timz Moody's says N&W "net income" was 44.5 million dollars in 1957 and 43.5 million in 1958. They merged VGN 12/59: 51.6 million in 1959, then 60+ million each year 1960-63.
Moody's says N&W "net income" was 44.5 million dollars in 1957 and 43.5 million in 1958. They merged VGN 12/59: 51.6 million in 1959, then 60+ million each year 1960-63.
Well. I won't argue the numbers. All I can say is N&W going "in the red" is what I've read in histories of the steam to diesel switch era. If I'm wrong, well, so are my books. C'est la vie.
No hard feelings mind you.
Hi timz! I believe the loss year was 1960-1961 or so, concurrent with the crash dieselization.
Hi Juniatha! You're correct in your supposition that the slow N&W dieselization process enabled them to avoid the mistakes made by other 'roads. When the crash program came they went straightaway to Geeps. No Baldwins, ALCOs, Fairbanks-Morses or others. Any diesels that the N&W had that weren't EMD Geeps came from their mergers with or aquisitions of other 'roads.
Firelock76Saunders abandoned the slow dieselization process the N&W had instituted and went for a crash program that sent the N&W into the red for the first time in its history.
Not a problem at all. The electrics were tied to the catenary and couldn't make a return run on the other line while the diesels could make that return run on the other line with a train.
Hi Deggesty
>> 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. <<
.. and so , how was it practicable with diesels to run them light when power was needed to move traffic on the other line ?
Regards
= J =
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.
Johnny
Hi Wayne
>> The men running the N&W before Saunders weren't starry-eyed kids. They knew dieselization had to come, but the idea was go slow and replace the steamers as they wore out. <<
Sounds much like the idea behind my "steam we haven't seen" - wish steam would not have been dumped so 'Obladi-oblada' style.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xl997h_the-beatles-obladi-oblada_music
, and by the way , that would have allowed a railroad to 'skip' quite a few 'diesel-lemons' , too
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19bjf_fools-garden-lemon-tree_music?search_algo=2
I'd wonder if it was the merger with the Virginian, that killed of N&W steam. Companies that are planning to merge will often make changes to bring more commonality between the respective organizations. By 1957, the VGN was pretty much operating on diesel and electric, having pretty much the newest fleet of electric locomotives of any electrified class 1 railroad.
- Erik
Hi Lois!
This has been brought up in the past, and with a bit of controversy as well. OK, at the risk of kicking a hornets nest here goes, the story as I understand it this this...
In the late '50s the PRR had a controlling interest in the N&W (which they foolishly gave up a few years later, but that's another story.) Anyway, the Pennsy had "parachuted" in Stuart Saunders to run the 'road. In the interest of increasing profitability Saunders abandoned the slow dieselization process the N&W had instituted and went for a crash program that sent the N&W into the red for the first time in its history. As a coal pipeline the N&W couldn't help but make money so the damage wasn't permanent and Saunders came out looking good. He went on the Pennsy and then Penn Central and we all know how well that turned out!
The men running the N&W before Saunders weren't starry-eyed kids. They knew dieselization had to come, but the idea was go slow and replace the steamers as they wore out.
So, I guess you could say the PRR was responsible for killing N&W steam, since they sent the "hit man" in who did it.
I think I hear the hornets coming, I better go get the "Raid!"
Wayne
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."
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.
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 …
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.
.
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...)
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.
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 ?
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.
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 …
*hey-hey*
#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...
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.