I had the pleasure in watching the preparations for 611's move last week and today the thrill of watching her pass by, on the Trains web cam, which was sited close to the Lynchburg - Salem turnpike. The interviews were quite interesting to me while we awaited the train and luckily, apart from the wind, it seems it was a lovely day.
Grateful thanks to Trains Magazine, Jim Wrinn. the young lady and helpers for a very unique spectacle. I look forward to the Classic Trains Special.
Now, before bedtime (it is presently 20.17 UTC here), to look at the Roanoke cam.
Alan, Oliver & North Fork Railroad
https://www.buckfast.org.uk/
If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there. Lewis Carroll English author & recreational mathematician (1832 - 1898)
611 at Villamont, Va.
.
Glorious! Glorious! Thanks so much for posting this Big Jim!
Great video!!! Storming the grade and spliting CPLs.
TG3 LOOK ! LISTEN ! LIVE ! Remember the 3.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
EVEN THE AUDIO WAS GOOD!!!!
Wow! Thanks for posting!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Beautiful. Simply beautiful.
Thanks very much, Big Jim. I contributed a tiny amount to her restoration, and am thrilled to know she is back in business.
-Crandell
1. 18 trailing cars, including the "canteen" water tender. Would Amtrak dispatch 3 P42's for that?
2. It seemed the locomotive was working hard? Was the valve rod dropped down for "forward quadrant"? It seems a little hard to tell as the engine flashed by and also with Baker valve gear.
3. Was some of that smoke "for show"? It seems there was some stoking to darken the smoke just as they passed the crossing? The pictures of J's I have seen show a rather clean stack.
4. Were all of those train watchers on public property or on private property with permission. What about those people crossing the tracks towards the end? This gets batted around and argued, but I would like us in the railfan community to make the extra effort to set a good example regarding safety crossing tracks and respecting the private property of the railroads, especially from the safety point of view.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Question 3: I suspect all that smoke was the head end crew hamming it up for the cameras. Common practice during photo run-bys.
There are only two real possibilities for the smoke: inattention or purposeful. Given the circumstances, my money would be heavily placed on the latter choice. For some strange reason I can't quite understand, the practise is to lay on the black stuff thickly for photo opportunities. Somewhere along the way, a great many people accepted that properly fired steam locomotives should belch volumes of smoke, and that gets passed on to successive generations. I don't like it one bit, but I am one of relatively few contrarians it seems.
The locomotive was still cycling near 3-4 rpm as it rounded the curve, so the cut-off ought to have been somewhere between 20-30% at that point in the grade and climbing by increments of about 20 every 10 seconds, or so. As its HP dropped off rapidly, the increased cut-off became more important in smaller units of time.
Paul, the elderly gentleman scampering across the tracks caught my attention as well, mostly because I know many older people think they are more physically adept than they really are, especially when excited (who hasn't seen the wedding videos on youtube where some rather awkward and potentially dangerous events take place). I watched for more of the same, but when the locomotive rounded the bend, I watched it and failed to look for more opportunists or people who couldn't make up their minds. I didn't notice any, and felt better that the gentleman seemed to dash before the locomotive could be seen bearing down on him about 300 yds away. It's the late dashers who make me hold my breath. A dropped shoe, hesitation to retrieve it, a dropped lens from a carrier not zipped shut (the one his dad gave him prior to his death), a dragged toddler whose mother's hand can't quite maintain his squirmy hand in hers, yada yada.... I don't want to think about it.
Firelock76 Question 3: I suspect all that smoke was the head end crew hamming it up for the cameras. Common practice during photo run-bys.
They used to do that coming southbound out of my hometown of Bucyrus, Ohio. They'd hit the straight stretch between Bucyrus and Marion and just pour on the smoke. Awesome sight to see! On south of town, though, where she was "cruising", the smoke was rather light, as seen below on a northbound trip south of Bucyrus at Caldwell Road.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Smoke could also be a fireman/firewoman not experienced enough.
