Hopefully this won't be too much of a bombshell, but what is the word on the 611 and PTC? Will she have the requirement waived?
Leo_Ames Must be a Norfolk Southern deal. No other operators seem to have done as such to the best of my knowledge over the last 30 years. Firelock76 So long as 611 runs free again, who cares what kind of headlight it's got? Honestly, I hate it when someone does that. :) When something minor is mentioned in the context of something so great such as the operating restoration of the 611, it goes without saying that it's not a significant issue. It's pure curiosity without any criticism intended towards those behind this impressive project.
Must be a Norfolk Southern deal. No other operators seem to have done as such to the best of my knowledge over the last 30 years.
Firelock76 So long as 611 runs free again, who cares what kind of headlight it's got?
So long as 611 runs free again, who cares what kind of headlight it's got?
Honestly, I hate it when someone does that. :)
When something minor is mentioned in the context of something so great such as the operating restoration of the 611, it goes without saying that it's not a significant issue. It's pure curiosity without any criticism intended towards those behind this impressive project.
Don't take it personally me old son, it wasn't intended that way. The thing is, there's too many purists and rivet-counters out there who insist it's got to be the old way or no way, and if it can't be done the old way don't do it at all.
I mean, how'd you like to be someone who's sweated blood to build a replica of a World War One Sopwith "Camel" and then had some know-it-all tell you it doesn't count becaused you used aluminum for the airframe, dacron for the fabric covering, and a Warner radial engine instead of a Gnome rotary engine? Mr. Know-It-All's lucky if he doesn't get gut-punched.
The thing is, get 611 running. See the forest, not the trees.
forget the forest. see the steam engines puffing down the home rail. why is UP the only corperate steam program left?
Firelock76 Hmmmmm, the "Claytor Notch." Well, the boss can do whatever he likes, can't he?
Hmmmmm, the "Claytor Notch." Well, the boss can do whatever he likes, can't he?
I wonder what notch the 611 was in when this was taken.
watch?v=JuTlIH6c75E
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Maybe not quite the "Claytor Notch", but pretty darn close.
And don't you love that full-blooded "steamboat" whistle?
Oh, and in an earlier post samfp1943 asked for some side-by side specs on a Class J versus a Union Pacific FEF of the 844 type.
A Class J was, and briefly:
Boiler Pressure 300 psi
Tractive Effort 80,000 lbs.
Grate Area sq.ft. 107.7
Tender Capacity Coal 35 tons, water 20,000 gallons
Drivers 70"
Total Engine Weight 494,000 lbs, with tender 872,6000 lbs.
Roller Bearings on all engine and tender axles,
I've scoured the archives here at the Fortress Firelock but can't find much for a UP 4-8-4, except it's got a boiler pressure of 300psi, 80" drivers, was designed for a max horsepower output at 90mph with a postulated top speed of 110mph. Maybe someone else can do better.
Short of a drag race or a tug-of-war (which ain't gonna happen!) between 844 and 611 it's hard to say which is the better 4-8-4. I'd say both were outstanding for what their repective 'roads wanted them to do.
That whistle! I did not hear it often, but I believe that, at one time or another, I saw every J, in Bristol, when I went downtown after supper to look at the engine that was waiting to take #42 down to Roanoke, or even to Monroe. They were beautiful machines. Once in a great while, I would watch #45 come in, and, even rarer, I saw both #41 and #46 in town. I did watch #17 come in a few times, when I was going down to Chattanooga.
Johnny
friend611I do not have any information on 844, but here is some information on 611:Built Roanoke Shops, May 1950, Builder number 38880,000 lb. Estimated tractive effort, 5100 estimated HP, maybe up to 5300 HP. Capable of pulling up to 29 passenger cars on heavy grade (Christiansburg Mountain) could possibly start 30 cars though, to my knowledge, this has not been done. Engine weight 494,000 lb. Roller bearings on engine and tender axles as well as roller bearing side rods and needle roller bearings on Baker valve gear. Capable of speeds up to 115 mph, engineered for 140 mph but top speed not tested. Modernized with 26L brakes and MU capabilities.lois
Hi Lois, here is some comparative info about the 844. Built by Alco in December of 1944. Tractive power 63800, engine and tender weight 907,989, length 114 feet 2 7/8 inches and a combined wheel base of 98 feet 5 inches. The 14 wheel tender held 23,500 gallons and 6,200 gal #5 fuel. Cylinder diameter 25 inches with a 32 inch stroke and 80 inch drivers all doing their thing with a 300psi boiler pressure. HP is in the area of 5000 according to restoration estimates per UP engineers, no actual test data on record when I last checked.
