Hello everybody,
this is my 1st post. I already searched the web for answers but couldn't find much. I'm a big fan of the Union Pacific 9000 class, it is, to me, simply beautiful. I would like to recreate some operations made by this locomotive in the train simulator RailWorks, and I already found a model for the locomotive. However I have realized that it uses the Union Pacific Challenger characteristics (for example boiler pressure is listed as 280psi instead of 220psi the Nines had). I would like to create proper specifications for this locomotive, and because of that I have to ask these 2 questions:
a)where could one obtain a tractive effort chart of the UP 9000? Something like this one
b)if it is impossible to obtain such a chart, or way too expensive, is it possible to create such a chart via maths instead of using empirical evidence?
Regards, dimovski
If "via maths" means making a guess at it, then sure, you can always do that. If you want to know if it's right, you'll need empirical evidence, which isn't common.
Don't recall if Kratville's Vol I has a TE curve-- think Railway Age had one, but don't recall when. If you assume 3500-4000 maximum drawbar horsepower you can draw a graph that's about as realistic as anything you'll find in print.
Hi Dimovski
Considering the point of development steam locomotive technology had reached at the time of birth of the UP 4-12-2 – boiler design incl. draughting , cylinder tribology and conjugated valve gear with all its inherent drawbacks and imperfections concerning steam distribution – and taking account for the historical major design error made extending the already long 4-10-2 by yet another set of drive wheels and *still* clinging to the well-known two-wheel delta truck instead of readily picking up Woodard’s successful train of thought having led to his replacing the 2-8-2 by a 2-8-4 wheel arrangement ( which then would have resulted in a 4-12-4 , without my extending this discussion on consequential boiler design ) power output offered by the Nines could not be what it was in later , more compact 4-8-4 types . It was non the less very respectable and with engine in good mechanical condition and draughting aligned to the point was able to attain 5000 ihp pretty closely with the low quality of coal used by UP ( in view of the limited area of grate with design having to use that Gaines wall feature in the firebox some extra ihp could have been attained by using good grade of black coal – not a sensational amount though , because of front end incapable to aspire the amount of combustion air then needed for reasonable combustion of the extra fuel heat contents offered )
We had earlier tried to evaluate the relative virtues of the late series Nines against the early Challenger series and although the thread went without definite conclusion I think it was felt early Challies had little to offer over final Nines design as concerns effective starting tractive effort nor output at speed . It rather reflected UP’s decision to end three cylinder venture and in view of curving mountain lines go for divided drive anyways , i.e. SE Mallet instead of rigid frame three cylinder types . As it turned out with the Big Boys , the SE Mallet concept offered a wider scope for further development of size than had the rigid frame concept – at least on UP’s mountain mainlines any further extension of the three cylinder rigid frame concept beyond the 12 coupled Nines would have been impossible , i.e. no such thing as the Russian 4‑14‑4 ( lack of success of which had least to do with number of coupled drive wheel sets but all the more with political decisions around renewal of permanent way and mass construction of standard locomotives instead of special design , for here to leave it at that ) or an adaptation for maximum grate and firebox size on a 4-14-6 wheel arrangement .
As for development of power curve over speed , in view of the Nine’s three cylinders driving six sets of wheels , you principally have pretty much the situation you had in a 2-8-2 with two cylinders also with a comparable cylinder volume by live steam factor of adhesion – thereby proposing for simplification the middle cylinder would turn out work fully equivalent to that of the two outside cylinders , which unfortunately was *not quite* the case at all speeds ( it was somewhat inferior at starting and *could* become superior by over-travelling of valve due to malfunctions of the conju-gear’s lateral set of levers up front ) The typical rise and fall of ihp output over speed of a 1925 vintage Mikado of equivalent mass per set of drive wheels is well known and could be used here for a first approximation of a Nine’s performance simply enlarging it by factor of 1.5 with the Nine’s boiler performance having been about as well up to demands of cylinders .
