Is there enough information out there for someone of an artistic bent to be able to do a drawing or painting of what a Y7 would have looked like?
Didn't they run directionally west of Roanoke too? 0.6% VGN eastward instead of 1.0% N&W eastward. Dunno how soon after the merger they built the Kellysville connection.
erikem CSSHEGEWISCH The demise of the VGN electrification was caused by the establishment of directional running as a result of the N&W/VGN merger. The electrification became a one-way operation which killed any efficiencies. But wasn't the establishment of directional running an example of improving operational economy from the merger? IIRC, the VGN had a 0.2 to 0.3% ruling grade to outbound traffic, hence why the loads were put of the VGN trak, while the empties returned on the N&W track.
CSSHEGEWISCH The demise of the VGN electrification was caused by the establishment of directional running as a result of the N&W/VGN merger. The electrification became a one-way operation which killed any efficiencies.
The demise of the VGN electrification was caused by the establishment of directional running as a result of the N&W/VGN merger. The electrification became a one-way operation which killed any efficiencies.
But wasn't the establishment of directional running an example of improving operational economy from the merger? IIRC, the VGN had a 0.2 to 0.3% ruling grade to outbound traffic, hence why the loads were put of the VGN trak, while the empties returned on the N&W track.
.
carnej1 Did N&W ever operate steam locomotives on the former Virginian trackage?
Did N&W ever operate steam locomotives on the former Virginian trackage?
It may have been very difficult to get steam qualified VGN crew to operate on the VGN. Once the directional running started then the N&W steam crewmen became current on the VGN ?
What about water ? Did VGN route still have water towers ? If so could that route treat water to N&W specifications ? If not even using N&W steam with 2 canteen tenders might have been a problem ? Could see them being used for helpers on heavy grades >
Which leads me to ask a slightly off topic question:
N&W continued limited steam operations for a couple of years after the merger but the Virginian had completely dieselised prior to it.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
It's my belief that the merger talks with the VGN was another major factor in N&W giving up on steam. Operational economy pretty much dictates that locomotives be used systemwide and the VGN didn't have much support for steam at the time. The merger also meant the demise of VGN's electrification despite having the most modern electric locomotive fleet (two classes after WW2).
carnej1 I suppose that the Ruling does not necessarily mean that there wasn't federal legislation about train length proposed in the late 30's but for that to be the overriding factor in the railroads decision we would have to know whether or not the States that N&W served had such restrictions on the books during that period..
Rather obviously Southern Pacific Co v. Arizona has little if any bearing on the N&W's design decisions. I found it interesting that SP had evidently accorded with the Arizona 70-car limit from 1912 all the way through to 1940 before 'testing' it (along with the accompanying passenger-car train limit) and that the Government thought it desirable to issue an order suspending any train-length limits in 1942.
However, footnote 1 in this case does clearly establish what we needed: there was indeed Federal legislation, 75th Congress S.69, a McCarran bill to restrict all freight trains to 70 (apparently not 83) cars. This was apparently approved by the Senate but died when sent to the House (I have not found the record of its history there.)
This legislation is the 'smoking gun' that spelled the end of Y7 development. Had Y7 development proceeded as 'speculation', it might have been complete enough to pass WPA review for construction for 'wartime' service as a high-powered single-unit engine, same as the PRR Q2, and it might be interesting to think about how a cohort of these engines would have been used in N&W service through the period of experimentation and improvement on the Y-class compounds.
I encourage people with the proper access (I apparently can't get the Congressional archive site to load with my browser-level "security options") to provide a link or text for S.69 and any House counterpart legislation that would supposedly assist 'full employment' during the second Depression downturn. (There is counterpart legislation that tied 'larger crew size' to RFC assistance on new capital for railroads around this time, which foundered for a variety of somewhat predictable reasons...)
Since this bill passed the Senate, it is possible to conclude that it might have been re-introduced in subsequent sessions of Congress, as so many bills of this kind were, and might pass the House and become enacted in any of them (it being unlikely to me that Roosevelt would veto). Expensive long-range development of any locomotive manifestly ill-suited to a 70-car limit on fast freight would not be likely to pass board review...
