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 .
Regards
= J =
M636C :
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 .
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 ...
Juniatha
Juniatha,
was it (akind of) a Tank-Engine? Helper, pusher service on trains? Did you mean a single part or connected (splittet) side-rods?
4017
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.
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.
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 .
Edit , Oct 6th : replaced "Geee - nope the .." with "Uuuhm - exactly the .."
German's DR/DB 2-10-2 classes?
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
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 …
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 .
"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.
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.
.
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
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 !
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!
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
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
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.
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;
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. :
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 .
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 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 ?
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.
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...
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.
Respectfully, Jim
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 .
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)
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
9029 heading freight train in evening glow .
I colore the picture and modified one design feature I have never liked
- who can tell which one ?
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
I colored the picture and modified one design feature I have never liked
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 ?
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.
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.
- Erik
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.