Hello all,
I was recently thinking about 3 cylinder steam (Not including Shays) and got to thinking, 3 cylinder steam had it's brief era in the US, mainly in the 1920's, and we all hear about maintenance issues with the center cylinder, along with the center running gear, and so it was unpopular with many US railroads.
My question is why did the design take off in Europe? European 3 cylinders obviosly had the same problems that US ones had to deal with, so why did they turn out so well? There are even some 3 cylinder excursion steam locos operating in Europe today, and even the famous "Mallard" was a three cylinder. (Yes, I know the Mallard had issues with the center running gear after her 126 mph run)
In fact some european railroads went a bit further with 4 cylinder locos! (Two cylinders in the middle) And yet seemed to have no problems with these, either!
Thanks for helping answer my question! Amazing how opposite the results were with the same idea!
One of the reasons three-cylinder steam wasn't such a problem in Europe was labor costs. In a nutshell, labor in Europe was cheap, labor in the US was expensive, or at least the railroad officials thought so.
So, remembering the old saying of "time is money" we can see why the American 'road officials had the policy of "get 'em in, get 'em fixed, get 'em out, and the less time in the shops the better!"
At any rate as the 20th Century wore on, and improvements in steam locomotive technology such as roller bearings, superheating, and lighter steel alloys for side rods came along the advantages of multi-cylinder locomotives seemed negligable.
And remember, in the end the steam vs. diesel contest was decided in the shops.
Loading gauge. The four cylinder simple articulates that followed three cylinder steam in the US simply would not fit on European rail lines.
Also, due to the same size problems, large cylinders would not fit. Thus, to increase power, a third (and fourth, in some cases) cylinder was needed.
NorthWestLoading gauge. The four cylinder simple articulateds that followed three cylinder steam in the US simply would not fit on European rail lines.
Not sure you can make this as a blanket statement. Europeans had at least one example of a reasonably large compound Mallet (Gt 2x4/4) which one could easily presume to have larger loading gage measurement over the forward-engine cylinders than a simple-articulated equivalent. Then there is the Borsig 2-6-8-0 approach to the Kriegslok -- I have never seen clearance issues given as a reason the design wasn't built. (Note that US articulated locomotive practice was explicitly considered in the design of this locomotive.)
Do I need to mention Garratts, most of which had four simple cylinders and could easily be designed to fit very restrictive loading gages (see the British examples)?
Most big American-style 'single-expansion Mallets' might have been too big to run inside European clearances, but that has little to do with their being four-cylinder locomotives...
I was thinking primarily about the UK- I tend to do that when European steam was discussed, though there was considerable difference between Continental and British Steam.
Good point on the Garratts, but they were restricted from many lines, just as much due to curvature and weight than overall size.
I have thought some more about this, and I suspect that the railroads simply were not trying to haul American-sized freight trains, and were content to double-head trains where neccesary. Also, many of the major grades were electrified early.
If we turn to passenger steam, though, one of the main reasons why they went to three and four cylinder locomotives is loading gauge, large cylinders would not have fit.
NorthWestIf we turn to passenger steam, though, one of the main reasons why they went to three and four cylinder locomotives is loading gauge, large cylinders would not have fit.
No question at all; what is potentially interesting is that just this argument largely governed the trend toward three-cylinder power in the United States in the '20s (up to the combination of Woodard et al. advocating relatively long stroke/small bore cylinders, higher boiler pressure, better dynamic and cross-balancing in the mains, and use of reduced mass and lower lateral offset in the rods and valve gear, etc. to do with two cylinders what previously would require three).
Credit goes to Baldwin for practically introducing the idea of a true high-speed (simple) articulated, and then to N&W, Alco, and UP's Jabelmann for expanding some of the ideas to provide a Mallet chassis stable at high speeds. That is what made four-cylinder road power practical in the United States for situations where better two-cylinder running gear that was the functional equal of older three-cylinder drive began to be 'too much' for rods, main pins, etc. to stand.
Hi folks
HiHiAs you can see by a number of loco types of which existed both a four cylinder compound or three cylinder simple expansion variations and a 'twin tin' alternative , further as you can see by numerous four cylinder compound types with LP on the outside ( LP diameter was larger than that of a two cylinder simple expansion version of the same loco would / did ) and from what a simple cylinder dimensioning calculation will show , in Europe loading gauge limit never was a governing factor in deciding against a two cylinder simple .
Example I had noted in the 242.A.1 thread :
deGlehn NORD Pacific in a deCaso two cylinder variation .
