Speaking as a doting uncle invited to at least one wedding, and anticipating shopping for a gift, and anticipating where the bride-to-be is probably registered and what those establishments try to sell, can anyone brief me on the difference between stainless steel alloys?
The famous Eighteen-Eight alloy has both chromium and nickle in it? A lot of the flatware seems to be nickle free and also attracts a magnet? I have a collection of "everyday" stainless flatware in the kitchen drawer that also attracts a magnet and also isn't too stainless -- you had better be careful not leaving dried egg yolk (sulfer?) on it.
Can our resident metalurgists aid me in purchasing a wedding gift? To make this on-topic, can someone speak to allow steels used in railroading? Something called nickle steel was used in the boilers of the Niagara, and I heard it wasn't too good in that application on account of embrittlement?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The logistics and axle loading will prevent the 1601 or 1604 from ever running again in my opinion. The flood that the 1604 experienced probably caused a lot of damage and rust to the bearings of the locomotive. I got to stand by one while it was in steam in the early fifties and they were impressive beyond belief.
Overmod The martensite is a very thin layer formed at the railhead by the work-hardening of traffic, not a constituent of the rail steel as rolled and treated. It (and the small cracks/stress raisers that form if it breaks into segments) is some of what the 'magic wear rate' is designed to remove. I, too, would be very interested in seeing what optimal axle loadings are with modern technology -- and what the emergent issues with higher loadings turn out to be.
The martensite is a very thin layer formed at the railhead by the work-hardening of traffic, not a constituent of the rail steel as rolled and treated. It (and the small cracks/stress raisers that form if it breaks into segments) is some of what the 'magic wear rate' is designed to remove.
I, too, would be very interested in seeing what optimal axle loadings are with modern technology -- and what the emergent issues with higher loadings turn out to be.
martensite can not be transformed from pearlite by work hardening. To develop martensite the pearlite must be heated until it transforms into austinite (which is unstable at room temperature) and then rapidly cooled. The resultant metallurgical structure is martensite and has a very different grain structure than pearlite. This typically only happens in rail at engine burns and at poorly manufactured field welds. The cracks you describe at the surface are the result of "ratcheting" of the pearlite. Prof. Ken Johnson postulated his Shake Down Theory to explain this phenomenon some years ago. Interestingly the crack development is dependant on both vertical and lateral (across the rail head surface, not flanging) forces. The higher the vertical load the deeper the crack initiation. This is why cracking differs between passenger and heavy haul railways.
Passenger railways are not immune. Recall the Hatfield meltdown in the UK in 2000, 2001. As it turned out it was the new generation of EMUs with very stiff bogies that produced high lateral creep forces across the rail head.
All this metallurgical stuff is fresh in my head having just finished editing a chapter on wheel and rail failure mechanisms for upcoming book on managing the wheel rail interface. Gave me the chance to interact once again with some of the brightest railway metallurgists around.
Buslist All this metallurgical stuff is fresh in my head having just finished editing a chapter on wheel and rail failure mechanisms for upcoming book on managing the wheel rail interface. Gave me the chance to interact once again with some of the brightest railway metallurgists around.
Please let us know when the book gets published, I've wondered what exactly causes rail wear since reading about the UP's miserable first experience with 125 ton coal cars in the 1970's.
- Erik
The book is being printed by Simmons Boardman (Railway Age etc.) and Published by the International Heavy Haul Association shooting to have it available for the 2015 conference in Perth. Maybe I'll get to go!
erikem Please let us know when the book gets published, I've wondered what exactly causes rail wear since reading about the UP's miserable first experience with 125 ton coal cars in the 1970's. - Erik
The UP had barely learned to deal with the 100 ton cars that were then becoming standard. The track condition pre Staggers just wasn't fit. Many of those 125 ton steel cars ended up running around in circles on the Facility for Accelerated Service Testing (FAST) high tonnage loop at Pueblo. Mamy different rail metallurgies as well as other track components in the loop. All to study maintenance demand and deterioration rates under 39 ton axle loads. The loop is still being run with 39 ton axles. Recognize that those double stack cars that have 125T painted at the articulation are fit for 39 ton axle loads. Wouldn't be surprised to see the standard raised sometime in the future to help deal with capacity issues. Well I've highjacked this thread enough.
