Since there is a post on Trains.com forum discussing simulation of some famed steam engines performance by using computer software, I tried to get more detail of different engines on the web, including NYC Niagara. I found this horrific extract photo from The Dispatch, somewhere on the web instead of the things I was looking for. I am not familiar with NYCRR’s history so I did a brief searching about accident or train wreck involved this renowned engine but I can’t find any, including digital back issues of The Dispatch ( https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Itmi1h0dExoC ).
According to Wiki, monthly average mileage of NYC’s Niagara was 26,000 per month, running six days per week. I wouldn’t be surprised if the piston rod was broken due to metal fatigue. Note the main rod and the piston rod was still attached but both of them were bent like melted plastic, the eccentric rod together with the whole gear was completely destroyed. Fortunately, it seems that there was no casualty in this accident. I don’t have the resource to find the official record of this incident, if you know the detail about this incident, please share with us if you like!
Was it really just an isolated incident which was not worth mentioning? Imagine how would the public have reacted if thi
This is the first time I have ever seen the main rod bent like this, even Supermen himself might need at least 6 secs to bend both rods into such shape. I really want to know why the piston rod was ejected from the cylinder.
Thinking deeper, maybe this was one of the main reason why the development of high-speed reciprocating steam locomotive ended in the late-1940s. NYC only had 27 Niagara, and now we know at least one of them had serious piston rod failure after four years in service.
As Miningman stated, the Niagara’s had an intensive and disciplined maintenance schedule. But it seems that it still couldn’t prevent such accident from happening. From the management point of view, there was no point to insist using coal-burning steam engine anymore. There were other options of high-speed coal-burning engine like C&O M-1 and N&W TE1 but we know their “limitation”.
Would steam have rocketed straight out of the piston rod hole from the rear cylinder inlet ports on each revolution of the wheels, until the 411-ton beast came to a halt
Once the eccentric rod was knocked off, the steam would have been limited to wherever the now stationary valve allowed it but it would not change according to wheel revolutions…
Yes, the piston valve would be stopped after it was disconnected from the combination lever. But before the crews applied the emergency brake, the cylinder on the right side was still running at speed for a very short while.
I’ve had this paper in my collection for years. I guess here would be a good thread to introduce it. I was going to show it in the PRR S1 - T1 thread but never got around to it.
These are a few sample pages from a study by T. V. Buckwalter of the Timken Steel Co. written on 2/18/1938, a little before the Niagara but I’m sure a similar piston and rod arrangement were applied using some of the data arrived at in this study.
“Classic Trains” had an article a few issues back concerning a firebrick arch collapse in a Niagara. Scared the pants off the head-end crew but the veteran engineer stopped the locomotive safely.
The author of the article (who was the fireman, by the way) said they never found out the cause of the collapse, and they never saw that Niagara again.
Wow, those are some very useful and informative materials! Thank you for posting them, Ed. Quote from the text “Locomotive Rods for 100 m.p.h” written in 1938:
"The airplane and the automobile have demonstrated the value of reduction in time consumed in journeys, the airplane by greatly increased speed between terminals, and the automobile by great reduction in time lost, even in some cases entire elimination of time lost, at terminal, the motor car works under the further advantage of being useful in local service on arrival at destination.
The railroads are engaged in a courageous and determined, though somewhat belated, effort to regain the important position in transportation, particularly of passengers, developed through a century of effort, this traffic being reduced considerably in volume coincident with the rapid development of the two important competing forms of transportation. "
Meanwhile, Baldwin’s chief engineer Ralph P. Johnson believed that the 8-coupled, 2 cylinder locomotives of the time were at or near practical limits in terms of steam flow. Using four cylinders was a way to get around that limitation; some sources say he had this idea since 1932.
Thus we got two cutting-edge product of the early 1940s: The duplexes of Baldwin and Pennsy’s shop (Q1) and Timken’s lightweight reciprocating parts using Timken High Dynamic Steel. They we
That Niagara brick arch failure story was in the “Classic Trains” special issue “Steam Glory 3” from 2012.