Examples in DR standard types :
01 class heavy two cylinder simple Pacific initially also built as 02 class with a four cylinder compound unit having LP cylinders outsides ; 44 class heavy Decapod three cylinder simple in the beginning also built as a two cylinder variation , 43 class ; the 43 was first found somewhat superior in locomotive efficiency by a small margin , yet in the end the 44 class won because her three cylinder unit stood up better against wear in hard running while the 43s began to develop cracks in frames and turned out to be prone to main rod big end failure ( in the light of much later very hard running of the oil-fired 44s during the last decade of steam on DB the decision was fully proven correct ) . With the 01 / 02 comparison , I had noted earlier the compound was 'designed to fail' as indicated by the fact design of steam passages in cylinders had fallen back below standards already established earlier by Maffei with the Bavarian S3/6 and Henschel with the Prussian S10.1 class . Deliberately the 02 class was given but 10 in diameter valves for HP cylinders while the 01 got larger 12 in valves . Consequently the 02 fell behind the 01 in upper speed performance and – quod erat demonstrandum – only the simple two cylinder 01 was continued in series construction while the ten off-standard 02s were eventually rebuilt into 01s ( they had been designed from the beginning with a view on minimizing necessary adaptations in case - honi soit qui mal y pense *gee* ) . When later express schedules were tightened and planned to be further shortened , the 01 was re-designed into a three cylinder machine , 01.10 class . This one later got rebuilt with fully welded combustion chamber boiler and 30 units were oil-fired ; these proved the most powerful of all German Pacifics , turning out top speed cylinder outputs in the vicinity of 3000 ihp or over if run hard .
Mind that European mainline loading gauges though not as high as US railroad's were tolerably as wide and with axle load standards just about 2/3 that in the US there was room enough .
That applied to Continental Europe - in Britain the situation was very different and this led to using highly slanted cylinders with two cylinder types .
More about the three cylinder engine unit to come - if I find time to sew up something , no promise , cats never promise anything .
Regards
Juniatha
( editing in blue )
There is no single reason. In the UK the loading gauge at platform elevation is quite limiting. All the UK 3 and 4 cylinder express locomotives were pre-WWII designs and they were more than capable of handling any train length that could be reasonably be handled at mainline stations. Their WWII performances under poor maintenance conditions were quite astounding. After WWII, the situation changed radically with nationalization and recovery from war-deferred maintenance. With one exception all the BR standard locos were 2 cylinders. As for the continent, much the same situation if not worse. Reconstruction of major mainlines was almost always electrified so there was little need for anything other than simple robust locomotives requiring little skill to operate and maintain. As for the Garratt configuration, little if any benefit in Europe. In the USA the benefits of low axle loading and flexibility were of even less consequence. Garratts could be very powerful, good examples in South Africa, Rhodesia and Australia. They could also be be fast, for example the Rhodesian 15th Class, well-known as the "fast fifteens". Summing up, "horses for courses."
I would propose that there is a slight philosophical approach/institutional bias at play as well with regards to this.If I may apply an overly broad, prejudicial, but demonstrably accurate stereotype, compare the "classics" of European automobile design versus comparable American examples, especially sports and race cars. As a rule, American designers attempt to make everything bigger and more powerful (think Corvette, GTO, Trans Am, Charger, SUVs, etc.--and if they're not powerful enough, you just soup them up), whereas British, German, etc. sports cars reach their goals through engineering (Jaguar, Audi, Porsche, Volvo, Citroen, etc.). Exceptions abound, of course, notably Italians (Ferrari, Lamborghini).
I am aware of several three cylinder steam locomotives that have survived in the United States.
In southern California one of the Southern Pacific Railroad - SP 5021 survives today. Known as the "Overland" type according to the Whyte system 4-10-2. These locomotives were developed in 1925 primarily for pusher service on mountain grades. They used Gresley valve gear. The outside cylinders were Walcharts valve motion and the center cylinder - Gresley - used two links on the pilot beam which had a pivot post built into it. The combination of motion by the outside cylinder valves moved these links which controled the valve to the center cylinder. Speed limit on these engine was limited to about 35 mph. They were also built for Union Pacific RR.
Probably the most famous three cylinder design which was created only for Union Pacific in 1926 by ALCO with over 90 locomotives built. The wheel arrangement 4-12-2 was called the "Union Pacific" according to the Whyte system and was never built for any other railroad. Cylinders were 27" for the center and 31" for the two outside. Stroke was 34" and boiler pressure was 220 psi. The center cylinder drove the second drivers effectively making this axle shaft into a crankshaft and then the outer cylinders drove the third driver and axle set. Gresley valve gear was used to control the center cylinder valve. Surprisingly Union Pacific RR achieved 60 mph with the 4-12-2. The original locomotive UP 9000 remains today in Pamona, California and was on display with the Union Pacific RR "Big Boy" UP 4014 - before it was called to excursion service. Both of these locomotives were unique to the world to Union Pacific RR who developed and used both designs extensively.
The last surviving 3 cylinder steam that I know of, is the Baldwin Locomotive Works BLW 60000 which was an experimental engine designed to showcase new technologies. It featured a 350 psi high efficiency marine water tube firebox and boiler design which no American railroad would purchase after it was tested nationally by many US railroads in 1926. American railroads would just not buy into the maintance cost of the high efficiency marine boiler design and the three cylinder construction. Baldwin was never able to sell the locomotive. After being stuck with it as a "white elephant" unsold for several years and for a tax write-off Baldwin ended up donalting it to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, PA where it remains on display today. All three cylinders were 27" in diameter and with a stroke of 32."
