J-611 "the finest...ever built"?

Trains Magazine Steam & Preservation
1

In the September issue of Trains, Preston Claytor declares the N&W 611 to be, “the finest steam passenger engine ever built, anywhere, anytime.”

I used to think the J’s were the most beautiful steam engine ever built…until I took a good look at those British Mallards, including their speed records. Now I think the Mallards were the most beautiful. But “finest”? What qualifies the J’s for such an honor? How can we compare J’s & Mallards? Do others of you here agree? Is this simply a case of a man who’s not familiar with the Mallards?

Comments?

2

Such claims are unchallengeable unless the criteria are proposed, agreed to, and a good argument proposed for the preferred engine on those bases. At best you can have a long and meandering discussion about it with many offering their opinions about engines A thru Z.

For starting tractive effort, the J is far superior. For top speed, we’ll assume it could match the Mallard if given the sensible circumstances…maybe just, and history with a Pennsy test suggests it would have needed an improved/repaired lube system for the upper chambers. For thermal efficiency? I’ll leave that one to the experts.

For sheer top speed passenger service, with a skilled and determined crew, I’d have put some serious money on a Pennsy T1 Duplex for top speed. But the Duplex would have lost to the J on a grade start with the same trailing tonnage, and on a level track as well.

Crandell

3

The question is like “which is the largest steam locomotive?” In that it depends on what you are looking at. Weight, length, TE, horsepower…each has a class biggest in that category.

For “the finest steam passenger locomotive”, it also depends on what you are looking at. Speed, looks, tractive effort, what service they were built for.

While the LNER A4s were fast, the N&W Js win at tractive effort. So, it depends on the characteristic that is being compared.

NW

4

Are we discussing esthetics, performance, or maintainability? “Finest” is applicable to the J in the sense that it does the ‘combination’ to a higher degree than other designs. It would certainly seem to be the best at handling typical heavy American passenger consists at typical American speeds.

On the other hand, it will never come within 10 mph of Mallard’s ACTUAL record speed (125 mph; see Gresley on the subject if you have an argument) without fairly massive redesign of the running gear, notably the valves and lubrication. Neither, I suspect, would it run as fast as, say, a Niagara, ceteris paribus, particularly if the Niagara were to be balanced via Voyce Glaze’s methods. High-speed running is an incidental artifact with the J, a happy consequence of the design decisions in its balancing.

I happen to think you can change the design of a duplex 4-4-4-4 to solve most of the historical issues and problems, but it is still going to lack the low-speed TE and stability inherent in the J’s design. And its high-speed advantages are waaaaaay faster than most American service heavy enough to warrant a 4-8-4-size locomotive could justify as cost-effective. It’s all well and good to boast about how fast you could get something to go, but that is not what passenger railroading is, or ought to be, about – except for promotion or romance. For practical railroading, the J holds the cards…

I happen to like the T1 more than the Mallard – in fact, I even like the German streamlined class 05 more than Mallard, as it’s functional streamlining and does not have that ghastly fake airfoil skirting. But those are matters of taste.

5

The J certainly ranks as one of the most modern engines, and 611 with her combination of roller bearings, power and speed capabilities as well as beautiful streamlining surely ranks her as one of the finest steam locomotives ever built. lois

6

The “Mallard” versus my “Mighty 611?” Well, two different locomotives for two different apllications. Certainly the “Mallard” was beautifully designed and built, but it wouldn’t have worked for what the N&W needed on its 'road. By the same token, 611 was beautifully designed and built but it would have been too much locomotive for an English road. It all depends on what you need the machine for.

In an odd way, it makes me think of the following. Ask an American shotgunner what the best side-by-side shotgun was, EVER, and chances are he’ll say the guns made by Parker, in all grades.

Well, a British shotgunner’ll laugh at that. HE’LL say the best were Purdeys, Holland and Hollands, or Westley Richards. Neither is right and neither is wrong. Two different design philosophies for two different environments and usages.

So, for sheer pulling power of a heavy train on a 'road with a sawtooth profile here in the US you’d want a Class J. For a relatively flat roadbed, shorter distances, and speed on the lighter trains the British ran the “Mallard” would be just, well, “ducky.”

PS: If Juniatha’s right, and I’m sure she is, the “Mallard” darn near shook itself to pieces during that record run and another locomotive had to finish the trip. No disrepect to “Mallard” but maybe that high-speed wasn’t such a good idea.

7

This type of lack of agreement has been common since steam was first used. The Mallards are nice and I have rode behind an A4 in the UK several years ago. It is a fine locomotive but not in the same size, HP or TE category as a J. It is not fair to compare it to a J since they were designed and used for pasenger service under very different operating conditions. One man’s opinion is just that. I have watched the J’s on trains in Virginia back in 1956 and they earned a lot or respect from my point of view. That and about $1.50 will get you a good cup of coffee in most of our coffee shops.

Our passenger cars and the total weight of the trains are much higher than the Mallards pulled in their day.

