C&O 2-6+6-6 reached 46 mph with 14075 tons?

[Paul Milenkovic]

Dreyfusshudson

Why then did a Big Boy not out pull an H8 at speed? The reason is clear in the UP data- abominable boiler efficiency! It was raising only 4-4.5 lbs steam/ lb coal fired even at very modest water rates around 80000lbs/hr, this from a 150 sqft grate, 10% larger than the H8. The calorific value of the coal is not stated, so the true thermal efficiency of the boiler is not calculable, but it must have been very poor. Now in my view this has absolutely nothing to do with the design, everything to do with the quality of coal used. Boiler efficiency is determined by two things, the heat transfer efficiency (% heat produced finishing up raising steam) and the % of coal fired which is lost unburned. Heat transfer efficiency in boilers is always good, and with its exceptionally long tubes, Big Boy heat transfer will have been excellent. The problem lies entirely in the unburned coal losses. Now Appalachian and UK hard coals of ca 13500 Bthu /lb show very similar unburned losses (lbs/sqft grate/hr), somewhat more for mechanical stoking than hand firing. That is, the burning characteristics of these coals under high draught are similar, likewise French coal. I have attempted to back calculate what unburned coal losses were on the Big Boy, assuming the coal used was 11800Bthu/lb. At 600lbs/sqft/hr the answer is about 75lbs/sqft/hr, or nearly 6 US tons/hr. With Appalachian coal you would lose about 25 lbs/sqft/hr at this rate. If the UP coal had even lower Calorific value than assumed, the computed unburned losses would not be quite so high, but still way above those achieved with good quality coal (e.g. 65lbs/sqft/hr at 10500Bthu/lb). So whatever was fed to their firebox was barely worthy of the name ‘coal’.

The 6000DHP at 45 mph quoted by Kratville suggests maximum Big Boy cylinder power was about 6800 IHP. I do not have an estimate of their superheat, but I suspect it was not particularly good, on account of the relatively low combustion rates/sqft achieved, and the over long flues. If anyone has any data, I would be pleased to receive it. With a superheat of 680 deg F I estimate the Big Boy would consume about 104000lbs/hr steam in 35% cut off at 45 mph to deliver 6800IHP, say 94000lbs/hr water or 665lbs/sqft/hr. Even at this relatively modest rate, coal consumption would be about 23 short tons an hour, compared to a tender capacity of 28 tons. In other words, there was a very practical limit to boiler output, hence maximum IHP and DHP. An H8 with Appalachian coal would burn about 14 short tons an hour at the same rate.

Oh yeah, what about running a passenger 4-8-4 locomotive (we are not allowed to call it a "Northern" on the C&O) on that route dragging coal?

Think that is crazy?  Ross Rowland's ACE project did just that as a publicity stunt to call attention to their proposed ACE 3000, and this effort backfired as the fuel consumption was horrendous, at least according to Wardale's "Red Devil" book.

Rowland's locomotive the 614 in those "tests" was averaging 5.4 lbs evaporation per pound on high-btu Appalachian coal, giving 45 percent boiler efficiency, very comparable results to the 4.5 lbs/lb on the proportionately lower BTU coal you mention. 

Here is my question.  If the Big Boy was producing 6800 indicated ("cylinder") HP on 104,000 lbs/hr evaporation, that works out to about 15 lbs/hp-hr, a respectable figure for Super Power generation steam.  And if they achieved 4.5 lbs evaporation per pound of coal, that is 3.3 lbs of coal/hp-hr?  Which would be equivalent to just under 3 lbs of coal/hp-hr with a proper higher-BTU coal?  Again, a respectable figure of Super Power steam?

My question then is 3.3 lbs/hp-hr at 6800 (indicated) HP should come out to 11.2 short tons/hour, not the 23 tons you quote?

Now there are a lot of person-year to dog-year conversions on Wardale's data because he insists on using metric units (you English invented those units, why can't you use them?).  But it seems that the 614 on those trials was consuming 6-10 lbs of (high BTU Appalachian) coal per HP hour.

Besides leaking water into the fire space and consuming heat at 1000 btu/lb of water and having a high back pressure exhaust system that saps cylinder efficieny, the coal consumption of the 614 suggests it was worked quite "hard", which is very heroic when people talk about things but made the trials a public relations disaster when all of that condensed vapor, smoke, and cinders came flying out of the stack to remind people why Diesels replaced steam in the first place.

It has already been said that maybe the H-8 was misapplied to coal drags (let alone the 614!).  Do you suppose that something with smaller drivers and perhaps compound expansion could have produced the required tractive effort with much less evaporated steam and in turn less combustion loading on the grate, giving coal consumption closer to 2 lbs/indicated hp-hr?

[timz]

The assumed train-resistance-vs-speed in dreyfusshudson's table isn't a smooth curve-- it increases 46 lb from 33.11 mph to 33.55 mph and then 271 lb from 33.55 to 33.69 mph, and it's higher at 40.42 mph than at 40.79 mph. If we draw a parabola thru his 33.11-mph, 40.42-mph and 47.10-mph resistances then A turns out to be 24312 lb, B is 235.65386 and C is 4.013680. Based on that resistance, the train's balance speed with no engine pulling it is 64.6 mph on 0.2% downgrade and 96.5 mph on 0.3%.

The 2-6+6-6's drawbar pull on 0.333% down is maybe 9000 lb more than it is on 0.2% up-- does your table know that?

[Dreyfusshudson]

Thanks, Paul for raising these points.

I haven’t really studied the test results on C&O 614 in Wardale’s book, because the data is a bit sketchy, and the locomotive was, as you observe, in rundown condition.  However, looking at it again, it raises some interesting points, most particularly his strictures about how restricted the exhaust of 614 was.  Elsewhere he states Porta’s view that US exhausts ‘could not have been worse’; I researched this point fully, and concluded that whilst under extreme tests conditions, such as the 6600IHP tests of the Niagara and T1, back pressures were truly abysmal, if you looked at the steam rates used in practice they were acceptable, this a view gleaned from analyses of NYC, MILW, UP and ATSF running. I believe it to be generally true. It may have been possible to gain a fractional increase in efficiency on some designs from even lower back pressure, but nothing of a game changing nature. However, 614 is a possible exception, and this is maybe what coloured Porta’s view. Wardale quotes back pressures in the range 14 to 28 psi, and with a free nozzle area of the size and discharge coefficient he quotes, this would correspond to blastpipe flows of 52000 lbs/hr and 74000lbs/hr at 70 mph, approximately 3400 and 4100IHP respectively, not a lot from so large a grate. As tested, 614 was fitted with live steam injectors, so this will have been the cylinder rate. Since the loco was in run down condition, the evaporation needed may have been significantly higher than this. He makes a stab at the maximum IHP as being 3600, but this will have been at lower speed, and at 30 mph I make the power at 28 psi back pressure about 3800, in line with this. Thinking about it, I suspect that even with 11 heavyweight coaches on the George Washington climbing eastwards towards Hinton, a J3 would not have needed much more than 3000ihp given the limited speed possible, and with 10% recycle thanks to a feedwater heater, this would have meant that under its normal hard working conditions, the back pressure was ok, in other words, there was nothing wrong with the design for its intended purpose. It may well be however that what was good enough in terms of steam rate for the George Washington was not good enough for 5000 tons of coal, so the back pressure weakness was exposed.

