B-b-b-boosters on a T1? ('Scuse me, I just got back from my favorite Italian restaurant and have a half-carafe of the house red in me. I feel GOOOOOD!) Anyway, it's been said before and there's no harm in saying it again, but a lot of the problems with slipperyness on the PRR's T1's was caused by improper throttle handling due to poor crew preparation. Throttle handling on a K4 for example was "Pull it like you MEAN it!" Yank it open and get things goin'! You couldn't do that with a T1. Easy does it was the way, in much the same way you'd handle an articulated. A booster was more of a "nice to have" item than a necessity.
Once enginemen knew what to expect it wasn't so bad.
Shameless plug here. The restaurant is Franks West in the Tuckahoe Village shopping center on Patterson Avenue in Henrico Va. Yummy!
Overmod Another interesting question is what would have been used on the heavier branches, the ones served by the 2-6-6-2s. The very last new steam locomotive built by Baldwin was a 2-6-6-2, to a very old fundamental design but with some modern 'conveniences'. Would a similar locomotive based on the Z class be an ongoing solution? Would it be given the full roller bearing treatment for ease of maintenance, or would longer-life versions of plain bearings be chosen instead? What sorts of servicing arrangements would be made for them?
Another interesting question is what would have been used on the heavier branches, the ones served by the 2-6-6-2s. The very last new steam locomotive built by Baldwin was a 2-6-6-2, to a very old fundamental design but with some modern 'conveniences'. Would a similar locomotive based on the Z class be an ongoing solution? Would it be given the full roller bearing treatment for ease of maintenance, or would longer-life versions of plain bearings be chosen instead? What sorts of servicing arrangements would be made for them?
Minor correction, the 2-6-6-2 was the last steam locomotive built by Baldwin for an American railroad, IIRC Baldwin built some steam locomotives for India in 1955. It does bring back memories of an ad in a summer 1964 issue in RMC about a model of the C&O 2-6-6-2, that the order for the H-6's "marked and meant the end of steam".
A scaled down Y6b would have been an interesting engine.
erikem Overmod Another interesting question is what would have been used on the heavier branches, the ones served by the 2-6-6-2s. The very last new steam locomotive built by Baldwin was a 2-6-6-2... Minor correction, the 2-6-6-2 was the last steam locomotive built by Baldwin for an American railroad, IIRC Baldwin built some steam locomotives for India in 1955....
Overmod Another interesting question is what would have been used on the heavier branches, the ones served by the 2-6-6-2s. The very last new steam locomotive built by Baldwin was a 2-6-6-2...
Another interesting question is what would have been used on the heavier branches, the ones served by the 2-6-6-2s. The very last new steam locomotive built by Baldwin was a 2-6-6-2...
Minor correction, the 2-6-6-2 was the last steam locomotive built by Baldwin for an American railroad, IIRC Baldwin built some steam locomotives for India in 1955....
You are right, and I stand corrected. In fact, an even better thing would be to say 'very last reciprocating steam locomotive for the United States', as BLH was responsible for the 'locomotive' aspects of the N&W TE-1 turbine...
Overmod >> I can't help but wonder whether N&W would have developed (for its new acquisitions) "2/3 of a Class A" as a Berkshire design. THAT would be an interesting locomotive. <<
.. that would then have been the 'a' class , presumably ?
... uhm , what about making it a 2-4-4-4 SE Mallet ( not Duplex - o-m-g what do you think !? )
= J =
A 4-8-4 on a 5 % grade ???
Well , dunno what that experiment was to prove , yet for crawling up the mountain sides at right angle *any* additional driven axle should be of help - however , wouldn't a 2-12-0 have been better suited - or rather a 2-12-4 tank engine or 2-12-2 rack tank as the Austrian 297 series that once roamed the Erzberg line ? In a 4-8-4 with twelve wheel tender 4 axles of 14 all together are powered , a relation of 0.286 ; maximum reliable adhesion on dry rails was 0.25 for steam , makes 0.0714 or 7.14 %
Btw what was the incline of the Erzberg line ? see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzbergbahn
--> 7,1 % - no further comment needed .
Regards
Firelock76I hadn't heard there were problems with New Haven's I-5's. Do you know what they were?
They were well liked and capable machines.
But they had severe frame issues due to some design and manufacturing problems that were expensively cured when it was later discovered. And the streamlined nose cone trapped in excessive heat causing trouble with the insulation of the wiring to the headlight melting and shorting out. But that too was cured by installing wiring suited to the heat. And their turbo injector that was installed in place of a feedwater heat was inadequate when steam demand was high. And five of them had a different type of roller bearing for their driving wheels that was causing wheel centers to work off their axles but that was cured when it was discovered by changes to their axles.