Aside from operating nationally on the sales tour, BLW 60000 has spent its entire life in "brand new" as built condition on display indoors! This has to be some kind of record! Brand new steam locomotive from 1926 stashed away never used - in plain sight to all of us! Since 1926 for crying out loud! Never owned by a common carrier. Feed water pumps, injectors, lubricators, stoker, etc. all in hardly used condition and as built from the manufacturer - BLW 60000 worked on the B&O, then the Erie, then went on display in Chicago, it ran on the Burlington, then the Santa Fe, and the Southern Pacific where it was converted to burn oil fuel in Sacramento. After this it went to Portland on the Great Northern where it was re-converted back to coal fuel. It ran again on the Burlington and returned to Baldwin on the Pennsylvania RR. It was never sold but aquired something over 75,000 miles on the sales trip. I guess that means it's still NEW!
New York Central RR built a 3 cylinder test engine in the form of high pressure experimental 4-8-4 "northern" type which predated the famous "Niagra" series of 4-8-4's. This was a one of a kind experimental locomotive also. Numbered NYC 800 it was built in 1931 by ALCO and also featured a unique high pressure boiler of 850 psi and 250 psi in stages. Cylinder diameters were 13 1/4" inches for the center, outers were 23" both sizes with 30" stroke." Unlike the luckey BLW 60000, however, New York Central scrapped NYC 800.
Alfred Bruce who was in charge of steam locomotive design at ALCO in his book The Steam Locomotive In America writes, "Before 1910 occasional applications of three-cylinder engine had been made in this country. Among the first of these were three 2-6-0 type locomotives for the Erie and Wyoming Valley RR but the first noteworthy examples were built by the Philadelphia and Reading RR in 1910....
The next notable introduction of the three cylinder principle was made by ALCO in the conversion of New York Central Mohawk 4-8-2 type engine NYC 2568 to three cylinder in 1922. Improvements in operating characteristics were so remarkable that the three-cylinder concept was soon built into many ALCO engines with various wheel arrangements.
The distinguishing feature of ALCO engines was the use of the "Gresley" combining levers to take motion from the two outside valve gears and properly adapt it to the inside valve movements. Other three-cylinder engines in the United States had the conventional valve gear for each cylinder, which added to the overall complexity of the arrangement....
When the fleet of three-cylinder units was large enough to warrant the establishment of special maintenance crews and schedules, no great difficulties were experienced in keeping these engines running. The orphan engine in pool service, however, never fared well.
After about 250 of these three-cylinder units had been built, manufacture was finally halted in 1930. This was due not to any shortcomings in their efficiency - for there was no question as to the superior performance of this type - but simply to the fact that the inside machinery was virtually inaccessible. Unfortunately the crank axle was not adaptable to the heavy axle loads and other features of locomotive operating practice then pervailing in the United States. The best efforts of the two largest commercial builders of locomotives could not alter this fact." (p.101/2)
It's hard to believe that THREE of these unique THREE CYLINDER locomotives survive today considering how uncommon they were, and all three represent big locomotive power. I have heard that the Franklin Institute finally wore out some of the bearings in BLW 60000 by slowly rotating it on the treadmill upon which it was displayed over the last 90 years. They were in the market to have its brass bushings replaced a couple of years ago. As I said this has to be one unique locomotive, having spent its lifetime running a creeping indoors speed on a treadmill, fire out, boiler cold, whistle silent - I wonder if they ever lubricated it - sure sounds like a THREE CYLINDER WOW!
Dr. D
Looking at a different country, Japan imported six Alco 4-6-2s (C52 class) and built 97 more to their own design (C53 class.) They were early casualties as electrification progressed post-WWII. A few earlier 2-cylinder 4-6-2s lasted 20 years longer!
The reason? KISS lives. Two cylinder locos have accessible machinery, don't require dropping axles to work on rod bearings, require less shop time for each hour of road time...
Just one oddity. A C53 was the subject of a Japanese attempt at streamline styling. The basic design returned in the recent Shinkansen EMU sets with end cars that look like inverted grain scoops.
The basic idea was that a big boiler could feed three cylinders of reasonable size rather than two humongous clearance-busters. As speed and boiler pressure increased, even a big boiler couldn't keep up with 2-cylinder steam consumption.
Chuck
Dr DI have heard that the Franklin Institute finally wore out some of the bearings in BLW 60000 by slowly rotating it on the treadmill upon which it was displayed over the last 90 years.
It's not on a 'treadmill' -- you may be thinking of PRR 6100 at the World's Fair. 60000 is on a short piece of track, and was moved forward and backward with a screw arrangement when I last saw her. Here in fact is a video of what happens now:
Overmod,
Thanks for the cool video, I have seen the SP 4-10-2 back in the 1960's when I was in California but never got to the Franklin Institute. Very impressive to see BLW 60000 and it is BRAND NEW! The cab, what a trip with the Duplex stoker - never vandelized, never worn out, never rebuilt in the backshop and every bit of paint is from 1926! No engine in the nation can claim that! Right out of the time capsule. WOW!
As cool as it is, that also means it will likely not run again. Every speck of paint is as it was when rolled out of the Baldwin works. It is absolutely amazing!
A restoreation would destroy this unique trait. But I would rather see it like this, completely original and intact, than running down the rails with new paint, changes to many things, replaced parts. I just don't think it's worth the trade-off.
1.
