actual grades and their respective lengths ? that would be interesting )the speed is much the pace 01 / 01.5 / 01.10 Pacifics usually settle to on grades like 1.5 ... 2.0 percent ; there is an exceptionally steep grade in the Frankenwald the Hof basd 01s had to pass both ways until the end of their working life , it was fittingly called 'Schiefe Ebene' or simply 'the Incline' in a typical Bavarian trist of language since 'schief' means inclined leaning slanting or sloping and ‘Ebene’ means level plain – which clearly it wasn’t since it was a ‘tilted plain’ so to speak . On this climb an 01 usually settled to some ~30 mph , without being exceedingly pressed . There are some quite impressive sound recordings taken at the crossing road bridge at the top of the grade where the grade began to level off and engines would engage in a fierce acceleration – depending on will and skill of fireman and driver – storming past below the bridge , all steam power shouting triumphantly .
. As for mean temperature of cylinder walls rising in # 614 it seemed positively high enough to fully avoid condensation during expansion and exhaust and may have evaporated sprays from priming if so. However if cylinder oil used wasn’t up to it – squearckx !
From the video it might also have been paint oxidizing into carbonized form ., however that should have been but a matter of some miles . Many photos of 01.10 three cylinder Pacifics show paint completely burnt from live steam pipe / cylinder connections , the parts being all light brown from corrosion .Maybe they didn’t dare to stop and risk stalling when trying to restart ..?
I have a recording of a Pennsy K-4s slipping on HorseShoe Curve in the middle of a brave ascent , then gripping and continuing with a squeal by to and back stroke of one piston – obviously a consequence of oil film washed off by water carried over during wheel spin – it’s heart-rending to listen to …
An electronically self-protecting diesel would just ease up, engine idling out “Sorry man , I see your case , yet : no oil – no service !”Steam stolidly struggled on until the engine consumed herself . What about installing and linking up some viciously-clever electronic nerves in a vintage steamer :“Sorry man , I see your point , yet I’ve gotten wise and so : f--- U (*) , I quit !”
*gee*
(*) says the steamer , not me – whaddaya think !?
Normal 0 21 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Thanks GP-40, that's a very interesting video. I rode behind 614 back in the 90's when it hauled excursions in partnership with New Jersey Transit, Hoboken to Port Jervis, NY. I got some good views of the 614 and bought the souvenir video, but I don't remember seeing steam escaping from the cylinder housings like on your video. However, the trip I took the second year 614 DID have a breakdown due to a piston ring failure, so who knows? The ring failed just short of Moodna Viaduct, Jersey Transit protection power had to take us the rest of the way.
By the way, I'm not sure of what to make of Ross Rowland. It seems like those who've dealt with him in the past concerning his excursions don't seem to want to deal with him again. Is he a bit of a yahoo, a cowboy, a bit reckless? No one talks about it much. Anyone know?
I like Junatha's "thinking steam engine" scenario. "I THINK I can, but NO I WON"T! SO THERE!"
Paul Milenkovic Ah, David Wardale, "The Red Devil and other Tales of the Age of Steam." Would that a person who did not have that book be able to read it. I have my name and e-mail to the fine folks in the United Kingdom who promise to make another printing of it . . . some day.
I'd never heard of "The Red Devil" until Juniatha mentioned it, now I'm looking. What I do is hit the train shows, antique shows and flea markets and keep my fingers crossed. I've gotten lucky in the past ( I found a copy of Lucius Beebe's "Mixed Train Daily" , the original, not a reprint, at a flea market) and may do so again. Used book dealers are a good source, but from what they tell me rail-themed books fly out the door almost as soon as they get them. Like so many other areas of collecting you've got to get out there, but then, the "hunt" is part of the fun!
That is interesting that you brought up the valve oil burning in that video. I bought several large photographs of the Big boys and Challengers running through Wyoming last year at a train show and saw a old friend who used to be a fireman on the Union pacific Challengers. I was asking him to give me some photo locations as the photos didn't have any listed. He knew all the locations and he could tell if a steam engine was really working by the smoke coming off of the valve cylinder in the photos.