I'm somewhat surprised by all the speculation of comparisons of the J with other 4-8-4s, because the information is readily available. When Kalmbach published the Classic Trains special on 4-84s, they made available in the "On-Line Extras" graphs of drawbar horsepower versus speed for quite a few (maybe all?) of the 4-8-4s. With the singular exception of the NYC Niagaras, and then only above ~95 mph, nothing was even close to the J. The J's superiority was most striking exaclty where the application on the N&W profile needed it to be - in the 40 to 80 mph region. If you look at the maximum authorized speeds on the (old) N&W, except for the well-known Great Dismal Swamp straightaway and a short segment in Appamatox County, nowhere was the speed limit above 65 mph, and through the mountains it was less. So, the J's mission was to accelerate hard out of the curves up to the speeds allowed on the (short) tangents so as to keep the average speed up. This it did extraordinarily well, with the reserve high speed capability that's formed most of the discussion in this thread.
If you research formulas for calculation of starting tractive effort of steam locomotives and apply them to the J (I have...) you soon conclude that the 80,000 lb. rated starting tractive effort was almost certainly "invented' (as the nice round number would tend to imply from the git go...); the real number is almost certainly significantly higher.
As for twin sealed beam headlights, 611, 1218, 765, 730, etc., etc., etc. have them because the FRA says they have to have them. Since ditch lights are to enhance visibility of the on-coming train approaching grade crossings, and that's never exactly been an issue with steam-powered trains, they may have gotten a waiver on them. I do not know the answer to that; perhaps someone close to the excursion programs can comment here.
Dave Phelps
In my opinion. the superiority of the J was in part due to its lightweight rods and excellent driver-wheel balancing, allowing top speeds comparable to locomotives will larger diameter driving wheels, while its smaller driving wheels permitted a higher tractive effort. Note, I am saying "in part,"
Phelps I'm somewhat surprised by all the speculation of comparisons of the J with other 4-8-4s, because the information is readily available. When Kalmbach published the Classic Trains special on 4-84s, they made available in the "On-Line Extras" graphs of drawbar horsepower versus speed for quite a few (maybe all?) of the 4-8-4s...
I'm somewhat surprised by all the speculation of comparisons of the J with other 4-8-4s, because the information is readily available. When Kalmbach published the Classic Trains special on 4-84s, they made available in the "On-Line Extras" graphs of drawbar horsepower versus speed for quite a few (maybe all?) of the 4-8-4s...
That's because that graph is useless. It was completely made up, The results were not based on actual testing of the locomotives, but somebody playing a numbers crunching game. None of the numbers crunched explains what is going on inside a boiler of a particular design at a particular moment.
Most of the stuff you read in Trains is written by railfans, not Mechanical Engineers. A ME isn't going to waste their time writing an article on something that they have no actual data on. That would be stupid. However, railfans seem to love making up "facts", then spending countless hours arguing the "facts" on internet forums.
I took my first wife and children on an excursion out or Alexandria ,Virginia in the late 70's early 80's. when u have a program so deeply entrenchment as the union pacific program it does not matter who is chairman or ceo. there is a corperate environment that does not change with the wind!!
friend611That is why it is best that the locomotives are tested, and not rely on mechanical data. The data that exists on the J is mostly estimates by the N&W mechanical engineers, and regarding the 611's performance history, I have to wonder if even these numbers need to be revised. Any locomotive who can easily run 29 passenger cars on an upgrade is worthy of more respectable numbers. I wonder if any consideration has ever been made regarding testing 611 to see what she could truly do. lois
It would be not only all the 4-8-4s in question would have to be tested, but the testing would have to be standardized. What are we testing for? Power at economical operation or maximum power that is uneconomical to sustain? At what speed are we concerned about? How about the power curve itself? Are we looking for a locomotive that has a peaked curve,or a locomotive that might not have as high peak power, but can sustain power over a broad speed range? If the locomotive is coal fired, shouldn't the coal be the same? What happens if we take a J and fire it with western coal? Think the power output will be the same? Conversely, what happens if we take a western locomotive and use high grade eastern coal? What about the operators? Steam locomotives are very dependent on how well the engineer and fireman work together. How do we assure each locomotive is operated at its best? Even after doing all that, you may still not know which is the "best". Steam locomotives were not only custom designed for each railroad, but they were custom designed for specific divisions on that railroad. A locomotive that scores high in general testing might not work as good as expected if placed on a division with different operational needs. I don't know if we can ever compare steam locomotives like we can compare an ES44AC to an SD40-2. Every ES44AC made is basically the same. It works the same on NS and CSX in the east as it does on UP and BNSF in the west. The same can not be said of steam locomotives.