I suspect though that he was referencing their inadequate counterbalancing that caused serious vertical pounding. It was especially bad when they would slip at high speed. And besides the ride quality, it would cause serious track kinks when the drivers would be lifted off the rails and crash back down. It got so bad that they installed valve pilots to help engineers and in order to analyse the tapes so they knew when and where they had to replace rail.
Ultimately the problem was resolved by rethinking their counterbalancing. Standard Steel, Baldwin, and New Haven cooperated to cure their problems and they settled down in high speed service like other Hudsons afterwards (Or "Shore Line" if you want to use the New Haven's official name for them). That the problems were successfully addressed is often forgotten these days when this class is mentioned. Some are under the impression that they had speed restrictions and such right until the end but they in fact handled the fastest assignment on the road due to their rapid acceleration until the very end of New Haven steam.
Thanks for the response Leo! I had no idea the I-5's were so "buggy", but I guess even someone like Baldwin could have something not quite up-to-snuff slip through the cracks. Obviously nothing that couldn't be fixed, but I'm sure it was embarassing.
Hi Juniatha! The 4-8-4 on Saluda Grade was N&W's 611 during its excursion career. It was NEVER intended for use on 4%-plus grades. As a matter of fact, Saluda's on the old Southern Railway, not the N&W. Why'd they do it? I don't know. Showing off how good 611 was, maybe? Because "why the hell not?" Who knows?
Juniatha ... uhm , what about making it a 2-4-4-4 SE Mallet ( not Duplex - o-m-g what do you think !? )
It's an interesting idea, but I think the gains from the flexible wheelbase and lighter running gear would have been substantially outweighed by the higher costs, including those for all the flexible piping (e.g., same number of joints as a large 2-6-6-x or 2-8-8-x). You'd also have to make the drivers high enough that the main rod angularity would remain tolerable (note that most Berks, 6-coupled articulateds, and so forth drive on the third coupled axle) and you would have to do some VERY careful management of swing of the forward engine. The specific Alco method (of using carefully-ground contact plates to eliminate any vertical motion of the forward engine's chassis relative to the rear) would be needed. I presume you are familiar with the history of the Santa Fe Mallets with a four-coupled leading engine (and 4-wheel lead truck and 73" drivers). That was a suspension and guiding disaster, but not all the 'fault' could be attributed solely to the large pistons and low steam pressure.
On the other hand, the equalization would be similar in kinetics to one of the early 8-coupled locomotives which 'broke' the continuous chain of levers at the middle of the rigid wheelbase (as all the revised T1 suspension layouts did). I honestly do not know whether that experimentation (you can see a number of examples in the MR Steam Locomotive Cyclopedia or that "100 years of steam" commemorative book) was a success -- it appears to have become a design 'fad' in the early years of the 20th Century, and then almost completely died out. Personally, I think it is a VERY good idea for implementing equalization on anything that is divided-drive with short driven wheelbase -- meaning that it does deserve some consideration as an alternative to conventional duplexes of comparable size and capacity.
I would have to run some calculations and perhaps even simulations to see whether that arrangement could be run with minimal overbalance. (BTW: I find I only have a partial reference to the JILE (Journal of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers) report on the class 36 and 38 balancing, but here is the page:
It can be enlarged if necessary to read it, and anyone with ATHENS access can read the whole report.)
Lateral control of yaw in the forward engine is the principal issue, I think (the rear engine having so high an effective polar moment of inertia). It would be pinned relative to the rear engine, at the appropriate "Bissel" pin location, so some form of lateral guidance relative to the rigid chassis would need to be provided, and it would need very good restoring force close to center, but also very wide lateral travel on slower curves. I'm thinking that some sort of clutchable arrangement, perhaps activated on demand by air, would allow the lateral device to be switched effectively between modes. The lead truck also helps steer the front of the articulated engine, and of course easily handles any cross-level issues that might otherwise require careful attention to the leading-driver gauging and flange profiles.
I'd think it would at least solve some of the stiff-rigid-wheelbase issues the J encountered, although it would still likely be at least as sensitive to cross-level or 'dip/sag or hump' concerns as a J due to the longer effective 'rigid wheelbase' in pitch.
Hmmmmmm...
Hi Overmod
Thanks for exhaustive reply - however , it was just a joke ! Nobody - including me - would have suggested an articulated version of but an eight drivered power !
Oh btw coming back on your asking what reference to balancing : I checked through the Johnson pages you linked - interesting but you can clearly tell how far back it all dates , I wouldn't recommend to use it for any engineering purpose today , there are much better present day methods that can be applied since the engine unit of a steam locomotive is but another - somewhat special - form of a piston engine .
