I know this will probably get many strong opinions. First of all I Would be happy to see UP restore a BIGBOY and they were great locomotives,But if one could chose to have one large articulated locomotive to restore what would be the best from a performance stand point? HP,TE slow speed HP.
My thoughts
N&W y6b massive TE ,slow speed HP,50mph top speed, efficiency of compounding,
C&O Allegheny Massive HP,but very heavy ,designed for higher speed HP
DM&IR Yellowstone good TE designed for slow speed HP,could go I beleave 60mph
BIGBOY good HP, less TE than Yellowstone and Y6b
Just thoughts to ponder, What do you think?
Would not an N&W A be most versatile as a fantrip locomotive?
With respect to articulated locomotives, I would have to say a Y6b or a C&O Allegheny.
Personally, I think that the "Triplex" type design had promise, though because the original was a coal-burner, the design got killed. If instead it used a larger firebox and burned oil (no shoveling required so the firebox size isn't limited by how far the fireman can throw the coal), then it could have produced the large volumes of steam needed. I cannot recall any steam locomotive that surpassed the starting tractive effort of an Erie Triplex.
Although not true articulatedes, the PRR's Duplex locomotives did solve the problem of heavier and heavier side rods. The PRR did have a few articulated locomotives, and if steam had been in use longer, my guess is that the Duplex locomotive design would have evolved into something like an articulated.
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
sorry forgot the N&W A
In all fairness to the Big Boy, it wasn't designed for maximum power. UP wanted an engine that could speed freights across Nebraska and lug them over Sherman Hill, and the Big Boy did that perfectly. N&W wanted an engine that could pull anything, and the Y6b were the finest at that. DM&IR needed huge ore trains pulled, and the Yellowstone excelled at that. That's why all of them lasted until the end of steam: they did what they were designed to do perfectly. The only exception was the Allegheny, and that's only because C&O used what should've been the best fast freight engine ever on coal drags.
Random thought: maybe everybody likes Big Boys because they're relatively handsome. The Alleghenies and Yellowstones had those air compressors on the smokebox, and the Y6b had too small drivers.
Schuylkill and SusquehannaAlthough not true articulatedes, the PRR's Duplex locomotives did solve the problem of heavier and heavier side rods.
Why qualify when we have an example of an articulated locomotive with lightweight, close-in rodwork? The last five N&W As...Just for grins -- if the J class would spin up to 115 mph with eight drivers, what would be the difficulty with six per engine... ;-}
Many of the oscillation issues with the leading engine of a Mallet could be solved with better compliance. Ed King thought that N&W had approximated Alco's solution of vertical instability on the Challengers (very careful lapping-in of the forward engine bearers so that the equalization worked as if on a long 12-coupled engine) but I do not believe the N&W design was intended specifically to accomplish that. Lateral guidance would involve snubbers or Fabreeka shear springs -- but the same approach was applicable to the two-wheel leading truck to permit better on-center compliance and damp shock at curve entry.
The very fancy pipework on an Allegheny mikght be an advantage, but I am not sure the thermodynamic 'advantage' justified all the additional weight and complexity.
As another option: Consider the Chapelon-improved version of the compound Y6b (instead of looking at the stillborn Y7) -- I think N&W was working up to that with the booster-valve project. This uses modulated and timed injection of boiler steam in-phase with flow to the LP engine, so that thrust from all four cylinders is normalized for any combination of speed, grade, and load. The only great 'drawback' of this is that the LP pistons, even made with lightweight design, will still be very heavy even though seeing lower pressure per unit area. In any case you get a locomotive with the greatest practical weight on drivers for a maintainable reciprocating locomotive of minimum length and number of 'idle' axles (not counting the tender) that can easily spin to 55 mph or more, with the lower net water rate possible with compounding. Arguments have been made that this would have allowed N&W to standardize much of its freight operations on just this one design. Use a welded boiler and better firebox design, and you're a long way toward a 'best practice' design for many services...
Still not as good as a V1 turbine with a welded boiler -- does that count as an 'articulated locomotive' here?
RME
Well, I would say if you were going to restore an articulated locomotive for excusion service, and one only, in my opinion it would have to be the N&W Class A. Good power, good looks, economical to run, and it can go like a bat out of hell if needed since those excursion trains have got to get "over the road".
I can speak from personal experience as I've ridden behind Class A 1218 a number of times, and that old gal could MOVE!
Of course, if we're going to restore MORE than one, well then "come on baby, let the good times roll!" A Big Boy, an Allegheny, a Yellowstone, a Y6b, do any one that's out there!
MntrainBut if one could chose to have one large articulated locomotive to restore what would be the best from a performance stand point?
Just as a little operational note: the desirability follows what would be expected for excursion service -- similar in maximum capacity to what Challenger 3985 could handle; different in some parameters to what the 5AT group was suggesting for excursion service elsewhere.