The Southern Pacific was looking for a dual purpose locomotive for their difficult Donner Pass line , this resulted in ordering the known 4-10-2 three cylinder engines . UP ordered a somewhat lighter version of the same concept , too due to tolerably similar traction demands on their mountain line through the Wasatch Range . While SP was content enough with the engines to order a production batch , UP never found their’s fully satisfying , already went one step further considering a significantly larger 4-12-2 which – in spite of its extra set of drive wheels at the back end – also was to feature an increased wheel diameter . As bigger power arrived , the 4-10-2 on both RRs were much relegated to back end services .
With the 12 coupled wheel arrangement , UP took full advantage of the three cylinder unit in that it enabled six powered axles at no more than an equivalent axle load Mikado’s piston thrust . With a two cylinder unit it would not have been possible to take full advantage of six powered axles in line and in view of UP’s perennial search for increased power *this* was the fulcrum of advantage with the three cylinder unit .
2.
The arrangement of six consecutive drive wheel sets in a rigid frame in spite of presence of some appallingly tight curves on the mountain line and in yards was made possible by applying ALCO lateral motion device as in the leading coupled axle to the sixth in the line also . Although this inevitably increased leverage of hind vehicle end in curves this feature was successful because the fifths coupled axle then providing pivot point for turning the locomotive through curve ran practically parallel to inner rail causing flange wear to remain comparatively moderate in relation to lateral thrust . Since the locomotive was turned around same axle as in the 4-10-2 type , geometric relation remained largely unchanged at front end axles among which guidance of the locomotive was spread , although at increased lateral forces with the longer , heavier Nines . Increased drive wheel diameter was asked for since already UP felt a lack of speed with the 4-10-2 in spite of three cylinder engine unit . As a matter of fact , UP ran the Nines at daily service speeds much in excess of what ALCO had recommended – around 60 mph over the long stretches of Nebraska , with peaks around 70 mph – and paid the price , calculating the increased ton-miles work achieved that way was more than balancing elevated maintenance costs due to increased mass forces causing premature wear , mainly in the Gresley conjugated gear .
All three cylinder were of common 27 in diameter , however for clearance and for containing relation throw to main rod length , as well as piston thrust induced bending forces in the built-up type of crank axle , inside drive was given a stroke shortened by one in from 32 in used in outside drives ; wheel diameter was 67 in .
All three cylinder had piston valves actuated by Walschaerts valve gear with the middle cylinder’s reached via said Gresley conjugation linkage combining the movements of the two outside sets of gear , deplorably taken from the front end of piston valve spindles which introduced inexactitudes from heat expansion of these spindles or workshop tuning of valve gear should have had to take account of it which should indeed have been tricky a job to accomplish with the tools then available .
4.
Gresley’s linkage was no valve gear of its own but just a – non variable – two to one link arrangement . Actually , if you come to think of it , this presented nil savings in total number of bearings involved with valve gear as you will find by simply counting the bearings of one set of Walschaerts , 5 from return crank to valve spindle plus two of minor influence on summation of bearing play at the lower end of the combination lever and its link . In ‘contrast’ , the Gresley linkage featured 6 bearings in angular movement plus three more to compensate between longitudinal movement of valve spindles and angular movement of the link rods . More important , using this derived drive , movement of middle cylinder valve as actuated from return crank and combination lever had to be transmitted over sixteen bearings until at valve spindle ! At the same time , the Gresley linkage increased inertia loads on bearings in each of the outer Walschaerts by 50 % accounting but for each 1/2 of mass of middle cylinder valve to which the linkage’s own masses had yet to be added. Clearly at upper speed range working , this arrangement was inferior to all arrangements using individual Valve gear rod lines for each cylinder’s valve gear . In spite of obvious advantage of easier access , it was therefore not well suited for engines running extensively at high rpm . The fact it worked ‘well’ on LNER where Sir Nigel Gresley was CME and in a largely unimpeachable position was due to locomotive maintenance reaching top level on the LNER as on the remaining of the Big Four railways in Britain in the late 1930s . Although in mint condition , no doubt , being thrashed ( my words , mea culpa ) down 1 : 200 Stoke bank for its record run Mallard pretty quickly suffered failure of inside drive , mainly caused by valve over-travel caused by Gresley derived linkage . It was thus just for little more than a transient glimpse the claimed speed was reached once-only and it proved impossible to maintain even for a short time or middle cylinder drive might have disintegrated . 530+ rpm clearly proved beyond mechanical limits of the Gresley three cylinder type .
In post-war BR service , these engines had exhaust rhythm more or less sharply pronouncing inside cylinder work , again this was due to valve over-travel caused by both elasticity in linkage and summation of bearing play , often combined with now less to-the-point maintenance of valve timing . With Gresley’s retirement his conjugated linkage was dropped from drawing boards , his successors on the LNER did not continue it .
5.