I will agree with Juniatha that the smoke is likely smoking paint in the case of the 614. in other cases I believe it is probably a combination of grease thrown from the side rods and leaking lubrication lines at the valves and cylinders.
I read some news a while back regarding the Georgetown loop railroad and their C&S steam locomotive 2-8-0 #9. Apparently the new operators didn't have much experience with steam locomotives including the basic operation of how one works, and knowingly ran the locomotive with no cylinder or valve lubrication. Needless to say it wasn't long before the piston rings were burned up and the locomotive would hardly move under it's own power since steam was pushing on both ends of the cylinder. Over $200,000 for a overhaul and the locomotive didn't last but one season and is now condemned and sold for display. You can read about the fiasco here... http://georgetownloop.com/#7
The plume of blue smoke coming off the 614 is not from paint or grease. It is the 614's extremely high operating steam temperature burning up the lubricants and causing heavy damage to the valves and cylinders. Ross told me personally that is what happened, and it was a big concern of his when it was decided to use the 614 for the Chessie Safety Express excursion program, especially on the severe B&O grades.
The Lima J3a boiler design not only produces a high volume of steam, but Superheats the steam to well over 800 degrees F. I believe the highest steam temperature recorded on the 614 was 820 degrees F. When the valves and cylinders are exposed to steam that hot for extended periods of time, such as on a long, hard pull, bad things begin to happen to the lubricants. Ross actually looked into using custom high temp synthetic lubricants on the 614, but the cost would have be unbelievable. The ability of the 614's boiler to produce vast volumes of steam, along with it's ability to transfer an enormous amount of heat into the steam is what gives the 614 the ability to perform feats that few 4-8-4s would even attempt. That same feature is also it's Achilles Heel if it is not constantly maintained to a high level.
Boy to think I routinely pushed my Turbo to 1200-1400 Degrees in the 90's and how did I cool it simple Motor Oil and AIR. Yeah there was that one time I had a turbine fail at speed climbing I-70 West in Colorado out of Denver just before the Ike Tunnel and ended up with a hole in the hood of the truck big enough that well lets just say the firework display was IMPRESSIVE. If it can be built it can be cooled hell if they can cool a Jet engine with oil and grease they can cool a steam engine also with the same stuff. 820 is nothing compared to the 1500-3000 that the Steel industry machinces work with DAILY for 24/7/365 cause if they break down the mill shuts down. Or the Glass industry at 2700+ at the hot side where if that breaks your going to burn down your whole plant.
Normal 0 21 false false false DE X-NONE AR-SA MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Just to make sure : my writing "From the video it might also have been paint oxidizing into carbonized form , however that should have been but a matter of some miles . " did NOT mean to say I thought it WAS paint . It could have been paint if not it was continuing at much the same rate over an extended distance . Paint usually got burnt at unprotected joints of live steam pipes to cylinders in DB steam locos having high superheating temps : standard engines at nominal ( rather decent ) steaming rates regularly ran at ~ 390°C ( 734°F ) , reaching some 410 - 420°C ( 770 - 788°F ) at mildly forced steaming rates while DB combustion chamber re-boilered engines reached 450 - 480°C ( 842 - 896°F ) as originally rebuilt , engines featuring 480 °C subsequently being cut down to some 440°C ( 824°F ) . That asked for special high quality oil for cylinders however by and large it proved of no problem as long as proper oil was supplied . While it was ok on DB , Eastern DR did experience trouble with 01.5 Pacifics also reaching some 420 - 430°C ( 788 - 806°F ) as oil-fired engines fully applied their ~ 3000 ihp potential . People who have seen DR 01.5 Pacifics in Hamburg-Altona shed ( DB ) , say DR crews from Magdeburg or ( East- ) Berlin picked up DB cylinder oil at the shed for their engines to avoid trouble . Although this was highly unofficial it was both generously supplied by DB staff and seen ( or overlooked ) with a twinkling eye by Eastern Reichsbahn officials .
