“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 …
Ah, Kool and the Gang and “Joanna”. I remember the song well. Lady Firestorm however remembers the Colonial Diner! She used to work in Lyndhurst NJ, but before any of you North Jersey wiseguys get any ideas it was NOT at the dump! She could SEE the dump from where she worked however. What a small world.
The Colonial Diner’s still there, remodeled from when it was in the 1983 video, but it still has a stainless steel 50’s look, the way a diner’s supposed to look! Do a Google search for the Colonial Diner and you can see it.
On driver size, 70’’ is still a bit larger than most roads went for freight power, particularly mountain roads. 60’’ is about as big as most strictly freight locomotives went, although dual service types went higher (such as UP’s Challengers, at 69’')
To clarify the situation, “the finest steam passenger locomotive” quote actually came from Robert Claytor, former N&W president/NS chairman. He worked many years with the N&W and was very knowledgeable about the railway’s ability to design superb steam locomotives. So his statement about 611 would have come from a viewpoint of experience and personal knowledge, not just opinion. lois
Robert Le Massena was right about one thing, what is the “best” steam locomotive has a lot of subjectivity involved and to a large part reflects the personal preferences of whoever makes the statement.
He didn’t have the personal or impersonal knowledge needed to know whose engines were best-- no one did, and certainly no one does. Even if you limit the discussion to US engines no one ever knew how their running costs compared.
Okay…can we let that incident go, please? I brought up the diesels, and regret it.
Juniatha had so much drift that she even locked the thread for a few days. This is also her second thread on the same topic. She has stated clearly her topic in the first post, so we should follow it. (I didn’t, witness my ungraceful entrance into the thread, and the couple of off task pages, some related to my 2-10-6. Juniatha, I am sorry for trying your patience).
So, I think it is justified that she responded as she did. If you wish to discuss the dieselization of the N&W, create your own thread for it, just like the N&W Steam Development thread.
It all depends on the OP. Personally, in my Baldwin and Lima Steam thread, I am willing to go into the effects the merger had on their diesel lines, as I believe it is relevant to what steam locomotive development would have been. But others don’t like much drift at all.
That post was a polite nudge to return to the OP’s original topic, as I don’t know how much drift NKP Guy is willing to take.
Back to the 611 vs the 4468, another thing that can be looked at is maintenance. Mallard’s third cylinder issues would not have been acceptable on the N&W. American maintenance practices were very unforgiving. The British, however, were willing to put more time into each locomotive. Not that that is better or worse, just different. So comparing them in this regard isn’t really applicable. Another reason that they worked great for the service they were built for, and would have failed in the other’s role.
To North West: I’m a very tolerant guy, willing to put up with a considerable amount of “drift.”
To friend611: Thanks for putting the quote with its correct author (Robert Claytor). I’m afraid I mis-read the sentence in question. Mea culpa.
As always, I enjoy the responses on this forum .
By the way, the article in Trains probably had to be entitled, “‘Fire Up 611’ gets hot.” They might have raised a few eyebrows had they used “Fire Up a J,” instead.
Vernon L. Smith, in a rebuttal article many years back in support of American steam vs. French steam noted the difference in maintenance and shop standards. French railroaders expected their power to spend relatively more time in the shops for proper maintenance and efficiency. American railroaders expected their power to be more robust and spend more time on the road and in service.
I think it is fair to say that if N&W had designed a three-cylinder locomotive, it would have had a properly-designed big-end structure. (If I recall correctly, Gresley actually DID have a better big-end design available at the time, and did not use it; I will try to find the specific reference later). There are a number of ways the inside main rod can be fabricated, and the matter of inside big-end bearing addressed, that would have been fully suitable both from a maintenance and operating perspective.
