East of Roanoke??

The article says that Frank Beale "must have figured that VGN had no mountains east of Roanoke," Is that a typo or a nasty comment about Beale's knowledge? Seems tp me that anything east of Roanoke is water.

DrJolS

Roanoke vs Norfolk

Charitably, I'll assume you're getting Roanoke and Norfolk confused. 90% of the state of Virginia is east of Roanoke. 

Very interesting

What is nice to read is the performance of the N&W big power like A and Yb6 class.

These locomotives were build and studied by the company itsef and the results were amazing; A out performed a challenger and a Yb6 even if is a low running locomotives has a tremenderous tractive power may be equivalent or superior of Big Boy and Alleghenies; this was accomplished in the own N&W workshop.

As mentionned in this article, Big Boy and Alleganies were ordered but they not really catch the goal the company was asking for them in efficiency.

N&W was also probably the company which has search as much efficiency of steam power as possible, one of the reason N&W was still nearly full steam power around1960.

Anyway Big Boy and Alleghanies were amazing big and modern steam power.

Yup

@eastwind,

Your charity is gratefully accepted.

DrJolS

I’ll take the Yellowstone.

As far as purpose built, looks and dependability, I’ll take the DM&IR Yellowstone’s. 

Coal quality

The N&W steamers were built to burn Pokey coal and nothing else.  They sent an A to the Pennsy to show them what a modern steamer with modern appliances could do and it choked on the local coal.  (Not sure where that was sourced.). It was sent home dead.  So comparisons between "ultimate" steamers have to factor in the coal they burnt.

The UP burnt Wyoming coal mined near Rock Springs because it was there.  They used oil where coal wasn't readily available.  Cost of fuel was obviously more important than its heat value in a steam loco.  Remember, the NP's Yellowstones were built with humongous fireboxes so they could burn glorified dirt (lignite).  They were considered the largest steamers until the Big Boy.  How powerful would they have been if they burned a decent coal?

Scott Chatfield

WP M-137 & DM&IR M3/M4

The Missabe Road engines were actually slightly tweaked versions of WP’s M-137 engines and acquired the second trailing axle to carry the extra weight of the vestibule cab. As far as I am concerned, both the UP and the C&O would have been better off adopting the same design. The UP would have gotten a locomotive capable of  handling the same sized train as a Big Boy in the Wahsatch and the locomotive still would have been capable of 60 mph running. An 80 mph capable freight engine was a waste of resources in the early 40’s since contemporary freight cars couldn’t handle that kind of speed. As for the Allegheny, it’s a waste to haul bulk tonnage with an engine more suited for fast freight. In any case, the incredible axle load of the H-8 meant it could only be used on lines with the heaviest of rail. C&O would have been better off with a modern 63” drivered 2-8-8-2/2-8-8-4. Granted, it wouldn’t have been capable of 7000+ HP, but who cares? Bragging rights and the economic haulage of freight don’t usually go together. 

When SP started running the Kaiser iron ore trains in the late 40’s, they loaded up to 7500 tons and were pulled by the nominally less powerful cab-forwards over a ruling grade of 1.89% on Beaumont Hill. Naturally, helpers were required, as they would have been the case with any of the locomotives mentioned. 

Mike

Interesting thing regarding

Interesting thing regarding the speed of a freight locomotive and how it relates to capacity of the line. The Virginian bought some of the H8 locomotives and used them to haul 140 car coal trains. The trains moved much faster than the trains pulled by the 2-10-10-2 and 2-8-8-2s. Due to the speed increase the eight 2-6-6-6 locomotives were able to replace many more 2-10-10-2s and 2-8-8-2s used in the same service.

This aspect of increasing capacity by moving trains faster is often over looked in most discussions in the hobby press. It seems that the entire super power movement is based on speed increases and the increase in capacity with out increasing physical plant. Better signaling systems also perform a similar benefit.

Another benefit of the 2-6-6-6 locomotive was the ability to pull a 160 car coal train from Kentucky to the great lakes with 2 stops for water and one for coal. The H7 locomotives were able to move the trains but not as fast as the H8. The 1930 2-10-4 locomotives could due this but they were harder on the track than the H8 locomotives.

A second benefit from these more modern steam locomotives was their increased availability. The N&W honed this trait into an art form with its procedures so it could have steam engines that were serviced and ready to be back in service in less than an hour.

@ Rob

A second benefit from these more modern steam locomotives was their increased availability. The N&W honed this trait into an art form with its procedures so it could have steam engines that were serviced and ready to be back in service in less than an hour

Thats whath I mean in my post, the efficiency is a very important factor in the steam area.

For sure the N&W has put this efficiency to the summit allowing the company to run steam later than any other companires and with no lost of money.

If the N&W organisation  fast servicing was one goal reached for efficiency, but the design of the locomotives was the second ones, knowing the results obtained with the A, but also with the Yb6 which started has a simple USRA design if I can say.where tremenderous and incredible.