I wonder oil heat resistance still was an issue in the 1980s with # 614 ...
If cylinder oil gets burnt the engine quickly starts to suffer and this will result in both valve and piston rings wearing quickly , consequently also valve liners and cylinder surface will be roughened by freezing up . After all , this means metallic surface wearing on metallic surface without an effective oil film destroying metallurgic surface structure and finish . This is about the worst of several conditions of lacking oil film ; more often it was oil film washed off by water carry over or priming . While a sudden slip can produce a heavy surge of water threatening to blow a cylinder cover or bending a main rod , even a lighter water carry over can wash oil off valve liners and cylinder surfaces , yet momentarily providing an incomplete substitute and at least avoiding excessive temperatures on these surfaces so that with some luck oil film can be re-established by feeding oil at increased rate for some time and things may be fine again . In a condition causing overheating of these surfaces more oil will only result in more carbonization finally jamming valve and piston rings and causing even more rapid and more uneven wear . If an engine had suffered this effect , even normalizing lubrication conditions after that run will not help because grooves of rings had to be cleaned of oil-carbon and likely rings will show heavy and unround wear pattern , let alone damaged surface conditions . I was told , in the final years of steam DB found steam locomotives could struggle through that and 'self-heal' by subsequent wear re-establishing more-or-less round condition and so-so surfaces of rings . Yet my engineering sense tells me , if at all , that could only work out by allowing heavy steam leakage losses during the 'self-healing' and would never come back to fully sound conditions - in other words it was only possible with excessive steaming making up for high cylinder steam consumption rates for given output - if at all full engine output was still attainable - I have my doubts about it , although steam leakage past rings intriguingly has a positive effect on draughting since there is more steam volume of also higher specific heat content through blast nozzle ( higher spec heat content since the process of leakage is a pressure reduction without work delivered and thus rises temperature of leaked steam mixing with regularly exhausted steam ) . Mind , that beyond a certain severeness of scarring or serration of rings sealing surface , high temperature steam escaping must have produced a violent high velocity stream that might as well cut further into metal thus enlarging gap . In that case no amount of extra oiling could rebuild an oil film since it was constantly being blown off , friction produces spots of overheating , contorting rings - things will only get worse the longer this engine is continued running .
Valve and piston ring lubrication was one of several design issues never adequately solved in steam locomotive development - likewise was design of these rings themselves . That wanting state had been one of several points improved in 3450 Red Devil - yet again Wardale by himself writes it was kind of a prototype design - there was no chance to develop it into full series standard level , he clearly states there was no reason why it could not have been fully developed if there had been an interest in doing so .
Edbenton,
Well – yes and no . It’s not so much the temperature of the media passing through but really bearing surface temperature – which can be kept well below temp of media by suiting design minimizing heat load and maximizing heat discharge and by lubricant circulation , i e lubricant in a pressurized cycle is only exposed to heat a short time while flowing through bearing , taking up heat load and being re-cooled before re-entering . Another parameter is heat energy and thermal conductivity of work media – both of which are high per mass unit in superheated steam as compared to combustion gasses ; further , absolute mass of media passed through cylinders was high in steam locomotives – mind thermal efficiency of an average 300 psi / 800°F simple expansion two cylinder engine unit of a locomotive was only 12 % in the more average to 14 % in the better engines , with a thermo-dynamic efficiency typically ranging at some 67 – 75 % in the more average and in the best of realized engines ( 75 – 85 % in decently good – very good compound engines ) – all that provided a high heat load per unit of lubricated surface area of liners and cylinder walls swept by rings . At the same time , steam locomotive cylinder never had a lubricant circulation but just worked on – sorry – primitive add & consume lubrication where but a minimum of lubricant is being fed ( or else consumption would become fantastic ) and consequently lubricant cannot take up heat to cool surfaces . In contrast , pistons of diesel engines use excess oiling to cylinder walls for cooling with piston rings painstakingly designed to wipe off all but a minimum needed to maintain oil film this again so tightly hugging cylinder wall that its temperature is little higher than actual wall temp so that practically no oil gets burned by fuel combustion process . On the other hand this delicate oil film may get washed off with cold start or much worse with cranking a gasoline engine , pumping gas with lacking ignition – this sort of thing can quickly age an engine more severely than a couple of thousand miles at high speed on the highway .