I will need to ‘build’ a J3a and the line from Huntington to Hinton to test these ideas out fully. I will report back in due time on what emerges.

On the boiler efficiency point, my model gives 6.4lbs water/lb coal at 52000lbs/hr, 5.4 lbs water lbs coal at 74000lbs/hr, so the quoted 5.4 lbs water/ lb coal is in the right ball park, bearing in mind as noted above that the actual evaporation required to achieve these cylinder rates may have been higher. Wardale says the coal was well-nigh perfect, so you can’t blame this, though he does say a different mechanical stoker to normal was used, and if you look at his pictures of the exhaust, you can only conclude that combustion conditions were far from the text book standard my boiler model assumes. As a generality, in UK road tests were able to reproduce test plant results when the crews’ driving and firing were very carefully supervised, but tests where the crews were doing what comes naturally generally came out worse. So, my conclusion so far is that 5.4 lbs water/ lb coal was not a bad return, given that, according to Wardale, Ross Rowland was not driving with economy in mind!

On the Big Boy point, I think the SSC will indeed have been around 15 at 6800 IHP when working at 50 mph in the 40-50 mph range. You have spotted correctly that I divided lbs/hr by 1000 to get tons not 2000! Apologies. Hopefully the Table below comparing performance at 50mph clarifies- these numbers are all ‘of the order of’.

	Cut-off	Steam	IHP	SSC	Lb water	Coal				lb water/	Drawbar Eff
	%	lb/hr		lbs/ihp-hr	sqft/ hr	lb/hr	t/hr	lb/edhp-hr	lb /ihp-hr	lb coal
Big Boy	35	101860	6922	14.72	611	24580	12.3	4.06	3.55	4.14	5.38%	Utah coal
Big Boy	35	101860	6922	14.72	611	13627	6.8	2.25	1.97	7.47	8.30%	App coal
H8	43	102216	6902	14.81	681	16105	8.1	2.67	2.33	6.35	6.96%	App coal

 

I don’t think smaller driving wheels would have helped, in that they would have increased TE, and therefore to maintain your adhesion factor you would have gone to smaller cylinders, so, since limiting tonnage up the ruling grade is all about TE, no difference really, unless you want to argue that larger drivers are inherently slippier.

As for Compounding, I have spent the last 5 years researching French Compounds, having discovered that in their normal working regime they were less efficient than equivalent simples; this is very clearly what all their data says. Only at impracticably high rates achieved on tests do benefits come through. Chapelon never mentions this. The reason is that, according to the test plant at Vitry, the losses between the cylinders and wheel rims were far higher than on a simple, as measured at Rugby. The Rugby data conform to accepted models, the French data don’t. So, despite better cylinder efficiency, less power turns up at the drawbar. I have batted this around with experts over here, including those who knew Chapelon and are sympathetic to his views, looking for an explanation, without ever coming to ground, so it’s all rather unsatisfactory. Was it a specific problem with the French designs? Or is it inherent in Compounds? And why was compounding a success in marine applications? Whatever the answer, I’m not a fan of the complexity of Compounding.

[BigJim]

Dreyfusshudson

As for Compounding, I have spent the last 5 years researching French Compounds,

You should have been studying the N&W Y6 class instead. But, then, you don't like compounding, so what's the use?

[Dreyfusshudson]

 

Further to the earlier query, I did some simulations of a C&O 614 test run from Handley to Hinton, the steeper stretch on the trip from Huntington. As Wardale writes, even with 5000 tons of coal 614 was not especially taxed. I ‘drove’ it following two rules: evaporation rate no more than 60000lbs/hr and speed not to exceed 40mph.  Once 40 mph is reached on the level grades out of Handley, 614 bounds along quite easily at this speed in ca 35% cut off, ca 3000IHP. The steepest grades are about 0.4%, mostly between mp 417 and 399, and speed falls to 16mph in 55% cut off on this stretch. If the engine was not in the best of condition, considerably higher values will have been needed to sustain this level of power. I am not allowing for use of the trailing truck booster in this, and the fact that 614 was down to 2mph at one point after this broke underlines that it certainly wasn’t in the best of health- it really should have had no problem.  I covered the 73 miles to Huntington in just under three hours, average ca 25mph; Wardale says the whole trip average was about 30 mph, but maintain 40 mph on the easier stretch from Huntington to Handley will not have been a problem. I have evaporation as 6.4 lb water/ lb coal, 20% too high, which is some kind of measure of the condition of the loco I think. In good nick, I estimate it could have hauled 50% more, minimum speed about 11mph.

 

On the George Washington, working to a speed limit of 60 mph, (probably quite a bit higher than the rule book!), a J3a would be barely out of 1^st gear with 900 tons on this stretch, about 58mph start to stop, 32000lbs/hr evaporation with feedwater heater, no problem with exhaust pressure. Even climbing the 1 in 88 westbound to Alleghany, it would have cleared the summit in the low 30s without working at a steam rate which would cause excessive backpressure. On the Cardinal runs, with 1500 tons of load I suspect the time loss will have been due to the inability to accelerate from rest at the same rate as a pair of diesels, much lower TE.  

 

So, this was not an unfair or overly onerous set of tests, but the fact that the locomotive was not in the best condition made it a lot harder work than it might have been. The restricted exhaust opening will not really have been an issue on the C&O.

 

[Dreyfusshudson]

 

The resistance equation I use for the loaded coal train is R=1.7+0.03V+0.000187V² lbs/long ton; where V is the average speed over the previous 0.05 mile segment (not shown), not the speed at that point. I’m not saying this is correct, only that it fits the data to hand reasonably well, and it can’t be far wrong.

 

I don’t think I understand your point about the drawbar pull being different going up and downhill. It’s different because the Cylinder power (IHP) is different, because the engine is working faster going downhill, and at constant cut off this means cylinder power will be greater. Am I missing what you are saying?

 

[Dreyfusshudson]

To Big Jim: The only source I have on the N&W Ys is Warden’s book, which is short on data, so there’s not a lot I can analyse. The Ys were clearly very trusted machines, and did a super job hauling huge amounts of coal right to the end. The intriguing thing about the Ys is their adhesion ratio; If developing 152600lbs TE in simple mode, it comes out at 3.6; at 170000lbs, it is 3.2, but extra ballasting was added to the front raising this to 3.4. The A has 3.4, the J has 3.6. Everyone else thought you needed 4+. So what’s going on? Did the N&W know that 4+ wasn’t a good rule? Or did they have some knowhow that allowed them to bend the rule? This question was raised here in 2008, but not answered. Now 170000lbs far exceeds the Big Boy’s 133500lbs, so yes, they would lug more coal than anything else in the country, so no wonder they were revered.

