Trains.com

N&W Steam Development

32186 views
220 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2014
  • From: Navi Mumbai, India
  • 33 posts
Posted by puffy on Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:52 AM

Firelock76

nyc#25

No way would there ever be 100 mph running on Middle and Pittsburgh divisions.

PRR's racetrack was west of Crestline.

True.  Oh so true.  And it probably wasn't realistic to do too much of it there either.

See here's the thing, and I believe the same mistake's being made today with the obsession over high-speed rail with some people.  It's not high speed that's needed, it's reliability.  Delivering the passengers "on the advertised"  as it were.  Even if the fastest you go is 70 to 80 miles an hour, so what?  Get the folks there when you say you will, and do it all the time.  That's what gets the business.

In my years at Yale (1957-1963) the NYNH&H did an outstanding job in terms of service and reliability: on the advertised and there was no need for a times table because within an hour there was a train going your way NYC-Boston. Same on the PRR NYC-WashDC. Of course this was before Private Enterprise was tossed.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 291 posts
Posted by friend611 on Sunday, February 2, 2014 5:42 PM
The N&W J's also had a record of service and reliability, as they kept the main line passenger trains they ran on time as well as quick turnaround as they were designed to be serviced quickly. The modern servicing facilities as well as the extensive mechanical lubrication contributed greatly to the high performance records of the locomotives.
lois
  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 291 posts
Posted by friend611 on Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:20 PM
However, I plan to eventually end this discussion and begin anew with discussions regarding various N&W classes. Are there any points of discussion regarding N&W steam before this thread is finally closed? lois
  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:57 AM

Yes Lois, N&W built the best, bar none, end of story!

OK, you can close the thread now!

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 31 posts
Posted by southern154 on Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:00 PM

How fast could a J run at (without hurting itself) if given good track and a good engineer and etc?

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 291 posts
Posted by friend611 on Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:45 PM
That is something that was never tested. And as I close this thread, this will be a subject that will be gone over in more detail in the new thread on the J's.
lois
  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 755 posts
Posted by Juniatha on Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:48 PM

Southern 154

That would again lead into discussion of mass inertia , balancing , proper frequencies in drive and frames structure - and the reason - so far as I have (not ?) seen - unresolved yet as to why duplex coupling rod system with interacting drive rod on main pin had been replaced by simpler and at the same time less high rpm suited conventional rod system in some N&W J class for their last years of service left before replacement by dieselization .

Good track can only mean track well suited for mass carried per axle plus possible maximum speed anticipated to be travelled .

Good engineer .. there is nothing particular it takes to run a locomotive faster than usual since it's the engine who does all the work by itself ;  you only have to keep the throttle open 1/1 , adapt c/o to suit boiler steam output keep a lookout on the signals and .. watch her accelerating until the rods come flying alongsides :  the speed just before that happens is the maximum speed before it really hurts .

No , seriously , as a first guesstimate :  for speed in daily service I would propose something around 440 to - perhaps - 480 rpm .

Regards

Juniatha

 

 

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:22 PM

Hi Juniatha!  Always good to have you aboard!

As far as replacing the duplex coupling rod with a more simple conventional rod system I belive Big Jim addressed that several months ago, it was done strictly for ease of maintanance, no other reason.

Wayne

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 291 posts
Posted by friend611 on Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:55 PM
I meant to close this thread, having siphoned off the J discussion to a new thread. But I might as well allow the discussion here to continue, having asked beforehand for any last details before I closed the thread.
Oh well...
lois
  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, February 9, 2014 7:17 PM

friend611
I meant to close this thread, having siphoned off the J discussion to a new thread. But I might as well allow the discussion here to continue, having asked beforehand for any last details before I closed the thread.
Oh well...
lois

Well that's N&W steam for you Lois, it didn't go without a fight!

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,015 posts
Posted by BigJim on Monday, February 10, 2014 6:50 PM

Here is one to chew on. Several Y3a's received front engines with the Y-pipe from Y5 locos. How do you think their performance increased? If nothing else, they were the toughest looking Y3a's going!

.

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