Trains.com

What if? Saved N&W Y6b or other lost classes

17694 views
42 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 291 posts
Posted by friend611 on Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:12 PM

I would have liked to have seen one of the N&W S1a 0-8-0's preserved- about all of these were retired when only five or six years old. #244 especially should have been saved, as it was the last steam locomotive built by Roanoke Shops.
lois

 

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 291 posts
Posted by friend611 on Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:15 PM

That's unusual. But I have heard that 611 did derail after the first excursion from Roanoke to Norfolk in September 1982. I am able to authenticate this because my husband was on the engine crew that day. She had trouble getting to the turntable lead in Norfolk, and they had to tow her back to Roanoke, later making modifications in the yard so that she could access the turntable without any problems.

lois

 

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Thursday, June 6, 2013 5:19 PM

rfpjohn

On the subject of tragic losses, how about a Reading G3 pacific? Last built pacifics in the US, they were modern but beautifully simple and practical. One was offered to the city of Reading. It was turned down because of budget problems. I don't think the city could afford to move the otherwise free engine to a display location! Wouldn't one look just right powering excursions on the Reading and Northern?

How 'bout the Reading's  "Crusader"  Pacific?  Class, pure class.

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 487 posts
Posted by rfpjohn on Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:01 PM

I don't know . I prefer my Pacifics naked. But I suppose if you want to veil one, the Crusader shroud isn't a bad way to go. I've seen photos of 'em after they took the shrouds off. Should of kept it on! 

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:42 PM

Hello John!  The "Crusader"  shroud was pretty tastefully done in my opinion.  Ever see a color photo?  Stainless steel with blue highlights.  In fact, the name "Crusader"  came about because the stainless shroud reminded someone of a "knight in shining armor."

Ironically, the stainless passenger consist for the "Crusader"  survived well into the diesel era, pulled by Reading FP-7's.

Wayne

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 487 posts
Posted by rfpjohn on Thursday, June 6, 2013 9:14 PM

Actually my dad bought a soft cover Reading Co. book which survives in scandalous condition somewhere in my archives/fire hazard. In this booklet there is a double page color rendition of the "new" Crusader. Pretty spiffy, I must admit!

But if you ever run across photos of the 117/118 after the shrouds came off in 1951(?) something has gone sour (or perhaps sower for we speak of hogs). The G1sas had their air pumps mounted on the tender so that lovely shroud wouldn't have unsightly bulges. When the shrouds came off, they mounted the compressors on the pilot beam in an ugly box. Looks like someones old refrigerator! Definitely not the graceful lines of a G1sa!

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Thursday, June 6, 2013 11:35 PM

feltonhill

I'll try to respond to this off the cuff.  I've been occupied with some other work the past few seeks and have not been keeping up to date with these discussions.

Most of the  Y6's were modified with a different firebox following the Y6b.  The tubes were shortened 4 ft from 24' to 20' and the firebox combustion chamber was extended by the same amount.  This is what caused the difference in the direct heating surface.

After this change the N&W noted that the boiler had increased steaming ability and that a clear stack was much easier to maintain.  Boiler capacity calculations and over-the-road DBHP estimates bear this out.

This formula - shorter, larger diameter firetubes and a longer firebox/combustion chamber was used in many of the late steam designs for the improved performance reasons you mentioned.

The Class A had the older design of smaller, longer firetubes along with less direct heating surface. I have always been curious why the N&W didn't build the last Class A locomotives to the higher performance design like the Y6b, when the gains of shorter firetubes and larger direct heating surface were well known within the industry at that time.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Northern VA
  • 480 posts
Posted by feltonhill on Friday, June 7, 2013 5:55 AM

I'm not sure why N&W didn't modify the A's boiler proportions.  I've never found any indication that N&W tried or had a reason to try anything different with them.  It could be that they were "good enough" as built and N&W  put their efforts elsewhere (e.g., the Y-classes). 

We know a fair amount about the J's and Y6's performance and economics via surviving test results, but there's next to nothing  for the A's.  We do know that their performance was never in question and superlatives seemed to surround them.  Maybe they really did seduce an entire railroad....

  • Member since
    May 2022
  • 1 posts
Posted by webbk on Sunday, May 29, 2022 12:52 AM

The Y6B is not a true Compound, the Y6B class were equipped with a Variable Valve Plumbing. With the Variable Valve Plumbing, the Y6B can handle today's Coal Drags on Simple Expansion mode. Excursions won't be a problem if the Y6B ran on Compound mode instead of Simple Expansion mode. Out of all of the "Y" class, the Y6B would have a better shot than the Y6A on Exursion runs. Also, the Y3s was sold to the Pennsylvania Railroad as the HH1s. For the T1s, a replica of 6110 or 6111 would be the best option since the Production T1s are trash.

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 1,934 posts
Posted by BigJim on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 9:59 AM

webbk
The Y6B is not a true Compound,


I beg to differ!

.

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 1,912 posts
Posted by Backshop on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 11:34 AM

While not an individual class, I don't think that any of the various "super" Consolidations of the various anthracite roads or WM were saved.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,147 posts
Posted by selector on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 5:17 PM

BigJim

 

 
webbk
The Y6B is not a true Compound,

 


I beg to differ!

 

 

Moi aussi.  

If the locomotive had larger cylinders that accepted expanded steam in any configuration, it was a 'true' compound.  And that describes the Y series to a...Y.

What does it matter if the hogger had to throw a lever to effect piston travel via two or three means?  If one of them meant compounded operation, it was a 'true' compound.

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,015 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 9:35 PM

[quote user="webbk"With the Variable Valve Plumbing, the Y6B can handle today's Coal Drags on Simple Expansion mode.[/quote]Ah, where to begin...

I confess to being ignorant of any "Variable Valve Plumbing" on N&W (or anywhere else, either) and I'm afraid I don't even know what that term is supposed to mean.

If you mean the 'booster valve', it was (as built) more an enhanced reheat device for operation in compound than a means of balancing high-speed operation.  That does not mean that a valve capable of Chapelon's IP injection could not be used to balance the two engines effectively WHILE WORKING COMPOUND to achieve practical merchandise (or excursion) speed... and keeping low water rate doing it.

Operating at high speed with the intercepting valve set to work simple is just a giant sucking sound, even with N&W's advanced mechanics.  You'd need to rebuild the engine with four equal cylinders, and for that N&W already has a class of locomotive far better than any Y class could hope to be as a simple.

Incidentally, the original two T1s had hopeless suspension inadequacies -- see the walking beam between the duplex engines?  Guaranteed to walk high-speed slip forward and backward... which is why the production T1s had snubbing between #2 and #3 driver pair, and progressively increased the snubbing rate as 'research' continued.  (The experimentation is actually recorded sequentially on one of the chassis spring-rigging diagrams!)

Most, perhaps all the 'solvable' issues with the T1s (aside from better training) were resolved in the 1948 improvements list.  There are such easy solutions for many of the other supposed troubles that it reinforces the idea that 'skulduggery' was involved to get PRR out of the very expensive equipment-trust obligations.  The "T1" to replicate was the one fitted with Franklin B-2 rotary-cam gear (extra points if you know how B-2 differs from type B) and that is what 5550 basically is (albeit with drive arm instead of those wacky positive-location shaft bridges!)

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy