Nah, our captain was more like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPjZqz6STK0
Trouble? We didn’t have any more than we were normally in.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one…
A young ensign reports on board his first ship and sees the executive officer. “Sir,” he asks, "What’s the captain like?
The exec answers “Well, have you seen Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh?”
“Yes sir.”
“How about Humphrey Bogart as Captain Queeg?”
Yes sir."
“And Gregory Peck as Captain Ahab?” Now the kid’s starting to sweat…
“My God sir, What’ll I do?”
“Aw, you and the skipper’ll get along fine! He loves old movies too!” [(-D]
Oh yeah, I’ve had mine since around Thanksgiving. I have to say I am dissapointed at the general lack of technical information, and the L-1 section was pretty brief. At least there are a plethora of nice pictures.
I am not sure if the merger was ill advised. It was certainly poorly executed and maybe dead on arrival when the PC was forced to absorb the the new Haven and other brankrupt roads as conditions of the merger.
What was truely ill advised, was NYC management adversity to preserving it’s heritage. Would be nice to have a Hudson or Mohawk with us today.
L-3 3001 is at the New York Central Railroad Museum in Indiana.
L-2 2933 is at the Museum of Transportation in Missouri.
But those are the only two “large” NYC locomotives in existence.
No Hudson or Niagara. Quite sad.
It is quite sad, particularly in comparison to Union Pacific (which saved a plethora of Big Boys complete with their remarkably antique-worded equipment-trust plates). But it is not surprising considering the issues with the financing (including the Young proxy fight) and the other operational concerns.
As I recall, we have 3001 because a Hudson had in fact been earmarked to be saved, but the wrong notation was made … I don’t remember if this was the engine that was marked on one side, but the scrap crews approached from the other side, but the Hudson suffered significant damage before the problem was noted. 3001 was the next most ‘significant’ NYC locomotive available.
My only real regret here is that it wasn’t 3000 (the one with the larger driver conversion) that was saved. That was more significant in locomotive history, and would be more suitable with lower augment for rebuilding to excursion service… which I hope happens ASAP with the resources being made available via the T1 Trust programs. (I am hoping some of the experience with 576 in Nashville can be effectively translated to Elkhart, including the methods of finance assurance…)
From many angles, 3001 is as attractive as a Hudson, and of course more capable for anything but extreme high speed. We should probably glory in what we have, rather than bewail what we have to rebuild.
And after all, it’s not that involved to replicate a J1e. We’ve had two organized attempts that I know of (one of which foundered only because of dog-in-the-manger avoidance of potential ‘Chinese copies’ underwritten at the original owner’s expense – shades of the BCR coal-turbine boondoggle!) and of course the tender exists at Steamtown and the trailing truck frame and parts ‘somewhere’ around Little Falls.
Harder to do a J3a, but most of the esoteric hard parts for the streamlined version (which I suspect is what would be the only real
A Mohawk in excursion service would be wonderful, and honestly I prefer the look of a Mohawk to the J1 Hudson, although some would view that as heresy.
Augment problems? In excursion service it wouldn’t have to go that fast, 45mph tops would be good enough. Excursionists usually want the ride to last.
C&O 490 brought back to life would be a gas, but I don’t know where you’d run it. The B&O Museum is deep in CSX territory, and they (CSX) don’t permit steam excursions at this time. Of course that could change, but I’m not holding my breath. The Museum’s got it’s own trackage but it’s hardly worth spending the millions (that they don’t have) just to have it puttering around on museum short runs. Still, it’s fun to speculate on.
I’ve had the impression that the NYC had a much more modern physical plant at merger time and was in better shape financially in terms of an operating profit or loss than the Pennsy. The latter had too many varieties of diesels, a lot of old equipment and was afloat financially only because of the dividends the N&W paid them.
But you want to absolutely minimize augment (both vertical and yaw/hunting) to below what contemporary diesels produce, and be prepared to prove it so.
A cardinal principle in design for the 5550 project is the understanding that excursions need ‘emergency dash’ capability, for those times you might have to stay out of the way of what may be 70mph fleeting traffic. Even towing a reciprocating locomotive at that speed, or ‘working’ it with drifting steam while pushed by diesels, you have an augment issue as well as potential wheel or pin damage if the engine isn’t balanced to a reasonable percentage above anticipated speed, with no critical frequencies left unsnubbed or undamped.
But they don’t want to poke along either. Quite a few excursionists love high speed and haven’t been above negotiating to get it. I cannot tell you, for instance, how I know 614’s top speed … but I do. It is MUCH easier to convince contemporary railroads to ferry equipment ‘on its own wheels’ – which, please note, CSX did quite happily, complete with delightful special logo, earlier this year – if you can demonstrate that you know all the issues involved, have thought about them, and have the discipline to address them positively during the actual move.