Still , I agree with you : with modern high temperature grades of oils , let alone modern solid state non-oil lubricants , there should be no problem .. other than costs .
edited and last paragraph added
By 1980 if they had wanted they could have gotten a handle on the lube issues on Superheated Steam. Sorry but with all the engines that run Turbochargers that the temp of the Exhaust Turbines is well over at the time 1000 Degrees and then now they are hitting 1400-1600 just to make the Modern Emmisons standards of the EPA here in the States. Yep you heard me right a Modern Turbocharged Diesel engine on an OTR Truck the Exhaust temp will be over 1400 Degrees leaving the Cylinders and it is nothing for the companies to go 100K miles before changing the Oil on those engines. The modern Core of a 777 Engine is 2200 Degrees and it is lubed up by High Temp oils. Trust me they can find the additives needed to do it. I have a classmate that is at the Local Nuke plant and their Steam Turbines are at around 1200 Degrees for Years at a time as this place hardly Scrams it seems. Last time it shut down was 2 years ago to REFUEL. Well they are always pushing 1400 degrees in a wet enviroment with no bearing issues.
edbentonI have a classmate that is at the Local Nuke plant and their Steam Turbines are at around 1200 Degrees for Years at a time as this place hardly Scrams it seems. Last time it shut down was 2 years ago to REFUEL. Well they are always pushing 1400 degrees in a wet enviroment with no bearing issues.
Ed,
The nuke's currently running in the US are all light water reactors, producing saturated steam at 1,000psig (about 550F).
- Erik MSNE '78 at UCB
Sorry but this guy has been there for 10 years and was hired there right out of the US Navy what was his job in the Navy Maintainance on the Reactors in the Ohio Class USBN so if he is telling me 1400 Degrees is the temp he sees I will tend to take him at his word. His current job Head of Maintaince at the Plant who did he replace a Retired US Navy Master Chief that was his boss there. He knows what he is talking about on his plant and I do not question him about it.
edbenton Sorry but this guy has been there for 10 years and was hired there right out of the US Navy what was his job in the Navy Maintainance on the Reactors in the Ohio Class USBN so if he is telling me 1400 Degrees is the temp he sees I will tend to take him at his word. His current job Head of Maintaince at the Plant who did he replace a Retired US Navy Master Chief that was his boss there. He knows what he is talking about on his plant and I do not question him about it.
Take it from this old Marine, trust what those Navy nuke guys tell you. People think flight school is the toughest school the Navy has. It's not. Nuke school is. After nearly 60 years of nuclear propulsion the Navy has never had a Three Mile Island or a Chernobyl or similar disaster. Not one. Those guys more than know what they're doing.
edbenton By 1980 if they had wanted they could have gotten a handle on the lube issues on Superheated Steam. Sorry but with all the engines that run Turbochargers that the temp of the Exhaust Turbines is well over at the time 1000 Degrees and then now they are hitting 1400-1600 just to make the Modern Emmisons standards of the EPA here in the States. Yep you heard me right a Modern Turbocharged Diesel engine on an OTR Truck the Exhaust temp will be over 1400 Degrees leaving the Cylinders and it is nothing for the companies to go 100K miles before changing the Oil on those engines. The modern Core of a 777 Engine is 2200 Degrees and it is lubed up by High Temp oils. Trust me they can find the additives needed to do it. I have a classmate that is at the Local Nuke plant and their Steam Turbines are at around 1200 Degrees for Years at a time as this place hardly Scrams it seems. Last time it shut down was 2 years ago to REFUEL. Well they are always pushing 1400 degrees in a wet enviroment with no bearing issues.