Firelock76If you ever do get to see an Allegheny let me assure you the size of the thing will take your breath away, trust me. I saw the one on the B&O Museum in Baltimore and "iron mountain" is the best way I can describe it. "Iron mountain" applies just as well to a Big Boy, photos just don't do justice to any of them.
I was quite fortunate to be able to see both the 1601 @ the Ford museum and the 1604 at the B & O museum over the last few years.
I totaly agree with you, they are awe-inspiring ! Yes, I've been aboard the Big Boy (4014) too. Think I spent at least 1-1/2 hours on each just checking out all the goodies and imagining these ladies running. The engineering that went into these beasts is just amazing to me (even as an electrical/computer engineer :) )
There's a good DVD out there somewhere (Pentrex ?) of the Allegheny's running. There was a Classic Trains issue that also had a long article and lots of photos. Highly recommended reading/viewing !
Mike
[quote user="Buslist"]
[quote user+"erikem"]Please let us know when the book gets published, I've wondered what exactly causes rail wear since reading about the UP's miserable first experience with 125 ton coal cars in the 1970's.[/quote]
... Well I've hijacked this thread enough.[/quote]
Hijack it more if you want, and I'd like to see a separate thread just about this book and its contents.
There are a bunch of 'references' that refer to the martensitic layer, most of which are at least a decade old. I for one would like to know exactly what the current best-practices understanding of rolling-contact wear is.
[quote user="Wizlish"]
[/quote]
those references are probably more than a decade old. I'd be interested in who the authors were. As in any area there are a few charlatans out there.
The book is a bit different than the single author "expert" trying to cover the waterfront on a topic. The model is to have a leader for each chapter, who then solicits smaller sections from several experts. I have 6 authors in my section. I suppose I'm not violating any confidentiality by disclosing the chapter titles.
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Guidelines
Chapter 2 – Vehicle / Track Interaction –
Chapter 3 – Rail and Wheel Contact Mechanics
Chapter 4 – Rail and Wheel Materials
Chapter 5 – Rail and Wheel Damage Modes and Their Mechanisms
Chapter 6 – Condition Health Monitoring
Chapter 7 – Wheel / Rail Interface Maintenance Practices
Chapter 8 – Wheel / Rail Maintenance Decision-making Processes
Chapter 9 – Wheel / Rail Related Derailment Prevention
Chapter 10 – Case Studies –
Buslist,
At least for me there is a connection between the class H-8's and rail wear. My first introduction to axle loading was an MR "Bull Session" piece on axle loading that I think appeared in a 1964 issue along with an ad for the Akane models of the H-8's with a note about the 86,000 lb axle loading. Scary to think that it has been 50 years since those issues hit the newstands (I was in 5th grade at the time).
As for Overmods comments about out of round wheels exacerbating the track damage problem with an H-8, I would expect that if one were run in excursion service, great attention would be paid to keeping the drivers round. Dynamic augment is of concern, but the H-8's only drive three axles from each pair of cylinders.
Is this book going to be the replacement for the two IHHA 'best practice' manuals? If so -- any word on what the expected price will be?
(I still wish I were fluent in technical Russian...
erikemAt least for me there is a connection between the class H-8's and ail wear.
Gotta love those Freudian slips...
I would expect that if [an H-8] were run in excursion service, great attention would be paid to keeping the drivers round.
That is true of any excursion service with large locomotives -- the question becoming how that is best accomplished at minimum cost. There was a recent thread on RyPN about turning drivers while 'in their journals' that is, I think, valuable in this context.
Dynamic augment is of concern, but the H-8's only drive three axles from each pair of cylinders.
The number of axles is essentially irrelevant as a mitigating factor (except insofar as the rodwork required for a three-coupled locomotive can be lighter/lower mass than that required for four- or more coupled). The concern is with the vertical component of (overbalance) augment amplifying the axle load, the increase being geometric with speed. That would be present in any locomotive that has overbalance, and the shorter the rigid wheelbase the more, in general, the desire for overbalance to mitigate nosing (particularly on a Mallet articulated's forward engine).
I presume that the Allegheny carries a disproportionate amount of the overbalance in the wheels other than the mains, but I am far from any references for the next few days. Perhaps someone (hint, hint) will produce a table that shows the effective peak axle load over the range of probable or necessary speeds for excursion service.