Continental European design of three cylinder engine units in post WW-I years soon came to use three individual sets of motion in both common axle and dual axle drives . In DR design of standard three cylinder types , dual axle drive with individual lines of Walschaerts for each the cylinders , with middle cylinder’s taken from a valve gear crank on center axle next behind crank axle of middle cylinder drive was selected as unified type from the beginning . In both the 44 class three cylinder heavy Decapod as in the 01.10 class three cylinder Pacific access to inner mechanics was acceptable . By my own experience doing gymnastics ‘through’ the inner of a 44 class , exploring the locomotive I can only say I didn’t find it hard to get to any bearing possibly needing attention – with possible objection to design of the leading Krauss-Helmholtz truck where it rests on the leading coupled axle by paw bearings of its own which could have been avoided altogether with just a simple correction in design of the truck’s frame and the axle’s bearings and the way lateral motion was provided – it was what I call a typical example of uninspired design causing avoidable wear and maintenance . All in all , inner rods and bearings of valve gear were not unduly difficult to get to and work on , except for you had to take good care not to bang your head against some sharp edged item unexpectedly standing in your way ; yet I think with a little practice it was no problem to learn where was what and get along through frames and inner mechanics tolerably well – even with my being quite ‘long’ ( and for one having hair down to my hips , which I used to take under my outdoor jacket and sometimes put the hood up , too , in case of such ‘expeditions’ as well as when cab-riding on a locomotive ) . True , what helped was generally much more slender design of relatively lighter European steam in relation to massive US Big Power .
For an example of a fireman climbing inside an 012 three cylinder Pacific during a scheduled stop to do some special case oiling – likely cross head / slide bar which was sensitive in these engines when fully extended – see this scene from a longer video :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QlW2sV3hWu0#t=3004
--> 012 101 with express stops at Husum ; driver and fireman besides locomotive front with fireman climbing in ; restart of same train on different days at various locations at Husum ; as far as I remember reading statistics 012 101 was one of those engines which no more left Hamburg-Altona shed when steam allocation finally terminated next year with end of summer timetable . By the way , somewhere in this film appears a line "Mit 2470 PS durch die Heide" - 2470 ihp was nominal continuous output of the 01.10 at standard DB boiler steaming rate - the oil-fired engines were capable of substantially higher sustained outputs in the vicinity of 3000 ihp and at Hamburg really were asked all of it on trains consists of up to 15 coaches , averaging some 750 tonnes ( metric ) at scheduled speeds up to 140 km/h .
For general impressions of the Hamburg-Altona based 012 running on the Westerland line towards the North in 1971 , the year before it all ended you might want to check :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QlW2sV3hWu0#t=1970
--> 1. Scene – express near Burg southbound on the inclined embankment rising to reach the 150 ft above ground level of Hochdonner Bridge crossing the North Sea – Eastern Sea channel ;
2. scene – express passing into curve turning away ;
3. scene – 012 at full cry with 14 coaches express passing small line-side station at full speed ;
4. scene – evening at road crossing , 13 coaches express passing Hamburg bound ;
5. scene – evening , express of 14 coaches northwards towards Heide at 140 km/h ;
6. scene – road crossing , closer perspective on train passing ;
More need for speed ? enjoy this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QlW2sV3hWu0#t=2658
--> filmed from car pacing , express on the Emsland line with Rheine based 012 at speed northbound ca in 1973 at line speed limit of 120 km/h – check out that smooth , dead-straight running of the three cylinder Pacific in spite of real badly run down condition two years before the end of regular service for the last few surviving 012s
6.
Few if any of the respectable array of three cylinder locomotives built could be considered fully fledged , most of the known designs described in literature have remained what might be called “two cylinder with an additional permanent booster cylinder in the middle” . Why ? well , since neither their valve gear mechanics nor transmission of power from cylinder to wheels was fully level with outside gears . That certainly applied to the ALCO three cylinder engine through-out its entire era of construction , although some progress had been realized by help of integrated frames cast with cylinders and in hardening against wear , if incomplete , of the Gresley linkage .
In the end , performance in daily ton-miles-intensive traction fell short of heady ALCO promises . This was inevitable since in view of marketing the type ALCO had exaggerated scope of extra tractive effort and power to be gained with the three cylinder engine unit while actual design remained rather raw or imperfect in most of major aspects . To fight excessive stresses in lateral linkage levers and their bearing ALCO reduced middle cylinder valve travel in later batches of Nines , which at that time was considered acceptable as a means against over-travel of valve , yet meant an inevitable reduction in cylinder efficiency and maximum output in relation to outer drive units . Main pivots finally got roller bearings however since equipment was incomplete and the linkage received motion from outer Walschaerts which continued with plain bearings , again success was limited and a full solution of the problem was never realized .
S. Conner,
Thats the way it is with lots of stuff. Sometimes "original condition" is more valuable because "its only original once," but used stuff that is "beat up" is a lot more fun.
I have a WWI Colt automatic pistol. Its in nice shape and I bought it because it was nicely rebuilt and refinished. I can carry it, use it, really enjoy the 1917 piece - and I shoot it lots. If this thing was original I would have to keep it locked up, protected because it would be much too valuable to risk damaging, and every scratch would reduce its value - just a serious investment!
BLW 60,000 shows us just what a steam locomotive was in 1926 - pristine original condition. Its a benchmark! that tells us just how a locomotive should look and be finished. No questions how Baldwin did their work, wiring, piping, assembly, and fasteners, and what was the standard of production.
Sometimes today we repaint this kind of engine to look like a Cadillac instead of a train with the new types of paint finish, we upgrade all the accessories so it can run on modern railroads, with tight lock couplers, and modern brake equipment for crying out loud UP 844 flattened its driver wheels when they were trying to hook it up with a diesel MU so UP844 could control the diesel engine coupled behind the locomotive.
