From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 07:44:47 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:44:47 -0400 Subject: Information Help N&W Shop Goat #830 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mr burnett - I don?t know what that was used for. I never thought to ask anyone about it ? indeed, I didn?t notice it until it was too late. - EKing From: NW Mailing List Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 7:16 PM To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Subject: Re: Information Help N&W Shop Goat #830 Mr. King - In your photo of the 830, what is the purpose of that piece of pipe with a capped end, laying atop, and longitudinal with, the pilot beam? My first thought was that it looked like a very short carrier for a very short "hot stick" in electrified territory. But then I realized N&W steam engines did not carry hot sticks for work in electrified territory. -- abram burnett curious brakesman =========================================== Sent to You from my Telegraph Key Successor to the MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH LINE of 1844 =========================================== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 07:51:29 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:51:29 -0400 Subject: Information Help N&W Shop Goat #830 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Stephen - I believe that it was the 825 that worked the passenger car shop. If I remember correctly, there is a photo of it in Col. Jeffries? GIANT OF STEAM. - Ed King From: NW Mailing List Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 7:26 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: RE: Information Help N&W Shop Goat #830 Thanks Ed: I just acquired the cylinder plate from the #830. (W1) I do know that the #830 was modified to a W5 and classed later as a W6. I also found out that one of the 3 shop goats in Roanoke frame was shortened so it would fit on the turntable with a passenger car. Stephen I also learned that Roanoke had 3 shop goats. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: NW Mailing List Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 6:48 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: Re: Information Help N&W Shop Goat #830 Here is N&W 830 at Williamson in 1956. N&W 800 worked at Roanoke Shop, 809 at Bluefield and 821 at Shaffers Crossing. They were renumbered 10, 11, 12 and 13 in order toward the end of their careers. - Ed King From: NW Mailing List Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 11:08 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: RE: Information Help N&W Shop Goat #830 Does anyone know where the N&W Shop goat worked? Someone told me they thought it Williamson. Is there any photos? Stephen ________________________________________ 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 5F7FD35F67AE4D3E8E02532FDE7486CD.png Type: image/png Size: 135 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 08:00:45 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:00:45 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The point was that N&W?s financial results using its steam locomotives were refined to the point that any thoughts of working around the margins would probably produce minuscule results. It was probably a good thing that the Y-7 was never built. It turned out that the Y-6 would run fast enough (far faster than anyone else?s Mallets, but that?s another story) for those territories where the Y-7 might have worked well. And the Y-6 retained the economy of the compound. The argument has been made that N&W had too many A?s, but, again, what would be the benefit? It?s arguable that they built too many S-1a engines, too, but again . . . - Ed King From: NW Mailing List Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:32 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development The N&W did a great job and I am not trying to cast dispersion on them. I am not trying to nit-pick them, I am trying to think about what if. But it is interesting to think about what the result would have been if coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke were operated with improved Y engines that had equal speed capability as the A's. Would it have improved locomotive utilization to the point to have increased N&W's profitability? John Rhodes On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 7:24 PM NW Mailing List wrote: I find it difficult to second-guess N&W?s motive power decisions in the 1950s. For the all-steam part of that decade they were carrying gross income over to net at a rate that was the envy of the industry while handling a low-revenue commodity . They were sparring with the mighty Union Pacific for the top spot in gross ton miles per train hour. If people want to nit-pick their decisions, they?ll have to come upwith some very impressive facts that nobody else ever thought of to prove their points. A case could be made that coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke could have been handled more economically with Y engines, but it couldn?t have been handless as fast, and locomotive utilization might have suffered. So I, for one, am content to enjoy what they did do rather than try to think up things I think they should have done. Wnen I hired out on N&W in 1959 they were paying a $6.50 dividend on their common stock, the highest on the nYSE. - Ed King From: NW Mailing List Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 8:32 PM To: List NWHS Subject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's? John Rhodes On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List wrote: All, N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the occasional heavy passenger train. Later they realized that a single engine type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally and financially. N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the objective of a general purpose freight locomotive. I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built. There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum speed and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed. With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing. Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine. The lp engine due to size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high. Also the 3 cylinder lp engine with less torque variation in a rotation should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle vs 20000. So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to 185000 pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6. The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed. This is an issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously. But having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without hurting the low end. High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class. The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the superheater throttle and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class. Also the Y class need more steam chest volume about 125% of the cylinder volume. More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but probably required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help. More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington FWH would work. When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y. And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway. John Rhodes On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List wrote: I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on the lower part of the N&W's load gauge. With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, there's not a lot of room for a roller bearing rod hub. IIRC, load gauge interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. Dave Stephenson On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List wrote: Bill If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and read Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting There were a lot of reasons why probably it never happened . Larry Evans _______________________________________ 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/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 08:53:35 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:53:35 -0400 Subject: Information Help N&W Shop Goat #830 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: /On 10/14/2019 7:44 AM, NW Mailing List wrote: / > /In your photo of the 830, what is the purpose of that piece of pipe > with a capped end, laying atop, and longitudinal with, the pilot beam?/ Looks just like a push pole to me. Jimmy Lisle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 08:30:39 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:30:39 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dave - Again, you hit the nail on the head. As far as poppet valves are concerned, it must be remembered that N&W used factors of adhesion that were considered low. The J, in particular, was considerably less than 4.0. To apply poppet valves to a J would likely have resulted in excessive slipperiness, and the valving (and counterbalancing) of the J was so good that one official was heard to say that ?getting a J up to 100 MPH was easy?. N&W?s use of Baker Valve Gear might come into question, too. There were roads that would not use Baker because it had to be bought from the Pilliod Company where poor old Egide Walschaert?s patent had run out years ago and his valve gear could be applied without any other expense. But Baker offered a couple of benefits; all its connections were radial and could use conventional pins and bushings and later be adapted to needle roller bearings. Baker offered more precise valve settings that would last much longer with minimum maintenance than Walschaerts with its sliding link block. I believe that the experience with the ?E-1 and M-1 engines soured the railroad on Walschaerts and made it a ready customer for Baker. I was told years ago that the design of the Walschaerts on the M-1s was such that it promoted undue link block wear, resulting in additional maintenance if you wanted to keep the valves square. But N&W was, as you point out, an early desciple of th KISS principle of locomotive design. Folks don?t realize that N&W might have been the most ?studied? railroad there was. It knew exactly what it cost to store tidewater coal in hopper cars at Lamberts Poing versus designing and constructing a ground storage facility that could handle 250 classifications of coal. Similarly, it knew exactly what it cost to obtain a gross ton mile per train hour from its steam locomotives, and after the tests of 1952 it knew what it cost to obtain a GTM/TH from the diesels of the day. Labor costs were increasing during the 1950s which affected the steam locomotive more that it did diesels, and the efficiency of the diesels was improving steadily. When the cost lines crossed ? when steam costs got to be more than diesel costs ? the N&W dieselized and quickly. It was interested in net profit and kept its eye on the prize. - Ed King From: NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 7:15 PM To: NW Mailing List Cc: NW Mailing List Subject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development Overall, it seems that N&W did not like to get into overly complex design features. They avoided such applications as poppet valves of any type and tended to stick with highly focused and refined conventional locomotive designs. This simplified their operations and likely reduced their maintenance costs. The latter component was always a problem when comparing the total costs of steam vs diesel. Because of the forces on the loose within the steam locomotive, it tended to be self-destructive if not attended to fairly carefully. Dave Stephenson On Sunday, October 13, 2019, 9:01:02 AM EDT, NW Mailing List wrote: So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's? John Rhodes On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List wrote: All, N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the occasional heavy passenger train. Later they realized that a single engine type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally and financially. N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the objective of a general purpose freight locomotive. I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built. There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum speed and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed. With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing. Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine. The lp engine due to size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high. Also the 3 cylinder lp engine with less torque variation in a rotation should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle vs 20000. So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to 185000 pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6. The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed. This is an issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously. But having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without hurting the low end. High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class. The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the superheater throttle and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class. Also the Y class need more steam chest volume about 125% of the cylinder volume. More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but probably required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help. More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington FWH would work. When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y. And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway. John Rhodes On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List wrote: I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on the lower part of the N&W's load gauge. With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, there's not a lot of room for a roller bearing rod hub. IIRC, load gauge interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. Dave Stephenson On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List wrote: Bill If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and read Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting There were a lot of reasons why probably it never happened . Larry Evans _______________________________________ 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/ ________________________________________ 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 08:18:16 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dave Thanks for your comment. Adding a 3rd LP cylinder and double piston valves does add complexity I am not sure if it is overly complex or not. But yes poppet valves never seemed to be anything more than a maintenance headache. Regards John Rhodes On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 4:54 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List < nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: > Overall, it seems that N&W did not like to get into overly complex design > features. They avoided such applications as poppet valves of any type and > tended to stick with highly focused and refined conventional locomotive > designs. This simplified their operations and likely reduced their > maintenance costs. The latter component was always a problem when > comparing the total costs of steam vs diesel. Because of the forces on the > loose within the steam locomotive, it tended to be self-destructive if not > attended to fairly carefully. > > Dave Stephenson > > > > On Sunday, October 13, 2019, 9:01:02 AM EDT, NW Mailing List < > nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: > > > So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they had > one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's? > > John Rhodes > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List > wrote: > > All, > N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they created > the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the > occasional heavy passenger train. Later they realized that a single engine > type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally > and financially. N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming > larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the > objective of a general purpose freight locomotive. > > I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" > drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as > well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built. > > There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum speed > and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed. > > With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of > ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp > cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation > would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing. > > Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp > cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive > effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine. The lp engine due to > size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort > as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in > allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high. > > Also the 3 cylinder lp engine with less torque variation in a rotation > should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle vs 20000. > So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to 185000 > pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6. > > The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed. This is an > issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also > reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously. But > having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap > and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without > hurting the low end. High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive > slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would > be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class. > > The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the > superheater throttle and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of > 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class. > > Also the Y class need more steam chest volume about 125% of the cylinder > volume. > > More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but probably > required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. > > Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help. > More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed > type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington > FWH would work. > > When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight and > size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar > horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y. > > And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway. > > John Rhodes > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List < > nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: > > I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have large > hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on the lower part > of the N&W's load gauge. With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, there's > not a lot of room for a roller bearing rod hub. IIRC, load gauge > interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had > conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. > > Dave Stephenson > > > > On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List < > nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: > > Bill > > If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and read > Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting There were > > a lot of reasons why probably it never happened . > > Larry Evans > > > _______________________________________ > 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/ > > ________________________________________ > 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/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 10:02:56 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:02:56 -0400 Subject: Information Help N&W Shop Goat #830 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agreed. John Garner From: NW Mailing List [mailto:nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 8:54 AM To: NW Mailing List Subject: Re: Information Help N&W Shop Goat #830 On 10/14/2019 7:44 AM, NW Mailing List wrote: In your photo of the 830, what is the purpose of that piece of pipe with a capped end, laying atop, and longitudinal with, the pilot beam? Looks just like a push pole to me. Jimmy Lisle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 10:10:35 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:10:35 -0400 Subject: Shenandoah Valley, where it is and is NOT and which RR came when and where for a start In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Maybe I?m missing something here but I don?t see that you corrected anything Abram said or answered his question. Please advise. Thanks. John Garner From: NW Mailing List [mailto:nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 10:36 PM To: nw-mailing-list Subject: Shenandoah Valley, where it is and is NOT and which RR came when and where for a start So many items to be corrected here I almost don't know where to start. 