One issue is that even excursions of shorter consists behind 4-8-4s are not selling out. Is the paying ridership there to justify a large locomotive? (This is not a true reason to reject restoration of a Big Boy, one of the most famous and iconic locomotives ever built, and perhaps the only articualted locomotive that comes close to being a common household name... but then again, nobody but UP is likely to have pockets deep enough for the restoration, let alone the operation ... )
No sensible railroad would allow a Yellowstone to operate an excursion over its track -- augment would set in at too low a speed. Same true of an unmodified Y6. Simply not practical, even before you get into questions of how many fans will actually pay to subsidize or underwrite the operation.
Many threads over on RyPN on these topics, and I recommend looking at them before going into much more discussion here.
The point of the post is not the feasibility of the restoration,but the mechanical aspect of the restoration and what is the advantage and disadvantage of each engine.
The yellowstone has 63in drivers.I believe they could do 60 mph.
Some thing I forgot to mention,my intent when starting this thread was to have fun with the idea of these restorations.It was not meant to be a cost calculating post, but a dream of what if one could be restored.
So lets enjoy the dream of steam.
Mntrain Some thing I forgot to mention,my intent when starting this thread was to have fun with the idea of these restorations.It was not meant to be a cost calculating post, but a dream of what if one could be restored. So lets enjoy the dream of steam.
Yes, but . . .
It is fine to dream of steam, and we can dream of restoration of the biggest, baddest of the days of steam. Or we can enjoy a real and functioning steam locomotive that is actually being operated and that a group of donors, volunteers, and a fee-paying public can afford to keep going.
A high-drivered Northern may not have as many wheels and as much starting tractive effort, but it is one big locomotive, and in terms of boiler capacity and rated HP is in roughly the same league as those other monster locomotives.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I agree a 4-8-4 2-8-0 or other steam locomotive pulling a grade is a great thing and something we can enjoy now.
Schuylkill and Susquehanna With respect to articulated locomotives, I would have to say a Y6b or a C&O Allegheny. Personally, I think that the "Triplex" type design had promise, though because the original was a coal-burner, the design got killed. If instead it used a larger firebox and burned oil (no shoveling required so the firebox size isn't limited by how far the fireman can throw the coal), then it could have produced the large volumes of steam needed. I cannot recall any steam locomotive that surpassed the starting tractive effort of an Erie Triplex. Although not true articulatedes, the PRR's Duplex locomotives did solve the problem of heavier and heavier side rods. The PRR did have a few articulated locomotives, and if steam had been in use longer, my guess is that the Duplex locomotive design would have evolved into something like an articulated.
Wouldn't a duplex with articulation just be an articulated?
I wonder if there were any oil burning locomotives at all in the East..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 Wouldn't a duplex with articulation just be an articulated? I wonder if there were any oil burning locomotives at all in the East..
Yes, a dupex with articulation would be an articulated, but the PRR seemed to dislike doing things similarly to other RRs, so I doubt that they would make something that would look like a typical articulated.
I don't know of any eastern oil burners, but I don't see why there couldn't be. There is oil in them thar hills! The first oil well was in PA, and many wells still operate. I guess that it is easier to burn coal. You would think that the firemen would push for oil burners, since they wouldn't have to shovel...
Schuylkill and Susquehanna carnej1 they wouldn't have to shovel...
carnej1
they wouldn't have to shovel...
Never heard of an oil burner here in the east. Why not? Coal was cheaper and the railroads were set up for coal, coal was available on line also. Reading used "cull" or "boney" ( rejected) coal, that's why they used those wide Wooten fire boxes. And N&W held on to coal as long as they could, that's what the Jawn Henry was about, and the "A"s "J"s and "Y"s were constructed to use as little coal as possible. Their biggest customers were coal companies. Of course they did change to oil, diesels burn oil don't they?
A Big Boy returned to steam is a great idea, hope it happens. But, as it would never get east of the Missippie or for that matter off UP's rails, I would rather see 1218 back under steam. Yes I would try to get west to see it. Who wouldn't if they could? Size limits and weights are a problem here, look at the problems Steam Town had with it's Big Boy, and the difficultys getting 4449 to Owasso in 2009.
There was at least one oil-burning road in the East, It was one of the Florida roads, I'm not sure which one, I'll have to get back to you on that. The Morris County Central tourist line that ran in North Jersey from the 60's through the 80's ran two oil burning locomotives, a 2-8-0 and an 0-6-0. Both were originally coal burners. Earl Gil, the originator of the road, converted the two to oil burners, THEN got his fuel free driving a tanker truck around to gas stations and auto repair shops and taking the waste oil off their hands, they were only to happy to get rid of it. Pretty smart, huh?
OK, it was the Florida East Coast Railroad that used oil burning steam engines.
thomas81z remember the bigger stuff & new stuff had stokers , but still oil would have been easier
remember the bigger stuff & new stuff had stokers , but still oil would have been easier
It's a misnomer that stokers meant that firemen didn't need to shovel. The stoker sprayed the coal out in a fan shape, so the fireman still needs to shovel the corners to keep the fire even. Thus the size of the firebox is still limited because of needing to shovel coal into the back corners. Naturally, an oil burner doesn't require any shoveling.