Back in the 1970's the C&O still had a line of steam locomotives in storage behind the shop in Russel, KY. As a young guy of 22 years old I really enjoyed visiting the yard and finding these old steam engines. I those days no one cared if you climbed all over this kind of stuff. There before my eyes was the rusted glory of the age of steam. A C&O 2-6-6-6 Allegheny, a C&O 2-8-2 Heavy Mikado, a C&O 4-8-4 Northern (eventually Ross Rolland 614) it was numbered C&O 611 with roller bearing side rods, also several C&O 2-8-4 berkshires which for some reason the railroad thought were so much more valuable and worth saving than other engines.
All these engines totally devoid of number plates, builders plates, cab gauges, whistles but all original as the railroad left them. As I sat in the cab of the passenger engine C&O 611/614 I thought of what quality was built into that machine - the roller bearing construction the power, the speed. Why would Chessy have saved such an engine to let it go to junk like this - and why only one. It was the best of the best. THE BEST OF THE BEST! Little did I know that someday not to far from that day I would see that engine blast out of Grand Blanc, Michigan under full power with Ross Rolland at the throttle!
PM 1225 crew sponsored a steam special with C&O 614 where I was a car attendant - during lunch I showed Ross Rolland a couple of pictures of the engine in the scrap line at Russel. He wanted the pictures and I traded them for a cab ride that day. Got to blow the whistle and see the locomotive cab restored from that rusty condition by actually riding in it - not the origianl whistle, bell and gauges - but at least it was together all the way back from that condition I had first observed - and well rebuilt. I guess they used much of the cab equipment from the fire damaged American Freedom Train.
Sometimes when an engine gets "let go" its just an opportunity for something better to happen to it. You have to BELIEVE its for the lucky ones!
Come on Ross why don't you cut loose with that Greenbrier so we can see it run with N&W 611. Do anything with it except don't give it to some damn fool museum like the New York Central Museum in Elkhart. All we need is some fool city mayor deciding its part of parks and recreation and needs "bows" and "balloons" so the kiddies can play with it like the fate of NYC3001.
It's great to see these old engines run but sometimes much gets changed! I'm just glad we have Baldwin Locomotive 60000 - its a benchmark!
Juniatha,
I know a mechanical engineer when I read one!
We have another thread going about NYC 5315 which was destroyed in a wreck in 1940. The engine hit a rock wall after jumping the track in Little Falls, NY at 70 mph. The rear four wheel engine truck was never found and assumed to have gone into the Mohawk River where it probably remains today. Given the mass of the truck and its speed we are wondering how far it could have gone out into the water? Sounds like you could make an educated guess about that. The thread is the "Union Pacific 4006 tender swap."
Wow! great explanation of the UP 9000 series. The transfer of motion lost to the center cylinder is nicely explained as only science could show! Truely the engine was a behemoth and the fact that Union Pacific stayed with it and included 90 copies is a testament to another age - the age of American "drag freight service."
Truely some American railroads never moved out of the mindset of "drag freight." As long as the train could be started and moved that was all that mattered, it would eventually get over the road! The C&O continued to use its high power 2-6-6-6 Alleghany locomotives into the 1940's in this fashion by operating them at low speeds where their power never became effective.
Science moved on, but C&O opperating managment stayed behind in the past and never did get used to the potential new idea. The last C&O steam locomotive purchased in 1949 was an antiquated 2-6-6-2 design from 1917 of the "drag freight era." Strangely C&O saved it C&O 1309 - Baldwin Locomotive Works last construction - and it is being restored today to use as a tourist engine on the Western Maryland.
I can think of a few similar archaic British locomotive designs of the time that continued to be built well past their age. Industrial engineering as we understand it today did not exist.
You seem quite versed in British Steam Power, wondering if you had anything to do with the recent British reproduction of the 4-6-2 Tornado locomotive?
By the way it always struck me of the overall "simplicity" of the British locomotive construction. No where near the massive weight and design of some US locomotives. For example most British steam was build on a frame of two parallel steel slabs suitably cut out and bolted together. American practice leaned to massive steel castings with all the brackets suitably included and machined in place in what had to be massive machine shop practice.
The science behind British and American locomotive design seems very similar but the method and type of construction varied.
British engineering seems an equal if not better than some of the US design, but the overall locomotive size and power potential was substancially unexplored.
Dr Djumping the track in Little Falls, NY at 70 mph. The rear four wheel engine truck was never found and assumed to have gone into the Hudson River.... Given the mass of the truck and its speed we are wondering how far it could have gone out into the water?
I realize that, and the more I look at Staufer's pictures I wonder if the boiler explosion did't throw it out there. I looks like the firebox blew out the grate, blew back the frame and broke it around the center driver and hurled the rear truck into the river.
When the boilers went up on a moving locomotive under power they usuall went a half mile or more. Still it has to be out in that river in a radius extending from the sight of the wreck. I mean they found the Titanic three miles down in the middle of the Atlantic - this four wheel truck from NYC Hudson 5315 can't be that far! NYC just didn't care, and it was the age when people dumped everything - every sort of junk went into the river to get rid of it.