There is little if any question that N&W was fully dedicated to preserving steam for all its operations, including expansion, in both the short time between the non-passage of S.69 and the WPB restrictions on new design construction. There is also little if any question that N&W was fully devoted to maintaining steam power after the War ... but that it took the more-evolved form of steam-turbine mechanical and then steam-electric designs, certainly by 1948, over development of a whole new (and large) class of 2-8-8-2. There was certainly nothing keeping N&W from taking up the design again, especially with new compound locomotives being built as late as they were (and the electrification being discontinued as late as it was, not that Y7s would have run in its replacement service, but that they would have substituted for whatever Y-class engines did).
Dieselization of any serious kind on N&W came much later than any time period the resumption of Y7 development could possibly have occupied.
daveklepper If not for deisels, Y7s would have been built.
If not for deisels, Y7s would have been built.
That may not be the case..
Keep in mind that the railroad did not own a single diesel-electric locomotive until 1955. They built new steam locomotives right up until 1953 (an 0-8-0 switcher) with their last new build road locomotive, a Y6B, being erected in 1952.
Post-World War 2 the railway stayed committed to steam traction much longer than most of the rest of the industry but focused on improving the A class 2-6-6-4s and the ultimate version of the Y series compound 2-8-8-2s.
N&W management still showed some interest in continuing with coal fueled external combustion power via the Jawn Henry Steam Turbine-electric project after the end of conventional steam locomotive production. However I suspect that by the time they placed big orders with Alco and EMD the higher-ups started to realize that steam really was on it's way out..
The state mandated train length restrictions that were the big factor in cancelling the Y7 class were invalidated by the US Supreme Court at the end of the war so the company could have gone ahead with the design. It would seem that they felt that improvements to the A and Y6b classes fit their operational requirements..
RME CSSHEGEWISCH The train-length reduction issue was based on state statutes (usually 70 cars) which were stricken by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional state regulation of interstate commerce. I remember Ed King describing it differently in his book on the A; he said there was some pending federal regulation (through the ICC) of train length (to something like 83 cars) and that was the specific thing cited for the suspension of the Y7 development. (I don't have my copy of the book accessible; someone who has it can probably quote the relevant sentences.) If you have the detailed case history for the situation you describe, including cites, I'd greatly appreciate it.
CSSHEGEWISCH The train-length reduction issue was based on state statutes (usually 70 cars) which were stricken by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional state regulation of interstate commerce.
I remember Ed King describing it differently in his book on the A; he said there was some pending federal regulation (through the ICC) of train length (to something like 83 cars) and that was the specific thing cited for the suspension of the Y7 development. (I don't have my copy of the book accessible; someone who has it can probably quote the relevant sentences.)
If you have the detailed case history for the situation you describe, including cites, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I've linked to the Supreme Court ruling that struck down State-mandated train length restrictions:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/761/case.html
It is a more than a bit convoluted in it's wording (lawyers...) but it does go into the prior legal history of such State legislation..
I suppose that the Ruling does not necessarily mean that there wasn't federal legislation about train length proposed in the late 30's but for that to be the overriding factor in the railroads decision we would have to know whether or not the States that N&W served had such restrictions on the books during that period..
One challenge for the N&W nearing the end of steam was that it was becoming harder to get appliances that were needed; since the lubricators, dynamos, injectors, feedwater heaters, ect, ect. were outsourced and built by Nathan, Franklin, Elesco, (And so on...)
As almost every other railroad had done away with steam, many of these companies had gone under and the N&W could not get the things that they did not build themselves. Probably one of the many reasons a large order of "home-built" Y7's was canceled.
RME he said there was some pending federal regulation (through the ICC) of train length
CSSHEGEWISCHThe train-length reduction issue was based on state statutes (usually 70 cars) which were stricken by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional state regulation of interstate commerce.
The train-length reduction issue was based on state statutes (usually 70 cars) which were stricken by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional state regulation of interstate commerce.
