feltonhill If you look at the Js that were converted, the hub on #3 axle is considerably larger on the single rod locos. It should be because the forces from #2 axle to #3 and #4 must now be handled by one set of bearings instead of two. In addition, the crankpin on #4 axle is much shorter on the single rod locos, which would reduce the bending moment on the #4 crankpin and also reduce the chance of fracture.. There was a good reason to get rid of the tandem rods. Perhaps this was one of them. I'll try to see if any drawings exist at the NWHS archives regarding this change. I believe about four Js were changed: 611, 605 and two others IIRC. Added 9/7 - After searching the NWHS archives database, there are more than 20 drawings that appear to address the Class J's single connecting rods. I'll be in Roanoke next weekend for the archives work session so I may be able to take a look at some of them.
If you look at the Js that were converted, the hub on #3 axle is considerably larger on the single rod locos. It should be because the forces from #2 axle to #3 and #4 must now be handled by one set of bearings instead of two. In addition, the crankpin on #4 axle is much shorter on the single rod locos, which would reduce the bending moment on the #4 crankpin and also reduce the chance of fracture.. There was a good reason to get rid of the tandem rods. Perhaps this was one of them.
I'll try to see if any drawings exist at the NWHS archives regarding this change. I believe about four Js were changed: 611, 605 and two others IIRC.
Added 9/7 - After searching the NWHS archives database, there are more than 20 drawings that appear to address the Class J's single connecting rods. I'll be in Roanoke next weekend for the archives work session so I may be able to take a look at some of them.
Great information. Thanks for the update. If you can, see if you can find any reason for the updates to the J class so late in their service life. Did any failures or maybe cracks showing up on the rods of any J class locomotives cause this modification??
CZ
Hi ..
Tandem rods taken off - that sounds like one of those ultimate simplifications applied to steam during the last of service which were not with a view of further maintenance perspectives but just for keeping rndown engines running for a few more miles or months , no matter how , or almost .
Does anyone have details what a rod they put on in replacement of the tandem rod ? You wouldn't mean to say they just took the outer one off and left the inner one on , don't you ?? ( O-M-G )
The main pin would have thanked for *that* and it would have upset the whole distribution of steam and inertia forces .
Looking forward to some interesting documents from some 60 years ago -
Regards
Juniatha
BigJim CZ,Several, but not all, of the J's were converted to the single rod configuration before they were taken out of passenger service. You need to read the book that I suggested.
CZ,Several, but not all, of the J's were converted to the single rod configuration before they were taken out of passenger service. You need to read the book that I suggested.
Thanks Jim. I will see if I can find that book.
.
BigJim friend611I know about the tandem rods on 611 personally because she still had them after the January 1956 wreck. I will have to seek out how long she kept them after that. You should be able to find that out in Louis Newton's "Rails Remembered' Vol.3. He goes into detail about the single rods.
friend611I know about the tandem rods on 611 personally because she still had them after the January 1956 wreck. I will have to seek out how long she kept them after that.
You should be able to find that out in Louis Newton's "Rails Remembered' Vol.3. He goes into detail about the single rods.
The 611 still had the tandem rods in August of 56 as you can see, but they were probably removed after the J's were pulled from passenger service. It is amazing to me they removed the tandem rods since they were balanced so well and this must have changed the balance at least a small amount at speed. I do remember seeing the J running in excursion service extremely fast a few times.
NorthWest CZ, you caught the Jawn Henry! (First photo). That is the first picture I have seen of the roof! Both great shots. Thanks, NW
CZ, you caught the Jawn Henry! (First photo). That is the first picture I have seen of the roof!
Both great shots.
Thanks,
NW
Thanks. It would have been very nice if we had a great camera at that time, but at least we had one. I was standing on the overpass and noticed it moving and the other steam power just added to the picture. We got to see it in helper service also east of town. The first week in August 56 was a great time to visit since there were no diesels.
CZ.
http://s197.photobucket.com/user/City_train_usa/slideshow/1950%20Era%20Steam?sort=6
This is the PRR which owned a portion of the N&W.
http://s197.photobucket.com/user/City_train_usa/slideshow/PRR%20Steam?sort=6
A few of the NKP which the N&W purchased
http://s197.photobucket.com/user/City_train_usa/slideshow/NKP%20Steam?sort=6
A lot of those "not so great" jobs disappeared with the steam locomotives. As for pride in their work; the N&W men could truly say that those were their engines! Something which could not be said of the LaGrange and Schenectady products which replaced them.
Firelock76 Steam not so great to work on for the shop workers? I don't know man, a job's a job, and at any rate those men took a LOT of pride in their work, and it showed. I heard there were also kick-backs and payoffs involved from GM to a lot a railroad officials as an incentive to dieselize, preferable with GM products of course, but those belong in the wild-ass rumor department. I've never seen any creditable evidence showing that was the case. I've also heard the "you don't buy our diesels, you won't haul our stuff" rumor as well. I doubt the veracity of that one as well.
Steam not so great to work on for the shop workers? I don't know man, a job's a job, and at any rate those men took a LOT of pride in their work, and it showed.