Per hutton-switch's comment...
One of the things that have always perplexed me was the wholesale scrapping of steam locomotives that a few years earlier the scrapping 'roads expressed so much pride in, the New York Central and its Hudsons springs readily to mind.
Certainly it would have been impractical and un-economical, to say nothing of unrealistic, to save every single steamer, but NOT to save one or two? With those locomotives going for scrap prices, i.e. pennies on the pound it wouldn't have affected the bottom line all that much. The B&O with it's museum certainly had a home waiting for an EM-1. The NYC didn't have a museum of course, but they could have figured something out! But then again, they were in the transportation business, not the museum business.
Oh well, too late now. More's the pity.
Certain stories that I've heard say that NYC was going to pull one Hudson out of the scap-yard and give it to the St. Louis Museum of Transport. It goes on to say the wire didn't make it to the yard in time to save it.
Later on St. Louis MoT got the Mohawk that had been forgotten/hidden in a roundhouse.
But these are just stories, and not always true. It's too late anyway.
Regards,
S. Connor
My girlfriend works in the travel industry and her company offers tours to Colorado that include a visit to the Durango & Silverton.
When she got home from work I was watching an episode of "Trains and Locomotives" I had recorded off RFD TV that featured the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad.
She was interested as she had been proofreading copy for a brochure advertising the Colorado trip.
I pointed out thet the D&S and C&T were both remnants of the same D&RGW narrow gauge line and the popularity of the two heritage railroads is bolstered by the fact that the line was a revenue freight operation all the way into the 1960's. This meant that by the time D&RGW shut it down the railway preservation movement in the U.S was in full swing and thus much of the equipment was saved and in some cases is still operated.
Had the line been abandoned in the late 40's or 50's I doubt that all 10 K-36 Mikados (not to mention most of the other equipment) would still be in existence....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej 1,
You have an interesting post here, it is surprising that the D&RGW was able to scrap so much of the narrow gauge before public outcry stopped it. I still have not seen a detailed account of what they got away with scrapping.
In 1968, as a young man in high school in I was able to extensively tour the entire D&RGW narrow gauge system. I had a copy of Richard Steinheimer's beautiful book Backwoods Railroads of the West to guide me, and found the railroad basically as he portrayed it.
The railroad closest to Denver was all tracked in "three rail" - narrow and standard gauge trackage between Antonito and Alamosa. This was real track artwork as both gauges of track were superimposed one track structure directly upon the other. It kind of looked like Lionel track except the center rail was offset for narrow gauge so both 3 foot gauge and 4'8.5" gauge trains could roll over the same track. Also some equipment could be mixed as there were two couplers to pull combination narrow and standard gauge equipment together.
Starting with Alamosa the rail yard was tremendous, quite a bit of narrow gauge rolling stock from boxcars, cattle cars, gondolas were stored there in an extensive yard. There was an entire roundhouse still in operation and also an entire steam backshop with locomotives in process of repair. These were engines 473, 476, 483, 487 and 492 which Richard Steinheimer photographed. Of these engines 487 had been lifted and her drivers dropped for wheel and axle repair.
In Chama was a rotary snowplow, a rail yard of wooden box cars and cattle cars, a turntable and small engine house with a working coal tipple as well as the expected yard offices, freight station and passenger station.
The main line was complete and working to Farmington New Mexico and another branch of main line ran to Durango where there was also a turntable, roundhouse and rail yard which was mostly dedicated to the "Silverton tourist train" operation. This was mostly a passenger operation with some very original equipment. The cars were painted yellow I believe for a Disney Movie and had remained that color.
The steam engines in silverton were all the 470 series with the Disney Movie added diamond smokestacks.
The 490 series engines were in operation and used primarily for heavy freight hauling. These engines were actually standard gauge locomotives that had been converted to narrow gauge operation. The drive wheels had been moved inside the frames for narrow gauge operation. The 470 and 480 series engines had been built as narrow gauge power, but were also designed with outside engine frames so that a change in drivers and trucks would alter them to standard gauge - the drive wheels would then be on the outside of the locomotive frame.
Sometime in the late 60's or 70's the D&RGW railroad decided to abandon operation of the freight part of the narrow gauge system - everything except Silverton - and started scrapping the rail lines. Eventually, they were stopped by the New Mexico and Colorado state governments. The main line from Farmington, NM was pulled up, as was the track between Durango and Chama. I am not sure what equipment survived in Antonito and Alamosa and have not seen an account of what has gone on there.