RME sgriggs To their credit, the story of the Y7 shows that the N&W didn't build locomotives for which no business/operating need existed. In my opinion, there was a perfectly good operating need before the Government got onto the wacky train-length-reduction kick, and a perfectly good operating and business need afterward. It was simply misfortune that the Y7 development happened to fall into that particular timeframe, and that afterward the combination of good A class power and the improvements to the compound articulateds handled the service as required 'well enough' that development of a whole new class wasn't justified then.
sgriggs To their credit, the story of the Y7 shows that the N&W didn't build locomotives for which no business/operating need existed.
In my opinion, there was a perfectly good operating need before the Government got onto the wacky train-length-reduction kick, and a perfectly good operating and business need afterward. It was simply misfortune that the Y7 development happened to fall into that particular timeframe, and that afterward the combination of good A class power and the improvements to the compound articulateds handled the service as required 'well enough' that development of a whole new class wasn't justified then.
In my mind, the Y7 would have been able to haul dead freight on flatter divisions more economically than the A (via longer train lengths). It would have been able to match or exceed the Y5/Y6 types in hauling heavy tonnage up mountain grades, although it could not match the efficiency of the compounds. I also question whether the Y7 would fit everywhere the Y5/Y6 could go.
Yes, of course, it must be based on economic need, but it still would have been something to see what the Wizards of Roanoke would have been able to conjure up in a live Y7.
Great Northern had line drawings done of enormous 2-6-6-4 and 4-6-6-4 units with 73 inch drivers and 133 sf of grate area.
The GN also strongly considered following up their R-2 locomotives with a massive 2-8-8-4 with 69 inch drivers and 180 sf of grate area. This engine would have rivaled and may have surpassed Big Boy in size, but still with a rigid wheelbase of just 18 feet, no longer than the rigid wheelbase of their O-8 Mikados with 69 inch drivers.
Of course, history shows that none of these were built either, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have been amazing machines.
sgriggsTo their credit, the story of the Y7 shows that the N&W didn't build locomotives for which no business/operating need existed.
kgbw49 It is too bad the Y7 never got built. It would have been something!
It is too bad the Y7 never got built. It would have been something!
BigJim RME The use of cast drivers might be necessary on a locomotive this heavy and powerful Since the N&W "cast" their drivers, maybe you could explain yourself.
RME The use of cast drivers might be necessary on a locomotive this heavy and powerful
Since the N&W "cast" their drivers, maybe you could explain yourself.
Cast disc driver centers (as in Boxpok or LFM) as opposed to 'traditional' N&W spoke.
N&W went further, and did better, with 70" spoke even on very fast and high-powered locomotives (classes J and A) up to the end of steam. In part on the J class, this is because Glaze's balancing plan distributed the balance masses in a way that spoke driver centers could accommodate.
Other roads (the T&P 2-10-4s being a very good example) needed to go to a cast disc for the main driver to allow the desired high-speed balancing; it's hard to see it on 610 but it is there, and necessary. What I am wondering is whether the loads on the Y7 running gear would have made the use of some form of disc cast driver for the main either desirable or necessary -- or made the use of webbing (as in Web-Spoke) or different rim construction (as in SCOA-P) to reduce strains between spokes and rim.
The detail work on the Y7 running gear stopped just about the time advanced balancing for freight locomotives became an important design priority (and a means of converting 'dogs' into relatively good performers). It is not surprising that the existing wheel drawings (which of course N&W could easily cast without having to pay any royalties) do not reflect what might become optimal with the engines built and used in fast heavy service to their design potential.
I have to wonder whether lightweight rods and better main construction (with room for necessary balance mass) might have helped the K3s before N&W wrote them off...
RMEThe use of cast drivers might be necessary on a locomotive this heavy and powerful -- the peak load on critical parts of spokes and rim being much more extreme on the design as a whole, let alone its operation at high road speeds on N&W's typical profiles. (It is entirely possible that some variant of Web-Spoke would address this perfectly with minimal additional metal) It would be fun to have seen what N&W decided upon, and then to have watched them 'learn' the secrets of proper disc-driver production... perhaps under license but perhaps not.
Design of the Y7 class was apparently underway when the project was terminated. The drive wheel drawings can be viewed at the N&W Historical Society website.