Ed, I hear what you are saying about the the exaust temperatures in modern turbo-diesels. The high combustion temperature is the primary reason for their extremely high thermal efficiency. But, if you look at the lubrication system in a modern diesel, the high heat is kept away from the lubricants as much as possible to avoid thermal breakdown. That is not true in the design of a traditional steam engine, and I don't know if it would be even possible to engineer such a system based on the valves and cylinders being in constant contact with superheated steam. Dry, superheated steam has no lubricating properties, and is in fact quite abrassive, causing cutting and scoring of non-lubricated steel. Modern steam design such as high pressure coal and nuclear powerplants use turbines to convert the energy of the steam into mechanical or electrical energy. The basic design of a turbine allows high temperatures and at the same time allows the bearing surfaces to remain relative cool with a proper lubricating design.
I used to be a diesel mechanic contractor for General dynamics, working for the US Army a few years ago and I met my fair share of engineers and designers of diesel engines. One such engineer told me that the cylinder head temperature for a diesel engine would rarely reach over 280 degrees. He said the cooling system worked so well that it would rarely if ever go over that temperature. That is probably why on all your temperature gauges around 260 is usually the maximum number printed on the gauge.
I also spent a great deal of time as a welder and a fabricator and I can tell you that heating cast iron above 1400 degrees is dangerous because unlike steel, cast iron is not flexible and will crack if it is not heated uniformly and cooled down uniformly. Over 1400 degrees is also hot enough to turn steel cherry red and more then enough to deform or bend steel.
I find it hard to believe any type of engine would be putting out 1400 degrees regardless if it is a nuclear fuel reactor or a turbo charger. I certainly don't believe it would be possible in a motor as the aluminum pistons would start to melt at 1220 degrees. The cast iron headers also could not take that abuse and would crack. I know there is videos of engines running on dynamos with the headers running red hot. But headers are only 1/16" to 1/8" of a inch thick and you can get the same result putting a pipe in a fireplace for a half an hour at 600 degrees.
I am also puzzled by the statement that this blue smoke is coming from the valve cylinders. If the valve cylinder in enclosed, along with the lubrication, and if it was burning up, it would be going straight out the smoke stack. The only exception I could see to this scenario is if the packing for the valves and cylinders was leaking and the smoke along with the steam was escaping through the valve and piston rods.
Ed is talking about the exhaust temperatures on a turbo-diesel, which are extremely high. But you are right, the cooling and lubricating systems keep the overall engine temperature down, or as you say, the resulting temperature to the metal components would be catastrophic to engine life. Again, as far as the 614 goes, Ross Rowland told me himself that the 614's steam temperature was causing the lubricating oil to break down and become carbonized, thus the blue smoke and resulting valve/cylinder damage.
In any event, the point of my post was to confirm Junitha's understanding that the 614 was run way outside of its initial design intent. The 614 was designed to be a state of the art (for 1948), high speed, high horsepower passenger engine, not to slug 5000 ton coal trains around, and not to pull 24 -26 loaded passenger cars up the like of the Sand Patch and 17 Mile grades unassisted. It accomplished that, but it was like using a Ferrari to tow a heavy trailer around, when a pickup truck would have been a better choice.
The temperature of saturated steam at 1000psia is 544F. 1000 psi is pretty much the standard steam pressure from a US nuclear power plant.The only light water plants to use superheated steam were the B&W plants and the steam was about 590F at ~980psi. On a pressurized water reactor, the primary coolant loop is pressurized to 2200 psi, where the boiling point is just under 650F and VERY BAD THINGS will happen if the primary coolant temperature is allowed to rise to the boiling point (typical max operating temperature is around 620F).
Several of my classmates at Cal's Department of Nuclear Engineering were former nuclear navy guys and not one of them said anything about the steam conditions as stated in the textbooks being wrong. One mentioned that the folks who designed the turbines for nuclear applications had to go back a few decades to relearn how to deal with saturated steam.
