I still say that those German 0-4-4-0-T Meyenberg Mallets are far better looking than those Italian jobbies. They make some fine looking machinery in Italy, but a 1959 Alfa-Romeo Giulia Spyder Veloce, they ain't! Mussolini's shoe size? You sure it's not Little Bonaparte of the Friends of Italian Opera? Oh, right, yes. Sidetracked. Have to watch that. Don't want to GET TOO BIG FOR MY SPATS! But I may be a man who goes far!
rfpjohnDid that thought just poppett into your mind,OVERMOD?
Yes, it just cam to me.
Ah, what a complex web we weave, all just to get back to the land of Belpaire. Did that thought just poppett into your mind,OVERMOD? I'm sure many of you long time readers of Trains recall several stories written by the late Lloyd Arkenstall ( probably butchered the spelling). Can't lay my hands on a copy right this moment, to much other precious junk in the way. Anyway, one of his colorful accounts is of firing a G5s from Meadows (I think) down the Pennsy New York div. main to Trenton. It was on it's way for the monthly boiler wash, accompanied by two dead H9s's. It's a great little read, he manages to capture the personalities of his fellow railroaders perfectly in this tale, as well as in his other entries. OK, now I have a question. All the complaints about the G5s rough ride seem to come off the PRR. Maybe I haven't read much Long Island stuff, but pictures I've seen of the LI engines show a larger K4ish style tender. Could this have contributed to taming the beast? Were the LI versions stoker fired? As for the complaints by Pennsy hogheads, I'm guessing those big tenwheelers had a much harsher ride than the D16sb's and E3's they replaced.
Firelock76Gotta wonder where they found that gauge. Mussolini's shoe size?
Careful, there, you're talking about a K5. Show some respect!
rfpjohn I've got to admit, that's a pretty cool little Mallet. I've seen side views, somewhere. They seem more proportionally pleasing than those lanky German narrow gauge 0-4-4-0T's. Gotta wonder where they found that gauge. Mussolini's shoe size?
I've got to admit, that's a pretty cool little Mallet. I've seen side views, somewhere. They seem more proportionally pleasing than those lanky German narrow gauge 0-4-4-0T's. Gotta wonder where they found that gauge. Mussolini's shoe size?
Mussolini's shoe size? Nah, probably the dimensions of the "Duce's" mouth.
I'll pass on an interesting quote from an Italian historian: After Enrico Caruso died the Italian people went looking for another great voice. They found it in Mussolini. But just like with Caruso, they only heard the voice, they didn't listen to what it was saying.
Easy! We got side-tracked!!! lol
RFPJohn: How did we get fro articulated locomotives to South Jersey? Well, there's no telling where the New Jersey diaspora will take us or who it'll drag along for the ride either!
I see where you're coming from on you're previous post, luckily in my case there's just enough left that I knew in North Jersey to bring me back from time to time.
Moving back to great articulateds, let me nominate the Italian 0-4-4-0 pictured on page 81 of the current "Trains" magazine. There it is, in deepest darkest Eritria doing exactly what it was built to do decades ago and looking pretty good as well.
Looks like the Italians built some pretty good steamers too!
Oh, and by the way, Pennsy felt confident enough in the G5s tracking ability to allow them 80mph, forward with train, 50mph forward lite engine and 30mph backing up (except they were allowed 40mph in reverse with train between Haddonfield and Camden on the PRSL). Can't wait to see one running either way! Also, how did we get from articulated locomotives to South Jersey, anyway?
Moorestown. I packed up my carpet bag in '77 and moved to VA for a brakeman's job on the Southern. Been down here railroading ever since! But, a part of me longs for the south jersey of 40 years ago. Visions of Baldwin diesels, Budd cars to the shore, 40 foot box cars and fascinating, run-down branch lines through small towns, serving small industries. It's all changed now, but what a great place to grow up!