If the line between Chama and Durango is still out it would seem a first step to restoring the railroad. (In Michigan the state government took all the abandon rail lines in the state and placed them in a "rail bank" for future use. They are presently mostly hiking trails.) I would be interesting to know if the Colorado track "right-of-way" still exists between Durango and Chama or between Chama and Farmington.
I have seen that a Federal Govenment grant was given for the repair of the Lobato trestle between Chama and Antonito. This was a wrought iron structure that necessitated a double header train run one locomotive over the trestle at a time. I believe it was rebuilt with steel. It seems to me replacing the main line between Durango, Chama and Farmingtion could be handled in similar fashion. I believe New Mexico was quite upset at the time when the track was pulled out.
When I was there in Farmington NM a few years ago it looked as if the rail yard land was being sold off commercially.
Dr. D
D&RGW obviously had a low opinion of the business potential of its narrow-gauge network when you consider that very little of it was standard-gauged and dieselization was apparently never considered. A GA8 or GA12 in Rio Grande colors would have been interesting. Much of it had already been abandoned by 1955 and the lines out of Alamosa except for the Silverton Branch were virtually out of service after the oil boom of the early 1960's. In retrospect, I'm surprised that these lines weren't abandoned earlier.
Dr. D.
One of the things that I found really curious on vacation trips in the 1950's to Alamosa and Durango were the facilities they had to lift 'Standard' car bodies, and set them on narrow gauge trucks to operate on the sectons of combined gauge trackage. And when the car was routed back on the Standard Gauge systems they would lift the carbodies, and place them back on Standard gauge trucks.
I believe one of the reasons the Rio Grande narrow gauge wasn't dieselized, aside from the low profitability of the lines was the fact there weren't any narrow gauge diesels available for sale, at least any narrow gauge units the railroad could use without being expensive custom made jobs. It was easier to stay with steam.
Lucky for us, eh?
Sam,
I did a Google maps satelite view of Alamosa and was quite surprised to see how much of that huge railroad facility is gone. D&RGW really scrapped almost everything before being stopped - no turntable and roundhouse, and the backshop are gone as are the team tracks and three rail trackage - real shame as this could have been one fantastic tourist draw. I can't see how business men of the 1960's missed this historic reality. A very fortune before their eyes and all they could see is scrap.
Businessmen not being able to "see" what they had doesn't surprise me, but I'm not going to be TOO hard on them. Realize these were professional men in the railroad business, not the musuem / tourist draw business, so looking beyond their present situation was probably asking a bit much.
The success of the Reading "Iron Horse Rambles" and the tourist steam trains operating at the time should have given them the idea, but hey, it just didn't.
Oh well.
IIRC, the Alamosa roundhouse was torn down in 1996.
DRGW5371Forever First Off Let Me Say Steam Rules...Period!
First Off Let Me Say Steam Rules...Period!
I dont know of a device made yet that can measure my indifference to this statement! -Amen!
DRGW5371Forever Now I wonder if anyone even cares for the two survivors of steam like the Alleghenies.
Now I wonder if anyone even cares for the two survivors of steam like the Alleghenies.
There are literally millions who care about steam. And of those, thousands would want to see an Allegheny move under its own steam again. Just like the now saved Big Boy.
DRGW5371Forever I for one would love to see CSX start up a steam program and have their goodwill ambassador be #1601 which from what i can tell in the Best shape of her life.
I for one would love to see CSX start up a steam program and have their goodwill ambassador be #1601 which from what i can tell in the Best shape of her life.
Not that I like to slam railroads, but when you EARN it, you DESERVE it....
You can forget forever CSX having anything to do with a steam program. Matter of fact, they'd run over a railfan rather than give them any aid. NS runs a pale second to this. Both are NOT a railfans railroad! And if CSX /NS could find a way to make $$$ without running trains..... theyd dump them in a heartbeat!
As for 1601's current health, she may look good on the outside, but serious inspections on the inside need to be done. You can forget about 1601 running again. It would take Bill Gates and Don Trump to get that one out of the Ford Museum. And that might not even be enough!
