Numbers

Wed Aug 12 10:34:43 EDT 2015

Ed,
I'm aware of the Rio Grande Challengers going to the CRR during the War. I read that it didn't make them happy. I remember also reading they gave them a lot of trouble early in their service years and they managed to correct most issues. I understand the UP3985 had issues going around a wye at one location and was on the ground a couple times while running on the CRR. Apparently those long Centipede tenders were pretty rigid. I read someplace the Missabe had some tender issues with the M-3/4 tenders in the engine terminal trackage too.

Remember the J in its' Second Life derailed when it went to Lamberts Point? After steam they had tightened the gauge in the loop tracks or something like that and it was too tight for the J to traverse? N&W regularly turned the Js there after closing the downtown passenger station but when steam disappeared they closed the gauge and that was that!
All this goes to point out 2 things: (1.) steam engines were railroad specific and not generally interchangeable and (2.) the railroad often had to change to allow the locomotives to run. A new locomotive class might cause great and expensive  changes to the plant before it arrived like curves being widened, bridges strengthened and clearances increased. The UP had issues with the Pig Boy at at least one location because of its' length. The turntable was too short by a few feet and so rather than disrupt the whole area with rebuilding the TT and all the tracks they built a short removable extension that allowed the tender to rise above the end of the table and spin the engines. Pretty unique fix!
Roger HuberDeer Creek Locomotive Works

      From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
 To: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> 
 Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 9:30 PM
 Subject: Re: Numbers

I didn’t miss your point, but there’s another exampleof non-interchangibility that’s closer to home. During WWII, the Rio Grande wanted six more of theirBaldwin Challengers, among the most powerful of their type.  In its wisdom,the WPB and WAA denied the Rio Grande the Baldwins it wanted, but said they’dadd six Challengers to the end of a group they were building for the UP, to theUP’s Jabelmann design like the 3985. The Rio Grande took them, and as soon as traffic easedup after the war they turned them back to the War Assets Administration whichput them up for sale.  The Clinchfield was looking for power, already hadtwo classes of Challengers (the only ones with Baker Valve Gear and morepowerful than the UP engines) and got them, supposedly, at a bargainprice. The “western” Challengers wouldn’t steam onClinchfield’s coal.  They had steam failure after steam failure, andfinally they put them through the shops at Erwin and redesigned the front ends,throwing away the double smokestacks and double exhaust nozzles, replacing themwith a single nozzle and stack.  It was also necessary to replace the grates.  After this, they evidently steamed well on Clinchfield’sfuel. But the Centipede tenders were neversatisfactory.  At several points, it was necessary to turn the engines onwye tracks, and it was found necessary to put new crossties and gauge rods inthe far leg of all the wyes (that’s the leg you always have to backaround).  Those tenders wanted to straighten out all the wyes.  When the 3985 was brought down to the Clinchfield, itevidently had already converted to oil so steaming wasn’t a problem, but I’mwondering how they got the thing turned around . . . EdKing   

From: NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-ListSent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 2:40 PMTo: NW Mailing List Cc: NW Mailing List Subject: Re: Numbers Ed, I guess you missed my basic point thatall the engines discussed were good at what they did but were notinterchangeable. Statistics aside, you couldn't take an A, Y-6 or J and use themon any other railroad and get the same results. Same going the other way. Thatwas my point. They were not GP-9s or RS-11s that performed almost identically onany railroad in similar service. Steam was built for specific purposes onspecific railroads and generally not interchangeable. Definitely no argument that the Roanokedesigners and engineers were more than equal to the task of turning out supremesteam.
 Roger HuberDeer Creek Locomotive Works
 From: NW Mailing List<nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
To: NW Mailing List<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 isinteresting but not 
valid.  N&W's locomotives were designed to fitN&W's specific operating 
requirements with no outside engineers or builders interposing their ideas 
upon them.  From a mechanicalengineering standpoint, Roanoke's designers 
were the equal of anyoneelse's.