RFPJohn: I noticed some familiar names in you last post. "PRR Atlantic District", "Pemberton branch", "Garden State", ans "Toms River job."
OK brother, what part of New Jersey are you from?
Overmod It will have to move the G5 throttle to WHAT?
It will have to move the G5 throttle to WHAT?
ChuckAllen, TX
OvermodI am tempted to say it this way: "If it needs ditch lights, it will need PTC."
I think you are tempted in the right direction! There may be provisions for moving trains with failed PTC equipment, but I really doubt there will be waivers for running unequipped trains.
For it to be "real" PTC, it would have to move the throttle to idle. I suspect, that after enough explaining and haggling, the FRA will allow that part to slide provided there is sufficient train braking available - if they can wrap tight enough words around "sufficient".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Firelock76Of course, a PTC application on the G5 pre-supposes it's actually going to be allowed a high-speed romp on someone elses rails.
No it just guarantees, to the Government, and the insurors, and to plaintiff's bar if necessary, that the G5 won't run into anything, or be run into, while running. High speed is not an element... not that it really was in the first place.
Actually, it would be comparatively easy to get the G5 to behave, if some unprototypical work was done at the front of the tender (and to the locomotive rear frame, inside). If you push the front tender truck up close to the rear drivers, and then provide stiff compliance between locomotive and tender frame, the lateral-motion characteristics become essentially those of a 4-6-4. A couple of load-equalizing beams in the vertical plane will damp most of the bouncing deck problem, and a couple of hydraulic snubbers (probably no different from those used on diesel power from Dash-2s on) will solve the rest.
The important thing here is not the higher speed (although that might well prove important once the G5 moved off Strasburg rails!) but the lower track damage.
It also has the effect of bringing the discussion at least part way back to 'articulated' locomotives, which let's not forget is what this thread was supposed to be about...
FIRELOCK76: I think the G5s riding reputation was just above the I1s! As a kid, I had the great fortune of befriending the crews that worked the local freight through my hometown back in the 70's. They were all PRR Atlantic district men, with a great deal of experience firing and running passenger (the "Lines") and freight service on the old back road. "Rip" Holt, and Bob Peters both spoke highly of the E6s. E3sd and E5s were considered Johnson bar equipped antiques. K4s were wonderful engines, but far to big for the Pemberton branch locals (perfect for the Garden State race track specials, out of Broad St.) But the G5s was a punishing hog to run or fire. Though Mr. Peters did tell me that one of the G5s was assigned to the Toms River job in the late 40's, which rode much better than normal. He was able to hold that firing assignment when men with far more seniority declined to bid the job, not wanting ride the bouncing ten wheeler! He probably even mentioned the engine number, but that piece of data is long gone from this old head.
Of course, a PTC application on the G5 pre-supposes it's actually going to be allowed a high-speed romp on someone elses rails. We don't know if that's going to happen. There hasn't been a Strasburg locomotive running on the Amtrak Harrisburg line in over twenty years to my knowledge. While it's securely on Strasburg rails they don't have to worry about PTC, ditch lights, or any of that other stuff.
A high speed run on the Harrisburg line would be cool though. Just a word of warning: From what I've read those G5's ran awful rough! Kidney transplants for the head-end crew might be in order after a run on the racetrack!
I am tempted to say it this way: "If it needs ditch lights, it will need PTC."
There will be a procedure for 'waivers' - but it will involve isolating the section of track being used, perhaps physically, to prevent any other movement while the steam trip runs.
PTC for this application can be very simple, comparable to the functionality provided by an old ATC system. Small cab-signal repeater to show indications, emergency brake for stops, one of those fancy software-based radio systems, a GPS repeater, and a few other little details -- most of which can be built into a portable computer. On the engine: a proportionally-controlled rotair valve in parallel with the brakestand, a couple of electrical connections and a bracket to hold the cab-signal display in a 'proper' visible position, and leads as necessary to the GPS receiver and various antennae on the cab roof.
