Vernon L. Smith, in a rebuttal article many years back in support of American steam vs. French steam noted the difference in maintenance and shop standards. French railroaders expected their power to spend relatively more time in the shops for proper maintenance and efficiency. American railroaders expected their power to be more robust and spend more time on the road and in service.
NorthWestMallard's third cylinder issues would not have been acceptable on the N&W.
I think it is fair to say that if N&W had designed a three-cylinder locomotive, it would have had a properly-designed big-end structure. (If I recall correctly, Gresley actually DID have a better big-end design available at the time, and did not use it; I will try to find the specific reference later). There are a number of ways the inside main rod can be fabricated, and the matter of inside big-end bearing addressed, that would have been fully suitable both from a maintenance and operating perspective.
I think a more appropriate question would be whether valve-gear issues would have been acceptable on the N&W, if it had decided on a three-cylinder engine (which itself is a somewhat dubious assumption, as the two-cylinder balancing they adopted gives most of the practical advantage of three-cylinder drive at the speeds involved). I suspect they would have used three sets of Baker gear instead of anything with conjugated levers, Multirol needle bearings or not (rolling-element bearings do not appear to have solved many of the difficulties with Gresley's gear). I would speculate that they might, independently or not, have tried the Australian pinion-and-rack conjugated drive, and indeed figured out that larger-diameter hollow shafts would have solved any issue with torque whip, but that is piling up too much supposition on something hypothetical to begin with.
I liked Juniatha's metaphor between the 'big-iron muscle-car' approach of the J and the 'Aston-Martin' approach of the A4. The English locomotive, in particular, made best use of the small frontal area that was essentially mandated by the British loading gage to reach higher speed. I would expect it to achieve high speed with somewhat greater thermodynamic efficiency. But I'd also expect it to need much more heavy maintenance (perhaps not as much as English automobiles!) to keep it running when producing high output power.
What might have been interesting to see would be Roanoke's approach to a Hiawatha-size train, perhaps using a variant of Woodard's proposed high-speed locomotive from about the time the A was being developed. That would be a small and perhaps fairly light locomotive of high horsepower at speed, with low-speed TE less deprecated in favor of high speed than was the case on the Milwaukee Road. THAT would be a better comparison to an A4, in my opinion, and perhaps a better assessment of what N&W engineers would do when designing a true high-speed locomotive...
Whoops! Sorry about the drift! When I hear the word "diner" the Jerseyman in me comes out!
At any rate, the mantra of Mr. Randy Garbin, the originator of "Roadside Online", the diner fans website is:
"Eat in diners, RIDE TRAINS (emphasis mine), shop on Main Street, put a porch on your house, live in a walkable community."
So the drift wasn't TOO bad, was it?
www.roadsideonline.com
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote on Wed, Jul 31 2013
>> French railroaders expected their power to spend relatively more time in the shops for proper maintenance and efficiency. <<
That sounds almost as if Vernon L. Smith wanted to make fun of French steam . Of course railroaders did not >> expect their power to spend relatively more time in the shops << i.e. more time in shops than on the road . Neither was it expected , nor was it true . The newer power actually did not spend so much more time in shops than did the 141.R – and that in spite of – *lookout here it comes !* – much more old-fashioned concept of construction with bolted plate frames etc .
A comparison of the 141.R class American Mikados with an SNCF ‘standard’ type with the objective to compare types of engine units two cylinder simple against four cylinder compound must inevitably be misleading , results are contorted by the incompatibility of each the concepts of construction . Much of what spoke against the SNCF types was due to their rather traditional construction which was clearly inferior to that of the US-built 141.R – *no matter what type the engine unit* ! The right one of two cylinder simple engines on the SNCF to compare with four cylinder compound types was the WW-I US-built Mikado ! This one did spend at least as much time in shops as the allegedly ‘complex’ four cylinder compound engines . If you’d compare it to the post WW-II 141.R result would *even more* be in favor of the latter , simply because the two classes clearly display progress in mechanical design and construction having been realized in the US in the time span between delivery of the two . Lack of this progress in SNCF types , namely the numerically most important ex-PLM , must be accounted for , not weighed in against the four cylinder compound .
I think resentments against the four cylinder compound must largely be attributed to unquestioned bias and prejudice , almost attaining forms of superstition .