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

The Challenger was designedfront to back; Alco was worried about front-end 
stability so it convinced UPand others that the four-wheel lead truck was 
necessary.  In order tokeep the engine within length parameters, the boiler 
was moved forward onthe mechanism which required the firebox to be raised 
above the drivers,resulting in a constricted throat area necessitating a 
larger-than-normalgrate area to compensate.  The A was designed back to 
front; thefirebox was behind the drivers allowing a nice throat and 
combustion chamberplus adequate flue length.  N&W's engineers were capable 
ofdesigning a two-wheel truck which would be adequate for the 70 + MPH 
speedsdesired.  It was entirely satisfactory.

The Y-6 and Big Boy arecomparable only when contemplating the operating 
requirements of the twolocomotives.  The N&W refined the Mallet Compound to 
an extent notseen elsewhere; IMHO the commercial builders would rather 
construct hugesimple articulateds for which they could get higher prices in 
preference tofinding out the factors which made the Mallet too slow (in 
theiropinions).  The N&W liked the compound concept.  The DBHP of theY-6 
at 30 MPH was comparable to that of the Big Boy and the H-8.
Boththose engines developed greater DBHP at higher speeds, but the Y-6
horsepower curve suited the N&W's requirements just fine.  And itweighed 
considerably less than all these competitors and used a boiler thesize of 
that of a big 4-8-4.  Could a Y-6 designed with 63" drivingwheels have 
satisfied the UP's speed requirements?  Probably, but nobody but N&W was 
interested in compounds.

So lets not compareapples and oranges.  The N&W could not have been any 
moreprofitable with any of those locomotives you mention, and probably
considerably less.  No Challenger could have taken a 16,000 ton trainfrom 
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 theY-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 rainynight and 
have it up to 60 MPH passing Atkins.

My two cents, for whatthey are worth.

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

Roger:  My 2 cents regardingthe A vs. the UP Challengers.  The A is plus 
14,000 pounds
onstarting T.E.; has drivers 1 inch greater diameter; and weighs 50,000 
poundsless.
The Y and the Big Boy are not directly comparable; although the Y'sstarting 
T.E. is 30,000
pounds greater.  The J seems to have beenoverdesigned; approached its limit 
more in
excursion service than in itspre 1960 'career'.

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

-----OriginalMessage-----
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 
downto the N&W and done what the N&W”s big threedid."

    EdKing

Andlikewise, the N&W Magnificent Three wouldn't have been very productive 
on the Onion Pathetic doing the jobs their ugly Big Three coulddo!

First they had lousy coal for the Pig Boy that workedfor it but would have 
gagged the N&Wbeasties.

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

The J would have beat itself to deathrunning the speeds the FEF's were 
operated even though it was proven to runpretty fast.

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

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

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

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

Anyway, just my2¢!

Roger Huber

Deer Creek LocomotiveWorks

------------------------------------------------------------
     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 wassent 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 yearsback.

          AndMike is correct –3985=676!

         And, Mike, Clinchfield 677 is coming out of my backshop soon.  I 
alwayswanted a Bowser Wowser, and I’m finally getting mine done, thanks to 
theRev. 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 afterthe 
renumbered UPjob.

          Andno, Frank; the N&W big three do not in any other respects add 
up to a UPChallenger.  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 threedid.

          EdKing

             From:             NW Mailing List viaNW-Mailing-List

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

             To:             NW MailingList

             Cc:             NW MailingList

             Subject: Re:Numbers

I drovepast 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 ofthe tracks), not a tarp in sight.  They looked pretty good tome!!

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 visitRoanoke and VMT if theyare.

                     MasonCooper

                         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: NWMailing List
Subject:Numbers

                         What is the sum of 611, 1218 and2156?

                         EdKing

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

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

________________________________________
                   NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
Tochange your subscription goto
                   http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browsethe NW-Mailing-List archivesat
                   http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
Tochange your subscription go to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browsethe NW-Mailing-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

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

Thisemail has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirussoftware.
           www.avast.com

________________________________________
     NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
Tochange your subscription go to
      http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browsethe NW-Mailing-List archives at
      http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

________________________________________
NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
Tochange
your subscription go
to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browsethe
NW-Mailing-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

________________________________________
NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
Tochange your subscription go to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browsethe NW-Mailing-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

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

________________________________________
NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
Tochange your subscription go to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browsethe NW-Mailing-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

________________________________________
NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
To change your subscription goto
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browse theNW-Mailing-List archivesat
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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20150812/e5e767b1/attachment-0001.html>