The looks – yes , the line of six sets of drive wheels must have been a sight to behold . However what compromised the design’s balance were two features :
-a- the downward bending of the boiler top line with the conical decrease of boiler barrel diameter upsides only ; the boiler of the SP version of 4-10-2 was much better in this , having same decrease of diameter on the lower side only , thus retaining a straight , level top line ; later , standard practice was to make it concentric with level boiler center line .
-b- the firebox extending over last set of drive wheels , having to use a Gaines wall this way effectively making part of firebox cut off grate into another form of combustion chamber ; so , boiler proportions as concerns grate , direct and indirect heating surfaces are not what they look like at first glance , with combustion chamber incl. firebox ex Gaines wall having been largely over-extended , at least for firing of low grade coal as used by UP .
However , I like the cylindrical shape water tank of the tender and the cute fitting in of the coal compartment – definitely more shapely than the later U-section types of tenders ( dictated by need for increasing capacity , sure, sure .. )
In case you may want to check out my former thread on the Challies and the Nines , see
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/740/t/196442.aspx
On page 3 I had posted a picture I had colored and intensified , see
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8051/9029rsfrontlowviewoncom.jpg
Regards
Juniatha
timz and Juniatha, thanks a lot for Your posts! Indeed very informative and helpful. However, I am not that skilled (read: no skill at all here) that I could make a 4000ihp curve by hand and guesstimation. I was rather asking if it would be possible to use a mathematical function to draw the chart/power curve.
I am completely overwhelmed by Your post Juniatha, that is a lot of information! And a few words which I had to google - you always learn something new :) I'm very grateful for the picture! It is a shame that this locomotive isn't getting much attention - even if it wasn't extremly succesful. There are maybe less than 5 videos on youtube showing it in action (and these are hard to find because of their low views and usually have at most 40 seconds of UP 9000 material. And only one is in color) Now, we obviously like different tenders - my favourites are the huge PRR ones with doghouses and the U-shaped CSA-1/CSA-2 tender. (for the USA, that is). Here are a couple of my screenshots from video games - I know it's by far not the same quality nor the same authenticity, but they're good enough that I use them as background:
http://imgur.com/a/HAMKI#3
Regarding the comparison of the Nines with 4-8-4s - I'm sure that is all true, but the 4-8-4s do not seem suitable for the longer freight trains - the 9000 has/had about 30000lb more tractive effort than the FEFs have/had. So, I presume, a 4-8-4 could pull a 1000 ton passenger train at high speeds (say, 80+), but would be outperformed by the 9000 in pulling a longer freight train, correct? I've got to add that comparing a 4-12-2 to a 2-8-2 seemed somewhat shocking to me - I live in the colorful fantasy world in which the 4-12-2 is something too special to be compared with "ordinary" Mikados.
I have indeed seen Your topic, but the posts seemed somewhat messed up, I think I even found some regarding the ACE3000 trials (?) in that topic.
Regarding the books You mentioned, timz, I believe that both are sadly far too costly for my mid/south-European budget, and posting any pictures of them would probably break some copyright... too bad.
In that case, I have to reformulate my question, possibly reviving Your old topic Juniatha by it: If we compare the UP 9000 with the late Challengers (3900 class), the 3900 is listed as hauling, on average, 6.24% more tonnage. I do not find a difference of 6% too concerning, but how did the speeds of these trains differ...
Sorry if I'm sounding illogical, this is turning out a bit too complex for me it seems...
Regards, dimovski.
Well, a mod still has to approve my 2nd post so I can't edit it, so I'll post it as a seperate post, hoping that he will join them.
I have found exactly 2 points for my chart:
1)Peak horsepower is reached at 68km/h, 48% cutoff. Indicated power is 3665kW. Later on it's mentioned that "the steam engine delievered 3542kW" which, I presume, translates to drawbar power? Some help would be appreciated here aswell.
2)The Union Pacific used them to haul 120 car trains at 50mph, and the wikipedia.de article adds "on straight track". I have found a mention on a 120 car train being pulled by a Big Boy at xyz mph, and the mass listed as 3800 tons. This gives a tractive effort of 101000 pounds however, which is 6000 to 7000 too much for the 9000.