Braking characteristic might be different from 'ordinary' PTC in that a commanded stop might be deployed more slowly, to give the engine crew time to close the throttle, set up drifting, etc. No need for fancy throttle valves, etc. to shorten the distance -- most of the legacy ATC systems didn't have or need that to produce a penalty stop.
If you ask me, the cost of this is minor compared with a mainline-quality steam refit. And it shuts up any railroad management that wants to hide behind a whine 'it's not Gummint certified'. Admittedly, it would rat out any off-the-record gentlemen-don't-kiss-and-tell high speed adventures... but perhaps those need less actual protecting against than some people want to admit... ;-} And of course... with PTC, you're legal for high track speed, for people who do have something to admit...
John I suspect PTC will have little to no effect on steam excursions. More than likely the steam engines will be considered antiques and "grandfathered."
At any rate the tightly controlled circumstances that mainline steam excursions operate under would make PTC superfluous, in my humble opinion.
I could be very wrong, but I don't think so in this instance.
Firelock76: Thank you for the response. I know Strasburg will do her up, right. I only have one question, and I l almost hate to ask it, what effect is PTC going to have on mainline steam operation? I'm curious as to what kind of add-on will be required, or perhaps they will be able to operate under a temporary wavier?
To rfpjohn: What's stymied restoration of those two LIRR G5s' is the "no steam" policy of the current LIRR. It just doesn't make sense to spend a million dollars restoring a steam locomotive if all you can do with it is putt-putt back and forth on a few hundred feet of museum track. There's no chance of the LIRR policy of "NOT nobody! NOT no-how!" changing anytime soon
Throw the Strasburg Railroad into the equation and NOW you've got something. A good nine miles for the locomotive to run on, plenty of power for any consist they want to hang on its tail, and it's the Strasburg. Need we say more? That engine's in the best place on the planet for it.
And who knows? Maybe Amtrak'll let it have a romp on the Harrisburg line one day. It's happened before with Strasburg steam, it could happen again.
I seem to recall both Long Island G5s's being subject to efforts to return to service. I'm really glad to see one in the capable hands of the Strasburg folks. As for the K4s's, I don't believe there has been any serious effort to return 3750(1737) to service. Now, if we could just get the 460 back on the road, some open window P70's and establish a commuter service, somewhere my seniority would work, many of my selfish dreams would be fulfilled!
CAZEPHYR cefinkjr amannlines Well, the Espee had produced the classiest steam locomotives of all times in MT's, GS's, and AC-9's simply by placing skyline casings on them. The P-10 was an exception in that, it got fugly with the casing. Actually, my admiration for the appearance of the AC-9 studiously ignores the skyline casings. In the words of a friend of mine, skyline casings are "gilding the lily". This is precisely why I've always thought the GS-5 "war babies" were more impressive than the GS-4. I see a certain beauty in functional design. You might mean GS6 war babies, not GS5. The GS5 class was two locomotives built with roller bearing axles and were streamlined the same as the GS4 class. The GS6 did not have the skirts. CZ
cefinkjr amannlines Well, the Espee had produced the classiest steam locomotives of all times in MT's, GS's, and AC-9's simply by placing skyline casings on them. The P-10 was an exception in that, it got fugly with the casing. Actually, my admiration for the appearance of the AC-9 studiously ignores the skyline casings. In the words of a friend of mine, skyline casings are "gilding the lily". This is precisely why I've always thought the GS-5 "war babies" were more impressive than the GS-4. I see a certain beauty in functional design.
amannlines Well, the Espee had produced the classiest steam locomotives of all times in MT's, GS's, and AC-9's simply by placing skyline casings on them. The P-10 was an exception in that, it got fugly with the casing.
Well, the Espee had produced the classiest steam locomotives of all times in MT's, GS's, and AC-9's simply by placing skyline casings on them. The P-10 was an exception in that, it got fugly with the casing.