What is clear is that the high TEs they could deliver were achieved when admitting live steam to the LP cylinders, so they were operating in ‘semi’ simple mode, so in that sense they were not really true Compounds. The question to my mind is what would have happened if you had used a simple articulated with 170000lbs TE. The more modern eight axle simples had TEs which maxed out at 140000lbs, presumably because of adhesion ratio considerations. It would not have been difficult to create one with 170000lbs TE, but would it have slipped? Or does the Compounding give some other kind of operational advantage?

If you have any information on what the cut off ratios were between HP and LP cylinders at various speeds, I could have a go at modelling the engine behaviour, to see what kind of efficiency benefits were possible. Quite apart from the problem with losses between the cylinders and wheelrims with French Compounds, there was a secondary problem with condensation on the LP cylinder walls, which was only eliminated at much higher inlet steam temperatures than needed for simples to avoid this problem, at least 700 deg F. At less than this there will (according to modern theory coupled to Altoona data) be very significant condensation in the LP cylinders, which given the Ys massive size will be large enough to balance the benefit from Compounding. So, in the absence of any data, I would wager that the Ys were no more efficient than any similar simple when operating in Compound mode.

Not that I think this matters that much; operational success does not depend much on the finer points of efficiency, as far as I can tell.

[BigJim]

Dreyfusshudson

What is clear is that the high TEs they could deliver were achieved when admitting live steam to the LP cylinders, so they were operating in ‘semi’ simple mode, so in that sense they were not really true Compounds.

This is only applies when the "booster" feature (optional) was being utilized and its purpose of which was to add heat from the live steam to the HP's exhaust, not to raise receiver pressure per-se. I would suggest that you find a copy of "N&W Giant of Steam" by Col. Lewis Ingles Jeffries.

[timz]

Dreyfusshudson

The resistance equation I use for the loaded coal train is R=1.7+0.03V+0.000187V2 lbs/long ton

So you figure with no engine pulling it the train will reach 65.7 mph on 0.2% down, just by gravity-- and 102.2 mph on 0.3% down.

Dreyfusshudson

about the drawbar pull being different going up and downhill

You figure the engine produces 7074 IHP and 6371 DBHP on the level at 40.42 mph. If that's true, then when it's producing 7074 IHP at 40.42 mph on a 2% upgrade, its DBHP will be around 4200; with the same IHP at the same speed on a 2% downgrade its DBHP will be around 8500.

BigJim

the "booster" feature (optional) [on the N&W 2-8+8-2] was being utilized and its purpose of which was to add heat from the live steam to the HP's exhaust, not to raise receiver pressure

Far as we can tell from Jeffries' book, receiver pressure in booster mode was the same as receiver pressure in simple.

[BigJim]

.

[BigJim]

.

 

[Dreyfusshudson]

 

To Big Jim: On the effect of adding live steam to the LP cylinders, in general, Compound systems are very tricky to model. If you fix HP and LP cut offs, say both at 75%, then at a given speed, the receiver pressure will reach an equilibrium value, one in which the flow through the LP system exactly matches that through the HP system. It is possible to work this pressure out by trial and error. A rough calculation of the Y6 system in 75/75 at 20 mph in simple Compound mode says the receiver pressure will be around 100 psi, roughly 3000hp each from the HP and LP cylinders, 6000 in all which tallies with the reported maximum dhps of 5500. In Compounds, the calculations depend a lot on the clearance space in both the HP and LP cylinders, usually difficult information to uncover. I have assumed the French values of ca 25% HP and 16% LP.  If you have any information on clearance space that would be helpful.

 

Now if you increase the steam flow through the LP system by adding live steam, then if cut off is unchanged, the only way you will get increased flow through the LP set up is if receiver pressure goes up. I am assuming you are adding a significant slug of steam e.g. 20%; that would certainly bring benefits, not least helping resolve the condensation problem I mentioned earlier. But then you would say that the receiver pressure would have to go up by (roughly) 20% to achieve this, to say 120 psi. However, any increase in receiver pressure will cause a decrease in flow through the HP set up, and so the receiver pressure would re equilibrate at a lower value, maybe not too far from the original 100 psi.  In other words, the increase in receiver pressure might not be that great. It’s all a bit mind bending, but I think that’s correct. I could try to model this if more detailed information on how the Ys were operated, and their clearance volumes is available.

Jeffries book is available at our National Railway Museum, but I need to go there to access it. I intend to go there again next month, but I’ve been saying that for the last two years!

[Dreyfusshudson]

To T

I agree that the equation I quote gives the balancing speeds you quote for a train with no locomotive on 0.2 and 0.3% grades, though the train would take along time to reach these speeds. However, I think it very dangerous to extrapolate the equation beyond the speed range in which it was derived. At low speeds, the V² term is not that important; it becomes increasingly critical as speed is raised. Now as I wrote, the equation I derived is a fix which models the data for a train averaging mid 20s mph, maxima around 40. It could be that its balance between the V and V² coefficients I chose is quite wrong; this would quickly become apparent if higher speed data were available. If the balance is wrong, then extrapolations to higher speed could be way out. So, I think the equation is useful within the speed range in which it was derived. It may be very dodgy outside that.

 

I don’t agree with you calculations as to what would happen on a 2% grade. If the train hit a 2% upgrade travelling at 40.4mph, working in constant cut off over the first 0.25 mile the speed would drop rapidly, to about 38.5 mph, average speed about 39.5 mph. The IHP would fall by about 200HP, and dhp fall by a similar amount from the starting value of ca 6370. The train would stall after about 0.5 mile. If you want to sustain 40.4 mph on the 2%, you need about 70000 IHP, DBHP 65000 (you need a lot of power to move a 535 ton locomotive up 2% at 40 mph.

 

 

 

If a 2% downgrade is reached, speed rises to 42.3 mph over the first 0.05 mile, and IHP and DHP go up by about 200HP. A massive brake force is needed to maintain 40.4 mph.

MZ

[timz]

Dreyfusshudson

I don’t agree with you calculations as to what would happen on a 2% grade. If the train hit a 2% upgrade travelling at 40.4mph...

If the 14075-ton train hit the upgrade, you mean. When I said "when it's producing 7074 IHP at 40.42 mph on a 2% upgrade, its DBHP will be around 4200" I wasn't referring to the 14075-ton train-- I meant if it's producing 7074 IHP at a constant 40.42 mph on a constant 2% grade (pulling whatever tonnage it can pull at that speed) then its DBHP will be 2000+ hp less than it was on the level at the same speed at the same IHP.