Dr D
Thanks for kind appreciation , I was just trying to point out some design specifications in three cylinder locos as built . If and when I get to it I want to describe some of the three cylinder engine unit's typical unique characteristics .
British steam : oh , no I don't think British steam loco engineering had much in advance of America's . You should have heard me , uh-so-long-ago when with my late dad as a teen on a special behind a beautifully restored Gresley Pacific when some old Londoners who then looked to me like they might still have worked for the LNER , for it's predecessors , even told me in most impressive words what technical marvels these locomotive were . When they came to take breath , admiring their own ardent worshipping , in my then pretty direct ways I laconically dropped " Well , you know , we always had the biggest and the best .."
Silence .
After the trip my father told me one of those folks had remarked to him " Your young daughter may look like a madonna , but trying to tell her about locomotives will only destroy the picture ."
Gee , I think it was true , I don't even remember which loco it was although I still recall quietly inspecting the finish so sparkling and , yes , admirable ; exhaust was just lightly smoking when at platform before starting and stack talk as the loco spoke up on the trip was perfectly tuned , very short , dry and - as I felt - British .
Boiler explosion :
gee , - oh-yeah , I see ..
Uhm , in case yes ,
to my incalculable guess
- as I freely confess
that Hudson's Delta truck ,
as the name says , is stuck
near below the duck
sitting on a dock
in a bay
- I should say -
not too far away ;
if you care to sway
your head around ,
soon will be found
the rusty rotten remnants
not unlike old Rembrandt's
brownish oil colors
- someone hollers -
within the Hudson water's flow ..
.. oh , sorry , I got to go !
By the way, why does a speed reached downhill (a 1:200 slope) count as a speed record? By that reckoning, would not dropping a locomotive off a cliff and measuring it with a radar gun just before it crumped count as a "speed record"?
By the way, one of David Wardale's arguments for designing a steam locomotive (or any locomotive) for high horsepowere instead of merely starting tractive effort is that if you want to "make up time", it is safer to increase speed on upgrades. If something goes wrong, you can always cut power and slow down. If you speed up on downgrades, you are at greater risk of a runaway accident.
Interestingly, the first flights to exceed the speed of sound may have been in a dive, but the Bell X-1 piloted by Chuck Yeager was the first flight to exceed the speed of sound in a climb, with the pilot returning to the restaurant for his morning coffee. The use of a rocket engine for this plane and this attempt was intentional -- if something goes wrong in a climb, you cut power and slow down. If something goes wrong in a dive, you may never recover from it.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovicwhy does a speed reached downhill (a 1:200 slope) count as a speed record?
timz Paul Milenkovic why does a speed reached downhill (a 1:200 slope) count as a speed record? A speed record is a speed record. If the train reaches 500 mph down a 4% grade, then that's the speed record. The record for speed on level or uphill track is a different record-- if you think it's a more important record, you may be right. But the record, with no qualifications, is unambiguous.
Paul Milenkovic why does a speed reached downhill (a 1:200 slope) count as a speed record?
A speed record is a speed record. If the train reaches 500 mph down a 4% grade, then that's the speed record. The record for speed on level or uphill track is a different record-- if you think it's a more important record, you may be right. But the record, with no qualifications, is unambiguous.
In order to be a 'legitimate' speed record, the speed should have been recorded in both directions. That's what the FIA requires unless the course is dead level and the wind is dead calm.
Track and field 'records' are disallowed if there is any more than a very light following wind. That's why there are, '*wind assisted,' notes in the record books.
Has any train ever been timed with the elaborate electronic traps required for recording speed records of any other type, mechanical device or otherwise?
As for the vanished trailing truck vs. finding RMS Titanic, the ship was huge and not very dense. The truck was a bunch of solid metal parts with no shell around them. The bottom of the Atlantic doesn't experience river currents, and the bottom of the Mohawk is probably soft silt. If anyone uses modern equipment to locate and raise that artifact they'll probably find it at the bottom of the silt, not sitting on top of it like the Titanic.
Chuck (former cadet marine engineer)
Many of you may no know that Detroit and its Michigan Central Station - its a station not a terminal - are on the main line of the former New York Central System. Thats right it was shorter to run from New York to Chicago through Detroit than through Cleveland and Toledo because Lake Erie extends the distance between Chicago and New York. At any rate the New York Cental Hudson locomotives ran under the Detroit River on occasion - NYC did have the tunnel electrified like Grand Central Terminal in New York.
In Canada the New York Central subsidiary was the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo RR. which owned among other Hudson locomotives the former NYC 5313 Hudson renumbered TH&B 502 among others. The surviving Hudson tender NYC X5313, fuel water car is from Canada.
I have lived near the Detroit River most of my life, and became a certified scuba diver. I am fairly familiar with the Detroit River which is among few other major American cities - is situated astride an international border.
My friend Kile Sise is diver on the Detroit Police dive team and spends his time in the river for police work. Retrieving weapons, drown people and other first responder stuff. We never tire of talking about stories of what is to be found on that river bottom - which by the way is fairly clear with good visibilty.
The stuff that has gone into the Detroit river in 300 years is astounding. They found and retrieved at the foot of the city center, the French artillery from Fort Ponchitrain - dumped into the river when abandoned by the French 200 years ago - laying on the bottom of the river bed.