The real point is , while a four cylinder compound engine unit would have been near impossible to install in a fully cross-braced cast steel engine bed of a Berkshire for example , it's smooth running and self-balanced working would at the same time have made those heavy cross bracings largely superfluous – thus saving at least as much mass in framework as the inside drives would add in extra drive mass ; mind that each of the four main rods was lighter than that of a two cylinder engine unit of comparable capacity !
Or the other way around : had shops taken off inside drives and rebuilt outside drive into a two cylinder simple , *no maintenance time* would have been saved because the framework of the traditionally built SNCF series was much too light and flexible fully to support the much heftier inner stress loads in the two cylinder engine unit .
I had earlier written more on this matter .
Regards
Juniatha
Overmod,
To clarify, and to put this to rest...
I have never said once that I "hated" or though the J's design was "worthless". Quite the opposite, I like the J Class, and feel they are an example of one of the top 4-8-4 designs. They were certainly worth every penny to the N&W's specific operational needs.
I merely stated that the J's high calculated starting tractive effort came at the expense of adhesion compared to many other 4-8-4s. The items that gave the J its high calculated TE, a combination of small drivers (for a passenger engine), and relatively long piston stroke, also gave it higher machine speeds than other 4-8-4s.
The point being, that in steam locomotive design everything has a trade off.
This trade off may not have been negative to the J in the way the N&W intended to operate it, (as you pointed out) but could be a negative for another railroad's operation. The higher machinery speeds may have increased costs for a railroad that operated a water level racetrack route, the the lower adhesion may have been a negative for a railroad that operated over severe mountain grades.
I don't have an issue with the J's design and the N&W's intended use. but I do have an issue with the statement "the finest steam passenger engine ever built, anywhere, anytime." There is absolutely no way the person who made that statement would know what was the best steam passenger locomotive for other railroads operations and economics. Back in the steam days, every railroad thought their locomotives were the "best." Which very well may have been true in the context of their specific wants and needs.
Very briefly, as this is technically a diversion from thread topic:
JuniathaThe real point is , while a four cylinder compound engine unit would have been near impossible to install in a fully cross-braced cast steel engine bed of a Berkshire for example , it's smooth running and self-balanced working would at the same time have made those heavy cross bracings largely superfluous – thus saving at least as much mass in framework as the inside drives would add in extra drive mass ; mind that each of the four main rods was lighter than that of a two cylinder engine unit of comparable capacity !
I would note that Chapelon fully embraced the concept of the cast bed, to the extent of specifying them for the postwar 2-10-4 design. The added stiffness and homogeneity are probably well worth the additional sprung mass, even for railroads with restricted (by American standards) permissible axle loads. I'd suspect that other classes of French steam, had they been 'proceeded with' instead of being deprecated in favor of electrification, would have been given one-piece beds to eliminate much of the difficulty with higher achievable horsepower. Whether cast or, with advancements in technology, welded.
When Vernon Smith said 'more time in the shops' he meant 'more time than two-cylinder power would'. He was certainly not claiming that French compounds were in the shop more than out. On the other hand, more work was necessary to keep four-cylinder power in service. The proper way to look at this, as Chapelon did, is to incorporate as many "maintainability' features as you can -- cast beds, optical tramming, rolling-element bearings and positive lubrication, for example -- and schedule the additional maintenance correctly.
In America, where fuel was relatively cheap but labor was (often vociferously) not, any locomotive with inside cylinders was not favored, and compounding acquired a bad name 'too early' from which it did not recover. When two-cylinder power was sent to France, part of the understanding was that due to the War a lower standard of maintenance and repair might prevail, and this appears to an extent to have been true. It was and is unfortunate that there was no attempt to build a 'modern' 141 P with all the Lima construction refinements, but preserving balanced-compound operation. That would have been an interesting locomotive!
Overmod
>> I would note that Chapelon fully embraced the concept of the cast bed, to the extent of specifying them for the postwar 2-10-4 design. <<
... however I was writing of the -- 141.P -- and *that* was *not* a Chapelon design of the 1950s family - it *couldn't* because it stemmed from the P-L-M 141.F series , was but a PLM type of locomotive revamped modernized by the DEL under the direction of - again - André Chapelon and was designed some 10 years before Chapelon's 1950s family of high performance engines .