I have also found 2 mentions of engine+tender weight of 354 tons, and one of 391. Is the 391 a typo, an engine equipped with the late-model tender, or simply US short tons, and 354 tons is 354 metric tons?
I also found it weird that the maximum speed is listed as 60mph (97 km/h) based on driver size. Isn't that only a rule of thumb? The N&W J class were running a lot faster than their driver size is.
Dimovski
Well , comparing a Nine with a Mikado is simply taking account for the number of drive wheels having been 1.5 times those of the 2-8-2 - as were the cylinders ! That's what was pointed out by ALCO back then to emphasize the capabilities of the three cylinder engine .
Comparing the *later* Chally with the Nines : the Jabelman Chally *did* turn up some extra capacity since it was a revised and improved design by itself and the Nines had meanwhile been dropped from the drawing board . Attending to the three cylinder engine as it had been set up , substantial improvements would have been possible and then the comparison would yet again have turned out a different result .
What also tends to blurr the picture is Union Pacific learned to load engines closer to their limits as the years went by , they also amended some of the most severe stretches of their mountain lines and again this helped to increase loads . So , I wouldn't take that 6 % increase all too significant as indicating relative virtues of the locomotive types . Speed would tend to have improved , though not dramatically with the later type Chally , overall performance was on a steady way up with the three final types of big steam on the UP , the 4-8-4 , the 4-6-6-4 and the 4-8-8-4 . Or as you may put it : steam on the UP was never being replaced because of lack of competence , it was just being released by diesels as a train is handed over to another engine at an intermediate stop .
You can't compare revving capability of even the later series ´Nines with a 'Normans & Wikings' J class 4-8-4 - *NO* way ! The N&W engine was a brilliant design and gave a sparkling performance proving Roanoke had done right just about what could have been done right in 1940s steam loco design . it also was a fully roller bearing equipped design while the Nines never had them .
60 mph was pretty fast running for a Nine , although the well balanced riding of a three cylinder engine would be inviting to do so - yet it resulted in aggressive forces within the valve gear and lateral levers , causing rapid development of play which in turn was abortive to cylinder performance . In the Kratville book the author mentions ALCO unsuccessfully tried to ‘slow down’ UP , yet UP often had their own ideas of how to handle engines . Principally the same happened to the Gresley three cylinder engines – the difference was monthly mileage was much lower with steam in Britain , leaving more and longer time slots for maintenance to attend to developing trouble before it became serious ; steam locomotive maintenance at the time of the Big Four – LMS , LNER , GWR and Southern must have been just short of immaculate – for UP steam the like was not on and so the Nines had to do with what they were given and inevitably that brought up the weak points in the conju-gear principle .
Welcome to the Forum Mr. Dimovski! We have a lot of fun here and learn a lot in the process, I know I do.
I can appreciate your admiration of the UP 9000's, that mile long connecting rod going up-down-up-down-uuuuuuppppp-doooooooooown must have been a sight to behold.
Luckily one survives in the fairgrounds in California where the 4014 Big Boy was recently liberated. Sadly, I'm not holding my breath expecting THE 9000 to return to steam.
I do have to dispute slightly your contention that the 9000's weren't very successful. Au contraire, they were VERY successful, they lasted right into the end of steam in the 1950's on the Nebraska division. From the '20s to the '50s, that's not too shabby.
By the way, they were a big favorite of the late Don Ball. If you can find any of Don's railbooks there's usually a few 9000 shots in them.
Juniatha,
by no means did I wish to sound offensive by comparing the N&W (love Your version of the name) J class with the Union Pacific 9000, I was just wondering why the maximum speed of a steam locomotive would be limited by driver size. Thank You for Your explanation! However, I have to argue (even if I'm not very knowledgable) that some of the 9000s came with roller bearings for sure, 8 of the 1st batch were converted to "Bald faced Nines", but the rest of the batch got roller bearings from 1940 on.
My source isn't really great, but the article seems very well researched:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UP-Klasse_9000#cite_note-3
" Bei den ab 1928 gebauten Lokomotiven hingegen wurde die Gresleysteuerung des Mittelzylinders mit Rollenlagern ausgerüstet, bei den älteren, nicht auf den „third link“ umgerüsteten Lok wurden ab 1940 Rollenlager in dieser nachgerüstet."
