Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development

Tue Oct 15 23:01:16 EDT 2019

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 <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
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 <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> 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/
>>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> 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: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20191015/1cbac3fd/attachment-0001.html>