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
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
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
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 ?
Regards
Juniatha
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.
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.
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
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,
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.
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 .
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
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...
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.
To North West: I'm a very tolerant guy, willing to put up with a considerable amount of "drift."
To friend611: Thanks for putting the quote with its correct author (Robert Claytor). I'm afraid I mis-read the sentence in question. Mea culpa.
As always, I enjoy the responses on this forum .
By the way, the article in Trains probably had to be entitled, "'Fire Up 611' gets hot." They might have raised a few eyebrows had they used "Fire Up a J," instead.
Back to the 611 vs the 4468, another thing that can be looked at is maintenance. Mallard's third cylinder issues would not have been acceptable on the N&W. American maintenance practices were very unforgiving. The British, however, were willing to put more time into each locomotive. Not that that is better or worse, just different. So comparing them in this regard isn't really applicable. Another reason that they worked great for the service they were built for, and would have failed in the other's role.
K4sPRRIts called selective enforcement.
Okay...can we let that incident go, please? I brought up the diesels, and regret it.
Juniatha had so much drift that she even locked the thread for a few days. This is also her second thread on the same topic. She has stated clearly her topic in the first post, so we should follow it. (I didn't, witness my ungraceful entrance into the thread, and the couple of off task pages, some related to my 2-10-6. Juniatha, I am sorry for trying your patience).
So, I think it is justified that she responded as she did. If you wish to discuss the dieselization of the N&W, create your own thread for it, just like the N&W Steam Development thread.
It all depends on the OP. Personally, in my Baldwin and Lima Steam thread, I am willing to go into the effects the merger had on their diesel lines, as I believe it is relevant to what steam locomotive development would have been. But others don't like much drift at all.
That post was a polite nudge to return to the OP's original topic, as I don't know how much drift NKP Guy is willing to take.
Respectfully,
friend611So his statement about 611 would have come from a viewpoint of experience and personal knowledge, not just opinion.
NorthWest Talk about thread drift......
Talk about thread drift......
Its called selective enforcement.
Robert Le Massena was right about one thing, what is the "best" steam locomotive has a lot of subjectivity involved and to a large part reflects the personal preferences of whoever makes the statement.
On driver size, 70'' is still a bit larger than most roads went for freight power, particularly mountain roads. 60'' is about as big as most strictly freight locomotives went, although dual service types went higher (such as UP's Challengers, at 69'')
Ah, Kool and the Gang and "Joanna". I remember the song well. Lady Firestorm however remembers the Colonial Diner! She used to work in Lyndhurst NJ, but before any of you North Jersey wiseguys get any ideas it was NOT at the dump! She could SEE the dump from where she worked however. What a small world.
The Colonial Diner's still there, remodeled from when it was in the 1983 video, but it still has a stainless steel 50's look, the way a diner's supposed to look! Do a Google search for the Colonial Diner and you can see it.
Juniatha Firelock76 on Sun, Jul 28 2013 >> Ach! "Tender" ist dasselbe wie im Englisch! Kool! << Kool ? See http://www.myvideo.de/watch/5009042/Kool_The_Gang_Joanna "Joanna" is an R&B/pop music song by Kool & The Gang from their 1983 album, In the Heart. Released as a single in late 1983, the song was an immediate hit peaking at #2 on both the US and UK pop charts. Additionally, the track reached #1 on the US R&B chart. A romantic ballad similar to many of Kool & The Gang's later releases, the song features as its main subject the eponymous girl named "Joanna". In the group's music video, "Joanna" is portrayed as the current owner of a small, roadside café named "Joanna's Diner" (Filmed at the Colonial Diner in Lyndhurst, N.J. The Colonial sign can be seen briefly outside in the opening seconds of the video). Throughout the video, she serves the band members as both cook and waitress as they serenade her with the video occasionally flashing back to her younger days as a dancer at Harlem's famous Cotton Club in New York City and in love with the character portrayed by the group's lead singer, James "J.T." Taylor ( from Wikipedia ) Harump , btw that rhythmic ‘clank-clank clank-clank’ was recorded pacing a slow walking 52 class Decapod with planky of play in rod bearings , really .. uhm , or that’s what I heard – no ? Well .. Regards = J =
Firelock76 on Sun, Jul 28 2013
>> Ach! "Tender" ist dasselbe wie im Englisch! Kool! <<
Kool ?