There's no question about that-- the only question is, does your table take that effect into account. Looks like it doesn't; if it doesn't, it should.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Dreyfusshudson

 

I haven’t really studied the test results on C&O 614 in Wardale’s book, because the data is a bit sketchy, and the locomotive was, as you observe, in rundown condition.  However, looking at it again, it raises some interesting points, most particularly his strictures about how restricted the exhaust of 614 was.  Elsewhere he states Porta’s view that US exhausts ‘could not have been worse’; I researched this point fully, and concluded that whilst under extreme tests conditions, such as the 6600IHP tests of the Niagara and T1, back pressures were truly abysmal, if you looked at the steam rates used in practice they were acceptable, this a view gleaned from analyses of NYC, MILW, UP and ATSF running. I believe it to be generally true. It may have been possible to gain a fractional increase in efficiency on some designs from even lower back pressure, but nothing of a game changing nature. However, 614 is a possible exception, and this is maybe what coloured Porta’s view. Wardale quotes back pressures in the range 14 to 28 psi, and with a free nozzle area of the size and discharge coefficient he quotes, this would correspond to blastpipe flows of 52000 lbs/hr and 74000lbs/hr at 70 mph, approximately 3400 and 4100IHP respectively, not a lot from so large a grate. As tested, 614 was fitted with live steam injectors, so this will have been the cylinder rate. Since the loco was in run down condition, the evaporation needed may have been significantly higher than this. He makes a stab at the maximum IHP as being 3600, but this will have been at lower speed, and at 30 mph I make the power at 28 psi back pressure about 3800, in line with this. Thinking about it, I suspect that even with 11 heavyweight coaches on the George Washington climbing eastwards towards Hinton, a J3 would not have needed much more than 3000ihp given the limited speed possible, and with 10% recycle thanks to a feedwater heater, this would have meant that under its normal hard working conditions, the back pressure was ok, in other words, there was nothing wrong with the design for its intended purpose. It may well be however that what was good enough in terms of steam rate for the George Washington was not good enough for 5000 tons of coal, so the back pressure weakness was exposed.

I will need to ‘build’ a J3a and the line from Huntington to Hinton to test these ideas out fully. I will report back in due time on what emerges.

 

 

Wardale reports everything in metric units, but here goes.  I don't have The Red Devil in front of me, so these are approximate figures.

I am going with Wardale's "best figures" for the 614, which are from a composite of runs where they had the booster still working and the boiler had not yet sprung so many leaks into the fire space, which burns a lot of coal evaporating that water to no effect on tractive effort.

We are talking about 4500 trailing (metric) tons, average speed of 45 km/hr, and a fuel consumption (of a high quality coal) of about .035 kg/hr/ton-km.  As there are 2.2 lbs in a kilogram (kg), this amounts to 4500X45X.035X2.2 = 15,600 lbs coal/hour (about 7.8 short tons/hour).

As to the horsepower, you give a value of about 3000 hp that such a locomotive can develop at 45 km/hr (28 MPH).  The figure of 3000 hp sounds reasonable to me.  Contemporaneous with the test of 614 in coal service on the Russell-Hinton line, the C&O was dragging something like 14,000 trailing tons with a pair of SD-50 Diesels (what are they, 3600 hp each at the alternator shaft?) at a somewhat lower average speed (30 km/hr average or about 19 MPH).  Porta rode those Diesels and reported to Wardale that they were operated in Run 8 (full rated HP) for more than 60 percent of the time. 

So we are talking 15,600/3000 or 5.2 lbs coal/hp-hr.  That is about 11 times the energy consumption (in BTU's -- coal 14,000 btu/lb, Diesel 20,000 btu/lb) of those 3rd generation Diesels (.33 lb/hp-hr?).  5.2 lbs coal/hp-hr seems high compare to the 3 lbs/hp-hr I had read for the H-8 Alleghenies in similar service.

The general figure bandied about is that steam required 6 times the BTUs of (first generation) Diesels, "Chapelonized" steam maybe 3 times the BTUs.  That the 614 (in its best condition) required at least 11 times the BTUs of the Diesels according to Wardale was met by disbelief by Rowland and others and suggested a high hurdle to be met for an improved steam locomotive (the ACE 3000), even if coal was cheap and Diesel oil was very expensive.  Wardale seems very discouraged about the prospects for an improved steam locomotive at this point given that the 614 test was reinforcing notions regarding why Diesels superceded steam in the first place.

So OK, the 614 had its feedwater heater removed (what I read, in contradiction of Wardale, is that this batch of the C&O J3's had exhaust steam injectors, and 614's was replaced with a live steam injector because the exhaust steam injector never worked properly rather than it being removed as a maintenance shortcut), and it had what Porta called a criminally poor exhaust system.

But stop and think about all of that.  3000 hp at 28 mph works out to 3000X375/28 or about 40,000 lbs tractive effort in relation to 60,000 lbs starting tractive effort (reverser "in the corner" but without the booster).

What does 40,000 lbs tractive effort come out to in cutoff?  Wardale talks about 614 being at about 35% cutoff for much of a "big climb" apart from a ruling grade.  Max economy with Walschaerts gear is maybe at 25%, but 35% is usually "high power with OK economy"?  Do you get 40,000 lbs with 35% cutoff?

I am thinking that apart from the boiler leaks and the loss of the booster and the high-restriction exhaust system, the ACE crew was working 614 pretty darned hard for most of the eastward-against-grades-with-loads segment, probably well outside its "economy band."  The thing with Diesels is that you can underpower a train and lug in Run 8 at barely the minimum continuous speed (MCS -- Porta told Wardale that this appeared to be the operating policy of the C&O and they didn't care if crews damaged the odd traction motor provided they didn't stall out) and be running a peak economy.

If we are talking about drag service, operating near maximum tractive effort for hours on end is not the way to achieve economy with a steam locomotive.  It may look "cool" to steam enthusiasts to see that locomotive heroically "working hard" and sending a tall plume of vapor, smoke, and carbon carryover into the air, but the Wall Street Journal picked up on this right away as a reason that steam is obsolete.  That "test" of the 614 may have as much as anything else finally closed the chapter on steam as a viable propulsion source for mainline railroading, and Wardale sensed as much.

Sure, you could have squeezed a bit more lugging economy out of 614 by a boiler in better repair, a working feedwater heater, and a less choking exhaust nozzle.  But would that have made enough a difference to consider steam for drag service in the early 1980's when oil because expensive and people did not see any relief in sight?

Wardale says as much that the 614 test was more about publicity rather than serious work on the ACE 3000, but what kind of publicity?  The 614 test appeared to be a "photo freight" run to appeal to railfan sensibilities, but "what was (Ross Rowland) thinking" in terms of making a statement about the practicallity of bringing steam back to counter expensive oil?

Did anyone think at all about what speeds and cutoffs a single-expansion steam locomotive would use with what trailing tonnage and where the "sweet spot" was?  Wardale suggests that didn't matter because the 614 had better economy when the booster was working than with the reduced tonnage when the booster was out (that was only used on a short ruling-grade segment), but the locomotive condition had deteriorated at the time the booster went out.

The real answer to drag service was Chapelon's compound expansion 160-A1 with 6 (!) cylinders to get enough capacity to not be operating "in the quadrant" all the time, and with low pressure steam circuit reheat and cylinder steam jackets so all those big cylinders won't sap power from condensation losses.

But did anyone on the ACE team, including Porta and Wardale, really look into what is needed for an effective drag-service locomotive (a N&W Y-6b compound Mallet!)?

 

[Paul Milenkovic]

Anyway, I am curious as to what the computer model will turn up for the 614's test with a coal drag on the Russell-Hinton line of the C&O.

In light of what Wardale wrote, I am curious as to where on the "performance envelope" of speed vs tractive effort vs evaporation vs coal consumption they were operating, it seems that Wardale or Porta didn't dig too deeply into this apart from blaming the exhaust system.  If they were lugging that locomotive this badly, would a lower-restriction exhaust made much a difference?  Chapelon certainly took a broader-picture approach with his 160-A1.