Paul ,
if you look at old pictures , steam used to be fired 'smokey' in the States generally and pretty heavily so . If this was improving steaming is at least questionable for the 'darker' cases since it increased the percentage of but partly burnt fuel and increased CO content which meant a loss of heat development by increase of feed rate . As with the infamous 'grate limit' there always was a limit to how much steam you could generate and this said , the crews in their daily struggle to handle loads that in doubt were rather up to the engine's limit than leaving a significant margin of power reserve were definitely more concerned about getting their train over the line than with environmental aspects or saving fuel . So in doubt , tendency clearly was to 'fill the box' rather than take a risk of fierce blast of draughting tearing up a hole in the fire .
Then again , much of the coal used had a lot of fines and volatile contents and was 'smokey' to fire to start with . If that latter aspect has since been improved substantially I just don't know . With steam tours , true , there is a deplorable tendency again to put on plenty for show - disregarding not only environmental aspects ( and raining lots of cinders onto cars and travellers , too ) but also doing no good for boiler flues & tubes and superheater elements , smokebox upkeep .
Was the engine working hard ? I beg your pardon , she was , wasn't she ! There is a common tradition of calling it 'effortlessly' if a steam loco did live up to demands , even if just so . While it was not into last resorts , it was well worked at - presumably - full throttle and some 30 - 35 % cut-off at passing by .
With the N&W J's large cylinder volume dropping down 'to the corner' as was done more commonly on Pennsy steam would not have produced higher tractive effort effectively but was likely to result in a violent slip even before fully having 'dropped' the gear . With this in mind , yes the engine was working pretty hard as you could also see by the high rising tower of smoke emitted . If the engine would be hammering like that at a lesser rate of working already something would be seriously wrong with tune-up of draughting . On the other hand , the Roanoke engines having been equipped with single chimney plain design of draughting , to a certain extent they always tended to 'hammer away pretty hard' as soon as called to live up by any extent while for instance a 241.P SNCF Mountain with double chimney Kylchap exhaust would keep pretending to be easy going pretty much until having to call up last reserves .
Instead of making a steam trip an event more rare than fine weather around Cape Hoorn and then hanging on about any coach available no matter what shape , origin or color provided it runs on standard gauge ( or so it seems ) I would rather have more trips and a genuinely ‘clean’ brand consist and a ( for technicians ) more pleasing ascent at some speed worth a passenger train and working at but light grey exhaust nearer to the preferable work range of the locomotive .
About the test run top speeds reported , some 110 or even 115 mph , not intending to enter discussion about the exact value , this was a once-in-life all out effort . To do that , you could go much nearer to the mechanical and material structural limits than you could ever do in regular service . What many steam fans forget when comparing steam’s speeds with that of regular trains of later times is : if a steam loco , no matter if British Gresley Pacific , Bulleid Pacific , Stanier Pacific or NYC J-3a , N&W J or Southern Daylight 4-8-4 : no speed claimed or recorded with a test run was ever applicable in every day service by 1:1 scale . Rather , you had to stay away from that mark of maximum by some 20 % , in cases when engines had been hard pressed to attain that max speed even a 30 % margin could wisely be left untouched and what I can say : so far I have *never* ever seen a video of any of these engines speeding by at anything but faintly near such speeds as claimed , rather the steam passenger by-runs are leisurely affairs at some 70 – 80 mph . One old guy who had travelled the footplate of a Bulleid Pacific in the Sixties with the crew only pushing it to some 80 mph wrote never in his life did he get as scared as when on that engine , believing it was plain inevitable wheels would jump rails soon or sooner and had ‘soft knees’ when finally they made it into the next station alright and he took the chance to leave for solid ground below his feet . Well , the descendants of Sir Francis Drake sure take a different look at safety than the rest of the world .
As for #611 , the by-run shows the engine has that later simplified version of rod arrangement and that means ‘bye-bye’ to 100 mph running anyways .
Besides that , congratulations to successful return of #611 to the working steam locomotives of today – some good heap of solid work has been put in , no doubt !
Regards
Juniatha
Juniatha,Sometimes, it seems like you write just to hear yourself type.
Back off Mr. Jim, Juniatha's a friend of mine and I always enjoy reading her posts and her technical insights. She's got a better brain for this stuff than I'll ever have.
I don't want to lose her off this Forum due to petty sniping, and I daresay neither does anyone else.
Respectfully, Wayne
Thanks again for the video.
I'm on her side on this one, Jim.