Main Driving Wheel:
http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=47406
Front & Back Driving Wheel:
http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=47419
Intermediate Driving Wheel:
http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=47423
These drawings are dated March and April, 1937.
A couple of Great Northern R-1 2-8-8-2 photos for Y7 and R-2 comparison purposes...
It sounds like the N&W Y7 would have been similar to, or even exceeded, the Great Northern R-2 2-8-8-2 class with 63 inch drivers and 151,283 lbs of tractive effort...
Great Northern had 16 of these R-2 units and 14 R-1 units similar in size but with about 10,000 lbs less tractive effort due to 210 PSI boiler pressure versus 240 PSI for the R-2 units.
They labored in the relative obscurity of the lightly populated (at the time) states of Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota.
I thought ALL drivers were cast?
Roger Huber
With N&W's recognition of the economies of double expansion and their willingness to continue compound development, I'm surprised that the Y7 wasn't designed as a large-drivered compound. The Y6b design rolled on 57" drivers--very short by late steam standards. The reports that these beasts were capable of running 40-50mph with those huge (39" dia) and heavy low pressure pistons are nothing short of amazing. Had the Y7 been designed as a compound with 63-65" drivers, it would have been capable of hauling very heavy trains at fast freight speeds with the economies of a compound, but far less pounding on the machinery (and track) than the Y6b. And with the large boiler that was envisioned, horsepower wouldn't have tailed off as rapidly as it did above 30mph with the Y6b.
Scott
I'm going right over it to take up Crandell's question from 'before'
selectorWith the extra diameter, maybe balancing would have been 'improved' sufficiently that, coupled with roller bearings throughout, speeds closer to 65-75 mph might have been intended/hoped for?
The 'first' part of this is that, from a purely technical point of view, the "proven" combination of lightweight rods and careful distribution of reciprocating mass N&W used would have resulted in a higher dependable road speed. It seems clear from the historical material that the Y7 represented what the "admission-balanced" version of the Y6 would have been: a locomotive with a high proportion of weight on drivers capable of N&W's economical fast-freight speed, and reasonable acceleration to that speed from any kind of 'check'.
Personally, I think it would have been desirable to use a cast driver of some kind for the main, but it might be noted that if Glaze's balancing is extrapolated to smaller drivers there is room in even a strengthened spoke main for the comparatively small proportion of balance mass the formula calls for (the vertical component of piston thrust and perhaps some of the reciprocating momentum) in that driver. (I'll say more about cast drivers in a bit.) Rods would be strengthened to accommodate the effect of more mass in the adjacent drivers. On the forward engine in particular, more overbalance than 'usual' for N&W might be required, as the relatively short lever arm of the single-axle lead truck would be poor at providing lateral compliance on the order of that seen on the Js, and it could be argued which of the driver axles should receive more or less of the 'overbalance' to help with augment handling.
I'd expect a Y7 to share the design of the equalization on the A class, limiting the vertical excursion between engines to a minimum (as Alco would do later on the Challengers and call "its" improvement) and it is possible that enhanced methods to prevent nosing of the forward engine could be incorporated there. I'd expect much more damping than 'spring return' force there, if that were to be done.
Now, it might be interesting to contemplate what a locomotive of this type would do if equipped with Timken lightweight rods and bearings sized for the expected loads. I don't think this is as likely as the installation on the As was (because the parts would most probably not be 'common' between the Js, which had all the tooling and know-how amortized, and the Y7) but it's by far the best approach to implementing rollers in the rods, which was the next 'logical' step for easy semi-automated maintenance in fast freight (which I think was the likely justification for the experiment with roller rods on the last A locomotives).
The use of cast drivers might be necessary on a locomotive this heavy and powerful -- the peak load on critical parts of spokes and rim being much more extreme on the design as a whole, let alone its operation at high road speeds on N&W's typical profiles. (It is entirely possible that some variant of Web-Spoke would address this perfectly with minimal additional metal) It would be fun to have seen what N&W decided upon, and then to have watched them 'learn' the secrets of proper disc-driver production... perhaps under license but perhaps not.
Advice of the day: Do not feed trolls, even under other people's bridges.
Almost scared to ask but what was that about?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.