There were a handful of plants built using 1000-1200F steam, notably the high temperature gas cooled reactors built by General Atomics (Peach Bottom and Ft St Vrain), both plants have been shut down for decades. The other plants were small liquid metal cooled reactors - it was thought that the larger plants could attain 44% thermal efficiency, but problems with the swelling of the cladding forced a reduction in coolant temperature with consequent reduction in efficiency.
Sorry to be so late with this. Out of town the past four days.
The video "The Phoenix Engine" covers 614 on B&O and according to both the liner notes and actually counting cars, 614 took 11 cars plus A-tank up 17-mile grade (Hopewell estimate of 1,200 tons) and 22 cars + a-tank up Sand Patch (no estimate of tonnage). A quick calculation indicates that if 17-mile is 2.6%, 22 cars+a-tank (maybe 1,800 tons??) would have a grade resistance alone over 110,000 lbs, well over 614's total low speed TE of 66,450 lbs engine or 78,850 lbs with booster. Drawbar pull would be about 3,000 lbs less at 10-15 mph. This doesn't include curve resistance which can be significant (as you can hear on the YouTube clip). If this is 17-mile grade (2.6%) , 614 isn't t pulling 24-cars.
'Regardless of the numbers, 614 shows amazing tenacity the whole time, particularly on one of the curves, holding the rail at what must be absolutely full throttle while speed drops to what, below 10 mph? In the pacing vids you can see 614 swinging from side to side under the piston thrust. Simply an amazing performance while doing a job for which it wasn't designed.
This is not related to the 614 but I have heard the term "Over firing a engine". How does one over fire a steam locomotive and how does this cause damage.
Thomas 9011 This is not related to the 614 but I have heard the term "Over firing a engine". How does one over fire a steam locomotive and how does this cause damage.
"Over firing an engine." Probably someone on this site with some hands-on experience could explain it better than I can, but to my knowledge "over firing" means adding more fuel to the fire than it can burn efficiently. Ever see photos of films with steam engines pouring out black smoke, the "Burning of Rome" effect as Lucius Beebe used to call it? This was a dead giveaway of over firing. Tons of black smoke was an indication of poor combustion, usually caused by over firing or over fueling.
Of course, there could be mitigating circumstances, such as a load of bad coal or fuel oil, poor locomotive maintanance, or sometimes the fireman just wasn't very good at his job.
Over firing in itself wouldn't cause any damage, at least I don't think so. I did read a story in "Trains" several years ago where an engine crew used coke (the stuff they use to fire steel furnaces) instead of coal in the locomotive and that stuff burned so hot it DID damage the firebox. Wonder how they explained that one to the division superintendant?
( .. I'd say , the effect 'over-firing' had on a steam locomotive was about the same as 'over-dining' has on us - only in scale 5000 to 1 .. )
Juniatha ( .. I'd say , the effect 'over-firing' had on a steam locomotive was about the same as 'over-dining' has on us - only in scale 5000 to 1 .. )
Oh yeah, except there's no Maalox, Alka-Seltzer, Bromo-Seltzer, Brioschi, Gas-X, or Pepto-Bismol made for steam locomotives. Luckily, us humans are much better off!
>> Oh yeah, except there's no Maalox, Alka-Seltzer, Bromo-Seltzer, Brioschi, Gas-X, ...<<
.. or Coca Cola .
... only : why is she holding that Art Nouveau Tiffany glass mobile phone ?
I mean , no doubt we liked chattering back then , Coke or not ...
As in jalapenos, habeneros, chili peppers...
I wonder if it would be possible to get the firebox not enough to initiate film boiling on the water side? That is other than allowing the crownsheet to be momentarily uncovered with the resulting drama.