1) The Manassas Gap RR began construction in 1851 near Manassas Junction, reached Strasburg in 1854 and Mt. Jackson in 1859 before running out of money and time. The Civil War intervened and it was not completed until some serious corporate changes occurring after the war and arrived in Harrisonburg on December 11, 1868. Later the B&O got financial control of the former company which now owned this line and the B&O leased the west end of the Harrisonburg Branch as part of its planned main thrust south using the under construction VRR as part of that. 2) The Valley RR of Virginia is a whole different animal and started construction (as planned) from Harrisonburg to Staunton in late 1871, arriving in Staunton on March 19, 1874. Construction between Staunton and Salem began in the summer of 1873 under totally different contracts and its construction ceased for all time in November 1874. The Staunton to Lexington piece was built under a totally different contract between 1881 and October 19, 1883 as a direct response to the Richmond & Allegheny RR building over the James R & Kannawha Canal charter. The Lexington to Salem segment had about $600,000 worth of construction done, or about a third to a quarter necessary for completion when it was halted. Even today, you can find remnants IF you know where to look. They aren't that easy to find without a knowledgeable guidebook. I know, I've tried. This does not include the quite visible remnants of the VRR between Staunton and Raphine, where much of the r-o-w is visible from I-81, most notably the stone bridge at milemarker 219, which in fact was completed in 1874 and had to wait 9 years before it first felt the breath of the iron horse in the late summer of 1883. This segment was also the first and only section thus far to be abandoned, that becoming effective with the c.o.b November 1, 1942. It last felt the breath of the iron horse across its flanks in July 1943 as the Chesapeake Western scrap trains pulled up the rails. The rails had been removed between the East Lexington wye and Mint Spring as reported, by June 28, 1943. It is these pieces which people still can see from I-81 and often confuse with the never completed line south of Lexington: TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANIMALS HERE. 3) The SVRR came about as the PRR was trying to invade the deep south after the Civil War and construction started after charter were obtained in the 3 states it would be built in: WV, Va., and MD. Mason Cooper's fine book about the SVRR pretty well tells this story but basically after the Panic of 1873 hit in September 1873 construction halted and restarted under a new contract in 1879 and the line was built between Hagerstown & Big Lick opening to that latter point in June 1882. The SVRR reached from near Shenandoah Junction to Front Royal in January 1880 and Waynesboro in 1881. Mason's book delves into the politics and financial stuff better than we can here but by this time, the PRR was no longer at the forefront of this project but other Philadelphia interests were. These are two entirely different railroad companies, built many years apart and under different political schemes. This is the "Cliff-notes" abbreviated version. Feel free to interrogate me off-line about specifics of the Manassas Gap and Valley RR line for more specific clarification or better yet, purchase my book which pretty well explains the B&O/Southern line from Harpers Ferry to Lexington, 162 miles long and 51.23 miles short of reaching Salem. Bob Cohen Massanutten Mountain, located in Shenandoah and Rockingham Counties, Virginia, is a mountain of approximately 47 miles in length and somethinglike 11 miles wide in places, and curiously lies smack- dab in the floor of the Shenandoah Valley, running on the same longitudinal axis as the valley. Its north end is at Strasburg, Va, and its south end is near Harrisonburg and Elkton. The Shenandoah Valley RR located itself on the east side of Massanutten Mountain, passing through Front Royal, Bentonville, Rileyville, Luray,Stanley, Shenandoah and Elkton. The B&O's Valley Railroad, and Interstate Highway 81, lie on the west side of Massanutten Mountain, passing through Woodstock, Mount Jackson, New Market and Harrisonburg. Of the two floors of the Shenandoah Valley, the one on the west side of Massanutten Mountain affords the most favorable location for a railroad, grade- wise. All you need to do to see this graphically is look at the satellite imagery in Google Maps, and turn on the Terrain feature. Ingham Hill, the pusher grade north out of Shenandoah, could have been avoided had the railroad located on the west side of the mountain. So the question is, why did the Shenandoah Valley RR choose to locate on the least favorable of the two routes around Massanutten Mountain? If one answers that the SV chose the eastern location due to the iron ore deposits around present- day Shenandoah, Va, I would suggest that there were iron ore deposits on the west side of the mountain, as well. (Check any early book or map dealing with Virginia minerals.) My guess is that "prominent people," and their wealth and influence, were already located on the east side of the mountain, and advocated for the construction of thew new railroad through their own area, so as to enhance their own interests. Is this correct? Was that prominent person William Milnes? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 10:57:49 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:57:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: N&W Coal Via the L&N In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This was met coal destined for Birmingham.? I don't think the coal ran in unit trains but was instead added to the consist of the Corbin-Norton fast freights. Josh Blevins?Charlotte, NC On Saturday, October 12, 2019, 04:48:05 PM EDT, NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List wrote: Hello everyone, I recently saw this picture (https://flic.kr/p/phEcBD) of a N&W coal train at L&N?s Loyall Yard. I was wondering how much coal did N&W ship to offline markets via the L&N?s CV Sub? Would trains like this be a regular occurrence? -Evan Miller ________________________________________ 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 11:50:01 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:50:01 -0400 Subject: Amtrak Roanoke Message-ID: Just renewed my membership gladly for another year.I notice on the Roanoke Rail Cam that the Amtrak train backs in to the platform .Where is it backing from? And how does it leave the yard ? Dumb questions I know but just had to ask .Ken Tanner (Former Roanoker) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 11:53:15 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:53:15 +0000 Subject: Archives Request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Are these the large (approx. 2? wide and 4? long) heavy paper forms that the dispatchers used to record the train numbers, locomotives used, last names of train crew members, etc, and also recorded the times the train was reported to pass a certain location? If so, the ones I have are not Form C.T. 544 but C.T. Forms 551 and 552. Just wanting to clarify so I know if I can help or not. Jim Detty Lucasville, Ohio From: NW-Mailing-List [mailto:nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org] On Behalf Of NW Mailing List Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 12:15 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: Archives Request The Norfolk and Western Historical Society is requesting, for the archives, the following material. The society is currently looking for the following titled form: ?Norfolk & Western Dispatcher?s Record of Movement of Trains?. This is N&W form C.T. 544. There is one page per day. While we are looking for any geographical area, we are especially the states of Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. There can be several different locations in the same state. The charts may be donated or placed on loan for scanning and return. If requested, N&WHS will pay all shipping costs. Our shipping address is: Norfolk and Western Historical Society PO Box 13908 Roanoke, VA 24038 Thanks The Archives Committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 500 car train full sheet.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 787648 bytes Desc: 500 car train full sheet.JPG URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_4323 - Copy.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 2378150 bytes Desc: IMG_4323 - Copy.JPG URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 13:15:05 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:15:05 -0400 Subject: Amtrak Roanoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ken Thanks for your renewal! When the train arrives at night, it pulls into the station from the east. I believe the rest is correct, but I?ve only witnessed it once. When it goes to be put to bed at the Amtrak facility near JK, it backs through the Campbell Avenue wye, and goes on the east leg then pulls south to go into the Amtrak facility spur about a half mile or so south. In the morning, it backs out of its spur and backs through the west leg of the wye and into the station track to pull straight east from there. Best Ken Miller > On Oct 14, 2019, at 11:50 AM, NW Mailing List wrote: > > Just renewed my membership gladly for another year?I notice on the Roanoke Rail Cam that the Amtrak train backs in to the platform .Where is it backing from? And how does it leave the yard ? Dumb questions I know but just had to ask .Ken Tanner (Former Roanoker) > ________________________________________ > 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 13:18:37 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:18:37 -0400 Subject: Archives Request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jim Those will be quite useful anything that gives a picture of operations, power used, crews, cabooses, etc. We appreciate your help! Best Ken Miller > On Oct 14, 2019, at 11:53 AM, NW Mailing List wrote: > > Are these the large (approx. 2? wide and 4? long) heavy paper forms that the dispatchers used to record the train numbers, locomotives used, last names of train crew members, etc, and also recorded the times the train was reported to pass a certain location? If so, the ones I have are not Form C.T. 544 but C.T. Forms 551 and 552. Just wanting to clarify so I know if I can help or not. > > Jim Detty > Lucasville, Ohio > > From: NW-Mailing-List [mailto:nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org ] On Behalf Of NW Mailing List > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 12:15 PM > To: NW Mailing List > Subject: Archives Request > > The Norfolk and Western Historical Society is requesting, for the archives, the following material. The society is currently looking for the following titled form: ?Norfolk & Western Dispatcher?s Record of Movement of Trains?. This is N&W form C.T. 544. There is one page per day. While we are looking for any geographical area, we are especially the states of Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. There can be several different locations in the same state. > > > > The charts may be donated or placed on loan for scanning and return. If requested, N&WHS will pay all shipping costs. Our shipping address is: > > Norfolk and Western Historical Society > PO Box 13908 > Roanoke, VA 24038 > > Thanks > The Archives Committee > <500 car train full sheet.JPG>________________________________________ > 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 13:35:07 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:35:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Dispatcher Sheets (was: Archives Request) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Archives has Shenandoah Division dispatcher sheet forms updated to around 1971. If earlier issues are located either filled in or blank, I would like to see them. I am also interested in scanned examples of "Station Record of Train Movements," particularly for the Shenandoah Division but any division will be helpful viewing. Best Autumn wishes, Frank Scheer f_scheer at yahoo.com From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 15:32:47 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:32:47 +0000 Subject: Amtrak Roanoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ken has it exactly correct. Ray Smoot From: NW-Mailing-List On Behalf Of NW Mailing List Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 1:15 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: Re: Amtrak Roanoke Ken Thanks for your renewal! When the train arrives at night, it pulls into the station from the east. I believe the rest is correct, but I?ve only witnessed it once. When it goes to be put to bed at the Amtrak facility near JK, it backs through the Campbell Avenue wye, and goes on the east leg then pulls south to go into the Amtrak facility spur about a half mile or so south. In the morning, it backs out of its spur and backs through the west leg of the wye and into the station track to pull straight east from there. Best Ken Miller On Oct 14, 2019, at 11:50 AM, NW Mailing List > wrote: Just renewed my membership gladly for another year?I notice on the Roanoke Rail Cam that the Amtrak train backs in to the platform .Where is it backing from? And how does it leave the yard ? Dumb questions I know but just had to ask .Ken Tanner (Former Roanoker) ________________________________________ 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 14:44:44 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:44:44 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not talking about the Y7. N&W could have built a compound Y that could have been just as fast and powerful as the A without being overly complex. It should have helped them financially and operationally to not have 2 different road freight locomotives. John Rhodes On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 11:49 AM NW Mailing List wrote: > The point was that N&W?s financial results using its steam locomotives > were refined to the point that any thoughts of working around the margins > would probably produce minuscule results. It was probably a good thing > that the Y-7 was never built. It turned out that the Y-6 would run fast > enough (far faster than anyone else?s Mallets, but that?s another story) > for those territories where the Y-7 might have worked well. And the Y-6 > retained the economy of the compound. > > The argument has been made that N&W had too many A?s, but, again, what > would be the benefit? It?s arguable that they built too many S-1a engines, > too, but again . . . > > - Ed King > > *From:* NW Mailing List > *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:32 PM > *To:* NW Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development > > The N&W did a great job and I am not trying to cast dispersion on them. I > am not trying to nit-pick them, I am trying to think about what if. But it > is interesting to think about what the result would have been if coal > trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke were > operated with improved Y engines that had equal speed capability as the > A's. Would it have improved locomotive utilization to the point to have > increased N&W's profitability? > > John Rhodes > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 7:24 PM NW Mailing List > wrote: > >> I find it difficult to second-guess N&W?s motive power decisions in the >> 1950s. For the all-steam part of that decade they were carrying gross >> income over to net at a rate that was the envy of the industry while >> handling a low-revenue commodity . They were sparring with the mighty >> Union Pacific for the top spot in gross ton miles per train hour. If >> people want to nit-pick their decisions, they?ll have to come upwith some >> very impressive facts that nobody else ever thought of to prove their >> points. A case could be made that coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus >> Districts and east of Roanoke could have been handled more economically >> with Y engines, but it couldn?t have been handless as fast, and locomotive >> utilization might have suffered. >> >> So I, for one, am content to enjoy what they did do rather than try to >> think up things I think they should have done. Wnen I hired out on N&W in >> 1959 they were paying a $6.50 dividend on their common stock, the highest >> on the nYSE. >> >> - Ed King >> >> *From:* NW Mailing List >> *Sent:* Saturday, October 12, 2019 8:32 PM >> *To:* List NWHS >> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development >> >> So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they >> had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's? >> >> John Rhodes >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List >> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they >>> created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the >>> occasional heavy passenger train. Later they realized that a single engine >>> type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally >>> and financially. N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming >>> larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the >>> objective of a general purpose freight locomotive. >>> >>> I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" >>> drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as >>> well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built. >>> >>> There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum speed >>> and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed. >>> >>> With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of >>> ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp >>> cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation >>> would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing. >>> >>> Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp >>> cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive >>> effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine. The lp engine due to >>> size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort >>> as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in >>> allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high. >>> >>> Also the 3 cylinder lp engine with less torque variation in a rotation >>> should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle vs 20000. >>> So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to 185000 >>> pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6. >>> >>> The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed. This is an >>> issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also >>> reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously. But >>> having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap >>> and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without >>> hurting the low end. High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive >>> slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would >>> be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class. >>> >>> The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the >>> superheater throttle and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of >>> 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class. >>> >>> Also the Y class need more steam chest volume about 125% of the >>> cylinder volume. >>> >>> More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but probably >>> required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. >>> >>> Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help. >>> More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed >>> type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington >>> FWH would work. >>> >>> When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight >>> and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar >>> horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y. >>> >>> And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway. >>> >>> John Rhodes >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List < >>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have >>>> large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on the lower >>>> part of the N&W's load gauge. With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, >>>> there's not a lot of room for a roller bearing rod hub. IIRC, load gauge >>>> interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had >>>> conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. >>>> >>>> Dave Stephenson >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List < >>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and read >>>> Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting There were >>>> >>>> a lot of reasons why probably it never happened . >>>> >>>> Larry Evans >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________ >>>> 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/ >>> >> ------------------------------ >> ________________________________________ >> 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/ > ________________________________________ > 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Tue Oct 15 01:24:19 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 01:24:19 -0400 Subject: Shenandoah Valley RR Question: Massanutten Mountain References: Message-ID: On the day I read Abram's message I was reviewing my research on the Shenandoah Valley RR and the Antietam station. I did a talk on the subject for the Sharpsburg MD Historical Society a few years ago, and I will repeat it for the Sharpsburg Library October 17. My talk begins with the reason SV built into Maryland, crossing the Potomac River at Shepherdstown on the line's route to Hagerstown. Simply put, Abram correctly surmises that people with wealth and influence chose to built their railroad down the east side of the Shenandoah Valley to enhance their own interests. Iron ore and the products derived from its refining existed on both sides of Massanutten Mountian as well as agricultural opportunies. The Valley RR, backed by the B&O had first entered the west side of the great valley well ahead of the SV RR. Therefore a more favorable route was not the primary goal. Construction started in 1870 south from Hagerstown. Nine miles of grading was done as far as the village of Grimes, MD when the project fell dormant with the financial panic of 1873. In today's words the "panic" was actually a depression which lasted through the 1870's. Funds for this first effort was provided by the Central Improvement Company, fronted by the Pennsylvania Railroad. Construction resumed in 1879 this time funded by E. W. Clarke and Company of Philadelphia. Bonds to raise money were also sold to individuals and municipalities. This time work started in either Charles Town, WV and/or Front Royal, VA. It was not certain the that railroad would bridge the Potomac at Shepherdstown. Two other options were explored. One was to build northwest from Shepherdstown to connect with the Cumberland Valley RR at Bedington, WV. The other was to connect with the Western Maryland RR at Smithsburg, MD. Ultimately, SV built a bridge at Shepherdstown and 7 miles of new grading to reach the previously graded roadbed at Grimes, MD. By 1881 SV was complete from Hagerstown to Waynesboro, VA connecting with the C&O. By this time, Frederick Kimball was SV President and he persuaded his board of directors to complete the railroad on to Roanoke in 1882 to connect with the new N&W, formed from the bankruptcy of the AM&O. Follwing the discovery of the expansive Pocohontas coal fields, the wisdom of Kimball pushing the SV to completion was validated. The B&O was not so lucky with theValley RR. This is a brief answer to Abram's question. It is not intended to be complete. Both railroads of the valley are covered in great detail by Mason Cooper in his "Norfolk and Western's Shenandoah Valley Line" and Bob Cohen's "A Trip by Rail in the Shenandoah Valley" which covers B&O history in the valley. Another resource is "Iron Horses in the Valley" by John R. Hildebrand. The Wikipedia entry on the SV is worth reading, but I have some issues with it. I also did a lot of research in newspaper archives. By the way, one can view the lower Shenandoah Valley from the top of Elk Ridge, aka Red Hill, east of Sharpsburg, MD. On a clear day the sight of the Massanuttens, 40 miles distant, rising up in the middle of the valley floor is breathtaking. --Rick Morrison ----- Original Message ----- From: NW Mailing List To: N&W Mailing List Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:00 PM Subject: Shenandoah Valley RR Question: Massanutten Mountain Massanutten Mountain, located in Shenandoah and Rockingham Counties, Virginia, is a mountain of approximately 47 miles in length and something like 11 miles wide in places, and curiously lies smack-dab in the floor of the Shenandoah Valley, running on the same longitudinal axis as the valley. Its north end is at Strasburg, Va, and it's south end is near Harrisonburg and Elkton. The Shenandoah Valley RR located itself on the east side of Massanutten Mountain, passing through Front Royal, Bentonville, Rileyville, Luray, Stanley, Shenandoah and Elkton. The B&O's Valley Railroad, and Interstate Highway 81, lie on the west side of Massanutten Mountain, passing through Woodstock, Mount Jackson, New Market and Harrisonburg. Of the two floors of the Shenandoah Valley, the one on the west side of Massanutten Mountain affords the most favorable location for a railroad, grade-wise. All you need to do to see this graphically is look at the satellite imagery in Google Maps, and turn on the Terrain feature. Ingham Hill, the pusher grade north out of Shenandoah, could have been avoided had the railroad located on the west side of the mountain. So the question is, why did the Shenandoah Valley RR choose to locate on the least favorable of the two routes around Massanutten Mountain? If one answers that the SV chose the eastern location due to the iron ore deposits around present-day Shenandoah, Va, I would suggest that there were iron ore deposits on the west side of the mountain, as well. (Check any early book or map dealing with Virginia minerals.) My guess is that "prominent people," and their wealth and influence, were already located on the east side of the mountain, and advocated for the construction of thew new railroad through their own area, so as to enhance their own interests. Is this correct? Was that prominent person William Milnes? abram burnett #Turnip.com =========================================== Sent to You from my Telegraph Key Successor to the MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH LINE of 1844 =========================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 19:01:28 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:01:28 +0000 Subject: Shenandoah Valley, where it is and is NOT and which RR came when and where for a start In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Please forward to Bob Cohen: I would like more information on the Valley Railroad as I have found recently that it appears that the abandoned roadbed of the Valley Railroad ran on the east boundary of the Staunton Mall. Lois J.Ponton ljpli at hotmail.com Get Outlook for Android ________________________________ From: NW-Mailing-List on behalf of NW Mailing List Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 10:10:35 AM To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Subject: RE: Shenandoah Valley, where it is and is NOT and which RR came when and where for a start Maybe I?m missing something here but I don?t see that you corrected anything Abram said or answered his question. Please advise. Thanks. John Garner From: NW Mailing List [mailto:nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 10:36 PM To: nw-mailing-list Subject: Shenandoah Valley, where it is and is NOT and which RR came when and where for a start So many items to be corrected here I almost don't know where to start. 1) The Manassas Gap RR began construction in 1851 near Manassas Junction, reached Strasburg in 1854 and Mt. Jackson in 1859 before running out of money and time. The Civil War intervened and it was not completed until some serious corporate changes occurring after the war and arrived in Harrisonburg on December 11, 1868. Later the B&O got financial control of the former company which now owned this line and the B&O leased the west end of the Harrisonburg Branch as part of its planned main thrust south using the under construction VRR as part of that. 2) The Valley RR of Virginia is a whole different animal and started construction (as planned) from Harrisonburg to Staunton in late 1871, arriving in Staunton on March 19, 1874. Construction between Staunton and Salem began in the summer of 1873 under totally different contracts and its construction ceased for all time in November 1874. The Staunton to Lexington piece was built under a totally different contract between 1881 and October 19, 1883 as a direct response to the Richmond & Allegheny RR building over the James R & Kannawha Canal charter. The Lexington to Salem segment had about $600,000 worth of construction done, or about a third to a quarter necessary for completion when it was halted. Even today, you can find remnants IF you know where to look. They aren't that easy to find without a knowledgeable guidebook. I know, I've tried. This does not include the quite visible remnants of the VRR between Staunton and Raphine, where much of the r-o-w is visible from I-81, most notably the stone bridge at milemarker 219, which in fact was completed in 1874 and had to wait 9 years before it first felt the breath of the iron horse in the late summer of 1883. This segment was also the first and only section thus far to be abandoned, that becoming effective with the c.o.b November 1, 1942. It last felt the breath of the iron horse across its flanks in July 1943 as the Chesapeake Western scrap trains pulled up the rails. The rails had been removed between the East Lexington wye and Mint Spring as reported, by June 28, 1943. It is these pieces which people still can see from I-81 and often confuse with the never completed line south of Lexington: TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANIMALS HERE. 3) The SVRR came about as the PRR was trying to invade the deep south after the Civil War and construction started after charter were obtained in the 3 states it would be built in: WV, Va., and MD. Mason Cooper's fine book about the SVRR pretty well tells this story but basically after the Panic of 1873 hit in September 1873 construction halted and restarted under a new contract in 1879 and the line was built between Hagerstown & Big Lick opening to that latter point in June 1882. The SVRR reached from near Shenandoah Junction to Front Royal in January 1880 and Waynesboro in 1881. Mason's book delves into the politics and financial stuff better than we can here but by this time, the PRR was no longer at the forefront of this project but other Philadelphia interests were. These are two entirely different railroad companies, built many years apart and under different political schemes. This is the "Cliff-notes" abbreviated version. Feel free to interrogate me off-line about specifics of the Manassas Gap and Valley RR line for more specific clarification or better yet, purchase my book which pretty well explains the B&O/Southern line from Harpers Ferry to Lexington, 162 miles long and 51.23 miles short of reaching Salem. Bob Cohen Massanutten Mountain, located in Shenandoah and Rockingham Counties, Virginia, is a mountain of approximately 47 miles in length and somethinglike 11 miles wide in places, and curiously lies smack- dab in the floor of the Shenandoah Valley, running on the same longitudinal axis as the valley. Its north end is at Strasburg, Va, and its south end is near Harrisonburg and Elkton. The Shenandoah Valley RR located itself on the east side of Massanutten Mountain, passing through Front Royal, Bentonville, Rileyville, Luray,Stanley, Shenandoah and Elkton. The B&O's Valley Railroad, and Interstate Highway 81, lie on the west side of Massanutten Mountain, passing through Woodstock, Mount Jackson, New Market and Harrisonburg. Of the two floors of the Shenandoah Valley, the one on the west side of Massanutten Mountain affords the most favorable location for a railroad, grade- wise. All you need to do to see this graphically is look at the satellite imagery in Google Maps, and turn on the Terrain feature. Ingham Hill, the pusher grade north out of Shenandoah, could have been avoided had the railroad located on the west side of the mountain. So the question is, why did the Shenandoah Valley RR choose to locate on the least favorable of the two routes around Massanutten Mountain? If one answers that the SV chose the eastern location due to the iron ore deposits around present- day Shenandoah, Va, I would suggest that there were iron ore deposits on the west side of the mountain, as well. (Check any early book or map dealing with Virginia minerals.) My guess is that "prominent people," and their wealth and influence, were already located on the east side of the mountain, and advocated for the construction of thew new railroad through their own area, so as to enhance their own interests. Is this correct? Was that prominent person William Milnes? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 19:40:04 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:40:04 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/14/2019 2:44 PM, NW Mailing List wrote: > /Dividing the 2 huge lp cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders > on 120 degree separation would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing. / > // > // > /?But having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical > travel lap and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end > power without hurting the low end./ I cringe to think of the maintenance issues all of this would cause! Jimmy Lisle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Oct 14 21:33:49 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 21:33:49 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John - If it was possible to design a 16-drivered compound that would run as fast as the A, which I doubt, given N&W?s phusical limitations (I doubt if they could have gotten such an engine on a 115? turntable for one thing, boiler overhang at the front and rear-end overhang at the other end would have been monstrous) why would they have wanted to? Data have come to light that even the Y-7 might have had difficulties there. Gurdon McGavock was said to have expressed concerns about those very items. N&W had its bases covered with the 2100s and the As. Their results speak for themseoves. - Ed King From: NW Mailing List Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 2:44 PM To: List NWHS Subject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development Ed you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not talking about the Y7. N&W could have built a compound Y that could have been just as fast and powerful as the A without being overly complex. It should have helped them financially and operationally to not have 2 different road freight locomotives. John Rhodes On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 11:49 AM NW Mailing List wrote: The point was that N&W?s financial results using its steam locomotives were refined to the point that any thoughts of working around the margins would probably produce minuscule results. It was probably a good thing that the Y-7 was never built. It turned out that the Y-6 would run fast enough (far faster than anyone else?s Mallets, but that?s another story) for those territories where the Y-7 might have worked well. And the Y-6 retained the economy of the compound. The argument has been made that N&W had too many A?s, but, again, what would be the benefit? It?s arguable that they built too many S-1a engines, too, but again . . . - Ed King From: NW Mailing List Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:32 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development The N&W did a great job and I am not trying to cast dispersion on them. I am not trying to nit-pick them, I am trying to think about what if. But it is interesting to think about what the result would have been if coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke were operated with improved Y engines that had equal speed capability as the A's. Would it have improved locomotive utilization to the point to have increased N&W's profitability? John Rhodes On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 7:24 PM NW Mailing List wrote: I find it difficult to second-guess N&W?s motive power decisions in the 1950s. For the all-steam part of that decade they were carrying gross income over to net at a rate that was the envy of the industry while handling a low-revenue commodity . They were sparring with the mighty Union Pacific for the top spot in gross ton miles per train hour. If people want to nit-pick their decisions, they?ll have to come upwith some very impressive facts that nobody else ever thought of to prove their points. A case could be made that coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke could have been handled more economically with Y engines, but it couldn?t have been handless as fast, and locomotive utilization might have suffered. So I, for one, am content to enjoy what they did do rather than try to think up things I think they should have done. Wnen I hired out on N&W in 1959 they were paying a $6.50 dividend on their common stock, the highest on the nYSE. - Ed King From: NW Mailing List Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 8:32 PM To: List NWHS Subject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's? John Rhodes On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List wrote: All, N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the occasional heavy passenger train. Later they realized that a single engine type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally and financially. N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the objective of a general purpose freight locomotive. I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built. There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum speed and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed. With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing. Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine. The lp engine due to size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high. Also the 3 cylinder lp engine with less torque variation in a rotation should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle vs 20000. So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to 185000 pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6. The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed. This is an issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously. But having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without hurting the low end. High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class. The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the superheater throttle and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class. Also the Y class need more steam chest volume about 125% of the cylinder volume. More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but probably required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help. More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington FWH would work. When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y. And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway. John Rhodes On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List wrote: I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on the lower part of the N&W's load gauge. With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, there's not a lot of room for a roller bearing rod hub. IIRC, load gauge interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. Dave Stephenson On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List wrote: Bill If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and read Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting There were a lot of reasons why probably it never happened . Larry Evans _______________________________________ 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ 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/ ________________________________________ 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Tue Oct 15 20:30:17 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:30:17 -0400 Subject: Compressed Natural Gas Message-ID: The following paragraph excerpted from the October 2019 Railway Age magazine involves NS and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and should be of interest: "Norfolk Southern, which according to Director of Locomotives Mark Duve 'really wanted to try CNG,' will be conducting a minimum-six-month test on a 400-mile, four-crew-district stretch of its Pocahontas Division between Williamson, W. Va., and Lambert's Point, Norfolk, Va., in 'captive' coal loop (loads and empty returns) service.? CNG refueling, conducted by Roanoke Gas Company, and locomotive servicing will take place midway at Shaffer's Crossing in Roanoke, Va., BNSF is loaning two EMD locomotives originally used in its LNG testing program, 9130 and 9131, to NS.? CNGMotive will provide the tender, fueling infrastructure, maintenance and training." Gordon Hamilton -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Tue Oct 15 23:01:16 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 23:01:16 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Do you have any data or information to back up your doubt or show why a faster Y would need to be any longer than a Y5 or Y6? Or run up against the physical limitations of the N&W? As to why N&W would want to speed up the Y class, it would me to increase profitability and return on investment. Jimmy I understand your concern but the railroad industry determined that about 90% of the maintenance cost of the average steam engine was boiler related. N&W built engines with cast frames and roller bearings so the added machinery maintenance would likely have been a low percentage of total maintenance costs and not a big deal. Regards John Rhodes On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 6:49 AM NW Mailing List wrote: > John - > > If it was possible to design a 16-drivered compound that would run as fast > as the A, which I doubt, given N&W?s phusical limitations (I doubt if they > could have gotten such an engine on a 115? turntable for one thing, boiler > overhang at the front and rear-end overhang at the other end would have > been monstrous) why would they have wanted to? Data have come to light > that even the Y-7 might have had difficulties there. Gurdon McGavock was > said to have expressed concerns about those very items. > > N&W had its bases covered with the 2100s and the As. Their results speak > for themseoves. > > - Ed King > > *From:* NW Mailing List > *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2019 2:44 PM > *To:* List NWHS > *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development > > Ed you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not talking about the > Y7. N&W could have built a compound Y that could have been just as fast > and powerful as the A without being overly complex. It should have helped > them financially and operationally to not have 2 different road freight > locomotives. > > John Rhodes > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 11:49 AM NW Mailing List > wrote: > >> The point was that N&W?s financial results using its steam locomotives >> were refined to the point that any thoughts of working around the margins >> would probably produce minuscule results. It was probably a good thing >> that the Y-7 was never built. It turned out that the Y-6 would run fast >> enough (far faster than anyone else?s Mallets, but that?s another story) >> for those territories where the Y-7 might have worked well. And the Y-6 >> retained the economy of the compound. >> >> The argument has been made that N&W had too many A?s, but, again, what >> would be the benefit? It?s arguable that they built too many S-1a engines, >> too, but again . . . >> >> - Ed King >> >> *From:* NW Mailing List >> *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:32 PM >> *To:* NW Mailing List >> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development >> >> The N&W did a great job and I am not trying to cast dispersion on them. >> I am not trying to nit-pick them, I am trying to think about what if. But >> it is interesting to think about what the result would have been if coal >> trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke were >> operated with improved Y engines that had equal speed capability as the >> A's. Would it have improved locomotive utilization to the point to have >> increased N&W's profitability? >> >> John Rhodes >> >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 7:24 PM NW Mailing List >> wrote: >> >>> I find it difficult to second-guess N&W?s motive power decisions in the >>> 1950s. For the all-steam part of that decade they were carrying gross >>> income over to net at a rate that was the envy of the industry while >>> handling a low-revenue commodity . They were sparring with the mighty >>> Union Pacific for the top spot in gross ton miles per train hour. If >>> people want to nit-pick their decisions, they?ll have to come upwith some >>> very impressive facts that nobody else ever thought of to prove their >>> points. A case could be made that coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus >>> Districts and east of Roanoke could have been handled more economically >>> with Y engines, but it couldn?t have been handless as fast, and locomotive >>> utilization might have suffered. >>> >>> So I, for one, am content to enjoy what they did do rather than try to >>> think up things I think they should have done. Wnen I hired out on N&W in >>> 1959 they were paying a $6.50 dividend on their common stock, the highest >>> on the nYSE. >>> >>> - Ed King >>> >>> *From:* NW Mailing List >>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 12, 2019 8:32 PM >>> *To:* List NWHS >>> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development >>> >>> So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they >>> had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's? >>> >>> John Rhodes >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List >>> wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they >>>> created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the >>>> occasional heavy passenger train. Later they realized that a single engine >>>> type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally >>>> and financially. N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming >>>> larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the >>>> objective of a general purpose freight locomotive. >>>> >>>> I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" >>>> drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as >>>> well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built. >>>> >>>> There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum >>>> speed and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed. >>>> >>>> With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of >>>> ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp >>>> cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation >>>> would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing. >>>> >>>> Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp >>>> cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive >>>> effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine. The lp engine due to >>>> size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort >>>> as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in >>>> allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high. >>>> >>>> Also the 3 cylinder lp engine with less torque variation in a rotation >>>> should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle vs 20000. >>>> So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to 185000 >>>> pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6. >>>> >>>> The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed. This is >>>> an issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also >>>> reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously. But >>>> having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap >>>> and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without >>>> hurting the low end. High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive >>>> slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would >>>> be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class. >>>> >>>> The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the >>>> superheater throttle and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of >>>> 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class. >>>> >>>> Also the Y class need more steam chest volume about 125% of the >>>> cylinder volume. >>>> >>>> More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but >>>> probably required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. >>>> >>>> Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help. >>>> More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed >>>> type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington >>>> FWH would work. >>>> >>>> When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight >>>> and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar >>>> horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y. >>>> >>>> And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway. >>>> >>>> John Rhodes >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List < >>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have >>>>> large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on the lower >>>>> part of the N&W's load gauge. With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, >>>>> there's not a lot of room for a roller bearing rod hub. IIRC, load gauge >>>>> interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had >>>>> conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. >>>>> >>>>> Dave Stephenson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List < >>>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and >>>>> read Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting There >>>>> were >>>>> >>>>> a lot of reasons why probably it never happened . >>>>> >>>>> Larry Evans >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________ >>>>> 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/ >>>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> ________________________________________ >>> 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/ >> ________________________________________ >> 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/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Wed Oct 16 09:24:58 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:24:58 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development Message-ID: John - Well, let?s look at the physical limitations. The N&W?s standard turntable was 115 feet. The A overhung it on both ends. The original1910 Mallets (the X-1 0-8-8-0s and Y-1 2-8-8-2s) had low-pressure cylinders of 39 inch diameter. This was the largest that would fit N&W?s clearances, which is why the 2100s LP cylinders were 39 inches. The proposal was that the engine would be as fast as the A but have the power of a Y-6. The power requirements would neccessitate sixteen driving wheels and the speed requirements would necessitate drivers of at least 68 inch diameters. Now, UP?s Big Boy had 68 inch drivers and it took a 130 foot turntable, even using the Centipede tender which was shorter and higher than a normal tender. I don?t doubt that they could have created a compound that could run that fast; the 2100s under throttle could run 45 to 50 (unofficial reports had them running faster than that). But the 39 inch LP cylinder limit would still apply, and they would have had to lengthen every turntable on the system to handle such an engine. Now, I don?thave any hard data supporting my position; I do know what their parameters would have to have been, and I don?t believe they could have made such an engine work. If you look at what they had to do to make a Y-7 fit a 115-foot table (they had to move the boiler forward on the frame to shorten the engine, which caused more front end overhang on curves) with the proposed 63-inch drivers, it becomes more apparent that the proposed A-Y combo would have have whit I believe to be unsurmountable problems. - Ed King *From:* NW Mailing List *Sent:* Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:01 PM *To:* List NWHS *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development Ed Do you have any data or information to back up your doubt or show why a faster Y would need to be any longer than a Y5 or Y6? Or run up against the physical limitations of the N&W? As to why N&W would want to speed up the Y class, it would me to increase profitability and return on investment. Jimmy I understand your concern but the railroad industry determined that about 90% of the maintenance cost of the average steam engine was boiler related. N&W built engines with cast frames and roller bearings so the added machinery maintenance would likely have been a low percentage of total maintenance costs and not a big deal. Regards John Rhodes On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 6:49 AM NW Mailing List wrote: > John - > > If it was possible to design a 16-drivered compound that would run as fast > as the A, which I doubt, given N&W?s phusical limitations (I doubt if they > could have gotten such an engine on a 115? turntable for one thing, boiler > overhang at the front and rear-end overhang at the other end would have > been monstrous) why would they have wanted to? Data have come to light > that even the Y-7 might have had difficulties there. Gurdon McGavock was > said to have expressed concerns about those very items. > > N&W had its bases covered with the 2100s and the As. Their results speak > for themseoves. > > - Ed King > > *From:* NW Mailing List > *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2019 2:44 PM > *To:* List NWHS > *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development > > Ed you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not talking about the > Y7. N&W could have built a compound Y that could have been just as fast > and powerful as the A without being overly complex. It should have helped > them financially and operationally to not have 2 different road freight > locomotives. > > John Rhodes > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 11:49 AM NW Mailing List > wrote: > >> The point was that N&W?s financial results using its steam locomotives >> were refined to the point that any thoughts of working around the margins >> would probably produce minuscule results. It was probably a good thing >> that the Y-7 was never built. It turned out that the Y-6 would run fast >> enough (far faster than anyone else?s Mallets, but that?s another story) >> for those territories where the Y-7 might have worked well. And the Y-6 >> retained the economy of the compound. >> >> The argument has been made that N&W had too many A?s, but, again, what >> would be the benefit? It?s arguable that they built too many S-1a engines, >> too, but again . . . >> >> - Ed King >> >> *From:* NW Mailing List >> *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:32 PM >> *To:* NW Mailing List >> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development >> >> The N&W did a great job and I am not trying to cast dispersion on them. >> I am not trying to nit-pick them, I am trying to think about what if. But >> it is interesting to think about what the result would have been if coal >> trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke were >> operated with improved Y engines that had equal speed capability as the >> A's. Would it have improved locomotive utilization to the point to have >> increased N&W's profitability? >> >> John Rhodes >> >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 7:24 PM NW Mailing List >> wrote: >> >>> I find it difficult to second-guess N&W?s motive power decisions in the >>> 1950s. For the all-steam part of that decade they were carrying gross >>> income over to net at a rate that was the envy of the industry while >>> handling a low-revenue commodity . They were sparring with the mighty >>> Union Pacific for the top spot in gross ton miles per train hour. If >>> people want to nit-pick their decisions, they?ll have to come upwith some >>> very impressive facts that nobody else ever thought of to prove their >>> points. A case could be made that coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus >>> Districts and east of Roanoke could have been handled more economically >>> with Y engines, but it couldn?t have been handless as fast, and locomotive >>> utilization might have suffered. >>> >>> So I, for one, am content to enjoy what they did do rather than try to >>> think up things I think they should have done. Wnen I hired out on N&W in >>> 1959 they were paying a $6.50 dividend on their common stock, the highest >>> on the nYSE. >>> >>> - Ed King >>> >>> *From:* NW Mailing List >>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 12, 2019 8:32 PM >>> *To:* List NWHS >>> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development >>> >>> So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they >>> had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's? >>> >>> John Rhodes >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List >>> wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they >>>> created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the >>>> occasional heavy passenger train. Later they realized that a single engine >>>> type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally >>>> and financially. N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming >>>> larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the >>>> objective of a general purpose freight locomotive. >>>> >>>> I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" >>>> drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as >>>> well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built. >>>> >>>> There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum >>>> speed and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed. >>>> >>>> With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of >>>> ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp >>>> cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation >>>> would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing. >>>> >>>> Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp >>>> cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive >>>> effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine. The lp engine due to >>>> size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort >>>> as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in >>>> allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high. >>>> >>>> Also the 3 cylinder lp engine with less torque variation in a rotation >>>> should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle vs 20000. >>>> So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to 185000 >>>> pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6. >>>> >>>> The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed. This is >>>> an issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also >>>> reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously. But >>>> having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap >>>> and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without >>>> hurting the low end. High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive >>>> slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would >>>> be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class. >>>> >>>> The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the >>>> superheater throttle and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of >>>> 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class. >>>> >>>> Also the Y class need more steam chest volume about 125% of the >>>> cylinder volume. >>>> >>>> More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but >>>> probably required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. >>>> >>>> Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help. >>>> More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed >>>> type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington >>>> FWH would work. >>>> >>>> When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight >>>> and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar >>>> horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y. >>>> >>>> And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway. >>>> >>>> John Rhodes >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List < >>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have >>>>> large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on the lower >>>>> part of the N&W's load gauge. With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, >>>>> there's not a lot of room for a roller bearing rod hub. IIRC, load gauge >>>>> interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had >>>>> conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. >>>>> >>>>> Dave Stephenson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List < >>>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and >>>>> read Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting There >>>>> were >>>>> >>>>> a lot of reasons why probably it never happened . >>>>> >>>>> Larry Evans >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________ >>>>> 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Wed Oct 16 09:55:02 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:55:02 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed, Not trying to be rude, but in my 1st email I explained (provided information) how the Y class could be sped up without increasing driver size, increasing length or making the 39" LP cylinders bigger. Best Regards, John Rhodes On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:34 AM NW Mailing List wrote: > John - > > Well, let?s look at the physical limitations. The N&W?s standard > turntable was 115 feet. The A overhung it on both ends. The original1910 > Mallets (the X-1 0-8-8-0s and Y-1 2-8-8-2s) had low-pressure cylinders of > 39 inch diameter. This was the largest that would fit N&W?s clearances, > which is why the 2100s LP cylinders were 39 inches. > > The proposal was that the engine would be as fast as the A but have the > power of a Y-6. The power requirements would neccessitate sixteen driving > wheels and the speed requirements would necessitate drivers of at least 68 > inch diameters. Now, UP?s Big Boy had 68 inch drivers and it took a 130 > foot turntable, even using the Centipede tender which was shorter and > higher than a normal tender. > > I don?t doubt that they could have created a compound that could run that > fast; the 2100s under throttle could run 45 to 50 (unofficial reports had > them running faster than that). But the 39 inch LP cylinder limit would > still apply, and they would have had to lengthen every turntable on the > system to handle such an engine. > > Now, I don?thave any hard data supporting my position; I do know what > their parameters would have to have been, and I don?t believe they could > have made such an engine work. If you look at what they had to do to make > a Y-7 fit a 115-foot table (they had to move the boiler forward on the > frame to shorten the engine, which caused more front end overhang on > curves) with the proposed 63-inch drivers, it becomes more apparent that > the proposed A-Y combo would have have whit I believe to be unsurmountable > problems. > > - Ed King > > *From:* NW Mailing List > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:01 PM > *To:* List NWHS > *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development > > Ed > Do you have any data or information to back up your doubt or show why a > faster Y would need to be any longer than a Y5 or Y6? Or run up against > the physical limitations of the N&W? As to why N&W would want to speed up > the Y class, it would me to increase profitability and return on investment. > > Jimmy > I understand your concern but the railroad industry determined that about > 90% of the maintenance cost of the average steam engine was boiler > related. N&W built engines with cast frames and roller bearings so the > added machinery maintenance would likely have been a low percentage of > total maintenance costs and not a big deal. > > Regards > John Rhodes > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 6:49 AM NW Mailing List > wrote: > >> John - >> >> If it was possible to design a 16-drivered compound that would run as >> fast as the A, which I doubt, given N&W?s phusical limitations (I doubt if >> they could have gotten such an engine on a 115? turntable for one thing, >> boiler overhang at the front and rear-end overhang at the other end would >> have been monstrous) why would they have wanted to? Data have come to >> light that even the Y-7 might have had difficulties there. Gurdon McGavock >> was said to have expressed concerns about those very items. >> >> N&W had its bases covered with the 2100s and the As. Their results speak >> for themseoves. >> >> - Ed King >> >> *From:* NW Mailing List >> *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2019 2:44 PM >> *To:* List NWHS >> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development >> >> Ed you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not talking about >> the Y7. N&W could have built a compound Y that could have been just as >> fast and powerful as the A without being overly complex. It should have >> helped them financially and operationally to not have 2 different road >> freight locomotives. >> >> John Rhodes >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 11:49 AM NW Mailing List >> wrote: >> >>> The point was that N&W?s financial results using its steam locomotives >>> were refined to the point that any thoughts of working around the margins >>> would probably produce minuscule results. It was probably a good thing >>> that the Y-7 was never built. It turned out that the Y-6 would run fast >>> enough (far faster than anyone else?s Mallets, but that?s another story) >>> for those territories where the Y-7 might have worked well. And the Y-6 >>> retained the economy of the compound. >>> >>> The argument has been made that N&W had too many A?s, but, again, what >>> would be the benefit? It?s arguable that they built too many S-1a engines, >>> too, but again . . . >>> >>> - Ed King >>> >>> *From:* NW Mailing List >>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:32 PM >>> *To:* NW Mailing List >>> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development >>> >>> The N&W did a great job and I am not trying to cast dispersion on them. >>> I am not trying to nit-pick them, I am trying to think about what if. But >>> it is interesting to think about what the result would have been if coal >>> trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke were >>> operated with improved Y engines that had equal speed capability as the >>> A's. Would it have improved locomotive utilization to the point to have >>> increased N&W's profitability? >>> >>> John Rhodes >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 7:24 PM NW Mailing List < >>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I find it difficult to second-guess N&W?s motive power decisions in the >>>> 1950s. For the all-steam part of that decade they were carrying gross >>>> income over to net at a rate that was the envy of the industry while >>>> handling a low-revenue commodity . They were sparring with the mighty >>>> Union Pacific for the top spot in gross ton miles per train hour. If >>>> people want to nit-pick their decisions, they?ll have to come upwith some >>>> very impressive facts that nobody else ever thought of to prove their >>>> points. A case could be made that coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus >>>> Districts and east of Roanoke could have been handled more economically >>>> with Y engines, but it couldn?t have been handless as fast, and locomotive >>>> utilization might have suffered. >>>> >>>> So I, for one, am content to enjoy what they did do rather than try to >>>> think up things I think they should have done. Wnen I hired out on N&W in >>>> 1959 they were paying a $6.50 dividend on their common stock, the highest >>>> on the nYSE. >>>> >>>> - Ed King >>>> >>>> *From:* NW Mailing List >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 12, 2019 8:32 PM >>>> *To:* List NWHS >>>> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b >>>> Development >>>> >>>> So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they >>>> had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's? >>>> >>>> John Rhodes >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List < >>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they >>>>> created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the >>>>> occasional heavy passenger train. Later they realized that a single engine >>>>> type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally >>>>> and financially. N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming >>>>> larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the >>>>> objective of a general purpose freight locomotive. >>>>> >>>>> I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" >>>>> drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as >>>>> well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built. >>>>> >>>>> There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum >>>>> speed and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed. >>>>> >>>>> With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of >>>>> ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp >>>>> cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation >>>>> would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing. >>>>> >>>>> Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp >>>>> cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive >>>>> effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine. The lp engine due to >>>>> size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort >>>>> as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in >>>>> allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high. >>>>> >>>>> Also the 3 cylinder lp engine with less torque variation in a >>>>> rotation should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle >>>>> vs 20000. So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to >>>>> 185000 pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6. >>>>> >>>>> The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed. This is >>>>> an issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also >>>>> reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously. But >>>>> having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap >>>>> and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without >>>>> hurting the low end. High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive >>>>> slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would >>>>> be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class. >>>>> >>>>> The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the >>>>> superheater throttle and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of >>>>> 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class. >>>>> >>>>> Also the Y class need more steam chest volume about 125% of the >>>>> cylinder volume. >>>>> >>>>> More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but >>>>> probably required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. >>>>> >>>>> Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help. >>>>> More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed >>>>> type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington >>>>> FWH would work. >>>>> >>>>> When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight >>>>> and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar >>>>> horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y. >>>>> >>>>> And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway. >>>>> >>>>> John Rhodes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List < >>>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have >>>>>> large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on the lower >>>>>> part of the N&W's load gauge. With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, >>>>>> there's not a lot of room for a roller bearing rod hub. IIRC, load gauge >>>>>> interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had >>>>>> conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave Stephenson >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List < >>>>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill >>>>>> >>>>>> If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and >>>>>> read Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting There >>>>>> were >>>>>> >>>>>> a lot of reasons why probably it never happened . >>>>>> >>>>>> Larry Evans >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________ >>>>>> 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/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Wed Oct 16 09:59:14 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:59:14 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The practicable limits make very interesting reading but the folks in the corporate board room had to be more than uneasy with any further commitments to steam. The obvious savings by its elimination were not to be deigned. Mike Pierry, Jr. On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:34 AM NW Mailing List wrote: > John - > > Well, let?s look at the physical limitations. The N&W?s standard > turntable was 115 feet. The A overhung it on both ends. The original1910 > Mallets (the X-1 0-8-8-0s and Y-1 2-8-8-2s) had low-pressure cylinders of > 39 inch diameter. This was the largest that would fit N&W?s clearances, > which is why the 2100s LP cylinders were 39 inches. > > The proposal was that the engine would be as fast as the A but have the > power of a Y-6. The power requirements would neccessitate sixteen driving > wheels and the speed requirements would necessitate drivers of at least 68 > inch diameters. Now, UP?s Big Boy had 68 inch drivers and it took a 130 > foot turntable, even using the Centipede tender which was shorter and > higher than a normal tender. > > I don?t doubt that they could have created a compound that could run that > fast; the 2100s under throttle could run 45 to 50 (unofficial reports had > them running faster than that). But the 39 inch LP cylinder limit would > still apply, and they would have had to lengthen every turntable on the > system to handle such an engine. > > Now, I don?thave any hard data supporting my position; I do know what > their parameters would have to have been, and I don?t believe they could > have made such an engine work. If you look at what they had to do to make > a Y-7 fit a 115-foot table (they had to move the boiler forward on the > frame to shorten the engine, which caused more front end overhang on > curves) with the proposed 63-inch drivers, it becomes more apparent that > the proposed A-Y combo would have have whit I believe to be unsurmountable > problems. > > - Ed King > > *From:* NW Mailing List > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:01 PM > *To:* List NWHS > *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development > > Ed > Do you have any data or information to back up your doubt or show why a > faster Y would need to be any longer than a Y5 or Y6? Or run up against > the physical limitations of the N&W? As to why N&W would want to speed up > the Y class, it would me to increase profitability and return on investment. > > Jimmy > I understand your concern but the railroad industry determined that about > 90% of the maintenance cost of the average steam engine was boiler > related. N&W built engines with cast frames and roller bearings so the > added machinery maintenance would likely have been a low percentage of > total maintenance costs and not a big deal. > > Regards > John Rhodes > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 6:49 AM NW Mailing List > wrote: > >> John - >> >> If it was possible to design a 16-drivered compound that would run as >> fast as the A, which I doubt, given N&W?s phusical limitations (I doubt if >> they could have gotten such an engine on a 115? turntable for one thing, >> boiler overhang at the front and rear-end overhang at the other end would >> have been monstrous) why would they have wanted to? Data have come to >> light that even the Y-7 might have had difficulties there. Gurdon McGavock >> was said to have expressed concerns about those very items. >> >> N&W had its bases covered with the 2100s and the As. Their results speak >> for themseoves. >> >> - Ed King >> >> *From:* NW Mailing List >> *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2019 2:44 PM >> *To:* List NWHS >> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development >> >> Ed you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not talking about >> the Y7. N&W could have built a compound Y that could have been just as >> fast and powerful as the A without being overly complex. It should have >> helped them financially and operationally to not have 2 different road >> freight locomotives. >> >> John Rhodes >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 11:49 AM NW Mailing List >> wrote: >> >>> The point was that N&W?s financial results using its steam locomotives >>> were refined to the point that any thoughts of