Translation: By the locomotives built from 1928 on, the conjugated valve-gear (Gresley-gear?) of the middle cylinder were equipped with roller bearings, the older locomotives, not modified with the "third link" were equipped with roller bearings from 1940 on.
--------------------
Firelock76,
thank You for the warm welcome, I have to agree with You! I had a blast just reading all of these highly interesting topics, and I hope it's going to be even more fun when I can participate, too!
Yes, the connecting rod, the 3-cylinder motion, the huge, beautiful boiler, and especially the 2 air compressors(?) on the front! I always had a weakness for these, and because of that, a weakness for USRA Mallets, GN S2s... and You get my point
Yes, I'm grateful that one of these wasn't scrapped. I hope however, that it won't be running, too much fear of destroying something important. Imagine Yourself this happening to it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E54HUQYeFNg
Outright terrible! Thirty seconds of pure horror, just by watching it from a nice armchair, years after it happened! Poor driver broke both of his arms trying push the cutoff(?) back.
I indeed thought they were fairly succesful aswell, but Juniatha didn't really praise the locomotive, and obviously I can't know as much as she does - so I found it a better option to simply accept that they weren't extraordinarily succesful. And yes, roughly 30 years of running sounds very impressive, but I believe that a lot of the bigger loco classes were running right to the end of steam. I might be wrong however.
I'll keep an eye out for these, but taking into account that the average (netto) Croatian monthly pay is around a 1000 dollars, less than 20% of US pay, for example, so I usually can't buy books which are out of print. Buying the new ones is straining my budget
-----------------
I realized that I used the wrong formula, instead of P=v*F, I used P=W/t=F*s/t=mv*v/2/t, with a t of 1... I really should think a bit more when calculating ! But with this formula, a somewhat optimistic guess (I believe, no facts to prove it) of 80% TE from 48% cutoff, multiplied by anything between 0,75 and 0,9 (tractive effort reducing at speed, in this case 42mph) gives around 65000lbf. Which is around 290kN.
However, 3665kW=(42*1,6/3,6)*F
3665kW/18.8**=F
200kN=F
F=45000lbf! That's a difference of 20000 pounds-force!
I 1st thought that my assumptions were wrong, and indeed, if I would gain only 48/75 TE from 48% cutoff (but I think I read somewhere that this isn't linear, so it doesn't make sense..), and say that I have around 0.8 TE because of the speed, I would get around 49000 pounds-force. That sounds appropriate, but then the problem is:
If a 120 car train really has a mass of 3800 tons (If anyone has an answer for this, I would be extremly grateful! These xyz-car listings instead of mass confuse me a lot!), as again it was mentioned that Nines pulled 120car trains on straight track over Nebraska at 50mph, I thought I could check which TE the locomotive would have at 50mph (80km/h) by calculating rolling resistance of 3800 tons. So I used this calculator: http://www.smex.net.au/Reference/RollingResistance02.php
And put these numbers into the calculator:
And got 63900 pounds. That is an increase in TE as speed increases! I really have no idea what to do with these numbers now. Yes, the calculator could be inaccurate - but I don't see where that inaccuracy could be! I used average rolling resistance of a train car, which I obtained from here:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/rolling-friction-resistance-d_1303.html
"0.001 - 0.002"
I'm utterly confused now. I know I'm not exactly a bright light, but I don't think that I made any big mistakes here. (How ironical this is, when I was actually searching for a FUNCTION to determine the power curve, and can't even define 2 points to make sense!) Any help here would be appreciated!
**1,6 was eyeballing mph to kph conversion, book lists 68kph, which is around 18.8m/s
PS: Firelock, my last name isn't Dimovski, my intials are D.I.M., on which I added -ovski
Dimovski, you should find some of what you're looking for by clicking here: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/misc/largest.php
Keep in mind that in North America tractive effort is typically reported in pounds. Simply divide by 2000 to get US tons. You'll be hard-pressed to find a TE curve for the 9s. But their performance is nearly identical to 1st generation Challengers. Just not quite as fast. 96,650 lbs is in some books listed as the "maximum" tractive effort.