Hi Erik
Off hands - I guess film boiling should be possible - you only have to have the 'right' combination of heat impact per unit of area , low water circulation speed plus 'sufficiently' low boiler pressure . If this should happen it would quickly raise mean wall temperature at that area which would be highly destructive of course . I have wondered more than once about L D Porta's obviously nonchalant approach to firebox heat loads in his super-performing boilers being a back-bone of his light-weight super-output engine concepts made posible with highly efficient draughting , I don't know where and how much if so he accounts for ageing of steel in general and boiler / firebox steel especially under repeating in and out plastic deformation stress . The classic Stephensonian boiler concept can only be pushed so far until things get out of hands - already the most lively steaming of locomotive boilers were much better performing than stationary boilers of power plants as concerns quotient of mass unit of water evaporated per hour by mass unit of construction material .
"Making a flame for the photographers"
- a feat that in the 1970s DB steam fans liked to ask steam crews of oil-fired engines for ; some aquired considerable skills in producing a spectacular effect while others tried and never got much above a plume of smoke .
In his painting a friend who has spent lots of miles on oil-fired engines widens on history by having a firewoman make a flame in his own design of a late era Atlantik type locomotive.
( with permission by painter for posting in this forum only )
Juniatha Hi Firelock >> Oh yeah, except there's no Maalox, Alka-Seltzer, Bromo-Seltzer, Brioschi, Gas-X, ...<< .. or Coca Cola . ... only : why is she holding that Art Nouveau Tiffany glass mobile phone ? I mean , no doubt we liked chattering back then , Coke or not ... = J =
Hi Juniatha! Well you know, back those days Coca-Cola DID have cocaine int it. Maybe she just THINKS it's a mobile phone! "I get no kick from cocaine, mere alchohol doesn't thrill me at all...."
And wow, that painting of the flaming firebox is something else! Gives a new spin on the term "Hot Blonde"!
Juniatha "Making a flame for the photographers" - a feat that in the 1970s DB steam fans liked to ask steam crews of oil-fired engines for ; some aquired considerable skills in producing a spectacular effect while others tried and never got much above a plume of smoke . In his painting a friend who has spent lots of miles on oil-fired engines widens on history by having a firewoman make a flame in his own design of a late era Atlantik type locomotive. ( with permission by painter for posting in this forum only )
Nice..
Some later steamers had overfire openings in the side of the firebox, but my recollections was those were only used on coal burning engines. On an oil burner, those openings probably could spout some serious flame with appropriate manipulation of the firing valve - i.e. shutting it off, then turning it full on.
My only close encounters with an oil burning steamer has been with Ventura County #2 at OERM in Perris.
Film boiling was one of the issues covered in my thermal-hydraulics classes, since the heat production from a fuel rod didn't depend too greatly on that specific rod's temperature, assuming the nearby rods were immersed in water (moderator). In a firebox, the local temperature rise due to film boiling would reduce the radiant or convective heat transfer and possibly drop that low enough to re-establish nucleate boiling. If the firebox wall is hot enough to support film boiling, it is probably weakened enough to be in danger of not supporting full boiler pressure.
feltonhill Sorry to be so late with this. Out of town the past four days. The video "The Phoenix Engine" covers 614 on B&O and according to both the liner notes and actually counting cars, 614 took 11 cars plus A-tank up 17-mile grade (Hopewell estimate of 1,200 tons) and 22 cars + a-tank up Sand Patch (no estimate of tonnage). A quick calculation indicates that if 17-mile is 2.6%, 22 cars+a-tank (maybe 1,800 tons??) would have a grade resistance alone over 110,000 lbs, well over 614's total low speed TE of 66,450 lbs engine or 78,850 lbs with booster. Drawbar pull would be about 3,000 lbs less at 10-15 mph. This doesn't include curve resistance which can be significant (as you can hear on the YouTube clip). If this is 17-mile grade (2.6%) , 614 isn't t pulling 24-cars. 'Regardless of the numbers, 614 shows amazing tenacity the whole time, particularly on one of the curves, holding the rail at what must be absolutely full throttle while speed drops to what, below 10 mph? In the pacing vids you can see 614 swinging from side to side under the piston thrust. Simply an amazing performance while doing a job for which it wasn't designed.
feltonhill,
You are right, it wasn't 24 cars on the 17 Mile Grade. That was a typo on my part that I didn't even notice until you posted this. I meant to type 14 cars (13 passenger cars + the A tender). That's what I remember the train length being on that trip, but that was 30 years ago, so it very well may have been 11 cars + the A tender for a total of 12 behind the 614.