I will toss in a What If. How about the HC1s. Touted ahead of its time when built. Too powerful for the draft gear of yesteryear.
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr3700.jpg
Or the cute little boiler on a giants back CC1s.
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr3397.jpg
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
eagle1030 ... Random thought: maybe everybody likes Big Boys because they're relatively handsome. The Alleghenies and Yellowstones had those air compressors on the smokebox, and the Y6b had too small drivers.
...
The BB does nothing for me personally. I have a much stronger visceral reaction with the Y's, A's, and the H-8. I admire the Yellowstone variety, but they don't fit into my pet roads, so it is purely a bias. Even though I model/collect the UP steamers, I don't have any interest in the Big Boy. It must sound odd, but that's the way my road runs.
Crandell
I've heard about those two. I believe they were the Pennsy's only fling with articulateds and were only used in pusher service.
Firelock.
They were not the only artics on the PRR. There was the10, CC2 0-8-8-0 and the HH1s a simple 2-8-8-2. Built by Alco in 1912. And six HH1 that they got from the N&W.
Hump and pusher were some duties. Also transfer runs and mineral trains. It was one of the Lines West superintendent of engines that wanted 120 HC1s. Instead the railroad developed the I1s 2-10-0. To be fair to the crews and the railroad, the major mainline freight power at that time was the H6sb 2-8-0. To place into service a loco with more than twice the tractive effort it is no wonder they suffered pulled couplers and was dissatisfied with the results.
I have to laugh when these "best" steam discussions come up. And for some reason, they come up like clockwork.
There is no such animal as the "best" steam locomotive.
They were all custom designed and built for a particular railroad's operating and economic needs.
What was "best" for one railroad very well may have been an operational and economic disaster for another.
LocoI1SA, thanks for the history lesson! It's a wasted day if I don't learn something new. Makes you wonder if the PRR had a bit more institutional experience with articulateds the crews wouldn't have had as much orientation troubles with the T-1's. OK, I know it was a duplex and not an articulated, but the "two engines under one boiler" experience would have been useful.
Oh, and these "best" discussions are fun, but in a way they remind me of when I was working in a gunshop and someone would ask "what's the best handgun?" Our answer? "Well, they're all pretty good. It's like the difference between a Chevy and a Cadillac. Both'll get you where you want to go, how do you want to get there?"
The Pennsy also had more than a few locos converted to oil firing, I believe after ww2, to comply with smoke laws in the Baltimore area and possibly as a hedge against increasingly frequent coal miner strikes. I've also seen pics of Western Maryland Pacifics converted to oil firing for runs into Baltimore. Of course B&O little joe 0-4-0s were oil jobs,too!
Perhaps more on topic, how about that cool C&O 2-6-6-2 in the B&O museum. Not huge, maybe more practical for running on more rail lines.
A 2-6-6-2 in the B&O Museum? How'd I miss that? Maybe my head was swimming over the size of the 2-6-6-6 Allegheny.
Per the comment on coal miner strikes: it was the frequency of miner strikes in the years after WW2 that were an additional factor in the 'roads decisons to dieselize. If there's ever been a strike in the oil industry I've never heard of it. Not that I blame the coal miners for striking, not at all. The way those people were treated over the years was disgraceful and disgusting.
C&O 1309, a compound 2-6-6-2. The picture on the museum website shows the loco as looking a bit weathered. I believe one of these mallets was the last commercially built locomotive built for a US commen carrier. Even after NKP 779! I always thought it was a pretty neat looking engine. I suppose one potential problem with a compound is the lack of high speed capability, though the N&W claimed 50mph out of its' Y5/6 engines. But on a secondary or regional line with nice scenery, 30mph is a pretty good pace! As for the oil fired jobs, a little additional research seems to indicate that the Pennsy's fleet was primarily a Baltimore thing. Maybe they got oil cheap at that port city?
rfpjohn C&O 1309, a compound 2-6-6-2. The picture on the museum website shows the loco as looking a bit weathered. I believe one of these mallets was the last commercially built locomotive built for a US common carrier. Even after NKP 779!
C&O 1309, a compound 2-6-6-2. The picture on the museum website shows the loco as looking a bit weathered. I believe one of these mallets was the last commercially built locomotive built for a US common carrier. Even after NKP 779!
I'm pretty sure it was the last steam locomotive built by Baldwin for a US common carrier, perhaps postdating NKP 779 by a few months. Baldwin continued to build steam locomotives for the export market for a few years after that.
I remember a 1964 ad for a model of the C&O locomotives stating that the order "marked and meant the end of steam".
- Erik
As far as I know the oil burners on the PRR was a few leased 2-10-2 locos from the Santa Fe that hung out in the Cleveland area. They had no problem hanging wire and running electrics in smoke ordnance areas. Oil burners were just as smoky as rock burners but had little ash.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.