See http://www.myvideo.de/watch/5009042/Kool_The_Gang_Joanna
"Joanna" is an R&B/pop music song by Kool & The Gang from their 1983 album, In the Heart. Released as a single in late 1983, the song was an immediate hit peaking at #2 on both the US and UK pop charts. Additionally, the track reached #1 on the US R&B chart.
A romantic ballad similar to many of Kool & The Gang's later releases, the song features as its main subject the eponymous girl named "Joanna". In the group's music video, "Joanna" is portrayed as the current owner of a small, roadside café named "Joanna's Diner" (Filmed at the Colonial Diner in Lyndhurst, N.J. The Colonial sign can be seen briefly outside in the opening seconds of the video). Throughout the video, she serves the band members as both cook and waitress as they serenade her with the video occasionally flashing back to her younger days as a dancer at Harlem's famous Cotton Club in New York City and in love with the character portrayed by the group's lead singer, James "J.T." Taylor
( from Wikipedia )
Harump , btw that rhythmic ‘clank-clank clank-clank’ was recorded pacing a slow walking 52 class Decapod with planky of play in rod bearings , really .. uhm , or that’s what I heard – no ? Well ..
= J =
What a small world! Lady Firestorm's been to the Colonial Diner, several times in fact. It's still there, and it IS a small place. Lady F used to work in Lyndhurst, and NOT at the dump! You Jersey wiseguys don't even go there! But she could SEE it from where she worked!
Keep in mind 611's small drivers were in keeping with it's intended purpose of running in that sawtooth profile 'road I mentioned earlier. Reliable hill climbing with a 1000 ton train was the old girl's forte. It was the superb balancing that made those 100 mile-per-hour speeds possible, although Class J's weren't really meant to be pushed that hard.
Must have been something to see though! I've talked with some old-timers here in Virginia who said chasing a Class J down Route 460 (which paralells N&W's Petersburg to Norfolk "racetrack" was a good way to get speeding tickets. Still is as a matter of fact. So if you want to chase Norfolk-Southern trains down that way, watch it!
PS: And just what's so wrong with being a 611 fanboy (or fangirl) anyway?
Stop pickin' on Overmod!
Once we have settled THIS issue we can go on to decide whose kids are smarter or prettier ...
The thing that is so interesting about the J class is how it was engineered to be a superb passenger engine while equipped with drivers that other railroads would regard as best suited to a modern freight locomotive.
Dave Nelson
I think it is clever that that installed 26L airbrake on the engine. I assume they ran out of talent to maintain the schedule 6 airbrake. I do like the 611, I have seen her running a few times but I think I may feel that the Milwaukee F-7 would have really impressed me. Pity I never saw one of those run....
My apologies. I got carried away. [I have now withdrawn the original comment as inappropriate in tone and general content.]
Although I'm not quite certain what I'm not supposed to have gotten.
I'm not particularly a 611 'fanboi', but on the other hand I'm not a 611 hater, either. The locomotive succeeded in being a 'high-speed' locomotive by virtue of modern enhancements, not fundamental high-speed design. It appeared to me, though, as if you were denying that the modern enhancements actually performed as intended. N&W was one of the railroads that most specialized in advanced maintenance for their steam power, and I suspect if there had been massive problems in service, or consequences from 'overspeeding', there would be something in the N&W records that confirmed that (as there was, for example, with the tendency for the A's valve gear to, as Ed King put it, "unravel" when overspeeded at long cutoff.) That's not to say there were not problems of that sort; just that I have not seen them after having looked fairly carefully at the engines' operating records over a fairly long service life.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.