DRGW5371Forever Any Ideas or Thoughts of how to make that happen and who would have the time to spend or put in to get her up and running for future generations. Just remember your kids and grandkids who would be cheated out of a fine piece of Machinery like the 2-6-6-6. To me Every steamer should have the right to run freely. Those of us who cherish steam should know exactly what i am implying.
Any Ideas or Thoughts of how to make that happen and who would have the time to spend or put in to get her up and running for future generations. Just remember your kids and grandkids who would be cheated out of a fine piece of Machinery like the 2-6-6-6. To me Every steamer should have the right to run freely. Those of us who cherish steam should know exactly what i am implying.
Oh my yes, we know what your implying. You are one of a million who think alike - Steam should be running! PERIOD! But steam doesnt make a railroad money - so they say. Though i never saw a steam trip NOT sell out, no matter what loco was up front.
Your better off focussing on 1604 in Baltimore. Im sure there is a reason, but MD Scenic should have grabbed 1604 instead of 1307. Can you imagine in 5 years when we hit the 150th of Promontory what it would be like to see an Allegheny face up to a Big Boy? Both under steam? Not even UP is thinking of this one!
ANY steam loco can be made to run. All it takes is $$$ and a bit of time for the rebuild. Its done everyday all over the US. However only one Class 1 carrier has the cahoonas to actually befriend the public, and realize what a tool a steam program can be. Thats UP - the only US railroad to never change its name, and is the oldest surviving railroad in our history as such. CSX and NS could take volumes from what they are doing!!!! Dont hold your breathe, it will never happen.
And for those who will indeed reply "but NS right now is rebuilding 611". To that id say, it isnt NS doing it, or wanting it. And when she is ready, good luck running her on the east coast. Her trips will be extremely limited, and mostly only for NS employees, not railfans.
Sure they will toss in a trip or two here and there for us, but it is just to save face. Talk to any NS employee (and I have) and every last one will tell you steam is dead and thats the way they want it! Never forget, it was NS that killed 611 the last time! And very rudely too. Everybody now..... "Thanks NS!".
You have to know that old railroaders are long gone. Businessmen run railroads now. And those business men are only in it to make $$$, not fans with the public. Heck, look how they treat Amtrak!
Your hopes for seeing an Allegheny run in your lifetime? Never happen, but you can get in the long line of those who still dream of that day to come.
erikem, Buslist, CAZEPHYR,Paul Milenkovic, Juniatha, et.al.,
Well lets all get a look at the C&O 1601 Allegheny - the mighty H-8 axle load in comparison to other steam locomotives we are all familiar with. A quick tour through Alfred Bruce The Steam Locomotive In America shows a few surprises.
Our discussion concerned the axle loading on rail of the mighty C&O 2-6-6-6 how it could bend any rail it ran upon. Well the Allegheny axle loading compares as follows,
84,000 lbs - C&O 2-6-6-6
72,500 lbs - AT&SF 4-8-4
68,700 lbs - NYC 4-8-4 Niagara - and probably UP 4-8-4
68,124 lbs - UP 4-8-8-4 Big Boy
66,462 lbs - SP (2-8-8-4) or 4-8-8-2 - Cab Forward
66,266 lbs - NYC J3 4-6-4 - Hudson
64,332 lbs - UP 4-6-6-4 Challenger
63,200 lbs - SP 2-10-4 - 3 cylinder
61,000 lbs - NYC 4-8-2 Mohawk and also C&O 1304 2-6-6-2
60,624 lbs - B&O 2-8-8-4 - the EM-1
59,000 lbs - UP 4-12-2 also know as the "UNION PACIFIC"
------------------------------
I realize that the Allegheny C&O 2-6-6-6 is a full 10,000 lbs axle over the AT&SF Northern but there seems to be little difficulty running the northern in southern California and little complaint concerning its weight on a variety of urban trackage.
Similarly the weight of the N&W A-Series 1214 is about 400 lbs per axle less than the AT&SF 3771 and the N&W 1214 ran trips throughout the metro Detroit area and over most of the eastern USA.
Surprisingly the axle weight of UP Big Boy 4-8-8-4 is less than that of the NYC Niagara 4-8-4 and I wouldn't be surprised if UP 844 was more than the Big Boy.