Contrary to what was implied in other posts, the 9000s were some of Union Pacific's most successful steam locomotives. They were UP's 1st true giants of steam. And as they were fast freight engines, their introduction in March of 1926 makes the 4-12-2s the very 1st fast freight giants of steam...anywhere on earth. They had no inherent problems, & they're said to have been the easiest engines to fire on the entire system. They predate the Challengers by a decade. & in that decade the 9s were mountain climbers in Wyoming & Utah. Later they came into their own as reliable prairie sprinters. & they lasted virtually to the end of steam.
Speaking of firing, please understand that it was the Northern Pacific that used bad coal, not the Union Pacific. "Montana Rosebud coal" was cheap & the NP had easy access to it. The UP used high quality coal at all times.
The "Union Pacific Type" is my all-time favorite freight hauling steam locomotive. Thanx, Dimovski. I'm really stoked.
ValorStormUP used high quality coal at all times.
timzValorStormUP used high quality coal at all times.UP's usual coal was... maybe 9000-10000 BTU per pound?
Exactly.
While the UP stuff was better than the glorified dirt the NP used, it is not in the same league as eastern coal from West Virginia and Western PA in terms of BTU and quality of burn.
OK brother, "Dimovski" it'll be. I added the "Mr." as I still take being an officer and a gentleman seriously and it's better to be polite than not.
So you're Croatian? Since we're talking about successful steam, didn't steam last up until pretty recently on Croat railroads, and with quite a variety of types? I'm sure I've seen some films of the same.
Oh, I'm not concerned about the 9000 being an irreplaceable artefact so that precludes it from being restored to operation. The N&W J, the Mighty 611, is in the process of restoration as we speak and should be running again sometime in 2015, and about time too, Lady Firestorm and I have waited patiently 20 years for this! No, the problem I see with the 9000 is I doubt there's anyone who want to tackle that third cylinder!
Now maybe if we got some European dampf-freaks who are used to multi-cylinder steamers over here to try a restoration it might be possible. Most American steam mechanics in the old days wanted nothing to do with three cylinder steamers. Depends on what you're used to, I suppose.
timzUP's usual coal was... maybe 9000-10000 BTU per pound?
As it concerns the engine & (loaded) tender weight, the 1st 15 9000s were 782,000 lbs as delivered. By 1938 new & larger tenders brought these same ones up to 805,500 lbs. Then starting with #9015 the engines were delivered 1,500 lbs heavier; 807,000 lbs. Somewhere between #9029 & #9063 the locos arrived 18,500 lbs heavier still; 825,500 lbs until end of production. So, 391 (US) tons, 402.75 tons, 403.5 tons, 412.75 tons.
Incidentally, 391 US tons is 354.7 metric tons.
@ ValorStorm:
quote :
>> They had no inherent problems, ...<<
Well , well ... they had the inherent problem their conjugated gear caused extra mass forces load on outer gear and at the same time started to develop slack in bearings tolerably quickly . Both of this contrasted disfavorably with UP's desire to run power at maximum monthly mileage simply because mileage of power under repair in shop is nil while being worked on . As I see it they made a compromise and ran the engines until exhaust beat became so irregular that some drivers wondered how many cylinders there really were - active . This *was* an inherent problem of the Gresley gear which in fact the ALCO conjugated gear really was . True , this was late fought by the general cure-all in steam loco bearing problems , roller bearings . However since the extra load on external rod bearings of valve gear still remained the solution was incomplete and running the Nines at fast paces always resulted in rapid wear . Unfortunately running long trains fast is just what optimizes ton-mile productivity and so - again - running of the Nines on Nebraska lines *still* was far from an optimum operation . The locomotives lasted simply because they where needed , they belonged to the most powerful steam locomotives on the system an UP could not afford to drop them as long as steam ruled . Let's say , they were *just* successful enough - power output and maintenance balance was just acceptable - for them to remain on the roster . Finally , at least after final batches of FEFI and BB had been delivered and decission tochange over to diesel traction was made , steam was run out the way it was - that's why no further efforts were made to solve the Nine's valve gear problem .