I heard there were also kick-backs and payoffs involved from GM to a lot a railroad officials as an incentive to dieselize, preferable with GM products of course, but those belong in the wild-ass rumor department. I've never seen any creditable evidence showing that was the case.
I've also heard the "you don't buy our diesels, you won't haul our stuff" rumor as well. I doubt the veracity of that one as well.
I certainly agree with the pride the back shop and roundhouse workers had in the steam locomotives.
Cz
Steam was exciting to watch but not so great to work on day and night for the railroad shop workers. I remember hearing that the N&W was not getting any of the GM parts or traffic in any way until they started placing diesel orders. That may have been a rumor, but it was a common story around the industry.
I was under the impression that the PRR owned about 40% of the N&W in the mid fifties.
I took the two pictures below in August of 1956. If you look close, you can see the tandem rods were still installed on 611 in August of 56.
carnej1 Firelock76 Sounds a bit like after the merger with the new diesels rollin' in the ex-Virginian electrics were, in a sense, "oddballs." Goes without saying if you're an oddball you don't hang around too long. It seems to me that as long as they were ditching steam they figured they'd ditch the electrics as well. Not exactly, the GE E33C's were only a few years old at the time.... N&W's management just didn't feel that having parallel mainlines with only one direction electrified made good economic sense. It probably also helped that they found a ready buyer for the E33's in the New York, New Haven & Hartford..
Firelock76 Sounds a bit like after the merger with the new diesels rollin' in the ex-Virginian electrics were, in a sense, "oddballs." Goes without saying if you're an oddball you don't hang around too long. It seems to me that as long as they were ditching steam they figured they'd ditch the electrics as well.
Sounds a bit like after the merger with the new diesels rollin' in the ex-Virginian electrics were, in a sense, "oddballs." Goes without saying if you're an oddball you don't hang around too long.
It seems to me that as long as they were ditching steam they figured they'd ditch the electrics as well.
Not exactly, the GE E33C's were only a few years old at the time....
N&W's management just didn't feel that having parallel mainlines with only one direction electrified made good economic sense.
It probably also helped that they found a ready buyer for the E33's in the New York, New Haven & Hartford..
I do find it interesting that the ruling grades were not in the same direction on both lines. Of course, the Virginian was laid out several years after the South Side Railway and the Virginia and Tennessee Railway were laid out and built.
Johnny
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
friend611I have heard that Saunders wanted to have the N&W fully dieselized by the time the merger was completed with the Virginian, which was in December 1959. However, this was not accomplished,
Hi Lois,
Saunders was indeed on a mission at that time, keep in mind his efforts were also stalled by a steep recession in the late 1950's, followed by a nationwide steel strike, both of which stymied rail traffic during the late 50's. This slow down resulted in the PRR having an excess of newly received GP's, some of which found there way on the N&W as leased units. When the situation improved, the mission continued.
Hoping your friend the 611 will soon be back!!!
friend611I have heard that Saunders wanted to have the N&W fully dieselized by the time the merger was completed with the Virginian, which was in December 1959.
Lois,
Having been through a few buyouts in the company I work for, I'd wondered if the merger with the VGN was the primary motive for ending steam operation on the N&W. Electric operation on the VGN lasted a little bit longer, but would have likely lasted longer had the merger not taken place.
- Erik
Erikem ,
steam usually lasted longer on railways / railroads committed to electrification than to dieselization , mainly because electrification was a more substantial change demanding a more profound revamping of train service , traction and railway / railroad operation and first costs involved with the transition were higher per mile of mainline - although with the substantial boost of traction power and efficiency of it , this became relative as soon as electric traction was working .
Listen to Lois, the Friend of 611. She knows people who were THERE. I'm sure she's not quite old enough to have first-hand knowledge.
on : friend611 Wed, Aug 21 2013 6:35 PM:
That was a point my late father had been pointing out as a decisive factor in the transition of motive power .
= J =
Although not in the quantiy of the GP9, during Saunders tenure with the N&W they also purchased ALCO RS11, 36 and T-6 locomotives. The total number exceeded 100.
For those of you interested the N&WHS magazine, The Arrow, ran a series of articles on the N&W dieselization years in 2001. Volume 17-4 and 17-5.
The problem with VGN's electrics was not that they were non-standard but the fact that they couldn't operate beyond the end of catenary. When N&W went to directional running after the merger with Virginian, the situation was one of expanding the electrification to the N&W main for efficiency or discontinuing it altogether.
Deggesty I have no idea as to the effect of the merger on steam operation, but I do know that the merger brought an end to electric operation on the Virginian since the N&W began directional running according to the ruling grades, which resulted in most of the eastward traffic on one line and most of the westward traffic on the other--running electric engines light in one direction was not practicable when the power was needed to move traffic in that direction on the other line.
I have no idea as to the effect of the merger on steam operation, but I do know that the merger brought an end to electric operation on the Virginian since the N&W began directional running according to the ruling grades, which resulted in most of the eastward traffic on one line and most of the westward traffic on the other--running electric engines light in one direction was not practicable when the power was needed to move traffic in that direction on the other line.
That's the flip side of my guess wrt N&W steam, the VGN electrics were also non-standard and didn't last much longer than N&W steam.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.