I think a more appropriate question would be whether valve-gear issues would have been acceptable on the N&W, if it had decided on a three-cylinder engine (which itself is a somewhat dubious assumption, as the two-cylinder balancing they adopted gives most of the practical advantage of three-cylinder drive at the speeds involved). I suspect they would have used three sets of Baker gear instead of anything with conjugated levers, Multirol needle bearings or not (rolling-element bearings do not appear to have solved many of the difficulties with Gresley’s gear). I would speculate that they might, independently or not, have tried the Australian pinion-and-rack conjugated drive, and indeed figured out that larger-diameter hollow shafts would have solved any issue with torque whip, but that is piling up too much supposition on something hypothetical to begin with.
I liked Juniatha’s metaphor between the ‘big-iron muscle-car’ approach of the J and the ‘Aston-Martin’ approach of the A4. The English locomotive, in particular, made best use of the small frontal area that was essentially mandated by the British loading gage to reach higher speed. I would expect it to achieve high speed with somewhat greater thermodynamic efficiency. But I’d also expect it to need much more heavy maintenance (perhaps n
French railroaders expected their power to spend relatively more time in the shops for proper maintenance and efficiency. <<
That sounds almost as if Vernon L. Smith wanted to make fun of French steam . Of course railroaders did not >> expect their power to spend relatively more time in the shops << i.e. more time in shops than on the road . Neither was it expected , nor was it true . The newer power actually did not spend so much more time in shops than did the 141.R – and that in spite of – lookout here it comes ! – much more old-fashioned concept of construction with bolted plate frames etc .
A comparison of the 141.R class American Mikados with an SNCF ‘standard’ type with the objective to compare types of engine units two cylinder simple against four cylinder compound must inevitably be misleading , results are contorted by the incompatibility of each the concepts of construction . Much of what spoke against the SNCF types was due to their rather traditional construction which was clearly inferior to that of the US-built 141.R – no matter what type the engine unit ! The right one of two cylinder simple engines on the SNCF to compare with four cylinder compound types was the WW-I US-built Mikado ! This one did spend at least as much time in shops as the allegedly ‘complex’ four cylinder compound engines . If you’d compare it to the post WW-II 141.R result would even more be in favor of the latter , simply because the two classes clearly display progress in mechanical design and construction having been realized in the US in the time span between delivery of the two . Lack of this progress in SNCF types , namely the numerically most important ex-PLM , m
I have never said once that I “hated” or though the J’s design was “worthless”. Quite the opposite, I like the J Class, and feel they are an example of one of the top 4-8-4 designs. They were certainly worth every penny to the N&W’s specific operational needs.
I merely stated that the J’s high calculated starting tractive effort came at the expense of adhesion compared to many other 4-8-4s. The items that gave the J its high calculated TE, a combination of small drivers (for a passenger engine), and relatively long piston stroke, also gave it higher machine speeds than other 4-8-4s.
The point being, that in steam locomotive design everything has a trade off.
This trade off may not have been negative to the J in the way the N&W intended to operate it, (as you pointed out) but could be a negative for another railroad’s operation. The higher machinery speeds may have increased costs for a railroad that operated a water level racetrack route, the the lower adhesion may have been a negative for a railroad that operated over severe mountain grades.
I don’t have an issue with the J’s design and the N&W’s intended use. but I do have an issue with the statement “the finest steam passenger engine ever built, anywhere, anytime**.”** There is absolutely no way the person who made that statement would know what was the best steam passenger locomotive for other railroads operations and economics. Back in the steam days, every railroad thought their locomotives were the “best.” Which very well may have been true in the context of their specific wants and needs.