As concerns firing :
The nines may have been easy to fire yet that's no prove the very feature of having front firebox cut off from grate by a Gaines wall was a great design or had principally caused this nor had to do with it at any rate . I'm sure in fact the engines would have been as easy or even better steaming had the firebox had a conventional shape with front throat plate in place of Gaines wall and an honest combustion chamber of same or in fact somewhat shorter length as in existing design was combustion chamber plus firebox ex Gaines wall . From viewpoint of thermal stress the Gaines wall was logically ill-concepted .
DIMovsky :
A larger t.e. at speed than at starting is very unlikely . It is not totally impossible , but could only have been 'realized' by *very* cooked design dimensioning - this was not the case with the Nines . Number of cars in comparison with train total tonnage has always surprised me , too . Cars usually were far from having steam loco value of mass / axle - that's why trains listing in number of cars usually looks much more impressive than actual tonnage . Yet , in this light 120 cars at 50 mph on the Nebraska level track horizon to horizon sound very much like UP running their steam power as they usually did : nothing less than flat out ! After all they were tools meant for producing commercial traffic .
timztimzUP's usual coal was... maybe 9000-10000 BTU per pound?Not that low, it seems. The RME article on the 3950-series 4-6+6-4s says they were designed for 11800-BTU coal.
It's not just about the BTU content, but how how the coal burns. Western coal just doesn't burn as well as eastern bituminous. Anthracite coal has a high BTU, but makes a poor locomotive fuel - it just burns too slow. The best eastern bituminous, such as what was found in the Pocahontas Field or the Connellville section of the Pittsburgh Seam had a BTU as high as anthracite, but burned much quicker. That's why railroads that used this coal, such as the N&W and B&O only needed relatively small grate areas on their locomotives to get the output they wanted.
The tractive effort and drawbar pull curves for the UP 9000s are on pg 186 of the book, "Union Pacific Type," by Kratville and Bush, published 1990. I'll convert them to IHP and DBHP curves during the next couple of days if I can. I'm at the NWHS archives in Roanoke and they have a library with most of the major railroad books. Great research tool. I should be able to get a preliminary curve but will be able to do better when I get home and have some photoshop capability to enlarge the graphs for more accurate readings. FWIW, maximum IHP (at the cylinders) was 4,917 at 37 mph.
Firelock76, by no means did I wish to sound disrespectful.
Yes, they lasted into the early 90s I think, and in Serbia some were towing until 2010 or so. I think there might be some industrial railways in Bosnia still operating on steam. We had mostly Austro-Hungarian types (our railroads were the home of the mighty MAV Mallets), tho we also used a couple of German Kriegsloks (50,42,52) and American Mikes(?) (C-160 or S-160 or even -260, can't remember)
I don't know, I think the N&W J Class restoration wasn't a great idea either. Then again, maybe they're like old cars - if you fully restore them, you got to exercise them or they'll rust...
Well, if you pay for their stay, I'm 99% sure the dampf-freaks would love to help! But who would run the loco? Which railroad? What would support it? (coal, water) What if something breaks down? And the insurance costs are likely to be fairly high too! But just in case you need to contact these dampf-freaks, my German is fluent... give me a shout if you need it ;) (I guess you probably don't work on the restoration, but maybe someone might once read this, as a fascinated UP 9000 fan, trying to soak up all the knowledge there is about this locomotive)
ValorStorm, thank you for the useful infos! Especially the weight ones are intriguing!
My guess would've been about 12300BTU, I didn't expect the coal to be that... "bad" - calorie-wise, that is.
Juniatha, I don't really know what to say about the quality of the Nines, but I don't think that maintenance was such a huge problem. Could a "hidden" 3rd cylinder create the need for more work than the 2 outer cylinders of the CSA?
Feltonhill, I'm indebted forever! I hope I'll be able to repay you one day! So 4750bhp at 42mph should be correct then, I guess, as highest ihp is usually reached before highest bhp. Well, I'm looking forward to these! Thanks again!
