Numbers

Tue Aug 11 08:13:39 EDT 2015

Jerome - Roger -

Comparison of N&W's locomotives with anyone else's is interesting but not 
valid.  N&W's locomotives were designed to fit N&W's specific operating 
requirements with no outside engineers or builders interposing their ideas 
upon them.  From a mechanical engineering standpoint, Roanoke's designers 
were the equal of anyone else's.

The J was not "over-designed" and it's difficult for me to understand how 
that conclusion was reached.  The J was designed specifically to fulfill 
N&W's passenger operating requirements, which it did.  The operating 
difficulties the J's faced every trip were too many to list here.  The 600 
rolled out of the shop in 1941 and went right to work doing what it was 
designed to do.

The Challenger was designed front to back; Alco was worried about front-end 
stability so it convinced UP and others that the four-wheel lead truck was 
necessary.  In order to keep the engine within length parameters, the boiler 
was moved forward on the mechanism which required the firebox to be raised 
above the drivers, resulting in a constricted throat area necessitating a 
larger-than-normal grate area to compensate.  The A was designed back to 
front; the firebox was behind the drivers allowing a nice throat and 
combustion chamber plus adequate flue length.  N&W's engineers were capable 
of designing a two-wheel truck which would be adequate for the 70 + MPH 
speeds desired.  It was entirely satisfactory.

The Y-6 and Big Boy are comparable only when contemplating the operating 
requirements of the two locomotives.  The N&W refined the Mallet Compound to 
an extent not seen elsewhere; IMHO the commercial builders would rather 
construct huge simple articulateds for which they could get higher prices in 
preference to finding out the factors which made the Mallet too slow (in 
their opinions).  The N&W liked the compound concept.  The DBHP of the Y-6 
at 30 MPH was comparable to that of the Big Boy and the H-8.
Both those engines developed greater DBHP at higher speeds, but the Y-6 
horsepower curve suited the N&W's requirements just fine.  And it weighed 
considerably less than all these competitors and used a boiler the size of 
that of a big 4-8-4.  Could a Y-6 designed with 63" driving wheels have 
satisfied the UP's speed requirements?  Probably, but nobody but N&W was 
interested in compounds.

So lets not compare apples and oranges.  The N&W could not have been any 
more profitable with any of those locomotives you mention, and probably 
considerably less.  No Challenger could have taken a 16,000 ton train from 
Williamson to Portsmouth in four hours like the A did, routinely.  No Big 
Boy could have brought 10,000 tons up New River at 31 MPH like the Y-6 did, 
and then with a like sister, lift the train over Allegheny Mountain (it 
would have taken three AGs to lift that train over the Mountain).  No 80" 
4-8-4 could have lifted a 16-car Pelican out of Marion on a rainy night and 
have it up to 60 MPH passing Atkins.

My two cents, for what they are worth.

EdKing
-----Original Message----- 
From: NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 7:41 PM
To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
Cc: NW Mailing List
Subject: Re: Numbers

Roger:  My 2 cents regarding the A vs. the UP Challengers.  The A is plus 
14,000 pounds
on starting T.E.; has drivers 1 inch greater diameter; and weighs 50,000 
pounds less.
The Y and the Big Boy are not directly comparable; although the Y's starting 
T.E. is 30,000
pounds greater.  The J seems to have been overdesigned; approached its limit 
more in
excursion service than in its pre 1960 'career'.

Jerome Crosson;  NWHS; st. Louis Museum of Transportation; residing in St. 
Peters MO.

-----Original Message-----
From: NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
To: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
Cc: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
Sent: Mon, Aug 10, 2015 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: Numbers

   "None of the UP’s big three (800, Challenger, Big Boy) could have come 
down to the N&W and done what the N&W”s big three did."

    EdKing

And likewise, the N&W Magnificent Three wouldn't have been very productive 
on the Onion Pathetic doing the jobs their ugly Big Three could do!

First they had lousy coal for the Pig Boy that worked for it but would have 
gagged the N&W beasties.

The Y-6b couldn't have hauled at the speed the Challengers did.

The J would have beat itself to death running the speeds the FEF's were 
operated even though it was proven to run pretty fast.

The A could have probably done the same job as the Challengers if they had 
good coal.

I'm NOT a UP fan but steam engines were railroad and service specific and a 
magnificent engine for one road wouldn't necessarily have been worth a flip 
on another railroad for various reasons.

I think the Challengers and FEFs were very good engines. I think the Pig Boy 
was a huge publicity event and the subject of way too much hype but then 
again I'm rather prejudiced towards the A, AG, H-8, EM-1 and Missabe M-3/4s. 
I don't care for the UP steamer look either compared to how the N&W 
cosmetically treated their power. Apples vs oranges! I think the engineers & 
designers in Roanoke were able to create much better esthetically pleasing 
locomotives than Alco.

In reply to another post about the 3 engines side by side in Roanoke I think 
seeing them in 2015 all together is just as impressive an event as having 
the 611 out running again. Who would have ever dreamed we'd see that again? 
WOW!!!

Anyway, just my 2¢!

Roger Huber

Deer Creek Locomotive Works

------------------------------------------------------------
       From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
To: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: Numbers

          I confess – the sum of the N&W big three adding up to the UP 
4-6-6-4 was sent me by Vello Nickolaou, an old friend who just got back home 
after viewing all three at the VMT.  Vello was the producer of some of the 
railroad programs done by the Histrophy Channel a few years back.

          And Mike is correct – 3985=676!

          And, Mike, Clinchfield 677 is coming out of my backshop soon.  I 
always wanted a Bowser Wowser, and I’m finally getting mine done, thanks to 
the Rev. Jim Nichols who supplied some needed parts.  I numbered it after a 
Southern Ks 2-8-0 that was at Bristol for a spell.  Fits right after the 
renumbered UP job.

          And no, Frank; the N&W big three do not in any other respects add 
up to a UP Challenger.  None of the UP’s big three (800, Challenger, Big 
Boy) could have come down to the N&W and done what the N&W”s big three did.

          EdKing

              From:               NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List

              Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2015 9:35 PM

              To:               NW Mailing List

              Cc:               NW Mailing List

              Subject: Re: Numbers

I drove past VMT yesterday (8/8/15) and all three were lined up under the 
pavilion (1218, 611, 2156, left to right, viewed from Shenandoah Ave north 
side of the tracks), not a tarp in sight.  They looked pretty good to me!!

Dave

                   From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
To: 'NW Mailing List' <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: Numbers

                       3985…. And are all three under tarps at VMT? What is 
the reason to visit Roanoke and VMT if they are.

                       Mason Cooper

                          From:                           NW-Mailing-List 
[mailto:nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org] On Behalf Of NW Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2015 9:52 AM
To: NW Mailing List
Subject: Numbers

                           What is the sum of 611, 1218 and 2156?

                           EdKing

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

                            This email has been checked for viruses by Avast 
antivirus software.
www.avast.com

________________________________________
                    NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
To change your subscription go to
                    http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
                    http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
To change your subscription go to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

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

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
            www.avast.com

________________________________________
      NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
To change your subscription go to
      http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
      http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

________________________________________
NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
To change
your subscription go
to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browse the
NW-Mailing-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

________________________________________
NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
To change your subscription go to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/ 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com