Yes people say it's because of the quality of coal, for sure, but why other company like the UP havoal with  not designed very specific locomotives for the coal they Used.

Pennssy has try a class A and say she was not for them because of coal  quality, this is not a flaw of design but the A was designed for first rate coal; the Penssy was designed for a more antracithe coal; the Q2 designed in Altoona shop was a first rate big  locomotive.

And the Missabee reach the goal even in burning lignite.

Seems C&O and UP with the Big boy and H8 which were not designed in their own shop but ordered by Alco and Lima dont reach so far the goal for efficiency of burning the available combustible like the companies which have build their own design in their shops.

Now 75 years later the analysis about the possibility and the power of these mamooths show clearly Alco and Lima has some flow design and probably about the burning combustible and his effeciency  to produce the maximum of these design, besides the company shop builders.

I  could be interesting to see, now 4014 is running with oïl if his effeciency is better and if she has win more power and may be flexibility, knowing UP had try it after wwII but the design of the oïl burner at this time  was a flaw; the test Big Boy was rapidily modified to burn coal again. 

Just my opinion

Very Interesting Discussions/Postings

This subject thread has generated some very interesting contributions.

Marc, I found one portion of your latest posting of interest. Hope you don't mind that I 'clean up' a little of the english,...hope I get it correct,..

It could be interesting to see how the 4014 is running with oil,...if it's efficiency is better, and if she has more power and maybe flexibility. The UP had tried it after WWll, but the oil burner of that time was flawed. This Big Boy was rapidly modified back to burn coal again.

from another forum... The Y6a

from another forum...

The Y6 locomotive was most

The Y6 locomotive was most powerful at about 20 to 25 mph but capable of speeds reaching into the 50 mph range. The class a was also powerful but it had peak horsepower in the 40 to 45 mph range. The real beauty of the two designs was the way they worked in concert with each other. The pair made about 10,000 horse power over a fairly broad speed range. At low speeds the Y6 made more power at higher speeds when the Y was past its peak the class A peaked.

So between 20 and 45 mph the N&W could put together a very powerful pair of locomotives.

The H8 made about the same power as the Y6 at twenty miles per hour around 5,000 horse power. Instead of dropping off it continued to climb till around 45 miles per hour. The C&O and Virginian had locomotives that could lug trains at 20 mph as well as haul fast freight and very heavy passenger trains. There were only 25 big boys built but the H8 and the Virginian AGs totaled 68 units. Another factor for the H8 and AG was the very high factor of adhesion. I believe 5.12 on the front engine, the big boy is claimed to be a 4.0. Both the big boy and the class A used steam at 300lbs pressure, the H8 and AG 265lbs and made more horsepower.

All of the large steam engines had their strong points. The H8 was designed by some very knowledgeable folks from the Advisory Mechanical Committee which designed many locomotives that were later built. Every one of the large steamers mentioned with fondness by most modelers had excellent things to recommend them. One that seems to be regulated to secondary status was the challenger. That type was used by many railroads in lots of different types of service.

I suspect that looking at the locomotives as individual components and not in total so to speak as part of the transportation system is akin to not seeing the forest for the trees.

In the case of the 2-6-6-6 on the Virginian, 8 locomotives replaced many more of an older design. In some cases like the 2-10-10-2s they were immensely powerful drag era engines that usually ran under 20 mph. Due to the shorter run time and longer distances they could run they (the AG) accomplished more work.

The N&W had their locomotives able to be ready for the next run in time spans that would rival the diesel and because of some very high availability they were able to say no to the diesel longer than others.

If one looks at nearly any of the major railroads locomotives you will find things they did well with their brand of steam locomotives and the service they were used in. There are many ways to skin the cat.

7000 HP?

At one point during 4014’s trip, I was watching the news and someone mentioned the engine was capable of 7000 hp. I don’t remember who said it, although I believe it was a crew member. While the “official” rating was about 6200 hp, that was with a relatively low grade coal. With the higher heat content of a good fuel oil, the boiler could produce steam faster and may well be be able to produce 7000 hp.

Perhaps if we’re lucky the UP will put their dynamometer car behind the engine and the output can be tested.

https://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=444115

Mike

2-10-10-2

I was never really aware that such a monster was built,...in the USA.

Just found this link
https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=2-10-10-2&railroad=atsf#418

The ATSF class 3000 was an

The ATSF class 3000 was an unsuccessful experiment. Built from Baldwin 2-10-2 locomotives 1911-1912 the ten locomotives were rebuilt to 2-10-2s in 1915-1918: https://www.steamlocomotive.com/whyte/2-10-10-2/USA/photos/atsf3000.jpg

The Virginian Railway let ALCO build ten 2-10-10.2 in 1918. They lasted in coal drag service til 1940. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Virginian_Railway_AE.jpg

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-10-10-2
/> Regards, Volker

Good photos

Nice photo selection Volker

Reply

 In reply, on that other forum....