This is from William W. Kratville's book, "The Union Pacific Type", page 186. These figure were read from several graphs .
Actual TE (Speed - Lbs)
0 - 98,000
10 - 97,800
20 - 79,500
30 - 60,000
40 - 46,000
45 - 41,200 (last data on graph, didn't go to 50 mph
Drawbar Pull (Speed - lbs)
0 - 93,000
10 - 93,000
20 - 76,000
30 - 56,000
40 - 41,500
50 - 31,000
60 - 24,000
Hope this helps!
My great grandfather Viktor Heim worked as a civil engineer for the Hungarian State Railway in Croatia under the Austro-Hungarian administration (was it called the MAV in those days?).
Dad told me he had one long word all strung together in German for "Three-cylinder superheated-steam express passenger locomotive." Between Dimovski and Juniatha, can anyone write that word out for me?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Hi dimovski! Oh, I knew you weren't being disrepectful, I was trying not to be disrepectful, hence the "Mr." I put in front of the "dimivski."
Three-cylinder locomotives never really caught on here in the US in spite of ALCO's best efforts to make it so. ALCO's selling point, and it was a good one, was that a multi-cylinder locomotive would be easier to balance, and as a result a lot less damaging to trackage. The problem was American railroaders just couldn't get past the added maintanance costs of three cylinder engines. An engine in in the shop wasn't out on the road making money, so "get 'em in, get 'em fixed, get 'em out, and the quicker the better!" was the philosophy. Any three cylinder locomotives that were sold quickly became the "oddballs" that got less than optimum maintanance, with some exceptions like UP's 9000's.
As I said, the 9000's were good performers, but with better things like the Challengers and FEF's coming they were a UP purchase that wasn't repeated. Even ALCO gave up the concept.
Steam in your area up to the 1990's, and into the 2000's? Wow, how cool was that?
@Paul Milenkovic
I would assume that it was the MAV back in the days. IIRC, before Austria became the dual monarchy of Austro-Hungary, the railways were private. And after the creation of the dual monarchy, the Hungarian parliament nationalized these private railroads under it's control (so Hungary in itself + Romania + Slavonia + Međimurje + Hrvatsko zagorje + Kordun + Banovina + Gorski kotar + Lika(?) + the city of Rijeka).
I think I'm not capable of creating such a word, but I can give you the "ingredients". I don't know in which order they would be. If it was a compounder, it's a Dreizylinderverbunddampflokomotive. (the most famous one of these is the SNCF 242A1 modified by the legend himself, Andre Chapelon) If it isn't, it's a Dreizylinderlokomotive. Notice how lokomotive is at the end. It would also be in the end of that giant word.
Express passenger locomotive translates to Schnellzuglokomotive. Superheated steam is, quiet simply, "hot steam locomotive" > Heißdampflokomotive. My guess would be that the locomotive was then a Dreizylinderheißdampfschnellzuglokomotive. Or a : Dreizylinder-heißdampf-schnellzuglokomotive
If it was a superheated compounder, it was a Dreizylinderverbundheißdampfschnellzuglokomotive. Or a: Dreizylinder-verbund-heißdampf-schnellzuglokomotive. (as "dampf" is mentioned in heißdampf already, I think that it wouldn't make sense to call it a Dreizylinder-verbunddampf-heißdampf-schnellzuglokomotive. Maybe Dreizylinder-verbund-und-heißdampf-schnellzuglokomotive was used aswell)
Btw, there is a south slavic forum around, http://www.zeljeznice.net/forum/, I assume you can read Serbo-Croatian from your name, so if you would like to collect some pictures of locomotives which your dad and great grandfather might've seen, have a look there. There are some of the extremly rare MAV Mallet pics there, too!
@Firelock76
Well, then I'm glad that everything turned out well!
