Juniatha, thanks very much for your explanatory post just above. I think this is what we need in order to begin to discuss the subject from the same bench. [8D][Y]
I couldn’t have said it better myself, and I agree entirely. We are very lucky to have such a patient and informed enthusiast as she willing to discuss these things when I, for one, am so woefully uninformed and in need of her help. [swg]
Crandell
[:)] Juniatha; thank you for being here . You are truly a gifted lady with all the knowledge you have shared with us. You are most welcome here .
Respectfully, Cannonball
Hi Firelock , Selector & Switch/frg
Well , thank you boys - it’s nice to exchange ideas and I guess we may call ourselves lucky to be able to spend some time with things like thoughts on classic RR locomotives .
More next time
Regards
J____uniatha
[?] [:-^] ~~ A parting glance---- Does "form and function " still hold true ? Or has that changed to “purpose and function” Sometimes engineering physics has a very broad line to work with.
Just curious
Respectfully, Cannonball
Hi Cannonball
Oh , sure it does - only , with technology advancing and becoming more complex , so must view on aesthetics . As I mentioned airplanes before – as an example of technology where everyone would agree that in fact external shapes are determined by parameters of air flow – I believe the new Boeing 787 is an example of how within all considerations skillful engineering can still realize pleasing , harmonious and yet expressive contours and lines that make a fantastically performing jet liner look just that .
Personally I don’t care what a steam locomotive looks like. If it is going somewhere I will ride it. I do believe the C&O Streamlined Hudson #490 (4-6-4) at the Baltimore railroad museum is one of the finest steam locomotives I have ever seen in person.
Hi Firelock
Uhm , those notes of mine mainly addressing the gearbox drawings and general positioning of the turbines – if you count forward and reverse – sure were in retrospect view in the light of later technology , with exception of arrangement of the gearbox / axle drive that looks pretty – uhm – conventional even for 1944 .
Hi Selector
<
Hi John
uhm - no my comment wasn’t aimed at your’s since you clearly confined what you meant .
My description of all the methods was kind of a wry exaggeration of typical tendencies -
not a real description - neither American nor European .
regards
= J =
Oh, yeah Thomas, I too have seen the C&O #490 myself at the B&O museum, it’s a stunner, however have you ever seen the N&W Class J, the “Mighty 611”? The wife and I will probably never love another engine like we loved that one. There’s 611, then there’s everything else, no disrepect intended to those of other opinions. By the way, my two favorites at the B&O museum are the “William Mason” and that funky old CNJ Camelback. The CNJ boxcab diesel #1000 is pretty interesting in it’s own right, you can still smell the diesel fuel if you lean into it close enough. I wonder if it’s still capable of running?
Oh, and Juniatha, I can’t help but think if you were around in 1945 you might have saved the Pennsy S-2!
Yes I used to live in Virginia and rode behind the 611 on a excursion. I have rode on many trains all over the United states but the 611 could really get a train up and going in a big hurry. It also had some of the best stack exhaust I have ever heard. Of course back in the early 90’s it was pure 611 muscle with no diesels.
The 611 also was unique in the fact that it was nearly totally silent when it was resting. I swear you could stand right next to it and it was like standing next to a steam locomotive in a city park. No injector noise, no generator noise, no air pump noise, no firebox noise, very strange.
She was a beautiful engine and entire towns used to come out to watch her go by. It’s a crying shame she is sitting at a museum
I also agree those Camel backs are something else. I read they were very dangerous as if a side rod broke it would swipe the cab and engineer clean off in one swoop. It was also hard for the engineer to communicate with the fireman as some one had to walk back and forth on the catwalks. I heard the fireman froze to death in the winter as you only had a roof and nothing else to protect you from the cold.
