Numbers

Tue Aug 11 17:23:53 EDT 2015

Other than the early days of American, Prairie, and Consolidation types,
the only time steam got close to being generic and interchangeable were the
URSA locomotives of WWI.  Otherwise, there were designed for a specific
area of a specific railroad, and represent apples and oranges when
comparisons are attempted.

Patrick Whalen

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List <
nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:

> Ed,
>
> I guess you missed my basic point that all the engines discussed were good
> at what they did but were not interchangeable. Statistics aside, you
> couldn't take an A, Y-6 or J and use them on any other railroad and get the
> same results. Same going the other way. That was my point. They were not
> GP-9s or RS-11s that performed almost identically on any railroad in
> similar service. Steam was built for specific purposes on specific
> railroads and generally not interchangeable.
>
> Definitely no argument that the Roanoke designers and engineers were more
> than equal to the task of turning out supreme steam.
>
> Roger Huber
> Deer Creek Locomotive Works
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org');>>
> *To:* NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org');>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 7:13 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Numbers
>
> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org');>>
> To: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org');>>
> Cc: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org');>>
> To: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org');>>
> To: 'NW Mailing List' <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>
> ________________________________________
> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20150811/ecefd24d/attachment-0001.html>