We Europeans used 3-cylinder steam and compounders all the time cause of loading-gauge limits. USA railroads didn't have that problem in the 20th century. It was indeed cool! If anyone could've predicted that Yugoslavia would fall apart, and if he thought about it as early as the 1970s, and if he could've imagined himself that the resulting states would become free-market-capitalist, I'm 99% sure we wouldn't have any diesels, (like the extremly loud one built in cooperation with GE here in Croatia, which just thundered around my house with a 6coach passenger train...) and only maybe 10 electric locomotives for the mountainous region between Rijeka and Karlovac.
@Feltonhill: I'm indebted forever! Priceless info! Thank you!
Randy Vos
"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings
"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV
In the mid-1930s, 8 of the 9000s were rebuilt with a double-Walschearts valve, replacing the Gresley valve gear. They were not delivered as such. These were engines 9006-9009, & 9011-9014.
valorstorm wrote
>> In the mid-1930s, 8 of the 9000s were rebuilt with a double-Walschearts valve, replacing the Gresley valve gear <<
Right -
and yet this was again a tongue in cheek effort since motion then was derived from one outside return crank and had to be transmitted inside to the middle cylinder's piston valve . This solution inevitably incorporated unwelcome flexion and more bearings and with their wear increased summation of plays , again abortive to exactitude of valve events in turn causing middle cylinder power output at certain ( lower ) speeds to remain low in relation to outside cylinders , at other ( higher ) speeds summation of bearing plays allowing effective over-traveling of valve caused by mass inertia and thus output became high , causing excessive stress on drive since valve events by over-riding due to play were anything but precision timed ( there was no clearly defined true to design compression , admission and exhaust lead neither was cut-off kept strictly equivalent to that of outside cylinders - that's why exhaust rythm of worn Nines had become as erratic as can be haéared on rare sound recordings ) All in all the UP Nines as they were had remained confined by original ALCO design concept of having three cylinders yet avoiding to go all the way with consequential valve gear design . Further , inside drive to second coupled axle in view of an arrangement of six coupled axles was in itself a questionable decision continued simply from earlier 4-8-2 and 4-10-2 three cylinder realizations of the company , having become questionable in a 4-12-2 ince it clearly unbalanced distribution of piston thrust via coupling rods with but one forwards but four of them backwards , in view of bearing play - having remained an abortive factor with plain bearings all through the age of steam - again meaning middle cylinder piston force didn't reach last coupled axle before a measurable angular delay of supposedly synchronized turning of coupled axles and not without forced micro-slip of middle main and adjacent axles - to keep it simple and short here .
Had the 4-12-2 been developed into a 4-12-4 and had deficiencies of drive and valve motion been cured the type should have been superior to a 4-6-6-4 SE Mallet in adhesion limit tractive effort , based on equivalent adhesion mass in both types .
As it was their sheer number of engines on the roster and their power output all in all having been up to demands in spite of imperfections kept the class in service and had them struggle on until dieselization leveled out and made irrelevant all of steams various degrees of wanting or advanced design . ( it probably was a much closer cut with the smaller , less successful and lesser number of 4-10-2 locos which in the end got 'improve-worsened' into two cylinder engines with massive counter balancing pieces )
.. Ars longa - vita brevis..
I think the 4-6-6-4 would still be kinder to the track, specifically on curves. Larger diameter drivers would make up for some of the counterbalance advantages of three cylinders.
ValorStormThey had no inherent problems, & they're said to have been the easiest engines to fire on the entire system. They predate the Challengers by a decade. & in that decade the 9s were mountain climbers in Wyoming & Utah. Later they came into their own as reliable prairie sprinters. & they lasted virtually to the end of steam
Interesting info! I never saw a photo of the 4-12-2´s in Utah. But it makes sense that before the arrival of the Challengers and Northerns, they ruled the mainline also in Utah. I know they were used in Idaho and Oregon between Pocatello and Portland too, but what about Nevada and California? Did the 4-12-2´s ever operate between Ogden, Las Vegas and Los Angeles at some point of time?
The Kalmbach "Steam Locomotive Cyclopedia" has a photo of 9000 working its way very slowly through a crossover at Summit in Cajon Pass. My recollection is that the caption indicates that this was the only time a 9000 ever made its way to Los Angeles, since the 9000s were particularly unsuited to the curves and grades in Cajon Pass...
M636C
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.