I’m tempted to point out that anywhere 5550 can run, 490 can likely run, and while she has spoked drivers that doesn’t seem to have kept N&W 611 from reaching interesting speeds with relatively low augment. The point is that 490 also has the kind of alternative ‘supermodel’ uses that 5550
Mind you, I was on a 614 excursion back in the 90’s when it was barreling across the Hackensack Meadows at 70+ MPH, and it was a thrill, but I still have to go with Andy Muller’s contention. His Reading & Northern is good for 60+MPH, but he keeps his steam excursion speeds down. Why? As he put it years ago, “The people want the ride to last.” No right or wrong here, just sayin’.
Not saying that 490 wouldn’t run on CSX trackage in the future either, maybe the moves CSX has allowed recently and the money they put toward a cosmetic restoration of that ACL Pacific near their J-Ville offices might signify a cracking of the ice, but only time will tell. If they want a pet steam locomotive for the organization they don’t seem to be indicating so. For now.
You know, besides the 490 there’s others at the B&O Museum I’d love to see brought back to life. The “President Washington” for example, or some of their 19th Century steamers. The Allegheny? That’s kind of a pipe dream, but wouldn’t it be something…
As I recall, we have 3001 because a Hudson had in fact been earmarked to be saved, but the wrong notation was made … I don’t remember if this was the engine that was marked on one side, but the scrap crews approached from the other side, but the Hudson suffered significant damage before the problem was noted. 3001 was the next most ‘significant’ NYC locomotive available.
I was under the impression that 3001 was sold to the Texas and Pacific for display at the Dallas State Fair, presumably from storage after withdrawal by NYC. The guys who are building 5550 from scratch should be able to give some ideas on how to get 72 inch boxpok wheels cast, if the larger wheels are really needed. All the L3s had the wheel spacing suitable for 72 inch wheels.
Peter
Of course, they HAVE had 72" Boxpok wheels cast. That’s the size of the cast part, anyway, the balance is 4" of tire thickness. Presumably a 64" or smaller center is what would be used (and if I’m not mistaken NYCSHS has the dimensioned drawings for the appropriate centers)
The argument is likely to be that using the larger drivers is historically unprototypical for that particular engine, and modern materials should allow ‘sufficiently good’ augment reduction for the necessary dash and/or push speeds. Naturally I’d argue strongly to make at least a duplicate set of higher-speed running gear for ‘competitive testing’ but it would need to be done in a completely reversible way, and it would be subject to approval by the NYC enthusiast community and the folks who have been caring for the locomotive.
I’m frankly surprised more weren’t converted … I think the available money went into first the L4s and then the Niagara conversion, and after that into diseasels rather than steam.
Overmod, can you perhaps shed some light on what other modifications it might take to have larger wheels under a Mohawk? Would the stoker be affected because of a 3-inch change in height? Would the drawbar have to be adjusted because of a 3-inch change in height? Would the front coupler have to be adjusted down to a lower height?
I have to admit I don’t know the first thing about such a change, and I am wondering if you could expand my knowledge base. Thanks in advance for any knowledge you may be able to share!
Also, Happy New Year!
I keep posting and the posts keep disappearing. I hope they don’t all reappear sequentially and make me have to start deleting copies later.
I highly respect people who think about these sorts of details and express interest in them.
Someone with a copy of Know Thy Niagaras can comment on whether Tom addressed this subject in suitable technical detail. (I worry that he did not; I worry further that he may not address it in the upcoming L-3 volume of Know Thy Mohawks). Certainly Kiefer or Alco, depending on who did that part of the detail design, would have a list of the relatively small changes to be made.
Consideration has to be made whether to raise the ride height of the tender (dropping the scoop mechanism and the coupler location at the rear) through some combination of shimming pivots and side bearings and using larger wheels. This keeps the stoker, drawbar and chain, and radial buffer arrangements intact without modification.
Likewise the drop-coupler pilot would need to be realigned, probably by dropping the pilot beam, and I presume arrangements could be found on 3001 as I suspect that engine would have been designed to accommodate the wheel conversion. This might be an adjustable ‘mount’ behind the drop-coupler pivot which still adequately lined up with the front of the frame/bed.
Likely some equalization changes at lead and trailing truck, which might be as simple as moving the engagement points down about 1.5" and keeping the rest of the geometry intact. Note that there is already accommodation in the equalization design for the 2" or so of difference between ‘as-built’ and operating with a full boiler and fire on the grates – you see this in drawings where the axis of the piston rods is a slight distance above the driver axle centerline.
Front truck might get by with the same kind of approach as on the tender – this is not a huge or imbalancing difference. Rear of the tr
Thank you so much, Overmod! I knew it had to be much more extensive than just “slap bigger tires on the wheel centers”. I sincerely appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me, and us! All these complexities also help explain why they did not spend the additional resources to convert more locomotives - all of those details must surely add to the cost of the conversion.
Thank you again, Overmod, and my best wishes for a happy and prosperous 2020!
Going to larger drivers on 3001 would take it out of a restoration catagory. But lightweight rods and rebalancing would not change its appearance and should be done, in my opinion.