[Dr D]

Paul,

In enjoyed your insights into the career of C&O 614.  

I remember seeing C&O 614/611 and C&O 1604 on the scrap line in Russel, KY in 1970 all the engines were pretty rusty and stripped of most collectable parts.  Chessie changed the engine number 614 to 611 late in its life and it sat in Russel numbered C&O 611.  I also remember when Ross Rowland got the "Greenbrier" and started the restoration of it.  Ross and I discussed the odd lack of a Worthington S feed water heater system -  but the engine had been ordered new from Lima Locomotive Works with the Hancock type TA-1 live steam injectors as a "poor man's feed water system."  

Feeling was, that these last 5 of the J3-a "Greenbrier" 4-8-4 ran better without the standard Worthington SA feedwater appliance.  Seems odd to me considering the reliability almost all other railroads found in the water admission and heating efficiency achieved with the Worthington SA open system.

---------------------------

C&O 614 and its 5 sisters were built in 1948 and retired in 1956.  I am sure that engineering development work on them halted much earlier - a mere 8 year lifespan wasn't very much time to sort out various engineering details for one of the most advanced passenger engines that Chessie ever owned.  

Admitedly, the other C&O 600's - 5 of them, were designed in 1935 and an additional 2 more were built in 1942 - these 7 engines gave operational experience to Chessie so that the design studies really encompassed over 20 years of development.  These engines did vary somewhat from eachother - the first C&O 600-604 engines had plain bearings throughout and also firebox thermic syphons and arch tubes, along with the aforementioned Worthington SA feed water heater systems.  

The second set of 2 additional engines were C&O 605-606 built at the beginning of World War II in 1942.  These were 47 ton heavier locomotives by weight owing to military needs of all the alloy steels which resulted in heavier steel construction.  These two heavyweight "Greenbrier" had different boiler tube designs consisting of an additional three boiler flues with included more superheater tube units.  The 1942 engines also featured "roller bearing" equipped leading and trailing trucks.

The third series of 5 engines were C&O 607-614 and were all built in 1948 - late in the steam game, and were completely equipped with "roller bearing" side rods and main bearings, as well as roller sets on almost every other operational bearing point possible.  Firebox design was changed eliminating the thermic syphons and arch tubes and using instead four "security circulators."  Grate area remained at 100 sq ft, but the firebox heating area was reduced by 38 sq ft.  Evaporative heating surface was also reduced about 600 sq ft., and superheating surface was also reduced by 300 sq ft.  The combined heating surface was then reduced by 700 sq ft.  The result was a reduction of heating surface to cylinder volume from 254.36 to 233.76.  These engines also differed from their predecessors in the use of ¨nickel steel alloy" for most all engine components.  These last 5 locomotives also differed from the previous 7 engines - as mentioned - in the use of the Hancock live steam injectors for boiler feed water control and heating in place of the Worthington SA systems.

--------------------

Advanced Steam Locomotive Exhaust Development - At the time C&O was finishing up its steam locomotive design and operation, they did see fit to build 1 switch engine with the "Giesl" advanced locomotive exhaust nozzle/stack.  If I remember the Trains Magazine article, the smokestack was an oval funnel shape.  Significant efficiency in the reduction of "exhaust back pressure" was reported by C&O, but the time for new steam designs had passed, and the steam game was over by then.

----------------------

Also of note regarding future locomotive design, was the wonderful high efficiency poppet valve C&O 310-314 series of "Hudson" 4-6-4 passenger locomotives built in 1948 by Baldwin.  Larger and more powerful than the famous New York Central J3 "Hudson," these Chessie "Hudson" engines were equipped with the elephant ear smoke deflectors similar to the New York Central's fast Niagara 4-8-4s.  These "Hudson's" were Chessie's LAST steam passenger power built, and were reported as wonderful engines - short lived and much more deserving of preservation than the lowly "home made" C&O 490 "Hudson/Pacific" yellow belly streamliner that was somehow unfortunately preserved at the B&O Railroad Museum today.

--------------------

C&O - The folks that gave us the modern mighty C&O 1600's "Allegheny" 2-6-6-6 and also gave us the modern C&O 607-614 "Greenbrier" 4-8-4's, and also the fast running modern C&O 310-314 "Hudson" 4-6-4's.  Seems odd to me that C&O steamers are hardly as appreciated as those of the Norfolk And Western, Pennsylvaina and New York Central.  

We have only these two might C&O 1602 and 1604 and the sole remaining C&O 614 to remember such a famous and advanced high technology steam fleet. 

Doc 

[Paul Milenkovic]

Dr D

 

I remember seeing C&O 614/611 and C&O 1604 on the scrap line in Russel, KY in 1970 all the engines were pretty rusty and stripped of most collectable parts.  Chessie changed the engine number 614 to 611 late in its life and it sat in Russel numbered C&O 611.  I also remember when Ross Rowland got the "Greenbrier" and started the restoration of it.  Ross and I discussed the odd lack of a Worthington S feed water heater system -  but the engine had been ordered new from Lima Locomotive Works with the Hancock type TA-1 live steam injectors as a "poor man's feed water system."  

Feeling was, that these last 5 of the J3-a "Greenbrier" 4-8-4 ran better without the standard Worthington SA feedwater appliance.  Seems odd to me considering the reliability almost all other railroads found in the water admission and heating efficiency achieved with the Worthington SA closed system.

 

I know some may regard this as "rivet counting", but just to clarify, you mean supplied new with an exhaust steam injector as one of the two required boiler feed systems?  The exhaust steam injector is regarded as the "poor man's feedwater heater" on account of providing some heat recovery from the exhaust steam.  Many perfectly fine locomotives had only live steam injectors and hence no heat recovery (as did 614 in the 1980's tests), but I am just making sure.

[Wizlish]

Paul Milenkovic

I know some may regard this as "rivet counting", but just to clarify, you mean supplied new with an exhaust steam injector as one of the two required boiler feed systems?

Yes, of course, but then again no one is likely to mistake the Turbo-Inspirator setup for an 'exhaust steam injector' either.  The point of the system was, in theory, to reduce the weight of a feedwater heater essentially by using one 'motor' to drive the various pumps, and coordinate the sources of feedwater heat (notably including exhaust steam, but not imho to the degree a formal ESI would).  Dave Klepper has noted this system was applied to the New Haven I-5 Hudsons, where it made possible the use of a larger firebox and boiler than would likely have been possible with a conventional FWH of comparable capacity.  The use of the Turbo system on the PRR T1s is similarly for weight-saving rather than 'lower cost' - and it is a substantial savings both in absolute weight and in weight distribution.

The 'other' injector will almost always be a standard Nathan 4000 or something similar, mounted and operated in the usual way.  Where this setup begins to give 'problems' is when the locomotive is operated at high output for a continued time.  The lower peak temperature that an injector can achieve before it starts to 'break' in cavitation is far below the equilibrium temperature of the water in the boiler at operating pressure, and when a high volume of injection is required due to high steam demand, you start to risk thermal stresses in the boiler around the point the (relatively) cool feedwater is going in.