Some very good commentary

If one looks at nearly any of the major railroads locomotives you will find things they did well with their brand of steam locomotives and the service they were used in. There are many ways to skin the cat.                                Rob in Texas

—————————

Hope

There is two hope in my answer,

First of course to see N&W 1218 ride again, knowing she is well maintened and the trouble at the boiler could be rapidily repared with modern techniques. 

They have done chirurgical and soldering job to the boiler of 4014 which seems perfectly ok.

Second  hope UP will run 4014 with a freight trains like 3985 had done with a big double stack trains, knowing big boy is more powerful....

And following the many very interesting responses at this thread, I hope UP will make some test on 4014 like dynanometer car and efficiency especialy since she run with oïl; I beleive the results could be atonished really; this will help to have very precise data to speak about.

Yes and of course a dream hope to see a H8, the lone Yb6, and one Yellowstone runnig again........

H-8’s and 20% increased speeds?

What’s the point of buying this fantastic piece of hardware if the same performance can be obtained by copying something that already exists? As stated earlier, a modern 63” driver 2-8-8-2 based on the WP’s M-137. Such an engine would have been fully capable of dispatching both the requirements of fast freight up Echo Canyon on the  UP and speeding up C&O’s coal trains. BUT, and this is a big but, neither railroad would have been able to claim winning what is essentially little more than a corporate < censored> measuring contest. 

It’s rather ironic that Norfolk & Western, which built its own engines, went for engines that actually satisfied traffic requirements rather than going for “biggest” or “most powerful” or some other set of criteria that have little to do with the provision of economical transportation. The N&W took the USRA 2-8-8-2 to its ultimate conclusion. They had a Y7 2-8-8-2 (simple, not compound). It would have been interesting to see what kind of performance that engine would have been capable of.

Mike

Mike I do not believe the

Mike I do not believe the same performance could be had with a 2-8-8-2 instead of a super power engine like the 2-6-6-6 or the 2-6-6-4. The idea for the 2-6-6-6 was in response to a 2-12-6 or 2-12-4 that was planned to be an evolutionary step to the 2-10-4s. It would be a fair assumption to think the 2-8-8-2 of the Y6 class would be the most advanced and workable of the type. The speed at which the power peaked was about 25 mph. Pulling a heavy train at higher speeds did not work out unless it was paired with a class A.

Here is a video that was made some time ago and can be found on youtube to view for free.

At 1326 time on the video there are some shots of a class AG traveling at speed with coal trains. The entire trains are not filmed in most occasions. There are also shots of 2-8-8-2s in the video as well as the big electrics the Virginian used. The electrics were the real performance machines in regards to tonnage at speed. Since the Virginian used coal to generate the electricity that powered them one could say they were coal fired as well.

Another thing that is often not considered regarding the super power locomotives vs their predecessors is operating costs. Both the 2-6-6-6 and the 2-10-4 were designed to power the same size trains over the same territory. Previously this was handled by a 2-8-8-2 simple locomotive the H7. The super power locomotives were designed to power the same trains but at higher speeds so the line could handle more of them on the same track.

Improvements due to the larger fire box that did not need to be supported by the drive wheels was also an advantage of the super power engines. The fire box could be deeper and allow the coal to burn slower that allowed for greater fuel efficiency with the locomotive. 

A lot of the hype from the hobby press is just that. It involves very narrow focus in some areas and does not look at the big picture of ton miles and utilization of the existing infrastructure.

The Virginian was nick named the richest little railroad in the world because it was very profitable. The N&W was also very profitable and had an operating ratio with steam locomotives that was the envy of many other railroads that had already adopted the more cost effective diesel locomotive.

For some railroads the 2-8-8-2s made sense but for others they would have limited the railroad significantly.

Embed foiled.

Interesting - "Video unavailable. Watch this video on youtube. Playback on other sites has been disabled by the video owner". I guess they want each and every $0.0001 eyeball.

Camera keeps annoying me by lifting up to zoom in on the number board right when I want to be counting the drivers.

steam locos unique to each RR

i have the impression that many locomotives were designed for requirements of specific routes  and therefore less suited for other routes  on the same or other railroads.   I'll suggest those requirements include tractive force, max speed, grades on the route and available fuel (i.e. grades of coal).

i think the above is true today for airline routes, and the use of specific aircraft for military purposes

are horsepower comparisons between steam locomotives appropriate?

horsepower is work per unit of time.  By definition, for constant horsepower, the available force to pull a load decreases as speed (i.e. ~unit of time) increases.   Steam locomotives don't generate constant horsepower

Push-Pull, Double-Head, communication in steam era?

Had this question put to me earlier today, and I didn't have an answer, nor clue.

Much of this steam era occurred before we had modern day communications to assist us. How did steam locomotive engineers manage to coordinate the operations of their locos when double heading, or push from behind??