Also before its famous sinking - SS Edmund Fitzgerald which went down in a November storm in Lake Superior - lost its bow anchor in the Detroit river. It has been retrieved lying on the surface of the bottom river bed - several ton steel ships anchor.
Cars of every vintage from the 1920's to today are in that river and get pulled out on occasion - along with sunk pleasure boats and scuttled commercial boats. Its a big river with a wide delta - and very fast current - wide with a many channels in the south.
Dredging the Fox Creek they pulled up a 1957 Chevrolet with a human skeleton in it - lost in the 1960's. From the prohabition era in the 1920's a lot of illegal liquor was smuggled across the border - crates of illegal booze are still coming out of the river with drinkable spirits - labels still on the bottles. A "rum runner" speedboat shot up and sunk near Belle Isle yielded booze as well as a Thompson sub machine gun.
Fresh water preserves the shipwrecks. In Lake Michigan near Chicago many WW II Navy fighter planes crashed and went to the lake bottom during the war. Now they are the major source of salvagable WW II military planes - priceless antiques found in every major military museum are coming from the bottom of Lake Michigan. Aircraft of which there are no more to be found - museum pieces are coming out of the lake. Those that went into the ocean are all wortlhless corroded scrap the ones on the the lake are in a time capsule. In lake Superior the crew of the Edmund Fitzgerald is on the lake bottom their bodies not decomposed because of the cold of the water. The wreck site is a declared grave site. On the Lake Ontario bottom are woodern warships of the US Navy - sailing ships - guns - un decomposed sailors - sails - ropes all intact from the War of 1812 - found by Jacque Costeau and his TV crew in the 1980's.
That Hudson Delta truck from NYC 5315 is in that Mohawk river bottom just where it landed in 1940 in no worse condition than those pristine warbirds coming out of Lake Michigan - and except for the force of its impact with the bottom lies just as it went it. I have seen this stuff with my own eyes!
I'll tell you what Doctor D, if those French guns from Fort Ponchartrain are made of bronze, the preferred metal for field artillery right up to the American Civil War, they're probably just as good as the day they were made and still perfectly safe to fire.
Even they're made of iron, they'd probably be OK to shoot with reduced charges, just to give people the idea and have a little fun. The French made some good artillery back in those days.
After all you wrote I wonder how there can be space enough left for the water ...
>> Fresh water preserves the shipwrecks. <<
Actually not . *Fresh water* by definition has a good healthy content of oxygen dissolved - water where steel does not corrode has oxygen content reduced to approach zero - and that's exactly what the problem is in the Great Lakes : lack of oxygen in areas of deep water below some certain depth due to plenty of thoughtless environment pollution going on over decades and decades and decades .
All too long nature has be regarded as 'what's there for free and what has to be chopped down , shovelled aside , channelled away , blown up , levelled and nullified' in order for men to put up their glorious stuff , the same they tear down or abandon just a decade or two later , leaving a devastated area - never taking care because " America is big , rich , healthy , vast and bestowed of endless resources " , just waiting to be retrieved , ripped off , chopped down , blown up , excavated and exploited , taken away without a thanks and without ever giving back no trifle bit to nature .
And in spite of published and known views from orbit showing global level devastations there still are people who believe this could go on forever – I think they also believe 2 x 2 make 6 or 7 or in fact anything except for if that be applied to the price of gas to pay at your local gas station .
Sorry if that's not exactly steam historical , yet sometimes I have to 'blow off' by letting go some other thoughts , mea culpa , no insult intended .
edit : some words retrieved that got lost in the interspace of the Great Gates of Bill's
Well dear, after that diatribe - of which I throughly enjoyed every word! I think undoubtdly you are a near relative to that glorious feminine creature a.k.a. MOther Nature! Please feel free to continue to share more of your voluptuous mea culpa, I think we are all heady with the effect!
"Steam train loving, coal burning green enviornmentalist! in love with European steam - ain't another to be found anywhere! - oh yah! - I think I'm in love!"
Oh no , please NO !!
It's nothing , it's certainly not meant to be naughty or teaching in any way .
Please mind what we are here for - exclusively !!
I'm just another steam fan as there are thousands around .
Nothing but nothing else .
= J =
Dr D It's hard to believe that THREE of these unique THREE CYLINDER locomotives survive today considering how uncommon they were, and all three represent big locomotive power. Dr. D
It's hard to believe that THREE of these unique THREE CYLINDER locomotives survive today considering how uncommon they were, and all three represent big locomotive power.
There is one more survivor of the 3 cylinder type, the Alton and Southern #12 in St. Louis. This is an 0-8-0 that was built in 1926 and retired 1948.
That make FOUR(!) surviving three cylinders!
I think that this locomotive is one of the most overlooked in the US, next to the SP 4460, and others that remian unnamed beause I have overlooked them! (Ironically enough)
I liked the idea of three individual three cylinder steam locomotives around .
I still prefer the idea they are four - except for in this case they should have four cylinders each .
Uhm , oh , arg - or should I have mixed up something here ?
On the other hand - four T1 four cylinder locos fortified by preservation instead of having forfeit life by the reaper's torch wouldn't be too bad , forthrightly said , no ?
=J=
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.