However, there were multiple trips over Sand Patch, both from Cumberland and Pittsburgh with trains of varying lengths. The shortest was 16 cars + the A tender, the longest was 24 cars + the A tender. With the longest train, the 614 was down to below 10 mph in sections. We calculated that the 614 was putting out between 83,000 lbs and 84,000lbs TE (with booster) with the 24 car + A tender train on Sand Patch.
You are right about the tenacity of the 614 on a hard pull. I really don't remember the 614 slipping once on either the 17 Mile or Sand Patch. The one B&O Grade that got the 614 was when Ross tried to pull 24 cars + A tender up the nasty Streets Run Grade on the W&P Sub out of the Monongahela River Valley in Pittsburgh. Again, no slipping, the 614 simply ran out of pull about 1 mile short of the Whitehall Tunnel.
I suspect the Mechanical Engineers from Lima would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what Ross put the 614 through during these excursions and the ACE tests.
Whatever the number of coaches – it sure was brave work ! Yet , all these ‘gym’ work out type of low speed max pull ramp exploits do read somewhat strange to me .
Ok , these locomotives were solidly built if any locomotive ever was . They took up with really hard work and stood up to it . Yet , if I were to have a locomotive ( luckily PKP bureaucracy saved me from my headless attack of attempting to buy one 42 class Decapod shelved in what appeared decently good condition ) and were to make excursion trips , I’d probably get a lot of ‘boos’ for keeping it at a rather leisurely trundling pace on fairly easy throttle and cut-off at decently swift yet not too hasty speed with a concise consist behind tender on rather level track following – for example – a lovely river valley , with a pusher diesel waiting at the bottom of the only ramp in a day’s trip - *ggg* .
Alas , I was not the only one to think along such lines :
When in the summer of 1987 , to join the 150 years celebration of Austrian railways , the newly and completely overhauled Goelsdorf 310.23 four cylinder compound 2-6-4 made its initial trip from Knittelfeld workshop in a mountain valley to Austria’s capital city , Vienna , the trip included travelling the Semmering pass . With his vintage electric coupled to the back end of the train before attacking the long climb , intending to be a good colleague the ‘electric driver’ really pushed the train up the winding curves of the steep grades – so much so to have front buffers of front car pressed to tender buffers – leaving no more than its engine unit for the venerable compound to lift up the pass , still with impressive enough plumes of white steam puffing up from narrow stack . It was only later when on one of the many day trip tours offered during these wonderful weeks of steam # 310.23 came to stretching legs a bit when the compound definitely rose above average Strauss waltz tempo heading a vintage consist at some 65 mph with perfectly smooth running and whispering exhaust .
Regards Juniatha
Don't know, but railroads got engines as needed, and the 9000 series was bought when the Compound Mallets were on the mainlines. When the problems came up with the 9000s with cornering, that is when the challengers came to the UP, followed by the 3900 class, and the 4000 series Big Boys.
So, I don't think that the 4-12-2s were abandoned when the challengers came, but were stored and used as needed.
As far as rigid verses articulated, the articulateds won hands down, granted that the Texas types were really close with t.e. The articulateds win because t.e. goes up w/ weight by nature, and the nonrigid engines had 4 cylinders instead of 2 or 3.
Also, 2-10-4s weren't as flexible as A classes or challengers or Y6bs.
The Lehigh Valley Railroad, the Route of the Black Diamond Express, John Wilkes and Maple Leaf.
-Jake, modeling the Barclay, Towanda & Susquehanna.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.