>> When Vernon Smith said 'more time in the shops' he meant 'more time than two-cylinder power would'. He was certainly not claiming that French compounds were in the shop more than out. <<
That's your conjecture - or did you read his mind ?
Rest deleted Aug 3rd upon posting Overmod below - and instead :
Ok , Overmod , I will accept your excuse posted down below and maybe - 50 : 50 - we should both take it easier . As for me , all I can say this sort of stuff makes me think twice before typing and posting or I rather drop it for ease & peace of mind ...
Try to see it from my viewpoint and you'll see you *do* have a tendency to write in ways like you are the entitled world postings controller and tend to pick up possible misinterpretation rather than to take a posting of mine for what's meant by it . It would enlighten threads if you'd leave alone checking for flaws too much and just post your point of view without ballasting it with too much criticism .
Well , I hope with mutual good will we may find a better way to get along from now on . That's all I want to remark on it and now let's drop it for good .
As for the 1950s Chapelon types , I'm not sure if they were to have *cast steel* engine bed , likely it was a *welded* form of frame structure as realized in the DB post war types , I may check on drawings of the 152 type if I can lend them form a friend of mine who had actually known André Chapelon personally .
Sincerely
Juniatha ,
Yes, I am aware you were writing about the 141 P, and had been commenting about how the fabricated frames of French power like it were not as robust as those of the 141R (and similar American-style locomotives). I was merely mentioning that Chapelon accepted the cast bed as a good solution for the issues connected with fabricated frames, and had proposed to use them on HIS new designs.
How you could construe that as an attack on your post, or on your knowledge, is a bit of a mystery. It was certainly not so intended. I apologize if it came across that way.
A 4-4-4 from N&W? Well, why not? The Bavarians had 4-4-4's running at the turn of the 20th Century. The Reading tried one a little later but the suspension used gave it poor riding qualities, so it was converted to a 4-4-2.
Now the Canadian Pacific had their 4-4-4 "Jubilee" type in 1935 that was quite successful. If the CP could do it I'm sure the N&W could figure one out.
It wouldn't have been good for the long distance trains like the "Powhatan Arrow" or the "Pocahontas" but for short distance passenger runs or branch lines it might have been very practical indeed.
Hi Firelock
- you know them better : could it have happened Roanoke would have built locomotives for another railroad , say not in direct competition with N&W , just being addressed for their know quality of steam design ?
Or would they have had hands full supplying to N&W home demands ?
What do you think ?
Hi Juniatha!
I'm not aware of or have ever heard of the N&W building locomotives for any other railroad. The possibility's there of course, but I think they strictly concerned themselves with their needs and no-one elses.
Wayne
Firelock76Now the Canadian Pacific had their 4-4-4 "Jubilee" type in 1935 that was quite successful. If the CP could do it I'm sure the N&W could figure one out.
Well yes, their second class, the F1a, were successful. But their first class, the F2a, had their main rods connected to the first driver (like a 4-4-0), and had a tendency to bend main rods... The F1a's had rods connected to the rear driver, like an Atlantic. More is here.
And yes, I don't see the N&W building locomotives for anyone else.
NW
NW, that is quite interesting. I had wondered why the CP had had the 4-4-4's built in the thirties, and the article explains the reasoning.
Johnny
Thanks for that link NorthWest, a fascinating story. And I didn't know Steamtown had one of those 4-4-4's.
Kind of looks like a baby Royal Hudson, doesn't it?
Oh, the "Lady Baltimore" was a very slippery locomotive, one of the reasons the B&O didn't repeat the experiment.
The bending of the side rods sounded familiar. The New York Central had the same problem with the first of the J3a "Super Hudsons." The solution was simple, they just ran them at a lower boiler pressure.
Firelock76 OK Juniatha, the link's working just fine now. And I wondered why that "kessel" looked a bit long and lean for a 4-6-4. It's on account of that straight-line third cylinder. Makes sense. I WAS amazed at the size of the drivers compared to the size of the men rolling them. Wow! Ach! "Tender" ist dasselbe wie im Englisch! Kool!
OK Juniatha, the link's working just fine now.
And I wondered why that "kessel" looked a bit long and lean for a 4-6-4. It's on account of that straight-line third cylinder. Makes sense.
I WAS amazed at the size of the drivers compared to the size of the men rolling them. Wow!
Ach! "Tender" ist dasselbe wie im Englisch! Kool!
Hi Deggesty
Yes - and no .