[BigJim]

Paul Milenkovic

Feeling was, that these last 5 of the J3-a "Greenbrier" 4-8-4 ran better without the standard Worthington SA feedwater appliance.  Seems odd to me considering the reliability almost all other railroads found in the water admission and heating efficiency achieved with the Worthington SA closed system.

First of all the SA system was an open system unlike the "high brow" Elesco system which was closed.

Paul Milenkovic

Many perfectly fine locomotives had only live steam injectors and hence no heat recovery (as did 614 in the 1980's tests), but I am just making sure.

Oh contraire. Again this is a myth that needs to have been stopped a long time ago. For all intents and purposes 100% of the heat from live steam used to make an injector work was transmitted to the feedwater. Cold water most definately does not enter the boiler from the injector!

Think about it folks. Steam at 300psi has a temperature of 421 degrees F. And you are trying to tell me that combining that with the feedwater is going to equal cold water going in the boiler!

And, there will probably not be a lot difference in water temperature between the feedwater heated by injector or the feedwater heater system due to the open system and water boiling at 212 degrees F at normal atmospheric pressure and the fact that the hot water pump needs to pump water not steam. However, there could be some slight pressure involved inside the FWH that could elevate the water temp somewhat. Yet, it is still a system that is open to the atmoshere.

Keep in mind that the saving between the two systems is in the fact that when a steam injector is used, it uses boiler pressure to do so. A feedwater heater uses substanually less steam in operating its appliances.

[Paul Milenkovic]

BigJim

 Oh contraire. Again this is a myth that needs to have been stopped a long time ago. For all intents and purposes 100% of the heat from live steam used to make an injector work was transmitted to the feedwater. Cold water most definately does not enter the boiler from the injector!

 

A proper feedwater heating system is both an energy-saving and a water-saving appliance.  Extracting energy from the exhaust steam reduces the amount of energy that needs to be supplied by burning coal.  Maybe not a whole lot, but figures of 8-10percent savings are bandied about.

Extracting energy from the exhaust steam also condenses it.  You are not condensing nearly all cylinder exhaust as with a condensing locomotive but you are condensing also 8-10 percent, supplying water savings that go along with the fuel savings.

A live steam injector uses steam that you had to burn coal to raise.  You are also tapping steam from the boiler before it has run through the cylinders.  The exhaust steam injector saves some water and some coal over a live steam injector -- otherwise why bother?  A proper pump and feedwater heating system, especially a "closed" or "shell" type system will have even more.

[Dreyfusshudson]

 

 

Just catching up on the last week’s comments.

 

TMZ 13.01.16.

 

The equations I use, and the process I use them in say that an H8 could haul about 748 (long) tons up a 2% grade at a steady 40.4 mph when developing 7070HP in 50% cut off. I have the DHP at 3868, not far from your 4042. The DHP is spent as 3610HP doing work against the grade, 259HP for the rolling resistance of the wagons. The remaining 3201 HP is divided between 2584 HP to raise the locomotive up the grade (assumed weight 1199400lb=535.5 long tons) and 618HP to overcome its own rolling resistance at this speed. (Looks like Excel is not having a good day rounding up!). So, we are not far apart, and the differences may be down to slightly divergent views on the loco weight or resistance? But to answer your question, yes my process does take into account all relevant effects.

 

Paul Milenkovic 19.01.16.

 

Reading what you write, Paul, I think you may have missed my post of 12.01.16, where I cover many of the points you make; you will see I am by and large in agreement with these when it comes to the J3a. The table below shows what the simulation says a top class J3a working with live steam injector feed might deliver. As noted earlier, the 6.47 lbs water/lb coal is 20% optimistic; the reasons for this is that a) all such simulations assume absolute perfection in driving and firing technique, and they are always optimistic and b) I am taking no account of the run down nature of the J3a. My guess would be that the actual lbs coal/ dhp-hr would be around 3.5.

 

Water			Coal
Imp. galls	per mile	164	lbs/mile	253	av ihp	2852
lbs	per hour	42973	lbs/hr	6641	av dhp	2479
lbs	per dhp-hr	19.19	lbs total	18479
Imp Gallons	Total		lbs/dhp-hr	2.68
Lbs water/lb coal		6.47

 

 

 

With respect to the ‘sweet spot’ for the J3a, this Table gives an overview of what the models I use say about J3a performance (LSI feed only). Take the numbers lightly; they are meant to illustrate trends rather than specify precisely what will happen.

 

Engine: C&O J3a
Cut-off	Speed	Steam	IHP	Back Pressure	SSC	Loco	EDHP	Water		Coal			Drawbar
%	mph	lb/hr		psi	lbs/ihp-hr	Res HP		evap/ sqft	Gallons /mile	Lbs/ hr	lb/edhp-hr	lb/ mile	Eff
25	20	24444	1492	2.54	16.38	180	1312	244	122	3115	2.37	156	7.77%
30	20	28476	1746	3.65	16.31	180	1566	285	142	3511	2.24	176	8.22%
40	20	36563	2206	6.57	16.57	180	2026	366	183	4461	2.20	223	8.38%
50	20	45436	2579	11.41	17.62	180	2399	454	227	5739	2.39	287	7.71%
60	20	54278	2872	17.55	18.90	180	2692	543	271	7258	2.70	363	6.84%
70	20	63618	3092	24.29	20.58	180	2912	636	318	9130	3.14	457	5.88%
85	20	78315	3268	35.29	23.96	180	3088	783	392	12630	4.09	632	4.51%
25	30	30646	1991	4.11	15.39	260	1731	306	102	3746	2.16	125	8.52%
30	30	35894	2338	6.05	15.35	260	2078	359	120	4375	2.11	146	8.76%
40	30	47169	2943	11.92	16.03	260	2683	472	157	6017	2.24	201	8.22%
50	30	59063	3439	20.07	17.17	260	3179	591	197	8183	2.57	273	7.16%
60	30	71934	3844	29.28	18.71	260	3584	719	240	11027	3.08	368	5.99%
25	40	34897	2346	5.47	14.88	373	1973	349	87	4248	2.15	106	8.56%
30	40	40714	2768	7.95	14.71	373	2395	407	102	5028	2.10	126	8.78%
40	40	54731	3448	16.71	15.87	373	3075	547	137	7343	2.39	184	7.72%
50	40	69834	4051	27.24	17.24	373	3678	698	175	10528	2.86	263	6.44%
25	50	37911	2583	6.59	14.68	528	2055	379	76	4639	2.26	93	8.17%
30	50	45121	3013	10.28	14.98	528	2485	451	90	5689	2.29	114	8.06%
40	50	60509	3769	20.48	16.05	528	3241	605	121	8477	2.62	170	7.05%
25	60	39859	2730	7.43	14.60	731	1999	399	66	4907	2.45	82	7.51%
30	60	47562	3158	11.75	15.06	731	2427	476	79	6082	2.51	101	7.36%
40	60	64623	3939	23.32	16.41	731	3208	646	108	9348	2.91	156	6.33%
25	70	41250	2787	8.11	14.80	991	1796	413	59	5105	2.84	73	6.49%
30	70	49081	3212	12.78	15.28	991	2221	491	70	6336	2.85	91	6.47%
35	70	57699	3606	18.61	16.00	991	2615	577	82	7912	3.03	113	6.10%