Tom
Firelock76I don't want to lose her off this Forum due to petty sniping, and I daresay neither does anyone else.
Now, it should have been very obvious that "stdgauge" had the smoke problem nailed to begin with. There once was a time when black smoke was a no-no and could result in disipline to the crew member. Sadly, the practice of a clear stack seems to have changed just to placate railfans. But, since all of this smoke is probably due more to inexperiance let's cut the fireman some slack for now.
Further more, somehow speed got tangled up in this thread and I will beg to differ with Juniatha's premise that the singled up rods of the 611 preculde it's ability to run 100mph or more. And let's keep in mind that even though she has never seen videos of J's running 100mph doesn't mean it didn't happen. Keep in mind the timeframe and that movie equipment was not a part of peoples everyday household equipment.
One old guy who had travelled the footplate of a Bulleid Pacific in the Sixties with the crew only pushing it to some 80 mph wrote never in his life did he get as scared as when on that engine , believing it was plain inevitable wheels would jump rails soon or sooner and had ‘soft knees’ when finally they made it into the next station alright and he took the chance to leave for solid ground below his feet .
That was a "Bulleid Pacific" not a smooth riding N&W Class J!
The smoke 'problem' is easily enough resolved by observing the exhaust in the video from just before the engine reaches the crossing. It may be a bit difficult to tell with the strong backlighting, but significant smoke then would be even more markedly dark...
The "issue" with the rod redesign has been covered here before. It is not difficult to calculate the augment forces for the original and redesigned layouts. I doubt there would be any difficulty in achieving 100 mph safely with the redesigned rods, as the N&W staff indicated at the time of the redesign. But I also have no doubt the balancing (and overbalance conditions) were better with the original layout than the revision, as was indicated.
Paul Milenkovic1. 18 trailing cars, including the "canteen" water tender. Would Amtrak dispatch 3 P42's for that?
Probably! (although they'd only need 2)
Wizlish The smoke 'problem' is easily enough resolved by observing the exhaust in the video from just before the engine reaches the crossing. It may be a bit difficult to tell with the strong backlighting, but significant smoke then would be even more markedly dark... The "issue" with the rod redesign has been covered here before. It is not difficult to calculate the augment forces for the original and redesigned layouts. I doubt there would be any difficulty in achieving 100 mph safely with the redesigned rods, as the N&W staff indicated at the time of the redesign. But I also have no doubt the balancing (and overbalance conditions) were better with the original layout than the revision, as was indicated.
I have watched a number of 611 videos. It seems to me that when the train is coming to a expected or known picture zone, the fireman is laying on the smoke for picture effect. When the train is approaching in the far distance, the exhaust is near clear, as it gets closer to the picture zone, out comes the black smoke.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I have enjoyed watching many videos about the various steam excursions run now and in the distant past. They clearly show much more smoke near locations where there are planned/repeated runby opportunities for the gathered photogs, some of whom disembark from the excursion itself prior to the locomotive backing around a bend 400 yards distant. I don't believe the people running this recent excursion would have placed an inexperienced fireman in position, even if the term is relative....like age, beauty, and smarts. One can clearly see the stack in this image as it rounds the bend with a modicum of smoke, and it stays that way for another five or six seconds until there is an obvious darkening. That sometimes happens with a change of cut-off setting, or a change in stoker settings. It can even happen when a change of coal type suddently gets intaken by the auger, the previous type having been exhausted in the hopper as the coal level drops. I doubt that anything more than a simple tweak of the firing rate is at play here, and only to please the fans. That is, purposeful. If one were to ask the person in that seat, it would all be settled. Until then, my guess is only as good as anyone else's here.
Hello ,
BIG Jim
First , for sure you’re free to misinterpret whatever I write any time and to any extent , I have no intention to keep you from blowing your mind , everybody will see what's in it and if it keeps track or jumps rails .
That said , we come to the issue of revamped rod layout – once again .