Originally cool in the sense of temperature was [ger] kühl
figuratively however cool is cool in colloquial German - which in part again *was* covered by the word 'kühl' in that could also be used figuratively , if more in a sense like in , example :
'Jemanden eine kalte Schulter zeigen' - to give someone the cold shoulder
'Kühlen Verstand bewahren in einer gefährlichen Situation' - to stay cold blooded in a dangerous situation .. such as Mr Spok always did - *g* - and the N&W ( for some years ) when facing a dieselized world around them
End of drift -
= J =
Hi all,
DeggestyNW, that is quite interesting. I had wondered why the CP had had the 4-4-4's built in the thirties, and the article explains the reasoning.
The EMD TAs of steam...
Firelock76And I didn't know Steamtown had one of those 4-4-4's.
Unfortunately she is kept sort of hidden, as she is in sorry shape.
Firelock76Kind of looks like a baby Royal Hudson, doesn't it?
Oh yeah! Functional Streamlining!
Sorry shape indeed! Yuck! Can't they find a better home for it, like possibly a Canadian rail museum that can give it a proper home? If you can't take care of it why have it?
Even a cosmetic restoration and a hope for better things to come would be better than the situation it's in now.
How many railroads back then built their own steam locomotives like The Norfolk & Western did?NYC?Pennsylvania?UP?D & H?
Hello,
cat992cHow many railroads back then built their own steam locomotives like The Norfolk & Western did?NYC?Pennsylvania?UP?D & H?
The only major builders of steam locomotives I know of are the N&W and the PRR. Other railroads found it easier (and cheaper) to have locomotive builders build their locomotives, to keep expensive shop space to a minimum. Even the PRR had Baldwin build some locomotives.
The PRR built quite a few of their own locomotives at their Juniata Shops, typically after developmental work was complete the various models were built by the Pennsy and Baldwin Locomotive works.
I believe the Illinois Central built quite a few of their own. The New York Central had design teams that worked with ALCO but ALCO built the engines, the NYC didn't. Incidentally ALCO did some developmental work for the PRR but Baldwin always got the orders. ALCO finally gave up trying to break Baldwins grip on the PRR.
The Burlington may have built a few of their own but I'm not sure on that one. If any other American 'roads built their own locomotives I'm not aware of them.
Gentlemen, the Cotton Belt people in Pine Bluff would like a word with you.
Sacramento Shops (SP) was also known for building new locomotives. However, it may be safe to assume that no other railroad shops built steam locomotives in the numbers that PRR and N&W did.
Firelock76 Incidentally ALCO did some developmental work for the PRR but Baldwin always got the orders.
Alco built 10 class K2a locomotives for the PRR in 1912. In addition they also built E and H class locomotives for the PRR.
Given Claytor's inflated claim, I think we need to broaden our perspective on what constitutes excellence in steam power. If we go beyond merely the United States to include western Europe, there are locomotives such as the French 241P (postwar four-cylinder compound Mountain type, built in a series of 35) or the experimental three-cylinder 242A1 Northern (designed by Chapelon during the war) which were far more sophisticated and far more efficient than anything ever built in the US.
K4sPRR Firelock76 Incidentally ALCO did some developmental work for the PRR but Baldwin always got the orders. Alco built 10 class K2a locomotives for the PRR in 1912. In addition they also built E and H class locomotives for the PRR.
Yes, but that's about all they built. As I said, Baldwin got the lion's share of Pennsy orders.
The Reading built quite a few of their own, and how could I have forgotten the Cotton Belt?
Firelock76 The Burlington may have built a few of their own but I'm not sure on that one. If any other American 'roads built their own locomotives I'm not aware of them.
Ever hear of the B&O's Mt Clare Shops? They built new steam locomotives to the end of 1948. Mt. Clare shops employed over 3000 people, and was most famous in the industry for their ability to completely redesign/re-engineer/and rebuild existing steam to the most current standards. The re-engineering / rebuild function of Mt. Clare lasted into the mid- 1950's, and included rebuilding B&O steam with cast steel frames, updated appliances, roller bearings, and total boiler redesigns to late steam standards.
Fascinating, I didn't know they built locomotives at the Mt. Clare shops. But then I'm not a B&O fan. I don't dislike the B&O mind you, I just never gave it much thought.
We sure can learn from one another here, can't we?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.