The Mallard set a record speed but what was the weight of the train?? Do you think it could have done that with a 1000 ton long passenger train. I am sure it could not. The J was tested on the PRR mainline and bested 110 with a heavy train while in test. They were built for different types of service.

Most steam locomotives were designed for a service purpose and both the Mallard in the UK and the J here in the USA were

8

Yes, the Mallard was outfitted with Gresley Conjugated Valve Gear, in which the center cylinder works harder than the outside ones. This led to overheating of the big end, Overmod can explain this in better detail. A C1 Ivatt Atlantic took over from Peterborough to Kings Cross.

Back to the original topic, a J couldn’t run on the EMCL, even before electrification, due to loading gauge. It would hit things.

So, the missing words are “the finest steam passenger engine ever built, anywhere, anytime” to haul N&W’s passenger trains.

NW

9

Hi folks

Comparing N&W’s J class with LNER’s A4 ?

What about comparing –

– an ample , finely made first class Buffalo filet steak , not exactly too lean but incredibly rich in taste - complete with nice side dishes - and served steaming hot , sitting in a nicely fitted restaurant of a country hotel

with

– a highly traditional , yet low calories healthy , delicious … uhm … British seafood dinner ( I’m at a loss presently about naming one , that’s my ignorance , doesn’t count for nothing ) served in a grand old Victorian hotel hall ?

Which one is better ? Could you say and on which terms ?

The first you shouldn’t have all too often or it won’t take long until your trim eight-wheel tender will have turned into a twelve wheel job , threatening to gain .

The second - ok , why not - until you’ve had enough of tradition and health reasoning , yearning to have a full taste of the spice of life !

Or , what about comparing –

– the ingenious British Mini as invented , if you let me use that word here , by Issigonis – preferably in one of the various incredibly fast and road holding Cooper tune ups , complete with inevitable British flag painting on the roof – g

with

– a Chrysler 300 C – G Virgil Exner styled hardtop , at best , if you ask me , with a ‘four-on-the-floor’ Pont à Mousson manual trans and a ‘long’ rear axle ?

Now , don’t ask me because my preference would be straight and clear ( Vhaaam!-mh-mh-mh-mh- )

Yet … I hope you know what I mean : they are by far too different to be compared .

Michael Schumacher at the top of his carrier when with Ferrari ( actually Michele Scumacceroni , by then ) was asked by one reporter what he thinks about Juan Manuel Fangio and who of the two was the

10

Unfortunately it looks like Juniatha’s you tube link didn’t activate. To see the 05 under construction search “you tube german streamline locomotive class 05 002 reichsbahn”, it should pop up with no problem, it did for me.

I only speak enough German to get myself in trouble, but the narrator’s German is very precise and well enunciated, typical for most narrators of the period no matter what country. I DID get “kessel” for “boiler” and “ramen” for “frame.” At least I assume “ramen” means frame, I doubt the narrator was talking about Japanese noodles.

There must have been some pretty good safety standards in that shop. I didn’t see any of the workers missing any fingers!

11

The J very well may have been the best passenger locomotive ever designed…for the N&W’s operating conditions.

There is absolutely no factual evidence it would have been the best for any other railroad during the steam era. To state as such is downright silly.

It needs to be noted (again) that the J’s high calculated tractive effort came at the expense of a low factor of adhesion, and high machinery speeds. In theory, the J may have been able to produce 80,000 lbs TE, but its low adhesion more than likely prevented it from happening in a consistent manner. The J may have been able to hit over 100 mph in short bursts, but its excessive machinery speeds would have reduced reliability and increased costs greatly if ran at high speed for long lengths of time.

So no, Preston Claytor is wrong with his statement, and anyone with a Mechanical Engineering background know why that is true.

Of course certain people never let facts get in the way of a good fantasy…

12

Firelock76 at Sun, Jul 28 2013

Unfortunately it looks like Juniatha’s you tube link didn’t activate. <<

Hm , that’s curious - it works on my computer , I tried it again having read your post – here it is again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLEnIJmI_0Q

in case the colloquial hand does not turn up you can use the curser to copy and paste it in ( another window of ) your browser , click enter .

Rahmen is [ger] for frame - correct . What I think is interesting is the scene where you see workers at the cylinders : the middle cylinder is not slanted and in the same lateral plane as with the outer cylinders .

see complete side elevation drawing for 05 001 & 2 : http://dlok.dgeg.de/87.htm

While having all cylinders in a lateral plane improves stiffness of the assembly ( no cast steel one piece engine bed ) , this was only possible because of relatively stretched design of this tolerably large engine ( longer than a NYC or Milwaukee 4-6-4 without tender , each ) resulting in a formidable main rod of 183.07 in between bearing centers . Since we talk balancing passim : the lighter middle cylinder main rod driving to first coupled axle was balanced via counter weights in wheels , no counterweights were used in DR standard three and four cylinder engines since all crank axles were one piece forged axles .

