Man! You guys are incorrigable! Left to your own devices you wandered right back into the forrest of dense technical lacunae and automotive lore, no less. Still the discussion of the steam motor was an eye-opener to me and the photos something to conjure with although not particularly “aesthetic”. The last three pages of the thread have been all over the ballpark but I will add a few not too technical points. Indeed the PRR did test the N&W J and on the racetrack from Crestline to Chicago via Fort Wayne at that. They agreed the engine did all that was wanted and was fine at 100 mph but they simply could not bring themselves to trust the 70 inch drivers. They had decided they wanted an 80 inch drivered machine since the larger wheel would reduce the rpm count at speed with correspondingly less strain on everything reciprocating and the track. Another little nugget: When C&O gave the Pennsy men the blueprints for the their T-1 they furnished the original drawings and made no mention of many modifications they had made to improve the beast. Pennsy had to go through the teething process all over again before their J-1 was fully up to the mark. Finally I sympathize with the crys of pain and anguish that arose when I ridiculed the Dreyfuss Hudsons but here’s the thing. Dreyfuss gives the unmistakeable impression he was trying too hard. The “rocket” look ends up appearing contrived and over the top. Contrast Raymond Lowey’s approach to the Pennsy T-1’s. It’s sleek, powerful, wonderfully appropriate for a fast locomotive and harmonizes with the railroading environment. In a word it’s handsome.
Ah, Juniatha, did I catch you out with the reference to the AC-9. Not to worry! Only twelve were ever built and they labored mostly in obscurity on the S.P.'s El Paso-Tumcacari and Modoc Lines. They were “conventional” because they originally burned New Mexico mined coal
Juniatha,
If you will go back and read what I wrote you will see that I refered to a limited cut-off. And you should well know what that means. For those who don’t, it means that the valve gear was designed to not allow the admission of steam anywhere close to 100% full stroke. The J’s were designed for a maximum of 82% cut-off. It could use all of that, so, I guess it depends on how one wants to define “Full Gear”.
Now as far as your engineering logic based on physical laws are concerned, I have no question about that at all. What I do question is your making a statement without knowing if it is actually true or not. Just a because a design engineer can crunch some numbers on a slide rule doesn’t mean that that is the way it is going to work in real life.
Witness the so-called advanced wheel slip systems of today. It is not unusual that one has to ease off the throttle in order to not overpower track conditions. Or in other words Mother nature once again defeats the best laid plans of mice and men.
Given the wrong rail conditions any locomotive (steam or diesel) can have massive problems with adhesion. So too, given the right rail conditions a loco will have absolutely no problem with adhesion. This I have experianced over my entire 39+ years in train & engine service. As one of my engineer mentors would say “I’ve been there baby, up and down both sides of that street”. And that is what qualifies me to disqualify your blanket statement about “no full gear starting for a J”. And, ask why an intelligent person such as yourself would postulate on something you haven’t experianced?
If you would like to spend the money on a few recordings, I think you will hear that there are at least a couple out there that has a J making a maximum effort start and not slipping a wheel. And yes to be fair, you will also hear one having problems gaining traction.
BTW, I did not “indirectly let on” to have operated both a J and T1. I have never operated a T1 an
Ah yes, the esthetics! Thanks Sir Madoq for posting the pictures of the 19.10 locomotive. When I saw the discussion starting of a Reichsbahn locomotive with V-2 motors on the side the first thing I thought of was “Was this a collaboration between the Reichsbahn and Werner von Braun and the Peenemunde boys?” Wouldn’t THAT have been an interesting esthetic combo? A locomotive with two rockets on either side. However, the reality is just as fascinating. What a pity the thing was scrapped here in the US, what could they have learned from it?
And per DaveK’s comment on the “Daylight”, well I think the colors look just fine. The silver smokebox is a bit discordant, but still the whole concept works. Ever see pictures of one of those GS engines in the late steam era, all done over in basic black? Bleeeech! Ruins the look totally!
I find a lot to agree with. Again, I like the Daylights. Just like the N&W J and New Haven I-5 a bit better. If course I prefer to see the the SP’s 4-8-4’s as designed and streamlined. I liek the previous comparison of Pennsy steam streamlining with the Dryfuss J’s. I am sorry no T-1 was saved. One should have been. Again, to me it is esthetically a steam locomotive GG-1. And its relationship to the N&W J, New Haven I-5, Daylights, and Royal Hudsons, to me is much liek the relationship esthetically of the GG-1 to the (to me) very beautiful New Haven EP-4 and EF-3 in their original green and gold as delivered.
