N&W Class J

[friend611]

However, I have to wonder how much the high speed capabilities of the J's affected the crews that ran them. There had been other locomotives before the J's who could run fast- notably the old class J 4-4-2 Atlantics who were known as sprinters. And the E class Pacifics and K class Mountains were certainly not slowpokes either. There were others, but these I note specifically as preceding the J. But the J was the first locomotive noted on the N&W with the capability of going over 100 mph, and with the profile of the N&W, the J on a few occasions came to grief. In 1946, 604 wrecked with the Powhatan Arrow, turning over on a curve at Powhatan, WV, due to high speed. Then in 1948, 607 turned over with the Arrow near Franklin Furnace, OH, clearing a switch at 92 mph. This resulted in a rail going through the entire locomotive, from the nose to the cab. Excessive speed was also the cause of this wreck. Then 605 turned over with the Cavalier and on January 23, 1956, 611 overturned with the Pocahontas on a curve in Cedar, WV, with high speed also being the cause. To me, I see some kind of pattern. These 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?
lois

[daveklepper]

There might be an effort to restore it to operation or to use another if available.

[friend611]

The N&W dynamometer car is at the Virginia Museum of Transportation, though I doubt that it is operational.
lois

[daveklepper]

And there may be a dynamometer car hooked behind it in the future.

[friend611]

With the present progress of the Fire Up 611 project, with the organization of a restoration crew and research in progress, as well as the always necessary solicitation of big donors, 611 may be on the way to being sent out for restoration.
lois

[LehighLad]

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. 

[friend611]

I certainly agree with not comparing the J to other 4-8-4's. The J's were in a class of their own, being designed for operation on the N&W, to keep passenger trains to schedule regarding the grades and curvature that defined the N&W mainline. However, the J was able to operate successfully on other railroads, 610 on the PRR and 611 on the Southern and railroads that became part of the N&W (Wabash, Nickel Plate, etc.) The design was flexible enough that 611 was able to conquer Saluda Grade, something the N&W designers never intended a J to do. Of course, back then, it was never thought that a J would be operating outside the N&W in excursion service, or now, that a J would be on the brink of a third operating career.
lois

[Overmod]

GP40-2

friend611

That 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....

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...)

[GP40-2]

friend611

That 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.

[friend611]

That has proved to be the case. And, unfortunately, we did not have that at Norfolk Southern, though it appears to have been the case to some degree at Southern. Such corporate flippancy does little for the public image of the company. I hope that there has been some understanding at Norfolk Southern that there are dividends to the company having a good public image. And a good public image is often best provided by steam excursions, as the public are invited for train rides instead of being shut away from the railroad. Only time will tell how things have developed at Norfolk Southern. But in the meanwhile, let's hope that arrangements are being made so that 611, 4501, 630 and other locomotives participating in the new program will be allowed to run regardless of who occupies the CEO position. For unless such arrangements are made, it can all be quickly shut down, and we are left in the same mess as before.
lois

[Anonymous]

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!!

[friend611]

That 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

[GP40-2]

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... 

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.

[daveklepper]

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.  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

[vbeach]

We rode behind the 611 on several excursions and before the wreck when it could still go fast, I clocked it running between 80 and 90 for a ways on the stretch east from Petersburg to Suffolk, Va. with a long train of various vintage coaches.

[friend611]

The J has 27" x 30" cylinders and 70 inch drivers. Total length of engine and tender is 109 feet, 2 inches. Weight on drivers 288,000 lb. The 12-wheel tender held 35 tons of coal and 22,000 gallons of water. 300 psi boiler pressure. The J's were built from 1941 to 1950 with the 611 leaving Roanoke Shops on May 29, 1950.
lois

[K4sPRR]

friend611

I do not have any information on 844, but here is some information on 611:
Built Roanoke Shops, May 1950, Builder number 388
80,000 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.  

[Deggesty]

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.

[Firelock76]

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.

[chatanuga]

Firelock76

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

[friend611]

Regarding the situation with Norfolk Southern, they are at present contracting out to preservation groups and museums to rebuild and operate the steam locomotives. It is unknown whether NS will ever go back to rebuilding and operating the locomotives themselves. Maybe this is best, as if a anti-steam CEO comes along, the program will not be so utterly destroyed. It is expected that the groups operating the locomotives have made arrangements with NS so that steam is still allowed to run in that case. And even in the cancellation of contracts, the locomotives still remain operational and hopefully have a place to run. These arrangements will prevent 611 spending another 20 years in a museum out of service, and also 1218 from ending up in its present state, though things will be different with 1218's present ownership.
As with Union Pacific, they seem to have no other arrangement but maintaining and operating the locomotives themselves, all under their ownership. Such an arrangement may likely never occur on NS, due to the fact that there have been a pattern of whether or not the CEO/president likes steam being the factor if the locomotives run. This occurs not just on NS, but on predecessor N&W. On Southern, they managed to keep steam excursions running, no matter what the president felt. Of course, there has been a change in attitude, as D.W. Brosnan, originally anti-steam, was encouraged to allow steam excursions on the Southern.
lois

[Anonymous]

forget the forest. see the steam engines puffing down the home rail. why is UP the only corperate steam program left?

[Firelock76]

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. 

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.

 

[friend611]

I have not heard anything concerning that at present.
lois

[NorthWest]

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?

[friend611]

Fortunately, there's no mention of any ditch lights in the present plan for restoration of 611. Though she will be given a event recorder and a few other details. One thing she will not need is MU equipment. She was equipped for MU during the first restoration. Though when using MU, she could run diesels along with her, except for the dynamic brakes. Then, a man had to ride in one of the diesels to operate the dynamic brakes. And, as we know, she could run the diesels, but it was impossible for them to run her. And it's better that way, as far as we are concerned.
lois

[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. 

[friend611]

I have information that 630 may be retrofitted with this type of headlight as well, so this is not just for large locomotives.
If 1218 is restored, I have to wonder about the status the headlight as I do not know if its twin headlight still exists.
lois

[Firelock76]

So long as 611 runs free again, who cares what kind of headlight it's got?

They could put ditchlights on it as well for all I care.  Whatever it takes to get the "Thoroughbred of steam, born to run, born to be free..."  back on the road.