 

 

 

You will see that as with all locomotives, peak drawbar efficiency is around 40 mph; at higher speeds, the increasing resistance of the locomotive takes its toll; at lower speed you have to work in longer less efficient cut offs to deliver a given level of power. Working at an average speed of 30 mph at an average feed rate of just over 40000lbs/hr, the J3a should still have been in a good area. Slugging it out at 15-20 mph on the steeper grades will take it to a less efficient area. Note the drawbar figures quoted are for equivalent values(corrected to constant speed and level track). Note also that on this design back pressure rise to what I would regard as seriously undesirable values above 50000lbs//hr cylinder steam. The figure would be a bit higher if a feedwater heater were fitted (less steam through the nozzle), but if you wanted to exploit the full potential of this design running at high speed on the PRR, NYC, ATSF etc, then a modest upgrade to the exhast would be needed. The summary Table above integrates the consumption over all the (assumed) cut off and speed conditions occurring on the run. The lbs coal/edhp-hr is 2.52.

 

In a way, the response of the drawbar curve to speed is pretty meaningless, because operators want to deliver to a target speed at maximum commercial load- let’s say 15 mph for coal, 70 mph for passenger. This then specifies the power you need to deliver, and the challenge is to optimise efficiency for the design in their desired operating regime.

 

The thing I would take issue with is the idea that ‘Chapelonisation’ could improve drawbar efficiency by a factor of 2. The idea that Chapelonisation could radically improve the performance and efficiency of latter day steam is a myth propagated since the 1930s by those who wish to talk up the prospects of radically better steam designs. If you assess how close the Chapelon optimum latter day US steam types were, I would put the figure in the range 90-95%. As for the last 5-10%, it wasn’t that designers didn’t know how to deliver it, it was more that the improvements were more trouble than they were worth in terms of operational efficiency and reliability, plus a bit of natural conservatism. Were some minor tweaks possible? Of course. And where did Chapelon get his ideas about superheat, backpressure and enlarged steam circuits from? Read the Altoona Bulletins from 1910 onwards, I suggest. As for his Compounds, he doubtless made some remarkable improvements, but the real story is that he started with some absolute shockers, and brought them up to an efficiency standard that was somewhat below equivalent simples in their normal operating range. At least, that’s what his data actually says. If you want to see ‘modern steam’ at its best, get out to watch N&W 611 while you can. Or ATSF 3765. Or NKP 765. And hope that C&O 614 , UP 844 etc. make it back to the main line. That covers Baldwin, Lima, Alco and Roanoke. Even better get 1601 Running! It can still haul 14000 tons of coal.

 

Exhaust steam Injectors vs Feed water heaters.

 

I wonder if the dynamic in play is that when in 1920s you were striving to be the very best, you wanted to fit all the most modern appliances to make sure you had the best possible product. There are indeed some economy savings for a feedwater heater over and exhaust steam injector, but they are not huge. Come the day when newer, better traction is available, (diesels), the mind set switches to how can I get the best out of the steam I have at lowest operating cost. So the UP went back to exhaust injectors. So did the CN. In this country, the exhaust steam feed to the ESI was sometimes sealed off at the end, so they reverted to live steam injection- just too much trouble.

 

I read somewhere, possibly on this forum, that what clinched the ESI deal for the C&O J3as was that the ESI salesman furnished the C&O men with some very nice ham joints. No idea if this is true, but I like it.

 

 

[BigJim]

Dreyfusshudson

I read somewhere, possibly on this forum, that what clinched the ESI deal for the C&O J3as was that the ESI salesman furnished the C&O men with some very nice ham joints. No idea if this is true, but I like it.  

Are you sure that wasn't "Hog Jowls"? 

[Dreyfusshudson]

You weren't in on the deal, were you?(!)

[Dr D]

A very interesting discussion for those who want a thoughtful perspective of boiler feed water systems and their resultant effect upon locomotive horsepower and efficiency!

I really never paid much attention to boiler feed systems until the Gettysburg RR boiler explosion and then became a student of the Federal Government required two boiler water delivery systems.  For safety reasons most steam locomotives had (1) a Live Steam Injector controlled by the engineer and the second (2) a the Feed Water Heater system controlled by the fireman.  This (2) feed water system had the advantage of supplying hot water into the boiler increasing the overall efficiency of the locomotive.  

The breakdown of either of these water feed systems which were a "back up" for eachother prevented the dreaded "low water" over firebox, and resultant deadly "low water boiler explosion."  Failure of both systems at the same time was preparation for disaster as in the June 16th, 1995 Gettysburg incident.  The deaths of the engineer and fireman were thankfully overted because of the unique Canadian firebox design.

---------------------------------

As to C&O 614, I never paid much attention that there was a third type of hot water supply system to the standard "closed" and "open" feed systems - the Exhaust Steam Injector such as the Hancock TA-1 used by LIMA on the C&O 614 build.  Also the way it played into the engine design - a lighter weight locomotive.  

Previous posts show that the locomotive designers at LIMA and the 1948 C&O steam engineering situation of the Robert Young dieselization era were up against different political parameter governing the effective use of the steam locomotive - not power performance per se but low cost compared to diesel-electric usage.

I also do not understand why Lima reduced the firebox size and eliminated the thermic syphons and arch tubes and replaced these with "security circuulators."  Giving a reduction to firebox heating area of 38 sq ft, reducing evaporative heating surface by 600 sq ft, and reducing superheating surface area by 300 sq ft. for a combined heating surface reduction of 700 sq ft? 

Seems odd that C&O or LIMA for all this steam technology would leave the exhaust nozzle development completely out of the picture when N&W, NYC, PENNSYLVANIA and AT&SF were so completely absorbed in it?

Further, the poor condition that C&O 614 had been allowed reach prior to the Wardale testing - to the point of substancial firebox leakage, and the removal of the efficient Exhaust Steam Injector replaced apparently with another "cold" Nathan Live Steam Injector just to meet legal requirements.  Was not locomotive efficiency and performance a concern here for the Wardale's tests?

Further, is the eventural waste of fantastic passenger locomotive designs.  Why build a poppet valve series of gigantic "Hudsons" like C&O 300's in 1948 and use them for only 6 years?  Why build the fantastic "Northern" class of 1946 C&O 600's and use them only for 8 years?  Why go to all the trouble to rebuild the "President Class Pacifics" into modern streamline "poppet valve," "roller bearing" equipped "Yellow belly" Hudson 4-6-4's and never use the on the trains they were designed for?

----------------------------

Oh yes I almost forgot!  Enter Wall Street Industrailist Robert R Young who suddenly took over the running of the Chesapeake & Ohio RR after WWII!