The incident happened in 1950, and the Niagara in question was the 6004. The relief engine that took 6004’s place was a 3100 series Mohawk.
If there were any other incidents with Niagaras beside the brick arch collapse on 6004 and the piston rod failure a year earlier on the other I haven’t heard of them.
Thank you very much, Firelock76. I think I have the special issue “Steam Glory 3”. I am gonna review it carefully. I believe that the performance of NYC Niagara was excellence. But these incidents might imply that there were some QC problems during the construction.
It wasn’t the first time Alco’s product had piston rod failure anyway. About half year after this incident, MILW’s F7 #102 had her crosshead “overheated, broke, and dropped from the guide while the train was traveling at an estimated speed of over 100 mph.” Bad luck followed the US Railroad industry like a shadow since the end of WWII… [%-)]
You’re welcome Mr. Jones! I’ll tell you, those special “Steam Glory” issues stay in the house and never make it to the recycling bin. I hope there’s going to be another!
I wouldn’t infer there was anything wrong with the Niagaras due to those two incidents, after all “One swallow (or two) does not a summer make.”
One thing that puzzles me is certain railroads obsession with 100 mile-per-hour running in the post-WW2 years. Why? What was to be gained? They’d never beat aircraft in a speed race, so what was the point? Bragging rights? Was that really worth the expense and the risk?
I think we see the same thing today with some peoples obsession with high-speed rail. What’s really important to the rail traveling public, in my opinion anyway, is getting there “on the advertised,” that is, getting there when you promise you will, not how fast you get there.
Look at some of the horrendous delays on Amtrak and you can see why it’s not as popular as it might be.
In the years immediately after WW II, the Douglas DC-3 was the main commercial airplane that had a cruising speed in the 150-180 range. Even back then, airports were being built ‘in the boonies’ and the railroads in many cases with 100 MPH running could compete in the city center to city center competition. Just as the NEC is competitive to air in city center to city center trips in today’s world.
Yes Balt, what you said certainly makes sense. However, the DC-3’s wouldn’t be the only ball game in town for long. With the end of the war would come the Douglas DC-4, the Lockheed Constellation, and the Boeing Straocruiser, all much faster and more comfortable than the DC-3, so the railroad’s attempt for higher speed would still be a lost cause.
On the other hand, flying was expensive back in those days and wouldn’t become really economical until the jet airliners like the Boeing 707 came on the scene. So, the railroads still had a bit of an advantage the airlines couldn’t match, at least for awhile. So, I still have to believe that an attempt to reach a 100mph running speed back then was unnecessary and uncalled for, an average of 75 to 90mph would have been adequate.
No question, the NEC is very competitive, and we can see why. A good average speed, city center to city center travel, and no airport headaches like getting to the airport to begin with, and then all the security hoops to jump through.
And then as now, the airlines aren’t going to fly through dirty weather like this if they can help it. Give it a few seconds to load…
Something that applies here is a line from the National Lampoon parody involving the Metroliners: “Speeding America Into the Fifties!”
Something you will recognize very, very quickly when looking at actual road records is that real “100mph” timings involve maximum speed far above 100mph, sustained for considerable time without intermediate slowdown, with few effective slow orders or restrictions. Even today there are so many restrictions in so many sections of the “NEC” that practical overall speeds for most trains hover around the 75mph range. That’s cute, but not even remotely comparable to speeds for aircraft over the 100-150 mile trip range.
And the real ‘revolution’ in turbojets wasn’t the 707, abysmal as it was to prospects for real long-distance passenger trains. It was the 747 on the one hand, and the 737 on the other, neatly bracketing any profitable thing a passenger train could competitively offer (for more than the short corridor-type ride with advantage over airport-access hassles and the like)
And (I’m sure to Joe McMahon’s tooth-gnashing consternation, as well as mine!) Amtrak shows the white feather whenever weather even looks like becoming severe. Or shuts down when another tree, or another part of the nearly-100-year-old cat structure, conveniently hits. Airlines fly through far more rigorous weather situations than I think they should … and with the present level of control and navigation aids, can probably do so at least as safely, and probably even more autonomously, than any Amtrak service running in current corridors.