Check this photo out of a articulated camel back! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelback_locomotive
Hello, Thomas. If you have a copy of Robert Reed’s “Train Wrecks” or access to same there’s some photos on pages 130-131 of Camelbacks that had side rod failures. The Delaware and Hudson Camel is downright gruesome, the engineers cab is GONE! The CNJ Camels cab is beat up pretty badly but still fairly intact, but I wouldn’t have wanted to be the engineer in that one either. And yes, practically speaking there was no communication with the engineer and fireman on a Camel, Camels were popular with the accountants as they burned cheap anthracite waste, but they were never popular with the crews. For all that though, CNJ’s Camels were powerful, reliable engines and lasted right up to the end of steam.
Hi Firelock
Oh, and Juniatha, I can’t help but think if you were around in 1945 you might have saved the Pennsy S-2! <<
Oh-never , no chance – erh . no danger ! Ok , let’s imagine by and within strangely favoring circumstances and by help of Scotty’s beamer I had been there and at a position of some influence on engine design and management for some inexplicable reason has so far allowed me to fool around with steam – maybe under some pretext like they seemed to have allowed Wardale to tune and test # 3450 in years of steam vanishing : to let the public or shareholders in that instance believe they are investigating all possibilities of cost saving in addressing possible future demands , even improved steam .
Now , should news have trickled through while changing and re-changing for some time without a break-through ( or in other words : all was fine and regular ) lately I must have come up with something allowing # 6200 to shape up and challenge diesels on earnest : if that would have turned out to be so they would have cut my budget to zero , on pretext of pressure to save costs – whatever it may cost – pointing to Pennsy last year having turned out a deficit in passenger service and didn’t I stress the steam-turbine loco was an express engine par excellence . “ So sorry , we’ve just got to stop it “ ( “…or it may stop us !” )
“Just one (or two ) more test runs , please – and the coal is already on site” I pledge ,
Ahm , uuh … ok : "Thank you , we’re considering it and ask you to wait , don’t call us we call you …“ ( … on the twelfths of never ! Oh , hell , no – quick , get up and stop her , what about closing that whole
Hi Juniatha! Oh you had me laughing with your "what if " scenario of yourself in the Pennsy R and D department. OK, if you couldn’t save the S-2, maybe you could have saved the T-1, if not for road service then at least from the scrapper,
Interesting you bring up Chrysler and “bean counters” in the same sentence. You know, if it was up to the accountants Chevy never would have developed the Corvette? It’s true. All the developement money for the 'Vette came from the Sales Department, they were the real “Car Guys” who knew a good thing when they saw it, and why should European sports car manufacturerers have all the fun and the market share? As they say, the rest was history!
Wayne
Hi Wayne
Oh yes - the Corvette . In one book “The Dream Machine” by an author who had been close with the Detroit automobile scene I read about an inofficial team having pursued the sports car project without higher management knowing until they finally had brought a prototype to one leading European Automobile Show , don’t remember if it was Paris or Torino .
Anyways , it was too much of a sensation there with press going crazy about the idea of Chevrolet presenting a sports car to stop it - or else management would have looked like ‘spielverderber’ ( kill-joy / spoilsports ) .
As for Chrysler I feel like they have allowed a bright future as a high ranking car manufacturer slip away when after the elegant wing cars of 1957/58 they did not keep up the pace and let engineering developents as well as a definite company mark to styling slip away . To be sure , the fins had to make way for no-frills straight lines reflecting early 1960s more rational approach , late 60s indiviual styling and so on - however during much of these times Chrysler seemed to merely follow trends , not create them - with the exception of the Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Barracuda muscle cars that have attained a deserved cult status today .
Regards
Juniatha
Hi Juniatha! Your talking about Chrysler reminds me of something my sister-in-laws husband Warren (who’s a real car guy) said when I bought my PT Cruiser, my “mid-life Chrysler”, back in 2003. He wished me the best of luck with it and said “Chrysler makes a good car, but they don’t age very well”. How right he was! Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
( never mind this micro soft nonsense monologue above , I don’t care to get it off for now )
Hi Wayne
Well , there was a saying about Jaguars of the 1980s when the company was on their own :
“ Jags are good cars – only you ought to have two of them : one for driving and a second one in the repair shop …”
With the Chrysler Hemi it was the opposite of early EMD diesels : while EMD offered RRs to put new engines in old chassis , Chrysler could have offered a special discount on a new car minus engine to bring your ‘well run-in’ 200.0
…Allow me just a sentince or two off topic…
Back in my work life, we had several Jaguar test cars, and if any were in the garage / Lab overnight, one could just figure of needing a mop for anti-freeze and oil when they were moved.