Within my question “What steam we haven’t seen” – proposing steam development and construction had continued as it did in Europe for about another decade and petering out rather than being precipitated as it was – it would not appear all too unrealistic some medium or smaller railroad without locomotive construction capacity might have addressed Roanoke to custom-build a couple of locomotives of a high speed class for them , maybe after having asked Baldwin ( proposing waaay too bulky a 4-6-4 with Walschaerts piston valve gear having very delicately dimensioned rods in contrast to fat main rods with plain bearings , dual buck-eye sixteen wheel square box format tender ) Lima ( 4-4-4 poppet valve driving second coupled axle , with twelve wheel modernized Vanderbilt tender , mass on driving axles tending to be excessive – too expensive ) and ALCO ( 4-4-2 Baker gear three cylinder common drive on leading coupled axle , roller bearings throughout with high tensile steel set of rods , forked coupling rod , ten wheel shortened version of centipede tender with lower and upper flanks flared-in – imposing their own view of design , take it or leave it ) perhaps even Doncaster works , Doncaster , England (
Very briefly, as this is technically a diversion from thread topic:
I would note that Chapelon fully embraced the concept of the cast bed, to the extent of specifying them for the postwar 2-10-4 design. The added stiffness and homogeneity are probably well worth the additional sprung mass, even for railroads with restricted (by American standards) permissible axle loads. I’d suspect that other classes of French steam, had they been ‘proceeded with’ instead of being deprecated in favor of electrification, would have been given one-piece beds to eliminate much of the difficulty with higher achievable horsepower. Whether cast or, with advancements in technology, welded.
When Vernon Smith said ‘more time in the shops’ he meant ‘more time than two-cylinder power would’. He was certainly not claiming that French compounds were in the shop more than out. On the other hand, more work was necessary to keep four-cylinder power in service. The proper way to look at this, as Chapelon did, is to incorporate as many "maintainability’ features as you can – cast beds, optical tramming, rolling-element bearings and positive lubrication, for example – and schedule the additional maintenance correctly.
In America, where fuel was relatively cheap but labor was (often vociferously) not, any locomotive with inside cylinders was not favored, and com
May I add a few of 611’s abilities, shown in excursion service: defeating 5 percent Saluda Grade not just once but four times, though I will admit there was some difficulties on the first run. These were solved as the crews obviously learned how to best utilize her power on the grade, as she went up the remaining three times without any hint of trouble. She also pulled a 29-car passenger train up Christiansburg Mountain and was able to bring her 20 or so car excursion trains up to 60 miles an hour or more with scarcely any effort. She regularly ran 25-28 car passenger trains in excursion service and I am certain she would not have been assigned such large trains unless the powers that be (Robert Claytor, et al) were certain of her abilities. lois
I would note that Chapelon fully embraced the concept of the cast bed, to the extent of specifying them for the postwar 2-10-4 design. <<
… however I was writing of the – 141.P – and that was not a Chapelon design of the 1950s family - it couldn’t because it stemmed from the P-L-M 141.F series , was but a PLM type of locomotive revamped modernized by the DEL under the direction of - again - André Chapelon and was designed some 10 years before Chapelon’s 1950s family of high performance engines .
When Vernon Smith said ‘more time in the shops’ he meant ‘more time than two-cylinder power would’. He was certainly not claiming that French compounds were in the shop more than out. <<
That’s your conjecture - or did you read his mind ?
Rest deleted Aug 3rd upon posting Overmod below - and instead :
Ok , Overmod , I will accept your excuse posted down below and maybe - 50 : 50 - we should both take it easier . As for me , all I can say this sort of stuff makes me think twice before typing and posting or I rather drop it for ease & peace of mind …
Try to see it from my viewpoint and you’ll see you do have a tendency to write in ways like you are the entitled world postings controller and tend to pick up possible misinterpretation rather than to take a postingof minefor what’s meant by it . It would enlighten threads if you’d leave alone checking for flaws too much and just post your point of view
Yes, I am aware you were writing about the 141 P, and had been commenting about how the fabricated frames of French power like it were not as robust as those of the 141R (and similar American-style locomotives). I was merely mentioning that Chapelon accepted the cast bed as a good solution for the issues connected with fabricated frames, and had proposed to use them on HIS new designs.
How you could construe that as an attack on your post, or on your knowledge, is a bit of a mystery. It was certainly not so intended. I apologize if it came across that way.