There was a vital and important reason for application of the tandem rod design in the first place : it was to lighten both piston force and mass inertia loads on the main crank pin since just those loads had become critically high in Super Power types of the 1940s , so much so as to cause an alarming increase of main pin failure – and not just when an engine had been pushed to speeds beyond 100 mph but also at regular speeds of some 80 .. 85 mph , run in daily service . Effectively , reciprocating load – we’re looking at load in horizontal longitudinal direction here , as you will kindly care to mind – was halved by the rod layout , since the tandem center coupling rods enclosing main rod big end at combined lateral center line exactly in extension of that of the main rod , meant half of the thrust was directly taken to third and fourth driven axle leaving only that part of thrust to power second and first driven axle to go through main pin inwards of main rod big end / tandem rods bearings assembly .
Now I would like to see your logical prove of how the main crank pin should be able to take the *same total* (!) amount induced by main rod big end as before by steam plus reciprocating mass forces , yet now without above mentioned 50 % alleviation ?
If we accept as given , the original tandem rod design was safe for everyday running up to 100 mph , then clearly the same cannot be said with the revamped design lacking exactly that important stress distribution feature . A simplified first approach shows , without it , in fact the same mass inertia as at 100 mph before is now acting on the main pin inwards the stand-alone main rod big end at Ö0.5 x 100 = 70.7 mph because as I’m sure you know mass inertia increases by square of increase of rotational speed .
As far as I remember the question why N&W had rebuilt the rod layout and what exactly were the specs of the new layout had never been answered ( main pin should have been beefed up – jet again how this should have been done in a given wheel remains to be investigated ) . My guess would be it was done as a simplification for maintenance at a time when 100 mph ability was no longer asked for ; mind the tandem rod design was not without its very special and high demands on precision in production , up-keep and repair – the revamped simple layout did away with these special demands . Also , wasn’t it left pretty vague how many engines had been rebuilt and why ? could it have been a make-shift repair used in case of failed tandem rod roller bearings in view of end of steam coming up close ?
As for the Bulleid Pacific : we will fully agree in your being absolutely right in remarking it was a Bulleid Pacific and a Bulleid Pacific was not a N&W J nor in fact any 4-8-4 . Still , the Pacific type of w/a was generally considered well suited for high speeds and has proven so beyond doubt . However , w/a was not the end of the story as for good riding at high speeds , rather it could be considered a first intro to a field that besides vehicle layout has to comprise considerations of trackwork layout and precision of alignment too .
To be sure : I didn't mean to say anything about the quality of design of the Bulleid Pacific , in fact I didn't enlarge on any reasons as to why this trip had been so scaring to Helmut – so don't argue on words that just weren't there .
One last word ( although my keyboard works silently and then again I couldn’t hear my typing because I’m listening to orchestral music at the same time ) : in the report on test runs with a Pennsy T1 , N&W themselves emphasized that any superiority the Duplex showed around 100 mph , speed run especially for the occasion (!) was pretty irrelevant to them because they simply didn’t apply such speeds to any extent .
Wishing you only good road trips in diesel cabs
edit : some words put to the point
Hi Selector
While the engine only appears at 1:40 or so , it's true there is but dark grey smoke as compared with the straight black smoke then appearing ( as the crew spot the photographers ? or just as the fireman asks the stoker to add some on ? ) then there are phases of black smoke alternating with lightening emissions . This would seem to indicate a good amount of coal was added and then possibly the setting of the steam distribution valves was modified and further it would appear the stoker then was at least eased if not shut off as the engine makes her final approach and runs by . As the trains proceeds to climb in the distance the exhaust is decently clear . As to the ability of the fireman , I believe all we could say he manages to keep boiler output to demands and apart from an episode of black smoke , which might at least partly be attributed to show making , emissions aren't too bad - never forget about the quality of coal and the tendency of stoker archimedes screw to rub off a lot of fines from lumps of coal which both add to smoking .
Anyways - welcome back among the living , # 611 !
Awesome video for sure, Big Jim and thx for sharing. I'll be riding with her this Sat and am really excited about it. A friend will be taking videos too. I think the smoke is for runbys, #4960 used to do them. One time we had to climb a hill where there was a bridge. Dad wisely had us stand to the side and not directly over where the train would pass. He said they'd get a face full of cinders and they did. He knew from working at Frisco during the steam days what could happen. They always seemed to pour on more smoke when she'd be doing a "movie run" as it was called in those days. Dad had 8mm movie camera and was filming it along with a bunch of other people. Mom stayed on and would wave at us as she passed by. Fun times.