Southern Pacific Cab Forward 4-8-8-2 comes in at 66,462 lbs per axle just ahead of the NYC J3 4-6-4 Hudson at 66,266 lbs. Lighter on its feet still is UP Challenger 4-6-6-4 with 64,332 lbs.
Southern Pacific three cylinder 2-10-4 is just heavier than the C&O 1304 2-6-6-2 and the same weight per axle as the NYC MOHAWK 4-8-2. The real surprise is the mighty B&O 2-8-8-4 the EM-1 which is just heavier per axle than UP 4-12-2.
-------------------------------
Things mix up again when we look at total overall engine weight. Here UP Big Boy is living up to its name at engine weight less tender of 772,000 lbs followed by H-8 Allegheny at 751,000 lbs. SP Cab Forward at 657,000 lbs followed by the B&O EM-1 2-8-8-4 and then the N&W A-series at 573,000 lbs. UP Challenger is next at 566,000 lbs and AT&SF northern 4-8-4 at 510,000 lbs, then UP 4-12-2 at 495,000 lbs and NYC Niagara at 471,000 lbs. The SP three cylinder is 442,000 and C&O 1304 is 434,900 lbs then NYC MOHAWK at 364,000 and NYC Hudson J3 at 265,500.
The NYC Hudson is exactly half the weight of the AT&SF northern - 265,000 lbs compared to 510,000 lbs - NYC Mohawk is half the weight of the UP Big Boy. UP Challenger 4-6-6-4 is within 10,000 lbs of N&W A - series - both performed well in passenger service with six coupled engine units. The Allegheny is a similar six coupled engine and although used in drag freight many were also equiped for passenger use with steam heat for passenger cars - not a lot is written about C&O using 1600 for passenger use but they were built to run and apparently did. The 2-6-6-6 has 100,000 lbs total engine weight on the challenger and A-series. I believe the Allegheny came in somewhere in the 7498 hp range and the other two N&W claimed 6300 hp.
NYC claimed 6500 hp for the 4-8-4 Niagara in a completely different configuration for using that horsepower at speed. AT&SF claimed over 6000 hp for the 3751 and UP 800s were close to the Niagara design wise and I suspect similar performance - Big Boy was close to the 6300 hp N&W claimed for the A-series. I assume the J was close to that also.
Although Allegheny H-8 topped the chart it was after all part of a larger community of design and performance. That furnace over the 6 wheel truck was indeed a powerhouse.
PM: Not quite. Strasburg Rail Road is older than U.P. and has never changed its name, although it has changed ownership. IIRC, Union Pacific Railroad Company was once known as the Union Pacific RailWAY. But it's true that both of them run steam!
Tom
Dr D - 25 of the 60 Alleghenys were equipped with steam/signal lines for pasenger service. Though limited to heavy mail and troop trains. Unknown if they ran with 'named' passenger trains (Sportsman, G. Wash., etc.). Never seen photographic proof of this actually happening.
Im not sure if you mistyped a little bit... but NYC Niagra as a 4-6-4? Im pretty sure those were Northerns, and their Hp rating is in the 5000 range, not 6000. Same goes for the N&W J, SF and UP Northerns as well. Northerns werent that much more powerful than your Berkshires, which came in at around just barely shy of 5000hp. (one thing to consider, are you talking boiler hp, or drawbar hp? im talking drawbar hp.)
Engine weight for an NYC Hudson was 370,000 (J1 to J3a) not 265,000lbs. More typos maybe?
More to your point of bending rails, the axle loadings on the lead driving axle of an H8 (1600 - 1645) was just shy of 87,000lbs. The SF Northern is 77,500. Both higher than you listed, but still 10k difference. Indeed, rail benders and bridge breakers they were! Incidently, the pilot truck of an H8 was 71,000 lbs. More than some axles loadings mentioned.
Im gonna check the axle loadings of the UP 800's vs Big Boy, you got my curiosity peaked on that one! Love researching the stats!
Great post!
PM Railfan,
Thanks for the compliment.
Ralph Johnson design engineer for Baldwin Locomotive Works in his book The Steam Locomotive discusses the ways in which steam locomotives were tested. This was not an easy task as the locomotive was required to be in peak condition with five or six major parameters considered - effective functioning boiler - no steam leaks in cylinders etc. Consult his book for an extensive evaluation procedure. Also the quality of water and coal was extremely important as was water level in the boiler, and a host of other considerations like the ability of the engineman and fireman etc.