Actually, my admiration for the appearance of the AC-9 studiously ignores the skyline casings. In the words of a friend of mine, skyline casings are "gilding the lily". This is precisely why I've always thought the GS-5 "war babies" were more impressive than the GS-4. I see a certain beauty in functional design.
You might mean GS6 war babies, not GS5. The GS5 class was two locomotives built with roller bearing axles and were streamlined the same as the GS4 class. The GS6 did not have the skirts.
CZ
You may be (probably are) right. I claim a Senior Moment.
Overmod, I've never heard of two K-4's being restored, I've only heard about 1361. Possibly it didn't operate in a good enough venue to draw potential riders. A locomotive that big needs a sympathetic big 'road to operate on, and I believe 1361 was kind of restricted to the boonies.
What frosts me is how that same locomotive could go from operating condition in 1989 to darn near junk status by 2009. Does anyone know just what the hell happened?
A G5s is certainly no K4, but I'll take what Pennsy steam I can get. At least it's going to be in more than capable hands.
And how long will a Big Boy operate? Well, if the UP deal goes through it'll operate until Uncle Pete decides he doesn't need it anymore.
Mntrain 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.
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.
Just to be sure the point is made clearly enough:
"Restored" for what?
No one is going to restore a large steam locomotive in order to run very heavy, slow service. Except perhaps in case of successful EMP attack or massive solar flare damage to electrical infrastructure... and perhaps not even then.
So: excursion service is the available niche. A Challenger is a bit too big to be economical, but it is faster than a Mikado and perhaps a Berk of equal wheel diameter, and can pull just about any consist that could be sold out. It is also well-promoted, and supported with deep pockets and dedication. The same was true for the 1218. I suspect the same would be less true for an Allegheny, which is just too big and not (yet) well-enough known to have a strong following ... and whose home railroad is determinedly anti-steam...
It is very unlikely that restoring a Y6b to operation, in the absence of massive grants, would pay back the cost. Don't expect to operate it anywhere revenue trains have to run. Nobody in the excursion world particularly cares if they have starting-TE bragging rights -- although there are times when great adhesion would be beneficial, they are measured mostly in seconds. Would it be nice to see it running? Yes. Would you doublehead it with 1218, even though that was done 'back in the day'? I doubt it would pay once the novelty ran out.
So anyone intending to bring back a large articulated would need enough paying people to fill the ginormous consist required to justify the outlay. Or put together an organization and ongoing fundraising effort to make up any shortfall. I would rather pointedly note that this is an element sadly lacking in most of these "why don't they restore a xxxx" threads, both here and over on RyPN (where more people ought to know a little better).
And this before we get into track punishing and other issues. How much did the Allegheny weigh, and what is the peak axle loading when augment builds up at a critical speed? The "performance stand point" does not involve traditional measures of performance, or assume tacitly that conditions railroads bore as necessary evils in the '20s would possibly still apply equally today.
I am still bitter that a 'right-sized' locomotive more famous than any articulated, the PRR K4, was brought back to operating condition... TWO of them, in fact ... and there was not enough business or opportunity to keep even one of them running. A G5s will be nice to have, but it's no K4. It will be nice to have an operable Big Boy... the most famous articulated in the world, known to just about any train lover... but how long will the in-service operation last?
My favorite American articulated steam are the 0-4-4-0 or 0-4-4-4-0 locomotives commonly known as Shay, Climax, Heisler, etc. Go anywhere you can lay something that resembles track. Haul anything you can put behind it. Just don't be in a hurry.
And for those who say that Shays are not Class one locomotives just look at a good roster of the New York Central, or the Western Maryland. I am sure that there were others too.
eagle1030 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.
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.
If you put it that way, maybe we should set up 1601 or 1604 for main line runs.
Blue Alert! We're at Blue Alert! Aw crap, it's a nondescript GEVO... Cancel Blue Alert!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.