Since I wrote this post, I've returned from riding #611 on Sat 6-13 trip, watching other railfans film us passing. And we did the same thing on Sun, found a good spot to video and chased for a short distance near Appomattox. Awesome trip, she's a beauty for sure. We also met Bob Saxten and Cheri George and had pics taken with them. She's small for a woman fireman but she gets the job done.
JuniathaAs far as I remember the question why N&W had rebuilt the rod layout and what exactly were the specs of the new layout had never been answered ( main pin should have been beefed up – jet again how this should have been done in a given wheel remains to be investigated ) .
I have been assured that this was answered in some detail a couple of years ago. I have no idea how to find that, but my understanding was that the 'single intermediate rod' redesign did NOT compromise the 100-mph capability of the locomotive. I hope that Dave Stephenson or Hugh Odom remember the documentation of this.
Here are cuts of the N&W drawings for the main-pin arrangement of the double- and single-intermediate-rod arrangements:
Note the relative offsets and overall length of the main pin. I do note that the eccentric crank for the 'single rod' application seems to be made very light compared to previous versions, and this may be part of the design accommodation.
If anyone has a link to earlier discussions, here or elsewhere, provide them.
JuniathaNow I would like to see your logical prove of how the main crank pin should...
JuniathaAs far as I remember the question why N&W had rebuilt the rod layout and what exactly were the specs of the new layout had never been answered ( main pin should have been beefed up – jet again how this should have been done in a given wheel remains to be investigated ) . My guess would be it was done as a simplification for maintenance at a time when 100 mph ability was no longer asked for ; mind the tandem rod design was not without its very special and high demands on precision in production , up-keep and repair – the revamped simple layout did away with these special demands . Also , wasn’t it left pretty vague how many engines had been rebuilt and why ? could it have been a make-shift repair used in case of failed tandem rod roller bearings in view of end of steam coming up close ?
The following is from former Scioto Div. Engineer Tom Dressler: "A deceased close personal friend of mine who ran the powhatan Arrow and the Cavalier between Portsmouth, Ohio and Williamson, W. Va. used to run them at 110 plus between Wheelersburg and haverhill, OH each and every day until the ICC imposed the 79 mph speed limit on passenger trains without cab signals. They still ran them at 95 to 100 on that run even after the new rules were implemented."
Then there is the 611 running a special excursion back in September 1959 when Engineer A.C. Phelps got her up over 100 mph on the flatlands of eastern Virginia (Pocahontas Glory Vol. 5).
The drawings are very interesting , and your note of all the components exchanged is putting some light on what happened , thank you for posting .
I’m still surprised the #4 pin should have been the problem . Being at least not *longer* than the main pin and certainly loaded much lighter there should have been no problem designing it to demands and amply so , if necessary . Generally , as I mentioned before , the tandem rod arrangement demanded a highly correct geometry to be kept in service within close tolerances – perhaps tolerances too tight for steam service to keep them up , just mind the influence of Franklin auto wedges as they adjust individually to wear of each the axle boxes and guides , thereby introducing inexactitudes in axles spacing as the main driver axle boxes tend to wear more heavily . If you get but a slight difference between axle spacing and rod length with roller bearings on both you may end up with high stresses in rods and consequently – pins . Again , just the very length of the #4 driver pin should have made it more forgiving to some degree of small misalignment – why wasn’t it ? Would be interesting to learn .
I see the redesign was done with N&W typical care to keep the engine’s rpm speed potential . Unfortunately I can’t make the drawing’s figures readable , enlarging the picture makes it become blurred : did they keep given lateral distance between main rod center lines as I would expect in view of piston rods given lateral distance ?
Back to smokin'...
I've got a video of the late lamented Burlington 4-8-4 5632 and some of it's excursions back in the '60s. That thing's putting out enough black smoke, and I mean BLACK brother, to turn Mount Vesuvius green with envy.
"Well," I says to myself, "either they've got a BAD load of fuel oil, or that engine's in serious need of work, or the fireman doesn't know what he's doing, OR, they're hamming it up for the people trackside during the runbys." I suspect it was the latter.
Hey, Civil War and Revolutionary War re-enactors usually ham it up a bit to make the "battles" look like battles. Pilots re-creating dogfights at airshows do the same thing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.