I only rode once behind a J, and that was from Petersberg to Norfolk at night. I rdoe behind T-1;s on about four occasions, and behind K-4’a on too numerouis occasions to count.
Lets not call Pennsy Power (or Burlington, similar in oddity in general) ugly. Homey or odd, but still very, very lovable. One cananot call the “flying pumps” Pacifics of the C&O beautiful, but they are not ugly. And camelbacks.
And it is paint that makes a Southern PS-4 beautiful. Otherwise it would just be an average Pacific, no better or worse than a typical USRA Pacific.
A person’s interests and tastes are mutable. I entered the rail model hobby about seven years ago and quickly decided which railroads appealed to me and which did not. Narrow gauge with their culture and looks…not for me (not yet, I should say). When I first encountered the N&W’s J in photographs, I thought to myself, “Yikes! What were they thinking?” Then I saw that Rocket Man style NYC Pacific or Hudson, not sure which, with the great woodman’s axe-head runing vertically through the bulbous smokebox. To meself, “Holy crap…what were they thinking?!” Suddenly the J looked much more demure and reserved…even classy. A thing can be tarted up too much…if you know what I mean. And, just as suddenly, my mission for an entire month was to find an HO J to add to my roster…I liked that gal that much. Odd, eh?
I hope you’ll agree that, in this photo at least, it looks sleek and fast.
As for the T1, it is one of my favourites, and I will agree with its comparison with a chisel. I have also seen it look a bit like a U-boat, sure, but the nose is what appeals to me. The bulbous intercooler fairing, assuming it hides a couple of pumps and an intercooler [?], is almost unfortunate, but not fully…it adds to the quirkiness of the entire design. Similarly, the short and sculpted siderods, and the weird valve actuators, also add to the mystique…particularly the left side rear actuator linkage…you have to admit it is a bit odd.
I also find appealing the bevelled side-casing along the ‘shoulder’ of the boiler. The nose and that casing make the engine look like it was meant to punch through the atmosphere with brute force behind it.
Big Jim: No reason not to brag about having run “The Mighty 611”. As the saying goes “It ain’t bragging if you can do it!” However, you MIGHT have saved everyone some trouble if you’d said at the outset (if you haven’t done so in the past) that you’ve GOT hands-on experience with the old queen. Establishes your credentials right at the outset, know what I mean? Could save other folks some embarassment too.
It’s the reason also that when I make a statement about something I usually mention it’s the books that form my opinion, so that folks don’t get hot and bothered when they disagree.
I am going to offer up this information and that will be end from me on this off-subject part of this thread.
Pick up the DVD “Hooters on Blue Ridge”. At about the six minute mark, you will see engine 605 start a heavy train on the 1.6% grade at Ada, W.Va. on Oct. 10, 1957. As the engine passes you will see valve gear in full forward and no slipping.
This is an excellent DVD in all color & sound. It is one of the best you will find. You won’t regret getting this one.
Thanks Selector for those videos! Especially the one on the Geyser Grade! Did anyone notice the white exhaust, almost no black in it? The fireman on board that day really knew his trade!
Crandall,
That’s what happens when there is a rail greaser involved!
Juniatha,
What is most apparent here is the differences in our cultures. I know what I am saying and you know what you are saying and one doesn’t translate to the other the way it properly should.
Crrrrrrappy pull on the 611? Good sir, you are treading closely to the boundarys of blasphemy, heresy, apostacy, and any other impious “cy” that happens to escape me at this late hour. Fie upon you, FIE! FIE!
And to think not long ago I witnessed an eleven car Amtrak consist with TWO 4,000 horsepower diesels on the head end. 8,000 horsepower for eleven cars! How pathetic! I’ve seen 611 pull twice that number without breaking a sweat. Fie upon you again sir!
I’m pretty sure we can all agree, or we should agree, that a steamer of a given tonnage that has even one load-bearing truck with no powered rod connected to its axle(s) is not going to apply the same tractive effort to the rails as would a diesel with a traction motor on all its axles. The diesel would be able to pull the steamer, its load, plus a hefty one of its own on startup. It might not make it to 40 mph, but it will lift that train. On the other hand, a steamer that spins in place all day long at startup (if such a travesty/crime could ever be countenanced) due to its heavy load, could accelerate away from the diesel, assuming it produced more horsepower, after speeds near 30 mph.
But, we digress…this is supposed to be Jim’s topic, and he would reeeeeaaaaaaallllllyyyy like it to return to ‘aesthetics’. Please and thank-yuh.