In addition he points out the "indicated cylinder power" was determined mathmatically using the technology of the time. "Drawbar horsepower" depended on the quality of the test car and was measured by the pull on a trapped spring connected to the tender drawbar. Many variables were introduced in this test procedure and consistant results varried on each test let alone from railroad to railroad.
Third is "dynometer plant testing" such Pennsylvania Railroad and Purdue University had equipment to perform. In this case the locomotive was held fixed over rotating drums and the wheels spun against a load. Wheel slipage, and many other variables effected this testing, to say nothing of how few locomotives could be tested this way and the cost. What an investment Pennsy made!
For this reason and the lack of a standard testing procedure such as provided in the automotive world by the Society Of Automotive Engineers. This means that measuring locomotive power for many reasons was somewhat subjective. In any reasonable fashion or form of the time its results were in a degree questionable.
I do feel that professional railroad engineers of the time made every attempt to communicate their power evaluations in an honest and meaningful fashion - how shall we question their work? - we cannot go back and talk to them, we can only take what they sincerely did at face value. Neither you or I can add to this discussion more or less than these published facts. The performances, however, speak for themselves!
------------------------------------------------------
The figures of NYC power were taken from Paul Keifer's book A Practical Evaluation of Railroad Motive Power. Kiefer was the design engineer for New York Central steam power.
He lists the Niagara 4-8-4 as the most powerful locomotive NYC ever produced,
"With 79-in. diameter wheels and the present working pressure of 275 psi, Table 1 shows that a maximum cylinder horsepower of 6600 was obtained at 85 mph, with corresponding maximum drawbar horsepower of 5050 at 63 mph. With a working pressure of 290 psi, for which the boiler is designed, these figures become, respectively, 6900 and 5300, with 75-in. diameter wheels, when operating with 275 psi boiler pressure, the maximum cylinder horsepower is 6600 at 77 mph, and the drawbar horsepower is 5200 at 61 mph."
Kiefer further notes in his SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RECIPROCATING TYPE LOCOMOTIVE DESIGNS DISCUSSED,
NYC K-5 4-6-2 at 3000 horsepower
NYC J-1 4-6-4 at 3900 horsepower
NYC J-3 4-6-4 at 4700 horsepower
NYC L-3 4-8-2 at 5200 horsepower
NYC L-4 4-8-2 at 5400 horsepower
NYC S-1 4-8-4 at 6600 horsepower
New York Central did extensive testing using dynometer cars and cylinder indicator measures as well as mathmatical calculations measuring work done.
--------------------------------------------
Figures given for the other locomotives were taken from J. Parker Lamb Perfecting the American Steam Locomotive.
Figures for the ATSF engines were taken from ATSF locomotive test reports published by S. Kip Farrington, Jr. in Santa Fe's Big Three. ATSF used figures generated by dynometer car testing performed by the railroad.
-------------------------------------------
So there you have it! The boilers have long since gone cold. The great engines scrapped or preserved in museum or park! Those who engineered and designed are long dead. Those who knew the technology and drove the engines are also long dead. Who has the ability to re-evaluate the hard work and results so ardiously achieved. NO ONE!
It remains only you and I - it remains only for you and I to appreciate their efforts, those long gone! And to celebrate the visions of railroad transportation they had! - Yes, only you and I - only you and I remain to tell the story!
Dr D. - your most welcome.
Another stat packed post (YES!), yet it was saddening. Why? Because it is only "you and I" left to discuss and ponder the great work by men like Johnson, Woodard, Kiefer, et al.
What i wouldnt give to sit down and pick their brains in the most technical talk ever had this side of a lunar mission. Can you imagine the stuff we dont know that they didnt write down?
We really do owe alot to these fellows, and the authors who have put their work into writing so you an I today, can even have this conversation. Makes me wonder sometimes.... do you think they ever thought a bunch of railfans 70 years in the future would be discussing their work in detail? Hashing numbers, critqueing designs, or just plain drooling over some of Dreyfuss' work. Or Lowry for that matter even.
I wished I woulda known you were gonna type all that about loco testing. I coulda saved you the hassle. I summize, like you have, I have read alot of data about loco testing and all the variables inclusive. Seems that "all the stars' had to be perfectly aligned during these times huh? Some call it dry/boring reading. I call it a life requirement. But then, you and I are biased.... were railfans.