Aaaaaargh! I’m feeling an irresistable urge to pull this thread kicking and screaming back to its original subject, locomotive esthetics. How to do it in a way that’s not forbiddingly technical and gives more folks a chance to weigh in? Perhaps it would work if we decide that locomotive esthectics refers mainly to looks or to looks that harmonize with functionality and yeild a handsome result. I’ll start the ball rolling with a few preferences of my own and other folks can chime it to agree or disagree or offer their own choices. Here goes: Category 1) Best looking streamlined locomotive SP’s Daylights. Colorful and streamlined but not too streamlined. You know it’s a steamer and you can see it’s practical to maintain. The worst, the NYC Dreyfuss Hudsons. The Moderne look gets dated. It looks like a Flash Gordon rocket ship from the old Republic movie series. Category 2) The best looking experimental. N&W’s Jawn Henry. It looks huge and powerful but its lines are clean and crisp. The worst. The D&H Loree Consolidations. Simply too much locomotive piled on a 2-8-0 frame. Category 3) The best looking articulated. SP’s AC-9’s. A well proportioned Yellowstone with a skyline caseing and a neat all weather cab. The worst. B&O’s compound 2-8-8-0’s. The huge low pressure cylinder with the square steam chest up front throws the whole engine out of proportion. It looks like it’s lugging two big beer barrels up front. Category 4) The best “standard” designs. The USRA series. Very orthodox with every component correctly sized and arranged for a harmonious whole. The worst. Pennsy’s entire stable with the exception of the T-1 and Q-2. Don Ball called them “plain to the point of ugly” which says it all. So there! You can critique my choices, nominate your own, play with this theme howe
Hi folks
Ok – that’s an invitation . I keep mum for now – except for just one note , quote :
NYC Dreyfuss Hudsons. … It looks like a Flash Gordon rocket ship …<<
Sound decently ArtDeco futuristic enough for a steam locomotive , one more step ahead and crews might have shied to enter cab for fear of going on an interstellar trip to Alpha Centauri – which would have been half bad if only they had known where the NYC roundhouse was up there and if the canteen was still open when they would arrive .
… or maybe a second note , to add :
Category 2 : Jim , what would you regard as indispensable features characterizing an experimental ? obviously (a) a singular engine , or maybe let’s extend that to include two to three units , classic numbers of prototype engines , although then again these might not be regarded ‘experimental’ ; (b) major innovative technical features not found in any series application , b1 on that RR , b2 on any RR , b2a in that country , b2b worldwide ; (c) significant departure from classic concept of steam , namely departure from direct drive reciprocating piston engine ( which would exclude the Delaware & Hudson ‘Loreeleys’ although their concept was maybe not so far fetched and I feel it could eventually have been made to work )
Oops , Southern Pacific AC-9 ? what ? a cab-ah…oh , I see , uhm , well , yep … ok .
I for one like the South Pole 4-10-2
I think the car talk was good for everyone taking a breather, that said…
WHAAAT! There’s nothing wrong with the Dreyfuss Hudson! I LIKE the Dreyfuss Hudson! So what if it looks like a “Flash Gordon” rocket ship. that’s the appeal! We’re talkin’ about the Thirties, man! This is the same type of wild approach that lead the Pennsy to build the Worlds Fair S-1. By the way, Mom said the 1939 Worlds Fair was a LOT better than the 1964-1965 Fair. “Thanks a lot Mom. you ruined it for us!”
Yeah. I know the S-1 was impractical in the end, but what a cool looking machine! And in keeping with the glory days of steam let’s not “Rock and Roll”, let’s “Jitterbug”!
More anon.