working around the margins >>> would probably produce minuscule results. It was probably a good thing >>> that the Y-7 was never built. It turned out that the Y-6 would run fast >>> enough (far faster than anyone else?s Mallets, but that?s another story) >>> for those territories where the Y-7 might have worked well. And the Y-6 >>> retained the economy of the compound. >>> >>> The argument has been made that N&W had too many A?s, but, again, what >>> would be the benefit? It?s arguable that they built too many S-1a engines, >>> too, but again . . . >>> >>> - Ed King >>> >>> *From:* NW Mailing List >>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:32 PM >>> *To:* NW Mailing List >>> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development >>> >>> The N&W did a great job and I am not trying to cast dispersion on them. >>> I am not trying to nit-pick them, I am trying to think about what if. But >>> it is interesting to think about what the result would have been if coal >>> trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke were >>> operated with improved Y engines that had equal speed capability as the >>> A's. Would it have improved locomotive utilization to the point to have >>> increased N&W's profitability? >>> >>> John Rhodes >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 7:24 PM NW Mailing List < >>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I find it difficult to second-guess N&W?s motive power decisions in the >>>> 1950s. For the all-steam part of that decade they were carrying gross >>>> income over to net at a rate that was the envy of the industry while >>>> handling a low-revenue commodity . They were sparring with the mighty >>>> Union Pacific for the top spot in gross ton miles per train hour. If >>>> people want to nit-pick their decisions, they?ll have to come upwith some >>>> very impressive facts that nobody else ever thought of to prove their >>>> points. A case could be made that coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus >>>> Districts and east of Roanoke could have been handled more economically >>>> with Y engines, but it couldn?t have been handless as fast, and locomotive >>>> utilization might have suffered. >>>> >>>> So I, for one, am content to enjoy what they did do rather than try to >>>> think up things I think they should have done. Wnen I hired out on N&W in >>>> 1959 they were paying a $6.50 dividend on their common stock, the highest >>>> on the nYSE. >>>> >>>> - Ed King >>>> >>>> *From:* NW Mailing List >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 12, 2019 8:32 PM >>>> *To:* List NWHS >>>> *Subject:* Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b >>>> Development >>>> >>>> So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they >>>> had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's? >>>> >>>> John Rhodes >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List < >>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they >>>>> created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the >>>>> occasional heavy passenger train. Later they realized that a single engine >>>>> type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally >>>>> and financially. N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming >>>>> larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the >>>>> objective of a general purpose freight locomotive. >>>>> >>>>> I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" >>>>> drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as >>>>> well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built. >>>>> >>>>> There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum >>>>> speed and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed. >>>>> >>>>> With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of >>>>> ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp >>>>> cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation >>>>> would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing. >>>>> >>>>> Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp >>>>> cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive >>>>> effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine. The lp engine due to >>>>> size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort >>>>> as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in >>>>> allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high. >>>>> >>>>> Also the 3 cylinder lp engine with less torque variation in a >>>>> rotation should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle >>>>> vs 20000. So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to >>>>> 185000 pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6. >>>>> >>>>> The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed. This is >>>>> an issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also >>>>> reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously. But >>>>> having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap >>>>> and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without >>>>> hurting the low end. High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive >>>>> slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would >>>>> be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class. >>>>> >>>>> The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the >>>>> superheater throttle and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of >>>>> 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class. >>>>> >>>>> Also the Y class need more steam chest volume about 125% of the >>>>> cylinder volume. >>>>> >>>>> More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but >>>>> probably required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. >>>>> >>>>> Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help. >>>>> More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed >>>>> type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington >>>>> FWH would work. >>>>> >>>>> When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight >>>>> and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar >>>>> horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y. >>>>> >>>>> And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway. >>>>> >>>>> John Rhodes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List < >>>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have >>>>>> large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on the lower >>>>>> part of the N&W's load gauge. With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, >>>>>> there's not a lot of room for a roller bearing rod hub. IIRC, load gauge >>>>>> interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had >>>>>> conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave Stephenson >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List < >>>>>> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill >>>>>> >>>>>> If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and >>>>>> read Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting There >>>>>> were >>>>>> >>>>>> a lot of reasons why probably it never happened . >>>>>> >>>>>> Larry Evans >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________ >>>>>> 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/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Wed Oct 16 10:31:21 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:09 AM Mike wrote: > The practicable limits make very interesting reading but the folks in the > corporate board room had to be more than uneasy with any further > commitments to steam. The obvious savings by its elimination were not to be > deigned. > Speaking of the board room, can anyone provide a date for a *Trains* article that offered up the position that the N&W unloaded steam much more quickly than it really needed to, at the direction of Stuart Saunders and his PRR overlords. The author (can't remember who, but he had the standing to make the claims) proposed that the N&W quickly moved to diesels to bump up the value of its stock, which the Pennsy had to unload at the time. Saunders, who had ambitions, wanted to make nice with his bosses and see that they got the highest value for the stock sale, so he pushed the end of steam much quicker than it actually needed to happen (yes, steam was in decline but the N&W wasn't in bad shape as far as power, facilities, and operations went -- although ending steam would eventually be inevitiable). I have tried to use the *Trains* index and search but never met with success in finding the article and I haven't had the time to pull out my boxes of past issues to search through. Bruce in Blacksburg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Wed Oct 16 10:07:07 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:07:07 -0500 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have always wanted to see what the payback on capital was to deiselize.? I think it could have been more cost advantaged to do it more gradually.Jason MaxwellSent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message --------From: NW Mailing List Date: 10/16/19 8:59 AM (GMT-06:00) To: NW Mailing List Subject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development The practicable limits make very interesting reading but the folks in the corporate board room had to be more than uneasy with any further commitments to steam. The obvious savings by its elimination were not to be deigned.Mike Pierry, Jr.On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:34 AM NW Mailing List wrote:John -?Well, let?s look at the physical limitations.? The N&W?s standard turntable was 115 feet.? The A overhung it on both ends.? The original1910 Mallets (the X-1 0-8-8-0s and Y-1 2-8-8-2s) had low-pressure cylinders of 39 inch diameter.? This was the largest that would fit N&W?s clearances, which is why the 2100s LP cylinders were 39 inches.?The proposal was that the engine would be as fast as the A but have the power of a Y-6.? The power requirements would neccessitate sixteen driving wheels and the speed requirements would necessitate drivers of at least 68 inch diameters.? Now, UP?s Big Boy had 68 inch drivers and it took a 130 foot turntable, even using the Centipede tender which was shorter and higher than a normal tender.?I don?t doubt that they could have created a compound that could run that fast; the 2100s under throttle could run 45 to 50 (unofficial reports had them running faster than that).? But the 39 inch LP cylinder limit would still apply, and they would have had to lengthen every turntable on the system to handle such an engine.?Now, I don?thave any hard data supporting my position; I do know what their parameters would have to have been, and I don?t believe they could have made such an engine work.? If you look at what they had to do to make a Y-7 fit a 115-foot table (they had to move the boiler forward on the frame to shorten the engine, which caused more front end overhang on curves) with the proposed 63-inch drivers, it becomes more apparent that the proposed A-Y combo would have have whit I believe to be unsurmountable problems.?- Ed King?From:?NW Mailing ListSent:?Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:01 PMTo:?List NWHSSubject:?Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development?EdDo you have any data or information to back up your doubt or show why a faster Y would need to be any longer than a Y5 or Y6?? Or run up against the physical limitations of the N&W?? As to why N&W would want to speed up the Y class, it would me to increase profitability and return on investment.?JimmyI understand your concern but the railroad industry determined that about 90% of the maintenance cost of the average steam engine was boiler related.? N&W built engines with cast frames and roller bearings so the added machinery maintenance would likely have been a low percentage of total maintenance costs and not a big deal.?RegardsJohn Rhodes?On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 6:49 AM NW Mailing List wrote:John -?If it was possible to design a 16-drivered compound that would run as fast as the A, which I doubt, given N&W?s phusical limitations (I doubt if they could have gotten such an engine on a 115? turntable for one thing, boiler overhang at the front and rear-end overhang at the other end would have been monstrous) why would they have wanted to?? Data have come to light that even the Y-7 might have had difficulties there.? Gurdon McGavock was said to have expressed concerns about those very items.?N&W had its bases covered with the 2100s and the As.? Their results speak for themseoves.?- Ed King?From:?NW Mailing ListSent:?Monday, October 14, 2019 2:44 PMTo:?List NWHSSubject:?Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development?Ed you are misunderstanding what I am saying.? I? am not talking about the Y7.? N&W could have built a compound Y that could have been just as fast and powerful as the A without being overly complex.? It should have helped them financially and operationally to not have 2 different road freight locomotives.?John Rhodes?On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 11:49 AM NW Mailing List wrote:The point was that N&W?s financial results using its steam locomotives were refined to the point that any thoughts of working around the margins would probably produce minuscule results.? It was probably a good thing that the Y-7 was never built.? It turned out that the Y-6 would run fast enough (far faster than anyone else?s Mallets, but that?s another story) for those territories where the Y-7 might have worked well.? And the Y-6 retained the economy of the compound.?The argument has been made that N&W had too many A?s, but, again, what would be the benefit?? It?s arguable that they built too many S-1a engines, too, but again . . .?- Ed King??From:?NW Mailing ListSent:?Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:32 PMTo:?NW Mailing ListSubject:?Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development?The N&W did a great job and I am not trying to cast dispersion on them.? I am not trying to nit-pick them, I am trying to think about what if.? But it is interesting to think about what the result would have been if?coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke were operated with improved Y engines that had equal speed capability as the A's.? Would it have improved locomotive utilization to the point to have increased N&W's profitability?John Rhodes?On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 7:24 PM NW Mailing List wrote:I find it difficult to second-guess N&W?s motive power decisions in the 1950s.? For the all-steam part of that decade they were carrying gross income over to net at a rate that was the envy of the industry while handling a low-revenue commodity .? They were sparring with the mighty Union Pacific for the top spot in gross ton miles per train hour.? If people want to nit-pick their decisions, they?ll have to come upwith some very impressive facts that nobody else ever thought of to prove their points.? A case could be made that coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke? could have been handled more economically with Y engines, but it couldn?t have been handless as fast, and locomotive utilization might have suffered.?So I, for one, am content to enjoy what they did do rather than try to think up things I think they should have done.? Wnen I hired out on N&W in 1959 they were paying a $6.50 dividend on their common stock, the highest on the nYSE.?- Ed King?From:?NW Mailing ListSent:?Saturday, October 12, 2019 8:32 PMTo:?List NWHSSubject:?Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development?So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's??John RhodesOn Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List wrote:All,N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the occasional heavy passenger train.? Later they realized that a single engine type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally and financially.? N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the objective of a general purpose freight locomotive.?I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built.?There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum speed and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed.?With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing.??Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine.? The lp engine due to size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high.?Also the 3 cylinder? lp engine with less torque variation in a rotation should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle vs 20000. So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to 185000 pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6.?The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed.? This is an issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously.? But having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without hurting the low end.? High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class.?The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the superheater throttle? and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class.?Also the Y class need more? steam chest volume about 125% of the cylinder volume.??More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but probably required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners.?Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help.? More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington FWH would work.?When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y.?And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway.?John Rhodes??On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List wrote:I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on? the lower part of the N&W's load gauge.? With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, there's not a lot of room? for a roller bearing rod hub.? IIRC, load gauge interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers.?Dave Stephenson???On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List wrote:?Bill????? If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and read Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting? There werea lot of reasons why probably it never happened .Larry Evans?_______________________________________NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.orgTo change your subscription go tohttp://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-listBrowse the NW-Mailing-List archives athttp://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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Wed Oct 16 11:14:27 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:14:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development References: <499607214.2425484.1571238867336.