Also, thanks for posting authors and book titles. They will make nice additions to my book collection should i come across them. I am looking forward to reading them! I have studied alot over the years, but there is sooooo much more to know still. Many more books to read, diagrams to study, reports, stats, etc etc.
Problem is, i dont know about you, but memory and eyes are failing. Only have so much time left.
Your absolutely right - in a world of cold boilers and tombstones, its only you and I! So keep the stats coming! GREAT stuff!
Cheers!
Thanks again for the thoughts. Here are three great historic reads.
Alfred W. Bruce - The Alfred Bruce book, Steam Locomotive in America was published in the 1952 by Norton Press. Written by just retired American Locomotive Company - (Alco) design engineer Alfred Bruce. It is a pretty well written evaluation of design history of the American Steam Locomotive with builders photos of most representative American steam power. He leaves out the science and math but really addresses historical development of locomotives individually and particularly. For example the number of each locomotive wheel arrangement produced over time. Mikado engines in the thousands, Hudsons in the hundreds Northerns in the hundreds, Big Boy's only 20 etc. Good technical data on each locomotive included in photos. A nice rendition of the Pennsy duplex development along with who developed the first in each class. Who did the Northern and story of the first one.
Surprisingly some of these photographed engines still exist - builder photo of UP 9000, 4-12-2 and last domestic production C&O 1305 2-6-6-2 to name a few. This is a good historic work made by one of the engineers designing locomotives in the 1940's. This book is widely available on the internet by just Googling the author and title. Price is in the $50 range.
Paul Kiefer - Second is Paul W. Kiefer, A Practical Evaluation of Railroad Motive Power, published by Simons-Boardman in 1949. Paul was the head steam design engineering executive for New York Central, yes the man who was building the Hudson and Niagara. His book is the follow up of a speech he was asked to give in England to steam producers. Formally presented he shows his fine education as he tried to make a case in print for steam locomotives showing on a cost for cost performance basis how American steam was getting a bad rap from GM and the Madison Ave. sales pitch crowd. To be objective Kiefer presents a review of electric locomotive and diesel power in comparison to steam. He makes a pretty case to the rail executives of the 1940's about what steam still could offer in the future. Trouble is no one but Norfolk and Western was listening.
Kiefer is basically a presentation to professional railroaders. About a hundred pages with one black and white plate in the beginning of a Niagara 4-8-4, Burlington FT diesel and Pennsy GGI electric. I wanted this book for years and it occured to me to look on the internet about a month ago. This one I bought for $50 was stamped as purchased for and was a part of the Virginian Railroad Company library.
Ralph P. Johnson - The Steam Locomotive Its Theory Operation and Economics, first edition in 1942 and expanded in the second edition in 1944. Johnson was a chief design engineer for Baldwin Locomotive Works. He answers all the questions that the railroads kept contacting him about durring WWII. How to balance locomotive drive wheels and rods - all the math and formulas. Everything you wanted to know scientifically about water and coal for the working steam executive and shop forman. Chapter on the complexity of Evaporation from the boiler and its science. Combustion and all the science of what happens when coal burns including the chemistry of it. Superheat steam in all its science, what is "Type A" and what is "Type E" superheaters in detail. Locomotive test procedures, streamlining from a scientific perspective, braking and acceleration. Tractive force, high speed trains and dynometer cars etc. Many detailed drawings are included in the pocket of the book.
I picked up this copy on the internet a couple of weeks ago but it will take a lifetime of continual reading to understand it. My copy was signed by Ralph Johnson and given to a sales executive of ALCO named Fred S. Broadbent. This one ran about $150 because it was signed by the author. The second edition of this book includes many chapters not in the first edition.
Ralph Johnson was the engineer and driving force behind the Duplex drives that were built for the Pennsylvania Railroad.
Here is a chance for you to pick the brains of those mid 20th Century engineers who were on the top of the steam locomotive building. Most of these guys were the children of the Civil War generation and rode the industrial revolution pioneered by railroading. They lived to see the invention of the airplane, internal combustion engine, automobile, electric lights, photography, sound recording, radio, television, and atomic power.
Just as you and I have seen space travel and the information age.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.