We would maybe have to get into discussing that topic of how a Mallet - disregarding steam expansion mode for this - behaves as a vehicle and what the flange forces are in curves in fwd / bwd running . You must forgive my sometimes letting go topics that tend to become controversial because I'm not here to have issues with other users but to have some fun discussing steam and so I prefer to let everyone believe what they treasure to believe - wrong or right - as long as they don't become insulting . After all , nothing is gained by proving something to someone that he (she) doesn't want to see , and it's of no purpose since the engines discussed are long since gone - never to come back .
Juniatha
JuniathaOh btw coming back on your asking what reference to balancing : I checked through the Johnson pages you linked - interesting but you can clearly tell how far back it all dates , I wouldn't recommend to use it for any engineering purpose today , there are much better present day methods that can be applied since the engine unit of a steam locomotive is but another - somewhat special - form of a piston engine.
Ever so correct. (Of course, we also have to remember that Johnson was from that certain suburban-Philadelphia locomotive works that is Not To Be Mentioned by Alco people...) What he's describing is the procedure done most cost-effectively by contemporary railroad outfits (and at least one build-to-a-price builder!) that accomplished results tolerable in American practice.
As Johnson somewhat cryptically notes, many Europeans were waaaaay in front of general American practice when it came to care in balancing -- which for steam locomotives more than almost any other type of locomotive ought to involve dynamic balancing. Many shops had balancing machines of reasonable sophistication -- even in the old days of mechanical indication of runout. Even before we get into adapting IC-engine balancing theory to the special case of reciprocating steam, we can consider the use of modeling software, FEA, and the like to plan and design as precisely as needed.
I'd be delighted to look at the dynamics of a high-speed Mallet chassis (see how cleverly this gets around the whole issue of expansion!) both running 'forward' and 'backward'. If there is ever a reciprocating-steam renaissance at the scale of two 4400-hp diesels coupled cabs-out, it would most probably involve a Mallet chassis -- so yes, this is far from a completely-dead topic. (imho at least)
RME
Glad to khow the I-5's problems were correcte. They must have been when I rode behind one on the Yankee Clipper, Boston - GCT late August 1948. The lightweight parlors had not been delivered, and our camp group rode in the old six-wheel heavyweight variety, while the 8600 lightweigths were the coaches. A fast on-time ride, with only six minutes for the engine-change at New Haven.
The N&W J's and the New Haven I-5"s were the best-looking streamlined steam in my opinion.
Hi,
I'm a bit late to this thread, and so a little catch-up:
A small note on the A's versus the Berks, it would be interesting to see if greater standardization would have tipped the N&W towards an A2. I'm not a N&W expert, so I'm not sure.
On Juniatha's 2-4-4-4, I see more use for it on tightly curving coal branches, giving about the same power with less flange issues than a 2-6-6-2. This is using a booster. Or maybe a 2-4-6-4...?
NW
#43
(using the valuable post-numbering convention from the other thread -- put the sequential number, in a distinctive color of your choice, at the top of each new post)
What do people here think would be included in an "A2" design? All my indications point to using a properly adapted version of the Q2 boiler with only minor revisions to the chassis. This might have been the trigger for N&W to acquire the capability of making and normalizing their own welded boilers...
Firelock76 on Tue, Jul 23 2013
>> The 4-8-4 on Saluda Grade was N&W's 611 during its excursion career. It was NEVER intended for use on 4%-plus grades. As a matter of fact, Saluda's on the old Southern Railway, not the N&W. Why'd they do it? I don't know. <<
Neither do I . However , as a historical piece of machinery I would not want to stress her *that* much – I would just let her stretch rods a bit and wheel around , inspecting the railroading scene at a tolerably relaxed pace … also some of the scenery she had never seen during enduring years of hard work for the N&W – maybe even the winding road along the Pacific Coast , or meeting UP 844 , which should cheer up faces of steam friends , I guess . Kind of a technical ambassador for successor Norfolk Southern …
NorthWest on Fri, Jul 26 2013
>> On Juniatha's 2-4-4-4, I see more use for it on tightly curving coal branches, giving about the same power with less flange issues than a 2-6-6-2. This is using a booster. Or maybe a 2-4-6-4...? <<
Guys , *p-l-e-a-s-e* – it was but a joke ! Help , forgive , how can I make it undone ..?
Ok , you asked for it :
Maybe I should suggest the final-and-un-topable Berks-fragmentomaniac design , the 2-2-2-2-2-4 , of course with quadruple compound expansion , named ‘Little Quadro Free Wheeler’ type , for branch line dual dubious services ?
What do you think – would that have made the last skeptic CEO call EMD for help ? Or would it have made him see his psychiatrist ?