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I think the interesting design prospects John has proposed wouldn't be just the N&W's purview. The N&W might have been a leader or at least a chief advocate of such studies but I would expect that the entire industry would have participated. No matter how well the new design might have performed, though, steam's many other disadvantages would still have to have been addressed. The thinkers didn't see a future in it and as Mike alludes to, the boardroom agreed.?Ted GoodmanColumbus -----Original Message----- From: NW Mailing List To: NW Mailing List Sent: Wed, Oct 16, 2019 10:02 am Subject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development The practicable limits make very interesting reading but the folks in the corporate board room had to be more than uneasy with any further commitments to steam. The obvious savings by its elimination were not to be deigned. Mike Pierry, Jr. On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:34 AM NW Mailing List wrote: John -?Well, let?s look at the physical limitations.? The N&W?s standard turntable was 115 feet.? The A overhung it on both ends.? The original1910 Mallets (the X-1 0-8-8-0s and Y-1 2-8-8-2s) had low-pressure cylinders of 39 inch diameter.? This was the largest that would fit N&W?s clearances, which is why the 2100s LP cylinders were 39 inches.?The proposal was that the engine would be as fast as the A but have the power of a Y-6.? The power requirements would neccessitate sixteen driving wheels and the speed requirements would necessitate drivers of at least 68 inch diameters.? Now, UP?s Big Boy had 68 inch drivers and it took a 130 foot turntable, even using the Centipede tender which was shorter and higher than a normal tender.?I don?t doubt that they could have created a compound that could run that fast; the 2100s under throttle could run 45 to 50 (unofficial reports had them running faster than that).? But the 39 inch LP cylinder limit would still apply, and they would have had to lengthen every turntable on the system to handle such an engine.?Now, I don?thave any hard data supporting my position; I do know what their parameters would have to have been, and I don?t believe they could have made such an engine work.? If you look at what they had to do to make a Y-7 fit a 115-foot table (they had to move the boiler forward on the frame to shorten the engine, which caused more front end overhang on curves) with the proposed 63-inch drivers, it becomes more apparent that the proposed A-Y combo would have have whit I believe to be unsurmountable problems.?- Ed King?From:?NW Mailing ListSent:?Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:01 PMTo:?List NWHSSubject:?Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development?EdDo you have any data or information to back up your doubt or show why a faster Y would need to be any longer than a Y5 or Y6?? Or run up against the physical limitations of the N&W?? As to why N&W would want to speed up the Y class, it would me to increase profitability and return on investment.?JimmyI understand your concern but the railroad industry determined that about 90% of the maintenance cost of the average steam engine was boiler related.? N&W built engines with cast frames and roller bearings so the added machinery maintenance would likely have been a low percentage of total maintenance costs and not a big deal.?RegardsJohn Rhodes?On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 6:49 AM NW Mailing List wrote: John -?If it was possible to design a 16-drivered compound that would run as fast as the A, which I doubt, given N&W?s phusical limitations (I doubt if they could have gotten such an engine on a 115? turntable for one thing, boiler overhang at the front and rear-end overhang at the other end would have been monstrous) why would they have wanted to?? Data have come to light that even the Y-7 might have had difficulties there.? Gurdon McGavock was said to have expressed concerns about those very items.?N&W had its bases covered with the 2100s and the As.? Their results speak for themseoves.?- Ed King?From:?NW Mailing ListSent:?Monday, October 14, 2019 2:44 PMTo:?List NWHSSubject:?Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development?Ed you are misunderstanding what I am saying.? I? am not talking about the Y7.? N&W could have built a compound Y that could have been just as fast and powerful as the A without being overly complex.? It should have helped them financially and operationally to not have 2 different road freight locomotives.?John Rhodes?On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 11:49 AM NW Mailing List wrote: The point was that N&W?s financial results using its steam locomotives were refined to the point that any thoughts of working around the margins would probably produce minuscule results.? It was probably a good thing that the Y-7 was never built.? It turned out that the Y-6 would run fast enough (far faster than anyone else?s Mallets, but that?s another story) for those territories where the Y-7 might have worked well.? And the Y-6 retained the economy of the compound.?The argument has been made that N&W had too many A?s, but, again, what would be the benefit?? It?s arguable that they built too many S-1a engines, too, but again . . .?- Ed King??From:?NW Mailing ListSent:?Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:32 PMTo:?NW Mailing ListSubject:?Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development?The N&W did a great job and I am not trying to cast dispersion on them.? I am not trying to nit-pick them, I am trying to think about what if.? But it is interesting to think about what the result would have been if?coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke were operated with improved Y engines that had equal speed capability as the A's.? Would it have improved locomotive utilization to the point to have increased N&W's profitability? John Rhodes?On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 7:24 PM NW Mailing List wrote: I find it difficult to second-guess N&W?s motive power decisions in the 1950s.? For the all-steam part of that decade they were carrying gross income over to net at a rate that was the envy of the industry while handling a low-revenue commodity .? They were sparring with the mighty Union Pacific for the top spot in gross ton miles per train hour.? If people want to nit-pick their decisions, they?ll have to come upwith some very impressive facts that nobody else ever thought of to prove their points.? A case could be made that coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke? could have been handled more economically with Y engines, but it couldn?t have been handless as fast, and locomotive utilization might have suffered.?So I, for one, am content to enjoy what they did do rather than try to think up things I think they should have done.? Wnen I hired out on N&W in 1959 they were paying a $6.50 dividend on their common stock, the highest on the nYSE.?- Ed King?From:?NW Mailing ListSent:?Saturday, October 12, 2019 8:32 PMTo:?List NWHSSubject:?Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development?So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's??John Rhodes On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List wrote: All,N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the occasional heavy passenger train.? Later they realized that a single engine type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally and financially.? N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the objective of a general purpose freight locomotive.?I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built.?There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum speed and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed.?With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing.??Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine.? The lp engine due to size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high.?Also the 3 cylinder? lp engine with less torque variation in a rotation should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle vs 20000. So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to 185000 pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6.?The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed.? This is an issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously.? But having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without hurting the low end.? High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class.?The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the superheater throttle? and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class.?Also the Y class need more? steam chest volume about 125% of the cylinder volume.??More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but probably required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners.?Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help.? More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington FWH would work.?When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y.?And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway.?John Rhodes??On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List wrote: I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on? the lower part of the N&W's load gauge.? With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, there's not a lot of room? for a roller bearing rod hub.? IIRC, load gauge interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. ?Dave Stephenson???On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List wrote:?Bill????? If you?re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and read Wes Camp?s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting? There werea lot of reasons why probably it never happened . Larry Evans?_______________________________________ 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Wed Oct 16 11:37:53 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:37:53 -0400 Subject: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: /On 10/15/2019 11:01 PM, NW Mailing List wrote:// / > /Jimmy / > /I understand your concern but the railroad industry determined that > about 90% of the maintenance cost of the average steam engine was > boiler related.? N&W built engines with cast frames and roller > bearings so the added machinery maintenance would likely have been a > low percentage of total maintenance costs and not a big deal./ > / > / > /Regards/ > /John Rhodes // > / John, ??? I disagree. With a complete other cylinder in the middle, along with an additional three valves, maintenance would vastly slow down. Then there is the fact that said extra cylinder needs its own completely different set of parts. You need to look at that 90% in a different manner. If all of the work is being done on the boiler, that means that something is right with the running gear. Add in all of your extra mechanism with its hard to reach upkeep and I believe your 90% is dropping down much lower. ??? The men in the MP Dept. did the right thing! Jimmy Lisle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Fri Oct 18 14:09:21 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:09:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: N&W Practice on Passenger Car Ventilation Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DL&W_MU Car Interior_Bell Cord_1932_Steamtown #X7856_edited.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 712321 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Fri Oct 18 17:12:24 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:12:24 -0400 Subject: N&W Practice on Passenger Car Ventilation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Would they have used a transom window hook on a pole? Transom windows were really common for early 1900s architecture, would have been readily available, and common enough not to get mentioned. Toney Minter NW Mailing List wrote: > The early operating Rule Books made it clear that the trainmen on > passenger trains were responsible for lighting and adjusting the oil > lamps and handling the ventilation in coaches, as well as the coal > stoves. > > > Much, much to my chagrin, I do not recall seeing an N&W coach or Pullman > which had oil illumination and clerestory ventilators.  (Such may have > been used on the Blacksburg Branch mixed trains, but they transcended my > youthful observational skills.) > > > So, yesterday's Steamtown release of a 1932 photograph of the interior a > Lackawanna coach raised a question. > > > With those clerestory ventilators up so high, the trainman obviously needed a > pole with a hook (or similar) device on the end, for releasing the latches and > raising and lowering the metal doors. > > > I never saw reference in any N&W literature to such a device or tool for > use by the trainmen.  Have you seen such...?  What were they > called?  Were they a standard item which the trainman picked up at the > beginning of each run, like markers, lanterns and flagging equipment? > > > ----  abram burnett, > Purveyor of Alpha-Turnips > > > =========================================== >                   Sent to You > from my Telegraph Key > Successor to the MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH LINE of 1844 > =========================================== > > ________________________________________ > 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/ > From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Fri Oct 18 17:40:52 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:40:52 -0400 Subject: N&W Practice on Passenger Car Ventilation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think this was standard equipment for the cars stored at the end of the car Larry Evans "There's the sun, there's the moon, there's the air we breathe, and there's the Rolling Stones" Keith Richards > On Oct 18, 2019, at 2:09 PM, NW Mailing List wrote: > > The early operating Rule Books made it clear that the trainmen on passenger trains were responsible for lighting and adjusting the oil lamps and handling the ventilation in coaches, as well as the coal stoves. > > > > Much, much to my chagrin, I do not recall seeing an N&W coach or Pullman which had oil illumination and clerestory ventilators. (Such may have been used on the Blacksburg Branch mixed trains, but they transcended my youthful observational skills.) > > > > So, yesterday's Steamtown release of a 1932 photograph of the interior a Lackawanna coach raised a question. > > > > With those clerestory ventilators up so high, the trainman obviously needed a pole with a hook (or similar) device on the end, for releasing the latches and raising and lowering the metal doors. > > > > I never saw reference in any N&W literature to such a device or tool for use by the trainmen. Have you seen such...? What were they called? Were they a standard item which the trainman picked up at the beginning of each run, like markers, lanterns and flagging equipment? > > > > ---- abram burnett, > > Purveyor of Alpha-Turnips > > > =========================================== > Sent to You from my Telegraph Key > Successor to the MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH LINE of 1844 > =========================================== > > > ________________________________________ > 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Fri Oct 18 19:38:59 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 19:38:59 -0400 Subject: At the top Message-ID: Looking back at Whitetop Depot (restored) on the former Abingdon Branch just before crossing into North Carolina. Perfect October weather today. Mike Pierry, Jr. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1733.jpg Type: image/jpg Size: 311510 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sat Oct 19 13:39:06 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 13:39:06 -0400 Subject: At the top In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike - This depot looks pretty good ? I haven?t seen it for upwards of 60 years. There are preety good-sized trees where the tracks used to be. There was a siding on either side of the main at White Top, maybe the only place on the Branch that was as many as three tracks wide. I appreciate your photos along the Bristol Line. - Ed King From: NW Mailing List Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 7:38 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: At the top Looking back at Whitetop Depot (restored) on the former Abingdon Branch just before crossing into North Carolina. Perfect October weather today. Mike Pierry, Jr. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1733.jpg Type: image/jpg Size: 311510 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sat Oct 19 09:49:20 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 09:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: At the top (i.e. Whitetop) Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sat Oct 19 11:12:37 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 11:12:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Whitetop; Abingdon Branch; the Notch in Virginia's Southern Border Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sat Oct 19 11:10:10 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:10:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: 107 years ago References: <1495981623.2584231.1571497810185.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Excerpts from ICC Railroad Accident Report #98 Railroad? ? ? ? ? ?- Norfolk and WesternDate? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?- October 20, 1912Location? ? ? ? ? ?- Cooper, WVTrain number? ?- 15 - Condr. Walters and Engr. CowlingEngine number- 584Consist? ? ? ? ? ? - 7 carsTime? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? - 8:52? a.m.Casualties? ? ? ?- 1 killed; 18 injuredCause? ? ? ? ? ? ?-? Excessive speed on a 16 degree curve NOTE:? No. 15 was detoured on the eastbound main track- Bluestone-Ruth. "Conductor Walters stated that before leaving Bluestone, the engine-man?said the engine 'was not much account and he did not know whetherhe?would be able to get up the hill or not'.? It is probable that EnginemanCowling, fearing that he would be unable to get up the grade from Cooperto Ruth disregarded the speed restriction at this point and maintainedspeed?which proved to be too high for this curve . . . . .? . .He had been in?passenger service for 11 years and was considered a competent engine-man, although he had a reputation among employees of being a fastrunner."? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Harry Bundy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sat Oct 19 15:16:08 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:16:08 -0400 Subject: At the top In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed, Depot looks fine due to the restoration and care by the Park folks. Tree growth: What I was told is that they are apple trees (not natural to the elevation) that resulted from passengers throwing their apple cores out the windows. This is a really busy location with the arrival of a steady stream of vans hauling riders and towing trailers filled with bicycles up from Damascus. Probably more people (of all ages) arrive by van at Whitetop in one day than the railroad hauled in a year! As to the three tracks, next time we are up there I will check for evidence of same. Mike Pierry, Jr. On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 2:54 PM NW Mailing List wrote: > > Mike - > > This depot looks pretty good ? I haven?t seen it for upwards of 60 years. > > There are preety good-sized trees where the tracks used to be. There was > a siding on either side of the main at White Top, maybe the only place on > the Branch that was as many as three tracks wide. > > I appreciate your photos along the Bristol Line. > > - Ed King > *From:* NW Mailing List > *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2019 7:38 PM > *To:* NW Mailing List > *Subject:* At the top > > Looking back at Whitetop Depot (restored) on the former Abingdon Branch > just before crossing into North Carolina. Perfect October weather today. > > Mike Pierry, Jr. > > ------------------------------ > ________________________________________ > 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/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1733.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 311510 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sat Oct 19 17:49:43 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 17:49:43 -0400 Subject: O Winston Link and Whitetop Opposite view Message-ID: To complete the visual scene at Whitetop, here is the view looking toward North Carolina. Flag at half staff would be in honor of Elijah Cummings. My main reason for the trip up there was to present the Park folks at Green Cove with photographs I made in Oct. 1991 of the Station?s dedication with O. Winston Link being the honored guest. I gave them a framed print of OWL being surprised by the reappearance of ?Maude?. Mike Pierry, Jr Mike Pierry, Jr. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1741.jpg Type: image/jpg Size: 64164 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1737.