Born in 1897 in Texas during the Spanish American War, Young attended Culver Military Acadamy in Culver, Indiana graduating as head of the class in 1914.  He attended the University of Virginia but did not graduate.  In 1916 he took a job in New Jersey at the Dupont Gunpowder plant as a "powder-cutter."  He married the sister of famous Western American painter Georgia O'Keeffe, and by 1920 he was working in the Treasurers Office of Dupont.  After a couple of years speculating in securities he went to General Motors and by 1928 was the Assistant Treasurer of GM.  

Young predicted the 1929 stockmarket crash and made a fortune selling short.  In 1931 he formed a brokerage firm and bought a seat on the New York Stock Exchange.  He owned a controling interest in Alleghany Corporation a railroad holding company formerly owned by the Van Sweringen family which controled the Cheasapeake & Ohio and Pere Marquette Railroads.  

R.R. Young, known also as "Railroad Young" the "Populist of Wall Street" aka "The Darring Young Man of Wall Street."  Became a crusader against the missmanagment of railroads by banking interests and challenged the old methods of financing and operating railroads.  So he became Chairman Of The Board at C&O intent on launching a much publicized campaign of modernization with forward thinking advances in technology such as diesel powered light weight passenger trains, and the diversification of freight railroad operations, and large scale computorization.

In 1947 he merged C&O with Pere Marquette and created a research and development department to impliment these futuristic ideas of railroad freight and passenger service.  Fortune Magazine said it, "Robert Young has an almost endless inventory of ideas, some pneumatic and some substancial, about passenger service.  He believes railroads could double any previous passenger revenues if they put out a good product and merchandized it well..."

In June 1954 Young completed a hostile takeover of New York Central Railroad spending $1,300,700 in the newly developing take over art of "proxy fighting" with the Vanderbilt heirs giving up control of the railroad.  (TV news broadcaster on CNN - Anderson Cooper is the last of the Vanderbilts)  Young became Chairman Of The Board and selected Alfred E. Perlman as President.  The Central carried a substancial tax burden from communities that saw rail infrastructure as a source of property tax revenue.  Also, President Eisenhower with the help of Congress passed the Federal-Aid to Highway Act of 1956 - the Interstate Freeway System - giving free non-taxed road service to the trucking industry which put New York Central in worse shape than Young imagined.  Central was also saddled with a 15% tax on passenger fares.

Young's efforts to accomplish on the Central what he had done on the C&O failed an eventually the Central stock prices fell in January 1958 in which Young lost and in the midst of depression blew his brains out with a shotgun.

Young was finally caught up in the change he helped instigate.  The Penn Central debacle was to follow with the pending financial collapse of the nation.

------------------

What was going on with C&O steam locmotive operations had much to do with, and was only a "drop in the bucket" of what change was going to happen in 1940/50's politically charged America.

Doc

[sgriggs]

Dr D

I also do not understand why Lima reduced the firebox size and eliminated the thermic syphons and arch tubes and replaced these with "security circuulators."  Giving a reduction to firebox heating area of 38 sq ft, reducing evaporative heating surface by 600 sq ft, and reducing superheating surface area by 300 sq ft. for a combined heating surface reduction of 700 sq ft? 

 

A few thoughts here.  Steam locomotive design is a series of tradeoffs.  It is very easy to compare direct and indirect heating surface area and draw conclusions strictly based on the numbers.  If the J3 has more direct and indirect surface area than the J3a, then the J3 must be a better performing design, right?  Not necessarily.  Indirect heating surface heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference between the flue gas and the tube walls.  As the flue gas travels from the firebox to the smokebox, the temperature difference decreases rapidly, until it is relatively small by the time it is about 18-20 feet from the firebox.  There is a significant diminishing return for additional tube length above 20 feet.  So, if you think about it a different way, not all square feet of indirect heating surface are created equal.  A square foot of indirect heating surface in the tubes and flues 21 feet from the firebox has much less evaporative capacity than a square foot 2 feet from the firebox.  The J3 had tubes and flues 21 feet in length, the later J3a had 20 foot tubes and flues.  So, 236 sq ft of the J3's indirect heating surface advantage is in the last foot of tube/flue length that contributes very little to evaporative capacity.

The J3a design traded that extra foot of tube/flue length for a 1 foot longer combustion chamber.  This was a tradeoff that was well worth it, as the larger combustion chamber provided several important benefits:  a) more furnace volume, b) increased direct heating surface area (changes to circulators/siphons/arch tubes notwithstanding), and more efficient drafting through the shorter tubes/flues.  ALCo steam locomotive design expert Alfred Bruce, wrote that a locomotive boiler's power potential was a direct function of furnace volume.  The larger combustion chamber allows more time for complete combustion of coal before it entered the tubes and flues.  And since direct heating surface area (furnace wall) is exposed to the radiant heat of the fire, it has around 6 times as much evaporative capacity as indirect surface area (tubes/flues).  Therefore, what the J3a lost in indirect heating surface was more than made up by the increase in furnace volume and direct heating surface in the combustion chamber.

 

The flue diameter on the J3a was also increased to 4" from 3 1/2" on the J3 (the J3a had 177 flues, the J3 had 220).  The effect here was an increase in the gas flow area from 10.2 sq ft on the J3 to 12.7 sq ft on the J3a.  This, in addition to shortening the tube length, improved the draft efficiency of the J3a, creating higher velocity gas flows through the tubes and flues for a given smokebox vacuum.  Higher flue gas velocity translates to higher heat transfer (and therefore higher evaporative) rates for a given square foot of tube and flue area.  

Finally, as you point out thermic siphons and arch tubes were replaced with  circulators for a net reduction in direct heating surface area on the J3a.  The primary purpose of these firebox elements is to promote water circulation throughout the boiler, and especially over the firebox side- and crown sheets.  I have not seen the circulator arrangement inside the 614's firebox, but I assume they are similar to those installed on Union Pacific's Big Boys and late Challengers.  Those circulators (inverted "T"s), are designed to draw water from the firebox sides and expell it at the crown sheet.  I assume this change was driven by maintenance needs (I have seen it written that UP avoided thermic siphons on its big power because siphons were found to be hard to maintain in service).  I have never seen any data that suggests siphons  and arch tubes had an efficiency advantage over circulators, so I'm skeptical that there is a significant difference in evaporative performance.

[kgbw49]

H-8 on the move - it is impossible within the camera frame to see all the tonnage being pulled - probably not 14,000+ - but it might be quite a bit given the fact that the locomotive is obviously working hard as the exhaust is mainly straight up.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

As Dr. Giesl observed in a similar situation many years ago, that exhaust blast represents a lot of wasted energy.

[BigJim]

CSSHEGEWISCH

As Dr. Giesl observed in a similar situation many years ago, that exhaust blast represents a lot of wasted energy.

Eh, depends on how you want to look at it.
Stepping on the gas does not waste fuel, stepping on the brake does.

[sgriggs]

BigJim

 

 

CSSHEGEWISCH

As Dr. Giesl observed in a similar situation many years ago, that exhaust blast represents a lot of wasted energy.

 

 

Eh, depends on how you want to look at it.
Stepping on the gas does not waste fuel, stepping on the brake does.

 

 

Stepping on the gas wastes the fuel that does not result in forward propulsion.  The heat energy in the stack exhaust steam that is over and above the heat energy in the feedwater from the tank is 100% wasted.