*hey-hey*
Juniatha NorthWest on Fri, Jul 26 2013 >> On Juniatha's 2-4-4-4, I see more use for it on tightly curving coal branches, giving about the same power with less flange issues than a 2-6-6-2. This is using a booster. Or maybe a 2-4-6-4...? << Guys , *p-l-e-a-s-e* – it was but a joke ! Help , forgive , how can I make it undone ..? Ok , you asked for it : Maybe I should suggest the final-and-un-topable Berks-fragmentomaniac design , the 2-2-2-2-2-4 , of course with quadruple compound expansion , named ‘Little Quadro Free Wheeler’ type , for branch line dual dubious services ? What do you think – would that have made the last skeptic CEO call EMD for help ? Or would it have made him see his psychiatrist ?
Sounds like a typical product of the BerlinerWerke, the BW also did similar treatments for diesel's and electrics.
- Erik
friend611and I'm not ruling out the streamlining of the old K1 Mountains, if that was considered feasible to keep the N&W classes as modern as possible.
This raises a potentially interesting question.
On other roads (Frisco and Reading are two that come promptly to mind) postwar power needs were met by extensive 'rebuilding' of older locomotives into new ones of different wheel arrangement. Relatively few characteristics of the original design were retained in the new.
I was assured that this ('rebuilding' rather than ordering or building a new locomotive) was usually done for tax reasons, not for any objective engineering reason.
It might follow that N&W would 'convert' some older power, notably the K1s, into more modern locomotives, designed from the rail up for minimum maintenance and maximum reliability. That would include new frames and cylinders, different firebox, perhaps welded boiler... the usual enhancements that were built into "new" locomotives. It might be interesting to speculate on what classes would receive rebuilding, and what details would be included.
I do think that if passenger requirements demanded more locomotives, it would be silly to streamline K1s for that purpose while at the same time building more J1s. Put the streamlining on the 4-8-4s where it makes more of a statement! And then optimize the rebuilt K1s as 'fast freight' locomotives, of whatever wheel arrangement gets the job done best... and let the credits against taxes build up.
Remember that the M2s were not intended as 'modernized 4-8-0s' -- they were explicitly designed to be an answer to diesel switchers, and would probably have made little sense to run in road service, where firemen would be mandated. (It is notable in this context that N&W itself continued to build switchers to that C&O design, and in fact the last locomotive built at Roanoke was one.)
I feel reasonably certain that any future branch-line engine for N&W would have had a two-wheel lead truck, using similar design principles to the 'improved' trucks on the A and Y6b if not identical castings and parts. I cannot help but wonder whether bidirectional operation, rather than improved turning facilities on the ground, might give better branch-line flexibility, and even if the narrow firebox were preserved this would argue for a 'trailing truck' for guidance, as on the 2-8-8-2s (albeit of different design as the pivot could not be between the frames where the firebox is).
With respect to 'the engines wearing out' -- there was no real 'wearing out' of engines at Roanoke; as a part grew old and tired, it could be replaced or refabricated. One example of this: you may note that the K2s retained their fabricated trailing trucks right to the end, long after fitting a Delta replacement for 'worn out' obsolescent design was possible. Roanoke was in a more advantageous position than most roads to perform the kind of tax-saving rebuilding that Frisco did, as they had full shop capacity to perform any rebuilding desired, and both the means and the knowledge to purchase any items, like GSC beds, needed to achieve minimal maintenance expense. So it might be better to say "until all the original material in the K1s had been replaced" or "until the engines were modified substantially from their original construction".
(While we're on the subject of speculation: it's been said that all the Ys were only detail-modified versions of a WW1-era basic design. And the potential improvements to the Y class to suit it for higher road speed fall into the 'detail modification' class. So as long as there is an absence of functional obsolescence, there is no need to retire a "WW1 design" merely because it was originally constructed then...)
Lois,
611 was not the only J that had the very top of the skyline casing removed for better access to the appliances up there.
.
I heard someone say , someone at the Crestline shed was said to have said they had been completely innocent . It wasn’t the repair staff who had taken off sheet metal and never replaced it .
Why , those dubious Duplexi were so darn fast , they had the air stream wing off parts of their clothing’s – more often than not they had returned to shed in a formidable ragdoll Cinderella style . Allegedly – mind , I haven’t been there and really can’t tell – allegedly , a couple of times the man at the tower in the outskirts of the Windy City ( yep , there you are !) even had to stop a T1 heading an express train and deny her entering Chicago because the engine had completely disposed of her .. harrumph .. well you know .
Ok , Idaho , dunno if that’s not one of those infamous camp fire tall stories of railroading ,
anyways …
Hi Lois!
You know, "Williams by Bachman" makes an "O" Gauge Class J with PRR markings. I always wondered why, but I figured they were just going for the Pennsy fan market.
Looks like they knew what they were doing all along, considering 610 ran on the Crestline line. It's not so far-fetched after all.
We have a saying on the model forums....if you think of it, and it's both brilliant and expedient, it has been done on the prototype, whether in the 1800's or 1900's. Stated more succinclty and more commonly, 'Where there's a will, there's a way."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.