GP40-2 friend611That is why it is best that the locomotives are tested, and not rely on mechanical data. The data that exists on the J is mostly estimates by the N&W mechanical engineers, and regarding the 611's performance history, I have to wonder if even these numbers need to be revised. Any locomotive who can easily run 29 passenger cars on an upgrade is worthy of more respectable numbers. I wonder if any consideration has ever been made regarding testing 611 to see what she could truly do. lois It would be not only all the 4-8-4s in question would have to be tested, but the testing would have to be standardized....
It would be not only all the 4-8-4s in question would have to be tested, but the testing would have to be standardized....
I think she has gone on past the 'comparative 4-8-4s' issue and is now looking at a correct testing modality for 611 alone. (This also accords much better with the purpose of the thread itself.) This is not to disparage the points you were making, in any way.
I don't think anything would or could be gained by taking 611 in her present condition and conducting grate-limit tests on the boiler, or repeating some of the PRR high-speed testing with better attention to the valves. I'm also not certain whether, at present, numerical simulations of the locomotive would produce meaningful results showing what the J design 'could truly do' at the limit.
I would find it strange if N&W did not perform a reasonable amount of indicated dynamometer testing on the J locomotive, but I'd also understand why practical assessment of actual sustained high-speed operation would be of more interest to PRR to conduct, for example. As has been noted elsewhere, railroads wouldn't operate a locomotive at its physical limits for long periods in 'ordinary' operation, and the concern of issues like ruling grade is to proportion moneymaking operations to what the locomotive can reasonably ... and cost-effectively ... achieve, rather than what you could get if you 'drove it like ya stole it' (didn't work particularly well for the 6.0L PowerCerebrovascularAccident, either...)
Yes, under some conditions I would expect 611 to be capable of great feats. With some additional 'technology' that capability might be further enhanced. I would stay away from making comparisons with 'other 4-8-4s' as much as possible when looking at those things, though, at least until there are enough baseline and detail data to satisfy much of what GP40-2 is bringing up. (Which, as pointed out, may not be sufficient for a fair comparison anyway...)
Great video !! And that throaty whistle, too !!
Years ago I had the pleasure of witnessing (and hearing in approach) #611 under steam when it came thru Charlottesville VA on track just 200 yards from my house. One time I even got the excursion schedule beforehand so I could be trackside when it went by.
Having graduated long ago (in the decline of the steam era) from an engineering school in PA where the CEs, EEs, and MEs had many of the same courses in the first two years, I as an EE have the utmost respect for the capabilities of the designers of such magnificent machines, truly the pinnacle of the mechanical engineering art. The thermodynamics of squeezing nearly the last ounce (metaphor, not unit) of available energy out of coal and water plus the kinematics of balancing the movement of a ton or so of side rods jumping up and down several times per second is a now-lost art, perhaps surviving, but now fading, only in China where steam locos lasted the longest. MEs of the past, I salute you !! RIP.
Hope I live long enough to hear and see 611 come thru town again.
And there may be a dynamometer car hooked behind it in the future.
There might be an effort to restore it to operation or to use another if available.
friend611These wrecks nearly or all being from one cause and all with the same result- the locomotive turning over. What do you think might be the issue here?
This is not terribly unusual. Look where the center of mass of the locomotive is, and then look at the offset to the outside rail in a curve. The locomotive can easily tip enough by the time it derails to continue going over. When there are no rails to hold it up, equilibrium concerns alone will have the locomotive tend to roll... and this of course will be exacerbated by high speed. All the kinetic-energy moments increase as the square of the speed, not just the momentum that has to be counteracted by braking. And once all that mass gets rolling on the axis of its center of mass, the inertia will make it slow to stop.
I would defer to someone like BigJim on whether the N&W had a greater danger of relatively sharp curves at the end of its high-speed stretches, so that the effects of a little confusion or forgetfulness would be dramatically greater than a higher-speed railroad. Something else potentially contributory is the stiff and relatively long effective wheelbase (due in no small part to the stiff lateral that was part of the high-speed balancing scheme). This might facilitate 'popping' the lead or perhaps trailing truck over the railhead into derailment, after which drag and run-in would rather quickly induce a roll down the ballast prism and then embankment...
The 'pattern' you see, I think, is too high a speed for the curve, quite possibly compounded by the engineman closing the throttle too quickly with the run-in from the train giving a good launch. See the NYC Little Falls wreck for an illustration of the forces involved.
A "J" pulling a south bound Tennessean turned over about 5 miles north of Bristol. This was a fairly straight location. The J hit either a local freight or the Va. Creeper that was fouling the main at a location near a dairy plant.
Deggestry ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.