Regards

Juniatha

13

OK Juniatha, the link’s working just fine now.

And I wondered why that “kessel” looked a bit long and lean for a 4-6-4. It’s on account of that straight-line third cylinder. Makes sense.

I WAS amazed at the size of the drivers compared to the size of the men rolling them. Wow!

Ach! “Tender” ist dasselbe wie im Englisch! Kool!

14

[The original comment here has been removed. It was an overreaction to the perceived tone of the previous post, and aside from being easily perceived as a personal attack, did not establish the points I thought desirable to make.]

The general import of the post was that a high nominal TE is not necessarily an indication of what a locomotive is expected to exert in normal service, and that a FA of 3.6 was not necessarily so low as to render the J hopelessly slippery or difficult to run in its normal service.

Also that the ‘high speed’ of the J design derives from a couple of design factors, notably the zero overbalance and the better balancing from the lightweight rods, and not from a design intent to maximize high-speed continuous performance. I thought it was inappropriate to criticize the design as worthless, or even overrated, merely for that reason. I also thought that some of the assumptions about technical features were being misconstrued.

For the record: I agree that extensive operation at the PRR tested speeds would not have been cost-effective for the J locomotive, but I also believe that reasonable operation at 100 mph would have been safe without extensive wear or damage to the running gear, and I do base that latter belief on extensive grounds.

15

Post deleted by GP40-2

16

My apologies. I got carried away. [I have now withdrawn the original comment as inappropriate in tone and general content.]

Although I’m not quite certain what I’m not supposed to have gotten.

I’m not particularly a 611 ‘fanboi’, but on the other hand I’m not a 611 hater, either. The locomotive succeeded in being a ‘high-speed’ locomotive by virtue of modern enhancements, not fundamental high-speed design. It appeared to me, though, as if you were denying that the modern enhancements actually performed as intended. N&W was one of the railroads that most specialized in advanced maintenance for their steam power, and I suspect if there had been massive problems in service, or consequences from ‘overspeeding’, there would be something in the N&W records that confirmed that (as there was, for example, with the tendency for the A’s valve gear to, as Ed King put it, “unravel” when overspeeded at long cutoff.) That’s not to say there were not problems of that sort; just that I have not seen them after having looked fairly carefully at the engines’ operating records over a fairly long service life.

17

Firelock76 on Sun, Jul 28 2013

Ach! “Tender” ist dasselbe wie im Englisch! Kool! <<

Kool ?

See http://www.myvideo.de/watch/5009042/Kool_The_Gang_Joanna [:)]

“Joanna” is an R&B/pop music song by Kool & The Gang from their 1983 album, In the Heart. Released as a single in late 1983, the song was an immediate hit peaking at #2 on both the US and UK pop charts. Additionally, the track reached #1 on the US R&B chart.

A romantic ballad similar to many of Kool & The Gang’s later releases, the song features as its main subject the eponymous girl named “Joanna”. In the group’s music video, “Joanna” is portrayed as the current owner of a small, roadside café named “Joanna’s Diner” (Filmed at the Colonial Diner in Lyndhurst, N.J. The Colonial sign can be seen briefly outside in the opening seconds of the video). Throughout the video, she serves the band members as both cook and waitress as they serenade her with the video occasionally flashing back to her younger days as a dancer at Harlem’s famous Cotton Club in New York City and in love with the character portrayed by the group’s lead singer, James “J.T.” Taylor

( from Wikipedia )

Harump , btw that rhythmic ‘clank-clank clank-clank’ was recorded pacing a slow walking 52 class Decapod with planky of play in rod bearings , really … uhm , or that’s what I heard – no ? Well … [*-)]

Regards

= J =

18

I think it is clever that that installed 26L airbrake on the engine. I assume they ran out of talent to maintain the schedule 6 airbrake. I do like the 611, I have seen her running a few times but I think I may feel that the Milwaukee F-7 would have really impressed me. Pity I never saw one of those run…

19

Once we have settled THIS issue we can go on to decide whose kids are smarter or prettier …

The thing that is so interesting about the J class is how it was engineered to be a superb passenger engine while equipped with drivers that other railroads would regard as best suited to a modern freight locomotive.

Dave Nelson

20

Keep in mind 611’s small drivers were in keeping with it’s intended purpose of running in that sawtooth profile 'road I mentioned earlier. Reliable hill climbing with a 1000 ton train was the old girl’s forte. It was the superb balancing that made those 100 mile-per-hour speeds possible, although Class J’s weren’t really meant to be pushed that hard.

Must have been something to see though! I’ve talked with some old-timers here in Virginia who said chasing a Class J down Route 460 (which paralells N&W’s Petersburg to Norfolk “racetrack” was a good way to get speeding tickets. Still is as a matter of fact. So if you want to chase Norfolk-Southern trains down that way, watch it!

PS: And just what’s so wrong with being a 611 fanboy (or fangirl) anyway?

Stop pickin’ on Overmod!