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 392411 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1742.jpg Type: image/jpg Size: 216268 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1743.jpg Type: image/jpg Size: 196068 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sat Oct 19 21:34:28 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 21:34:28 -0400 Subject: At the top In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike - The two sidings were rarely used in later times. If you?re exploring in the area, look for signs of a turntable (probably a sixty-footer) on the east side at the north end. Evidently in early days there were pushers that needed to be turned there. Sixty years ago there was the carcass of a two or three story building east of the tracks which I was told was once a hotel. Evidently in the early days White Top was indeed a busy location; it probably handled a lot of logging and lumber traffic. Thanks again! - Ed King From: NW Mailing List Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 3:16 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: Re: At the top Ed, Depot looks fine due to the restoration and care by the Park folks. Tree growth: What I was told is that they are apple trees (not natural to the elevation) that resulted from passengers throwing their apple cores out the windows. This is a really busy location with the arrival of a steady stream of vans hauling riders and towing trailers filled with bicycles up from Damascus. Probably more people (of all ages) arrive by van at Whitetop in one day than the railroad hauled in a year! As to the three tracks, next time we are up there I will check for evidence of same. Mike Pierry, Jr. On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 2:54 PM NW Mailing List wrote: Mike - This depot looks pretty good ? I haven?t seen it for upwards of 60 years. There are preety good-sized trees where the tracks used to be. There was a siding on either side of the main at White Top, maybe the only place on the Branch that was as many as three tracks wide. I appreciate your photos along the Bristol Line. - Ed King From: NW Mailing List Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 7:38 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: At the top Looking back at Whitetop Depot (restored) on the former Abingdon Branch just before crossing into North Carolina. Perfect October weather today. Mike Pierry, Jr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1733.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 311510 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sat Oct 19 22:51:18 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 22:51:18 -0400 Subject: Virginian Crazies 2019 edition Message-ID: We just had another successful Virginian Crazies weekend in Mullens (Twin Falls). As usual the lodge was very accommodating. We had about 15 attendees; we had some new faces, and some regulars were unable to make it this year. We went to Polk Gap tunnel (I think I got that right), and visited Tom Marshall?s grave in Matheny. Family plot: he?s buried with his parents. Friday evening was the usual business meeting (less than 30 minutes)where we had some photos, books, and kits for exchange (thank you again Bob Liljestrand/Bob?s Photos; more Virginian photos every year). We also showed the group the plaque we had made for the Virginian Crazies, with names for our deceased members*, with, sadly, room for more in the future. We have been going on for approximately 13 years now, and we have six names on the plaque already. The plaque was turned over to the local guys for a decision as to where to hang it. As promised, we also discussed time and place for next year. It is not settled, meaning we are open to suggestions, comments, complaints, concerns, but so far it?s looking like we will be back at Twin Falls, again the second weekend in October of 2020. I?m sure you all understand that any weekend is bad or impossible for someone. Also everyone was invited to attend the Norfolk & Western/Virginian Railway Historical Society convention in Cleveland next June. There was some concern because it was put out that the convention next year will be emphasizing the post 1964 N&W; it was made clear that the Virginian Interest Group will have it?s annual meeting at that convention. This seems like a good time/excuse to put out some clarification. There are three Virginian Railway ?groups?. There is this Yahoo group, which at last count has over 1000 members, and is one of the more active and long lived of the single railroad Yahoo groups. The group was started, as far as I know, by Mark Fisher about 15 years ago. As noted, it will be migrated to groups io in the near future?we hope. There is the Virginian Interest Group, which is a bunch that meets at every NWHS convention. The group consists of whoever comes to the convention that is interested in attending the meeting. We have updates on upcoming or at least proposed Virginian models, and a vigorous exchange of information and presentations. When Rick Stone started the new NWHS in 1984 he promised to ?take care of? the Virginian; NWHS has made good on that promise. Finally there is the Virginian Crazies. That?s the group of us that meet every Fall, and it sort of coalesced around the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the railroad coming to Mullens. We?re doing well, I would say, for those of us who follow/model a railroad that has been gone for a longer period than it existed. *The six deceased whose names are on the plaque: Mark Fisher: the founder of the Yahoo Virginian Group. Because he was taking care of an elderly mother, he made it to one meeting after she passed, and he died before the next year?s meeting. One heck of a nice guy. Jack Feller: one of the predominant historians of Mullens, who wrote a 5(?)volume history of Mullens, and willingly provided a lot of information to us who came from out of town. Sarge McGhee: WWII Marine. Had worked for the railroad. Best known to us as the man who is responsible for all the railroad murals around the city. Lloyd Lewis: retired from the railroad industry. He wrote or edited approximately four books on the Virginian. When he was able to make it to Crazies he was simply priceless as a tour guide and walking historian. David Helmer: also retired from the railroad industry. Was involved with VMT and may have been helpful in getting the ELC there. Broadened our horizons one year by presenting a seminar on the railroads of??Vietnam. Tom Marshall. Noted Virginian historian. Great friend and tour guide. Until his death essentially hosted the Virginian Crazies weekends in cooperation with the lodge. Incredible source of information, including stacks of photos, paperwork, and information from his father who had worked on the railroad. Frank Bongiovanni -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sat Oct 19 20:26:16 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 20:26:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NW-Mailing-List Digest, Vol 178, Issue 60 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On October 19, 2019 at 2:29 PM nw-mailing-list-request at nwhs.org wrote: > > > Send NW-Mailing-List mailing list submissions to > nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/nw-mailing-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nw-mailing-list-request at nwhs.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nw-mailing-list-owner at nwhs.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NW-Mailing-List digest..." > > > When replying, please edit the Subject line so it reflects the topic you are responding to. > > Also delete the non-pertinent parts of the digest when replying to a referenced post. > > Your fellow list subscribers will appreciate it. > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: At the top (NW Mailing List) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I was under the impression that the White Top depot had been demolished and the building there now is a total recreation of the original. Is that not the case? -Ed Burnett > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 13:39:06 -0400 > From: NW Mailing List > To: "NW Mailing List" > Subject: Re: At the top > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > Mike - > > This depot looks pretty good ? I haven?t seen it for upwards of 60 years. > > There are preety good-sized trees where the tracks used to be. There was a siding on either side of the main at White Top, maybe the only place on the Branch that was as many as three tracks wide. > > I appreciate your photos along the Bristol Line. > > - Ed King > From: NW Mailing List > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 7:38 PM > To: NW Mailing List > Subject: At the top > > Looking back at Whitetop Depot (restored) on the former Abingdon Branch just before crossing into North Carolina. Perfect October weather today. > > Mike Pierry, Jr. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ________________________________________ > 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: > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: IMG_1733.jpg > Type: image/jpg > Size: 311510 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ________________________________________ > 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/ > > > ------------------------------ > > End of NW-Mailing-List Digest, Vol 178, Issue 60 > ************************************************ From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sat Oct 19 20:48:04 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 00:48:04 +0000 Subject: Fw: O Winston Link and Whitetop Opposite view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: These photos are awesome! The Lord broke the mold when he made O. Winston Link! I cherish the times that I got to talk with him and the few photos that I took of him! Thanks Mike for sharing this once in a lifetime event with the rest of us! Regards, Norris Norris Deyerle Blue Ridge Chapter, National Railway Historical Society Chairman of Virginia's Rail Heritage Region Partners and Lynchburg Railroad Day 2019 Model Train Show Worker - Train Show Date: Saturday, August 10, 2019 LRD 2019 Vendor Tables Rental Info: www.blueridgenrhs.org 744 Chinook Place Lynchburg, Virginia 24502-4908 Cell: 434-851-0151 ________________________________ From: NW-Mailing-List on behalf of NW Mailing List Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 5:49:43 PM To: NW Mailing List Subject: O Winston Link and Whitetop Opposite view [cid:16de5fcea5e46aa5a251] [cid:16de5fd039faaf06e262] [cid:16de5fd17a3e26446243] To complete the visual scene at Whitetop, here is the view looking toward North Carolina. Flag at half staff would be in honor of Elijah Cummings. My main reason for the trip up there was to present the Park folks at Green Cove with photographs I made in Oct. 1991 of the Station?s dedication with O. Winston Link being the honored guest. I gave them a framed print of OWL being surprised by the reappearance of ?Maude?. Mike Pierry, Jr [cid:16de58138eb91aea9291] Mike Pierry, Jr. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1741.jpg Type: image/jpg Size: 64164 bytes Desc: IMG_1741.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1737.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 392411 bytes Desc: IMG_1737.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1742.jpg Type: image/jpg Size: 216268 bytes Desc: IMG_1742.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1743.jpg Type: image/jpg Size: 196068 bytes Desc: IMG_1743.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sun Oct 20 10:02:28 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 10:02:28 -0400 Subject: 107 years ago In-Reply-To: References: <1495981623.2584231.1571497810185.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A picture and report on the wreck of No. 15 was published on page 249 of ?The Norfolk & Western in West Virginia 1 1881-1959? available from the NWHS Commissary. Alex Schust From: NW-Mailing-List [mailto:nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org] On Behalf Of NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 11:10 AM To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Cc: NW Mailing List Subject: 107 years ago Excerpts from ICC Railroad Accident Report #98 Railroad - Norfolk and Western Date - October 20, 1912 Location - Cooper, WV Train number - 15 - Condr. Walters and Engr. Cowling Engine number- 584 Consist - 7 cars Time - 8:52 a.m. Casualties - 1 killed; 18 injured Cause - Excessive speed on a 16 degree curve NOTE: No. 15 was detoured on the eastbound main track- Bluestone- Ruth. "Conductor Walters stated that before leaving Bluestone, the engine- man said the engine 'was not much account and he did not know whether he would be able to get up the hill or not'. It is probable that Engineman Cowling, fearing that he would be unable to get up the grade from Cooper to Ruth disregarded the speed restriction at this point and maintained speed which proved to be too high for this curve . . . . . . .He had been in passenger service for 11 years and was considered a competent engine- man, although he had a reputation among employees of being a fast runner." Harry Bundy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sun Oct 20 12:21:39 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 12:21:39 -0400 Subject: At the top In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 19 Oct 2019 21:34:28 EDT." Message-ID: Archives drawing HS-CC10979 dated 1920 shows that the turntable at White Top was on the inside of the curve just south of the depot. https://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=152946 Here is a 1957 August Thieme Jr. photo of the remains of the turntable pit: https://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=185123 Archives drawing HS-D00398 dated 1920 shows a 56' turntable immediately south of the depot at Damascus circa 1920, presumably the opposite end of the early pusher district. Joe Shaw From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sun Oct 20 14:06:08 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 14:06:08 -0400 Subject: Virginian Crazies 2019 edition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Frank - great report on this year's Crazies! Do you have to be crazy about the VGN to tag along, or just crazy in general? Sounds like a fun time... One additional note about David Helmer, as a volunteer he was instrumental in the fundraising effort to build, and secure estate prints for, the O. Winston Link Museum in Roanoke. I missed getting to know him by just a few years when I came on the board there. His daughter, Delta, told me of his role there. As a board member for many years, he was also close to the week-to-week administration of the museum, helping them to chart a sustainable course. He had vast fund-raising connections in the railroad world, and didn't hesitate to use them. Stephen Warren - Roanoke On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:51 PM NW Mailing List wrote: > We just had another successful Virginian Crazies weekend in Mullens (Twin > Falls). As usual the lodge was very accommodating. We had about 15 > attendees; we had some new faces, and some regulars were unable to make it > this year. We went to Polk Gap tunnel (I think I got that right), and > visited Tom Marshall?s grave in Matheny. Family plot: he?s buried with > his parents. > > > Friday evening was the usual business meeting (less than 30 minutes)where > we had some photos, books, and kits for exchange (thank you again Bob > Liljestrand/Bob?s Photos; more Virginian photos every year). We also > showed the group the plaque we had made for the Virginian Crazies, with > names for our deceased members*, with, sadly, room for more in the future. > We have been going on for approximately 13 years now, and we have six > names on the plaque already. The plaque was turned over to the local > guys for a decision as to where to hang it. > > > As promised, we also discussed time and place for next year. It is not > settled, meaning we are open to suggestions, comments, complaints, > concerns, but so far it?s looking like we will be back at Twin Falls, again > the second weekend in October of 2020. I?m sure you all understand that > any weekend is bad or impossible for someone. > > > Also everyone was invited to attend the Norfolk & Western/Virginian > Railway Historical Society convention in Cleveland next June. There was > some concern because it was put out that the convention next year will be > emphasizing the post 1964 N&W; it was made clear that the Virginian > Interest Group will have it?s annual meeting at that convention. > > > This seems like a good time/excuse to put out some clarification. There > are three Virginian Railway ?groups?. There is this Yahoo group, which > at last count has over 1000 members, and is one of the more active and long > lived of the single railroad Yahoo groups. The group was started, as far > as I know, by Mark Fisher about 15 years ago. As noted, it will be > migrated to groups io in the near future?we hope. > > > There is the Virginian Interest Group, which is a bunch that meets at > every NWHS convention. The group consists of whoever comes to the > convention that is interested in attending the meeting. We have updates > on upcoming or at least proposed Virginian models, and a vigorous exchange > of information and presentations. When Rick Stone started the new NWHS > in 1984 he promised to ?take care of? the Virginian; NWHS has made good on > that promise. > > > Finally there is the Virginian Crazies. That?s the group of us that meet > every Fall, and it sort of coalesced around the celebration of the 100th > anniversary of the railroad coming to Mullens. > > We?re doing well, I would say, for those of us who follow/model a railroad > that has been gone for a longer period than it existed. > > > *The six deceased whose names are on the plaque: > > Mark Fisher: the founder of the Yahoo Virginian Group. Because he was > taking care of an elderly mother, he made it to one meeting after she > passed, and he died before the next year?s meeting. One heck of a nice > guy. > > > Jack Feller: one of the predominant historians of Mullens, who wrote a > 5(?)volume history of Mullens, and willingly provided a lot of information > to us who came from out of town. > > > Sarge McGhee: WWII Marine. Had worked for the railroad. Best known to > us as the man who is responsible for all the railroad murals around the > city. > > > Lloyd Lewis: retired from the railroad industry. He wrote or edited > approximately four books on the Virginian. When he was able to make it > to Crazies he was simply priceless as a tour guide and walking historian. > > > David Helmer: also retired from the railroad industry. Was involved with > VMT and may have been helpful in getting the ELC there. Broadened our > horizons one year by presenting a seminar on the railroads of??Vietnam. > > > Tom Marshall. Noted Virginian historian. Great friend and tour guide. Until > his death essentially hosted the Virginian Crazies weekends in cooperation > with the lodge. Incredible source of information, including stacks of > photos, paperwork, and information from his father who had worked on the > railroad. > > > > Frank Bongiovanni > > > ________________________________________ > 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sun Oct 20 16:42:04 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: At the top - Ringing the DS from Whitetop - Hello, Mr. Duncan ! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Sun Oct 20 19:29:57 2019 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 19:29:57 -0400 Subject: Spring Mills Depot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am having trouble contacting Spring Mill Depot. Has any one else have trouble getting a response? Stephen Rineair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: