UP 9000 and steam locomotive performance charts in general

Trains Magazine Locomotives
1

Hello everybody,

this is my 1st post. I already searched the web for answers but couldn’t find much. I’m a big fan of the Union Pacific 9000 class, it is, to me, simply beautiful. I would like to recreate some operations made by this locomotive in the train simulator RailWorks, and I already found a model for the locomotive. However I have realized that it uses the Union Pacific Challenger characteristics (for example boiler pressure is listed as 280psi instead of 220psi the Nines had). I would like to create proper specifications for this locomotive, and because of that I have to ask these 2 questions:

a)where could one obtain a tractive effort chart of the UP 9000? Something like this one

for a 2-8-8-2.

b)if it is impossible to obtain such a chart, or way too expensive, is it possible to create such a chart via maths instead of using empirical evidence?

Regards, dimovski

2

If “via maths” means making a guess at it, then sure, you can always do that. If you want to know if it’s right, you’ll need empirical evidence, which isn’t common.

Don’t recall if Kratville’s Vol I has a TE curve-- think Railway Age had one, but don’t recall when. If you assume 3500-4000 maximum drawbar horsepower you can draw a graph that’s about as realistic as anything you’ll find in print.

3

Hi Dimovski

Considering the point of development steam locomotive technology had reached at the time of birth of the UP 4-12-2 – boiler design incl. draughting , cylinder tribology and conjugated valve gear with all its inherent drawbacks and imperfections concerning steam distribution – and taking account for the historical major design error made extending the already long 4-10-2 by yet another set of drive wheels and still clinging to the well-known two-wheel delta truck instead of readily picking up Woodard’s successful train of thought having led to his replacing the 2-8-2 by a 2-8-4 wheel arrangement ( which then would have resulted in a 4-12-4 , without my extending this discussion on consequential boiler design ) power output offered by the Nines could not be what it was in later , more compact 4-8-4 types . It was non the less very respectable and with engine in good mechanical condition and draughting aligned to the point was able to attain 5000 ihp pretty closely with the low quality of coal used by UP ( in view of the limited area of grate with design having to use that Gaines wall feature in the firebox some extra ihp could have been attained by using good grade of black coal – not a sensational amount though , because of front end incapable to aspire the amount of combustion air then needed for reasonable combustion of the extra fuel heat contents offered )

We had earlier tried to evaluate the relative virtues of the late series Nines against the early Challenger series and although the thread went without definite conclusion I think it was felt early Challies had little to offer over final Nines design as concerns effective starting tractive effort nor output at speed . It rather reflected UP’s decision to end three cylinder venture and in view of curving mountain lines go for divided drive anyways , i.e. SE Mallet instead of rigid frame three cylinder types . As it turned out with the Big Boys , the SE Mallet conce

4

timz and Juniatha, thanks a lot for Your posts! Indeed very informative and helpful. However, I am not that skilled (read: no skill at all here) that I could make a 4000ihp curve by hand and guesstimation. I was rather asking if it would be possible to use a mathematical function to draw the chart/power curve.

I am completely overwhelmed by Your post Juniatha, that is a lot of information! And a few words which I had to google - you always learn something new :slight_smile: I’m very grateful for the picture! It is a shame that this locomotive isn’t getting much attention - even if it wasn’t extremly succesful. There are maybe less than 5 videos on youtube showing it in action (and these are hard to find because of their low views and usually have at most 40 seconds of UP 9000 material. And only one is in color) Now, we obviously like different tenders - my favourites are the huge PRR ones with doghouses and the U-shaped CSA-1/CSA-2 tender. (for the USA, that is). Here are a couple of my screenshots from video games - I know it’s by far not the same quality nor the same authenticity, but they’re good enough that I use them as background:

http://imgur.com/a/HAMKI#3

Regarding the comparison of the Nines with 4-8-4s - I’m sure that is all true, but the 4-8-4s do not seem suitable for the longer freight trains - the 9000 has/had about 30000lb more tractive effort than the FEFs have/had. So, I presume, a 4-8-4 could pull a 1000 ton passenger train at high speeds (say, 80+), but would be outperformed by the 9000 in pulling a longer freight train, correct? I’ve got to add that comparing a 4-12-2 to a 2-8-2 seemed somewhat shocking to me - I live in the colorful fantasy world in which the 4-12-2 is something too special to be compared with “ordinary” Mikados. [;)]

I have indeed seen Your topic, but the posts seemed somewhat messed up, I think I even found some regarding the ACE3000 trials (?) in that topic.

Regarding the books You mentioned, timz

5

Well, a mod still has to approve my 2nd post so I can’t edit it, so I’ll post it as a seperate post, hoping that he will join them.

I have found exactly 2 points for my chart:

1)Peak horsepower is reached at 68km/h, 48% cutoff. Indicated power is 3665kW. Later on it’s mentioned that “the steam engine delievered 3542kW” which, I presume, translates to drawbar power? Some help would be appreciated here aswell.

2)The Union Pacific used them to haul 120 car trains at 50mph, and the wikipedia.de article adds “on straight track”. I have found a mention on a 120 car train being pulled by a Big Boy at xyz mph, and the mass listed as 3800 tons. This gives a tractive effort of 101000 pounds however, which is 6000 to 7000 too much for the 9000.

I have also found 2 mentions of engine+tender weight of 354 tons, and one of 391. Is the 391 a typo, an engine equipped with the late-model tender, or simply US short tons, and 354 tons is 354 metric tons?

I also found it weird that the maximum speed is listed as 60mph (97 km/h) based on driver size. Isn’t that only a rule of thumb? The N&W J class were running a lot faster than their driver size is.

Regards, dimovski.

6

Dimovski

Well , comparing a Nine with a Mikado is simply taking account for the number of drive wheels having been 1.5 times those of the 2-8-2 - as were the cylinders ! That’s what was pointed out by ALCO back then to emphasize the capabilities of the three cylinder engine .

Comparing the later Chally with the Nines : the Jabelman Chally did turn up some extra capacity since it was a revised and improved design by itself and the Nines had meanwhile been dropped from the drawing board . Attending to the three cylinder engine as it had been set up , substantial improvements would have been possible and then the comparison would yet again have turned out a different result .

What also tends to blurr the picture is Union Pacific learned to load engines closer to their limits as the years went by , they also amended some of the most severe stretches of their mountain lines and again this helped to increase loads . So , I wouldn’t take that 6 % increase all too significant as indicating relative virtues of the locomotive types . Speed would tend to have improved , though not dramatically with the later type Chally , overall performance was on a steady way up with the three final types of big steam on the UP , the 4-8-4 , the 4-6-6-4 and the 4-8-8-4 . Or as you may put it : steam on the UP was never being replaced because of lack of competence , it was just being released by diesels as a train is handed over to another engine at an intermediate stop .

Regards

Juniatha

7

Dimovski

You can’t compare revving capability of even the later series ´Nines with a ‘Normans & Wikings’ J class 4-8-4 - NO way ! The N&W engine was a brilliant design and gave a sparkling performance proving Roanoke had done right just about what could have been done right in 1940s steam loco design . it also was a fully roller bearing equipped design while the Nines never had them .

60 mph was pretty fast running for a Nine , although the well balanced riding of a three cylinder engine would be inviting to do so - yet it resulted in aggressive forces within the valve gear and lateral levers , causing rapid development of play which in turn was abortive to cylinder performance . In the Kratville book the author mentions ALCO unsuccessfully tried to ‘slow down’ UP , yet UP often had their own ideas of how to handle engines . Principally the same happened to the Gresley three cylinder engines – the difference was monthly mileage was much lower with steam in Britain , leaving more and longer time slots for maintenance to attend to developing trouble before it became serious ; steam locomotive maintenance at the time of the Big Four – LMS , LNER , GWR and Southern must have been just short of immaculate – for UP steam the like was not on and so the Nines had to do with what they were given and inevitably that brought up the weak points in the conju-gear principle .

Regards

Juniatha

8

Welcome to the Forum Mr. Dimovski! We have a lot of fun here and learn a lot in the process, I know I do.

I can appreciate your admiration of the UP 9000’s, that mile long connecting rod going up-down-up-down-uuuuuuppppp-doooooooooown must have been a sight to behold.

Luckily one survives in the fairgrounds in California where the 4014 Big Boy was recently liberated. Sadly, I’m not holding my breath expecting THE 9000 to return to steam.

I do have to dispute slightly your contention that the 9000’s weren’t very successful. Au contraire, they were VERY successful, they lasted right into the end of steam in the 1950’s on the Nebraska division. From the '20s to the '50s, that’s not too shabby.

By the way, they were a big favorite of the late Don Ball. If you can find any of Don’s railbooks there’s usually a few 9000 shots in them.

9

Juniatha,

by no means did I wish to sound offensive by comparing the N&W (love Your version of the name) J class with the Union Pacific 9000, I was just wondering why the maximum speed of a steam locomotive would be limited by driver size. Thank You for Your explanation! However, I have to argue (even if I’m not very knowledgable) that some of the 9000s came with roller bearings for sure, 8 of the 1st batch were converted to “Bald faced Nines”, but the rest of the batch got roller bearings from 1940 on.

My source isn’t really great, but the article seems very well researched:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UP-Klasse_9000#cite_note-3

" Bei den ab 1928 gebauten Lokomotiven hingegen wurde die Gresleysteuerung des Mittelzylinders mit Rollenlagern ausgerüstet, bei den älteren, nicht auf den „third link“ umgerüsteten Lok wurden ab 1940 Rollenlager in dieser nachgerüstet."

Translation: By the locomotives built from 1928 on, the conjugated valve-gear (Gresley-gear?) of the middle cylinder were equipped with roller bearings, the older locomotives, not modified with the “third link” were equipped with roller bearings from 1940 on.

Firelock76,

thank You for the warm welcome, I have to agree with You! I had a blast just reading all of these highly interesting topics, and I hope it’s going to be even more fun when I can participate, too!

Yes, the connecting rod, the 3-cylinder motion, the huge, beautiful boiler, and especially the 2 air compressors(?) on the front! I always had a weakness for these, and because of that, a weakness for USRA Mallets, GN S2s… and You get my point [:D]

Yes, I’m grateful that one of these wasn’t scrapped. I hope however, that it won’t be running, too much fear of destroying something important. Imagine Yourself this happening to it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E54HUQYeF

10

Dimovski, you should find some of what you’re looking for by clicking here: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/misc/largest.php

Keep in mind that in North America tractive effort is typically reported in pounds. Simply divide by 2000 to get US tons. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a TE curve for the 9s. But their performance is nearly identical to 1st generation Challengers. Just not quite as fast. 96,650 lbs is in some books listed as the “maximum” tractive effort.

Contrary to what was implied in other posts, the 9000s were some of Union Pacific’s most successful steam locomotives. They were UP’s 1st true giants of steam. And as they were fast freight engines, their introduction in March of 1926 makes the 4-12-2s the very 1st fast freight giants of steam…anywhere on earth. They had no inherent problems, & they’re said to have been the easiest engines to fire on the entire system. They predate the Challengers by a decade. & in that decade the 9s were mountain climbers in Wyoming & Utah. Later they came into their own as reliable prairie sprinters. & they lasted virtually to the end of steam.

Speaking of firing, please understand that it was the Northern Pacific that used bad coal, not the Union Pacific. “Montana Rosebud coal” was cheap & the NP had easy access to it. The UP used high quality coal at all times.

The “Union Pacific Type” is my all-time favorite freight hauling steam locomotive. Thanx, Dimovski. I’m really stoked.

11

UP’s usual coal was… maybe 9000-10000 BTU per pound?

12

Exactly.

While the UP stuff was better than the glorified dirt the NP used, it is not in the same league as eastern coal from West Virginia and Western PA in terms of BTU and quality of burn.

13

OK brother, “Dimovski” it’ll be. I added the “Mr.” as I still take being an officer and a gentleman seriously and it’s better to be polite than not.

So you’re Croatian? Since we’re talking about successful steam, didn’t steam last up until pretty recently on Croat railroads, and with quite a variety of types? I’m sure I’ve seen some films of the same.

Oh, I’m not concerned about the 9000 being an irreplaceable artefact so that precludes it from being restored to operation. The N&W J, the Mighty 611, is in the process of restoration as we speak and should be running again sometime in 2015, and about time too, Lady Firestorm and I have waited patiently 20 years for this! No, the problem I see with the 9000 is I doubt there’s anyone who want to tackle that third cylinder!

Now maybe if we got some European dampf-freaks who are used to multi-cylinder steamers over here to try a restoration it might be possible. Most American steam mechanics in the old days wanted nothing to do with three cylinder steamers. Depends on what you’re used to, I suppose.

14

Not that low, it seems. The RME article on the 3950-series 4-6+6-4s says they were designed for 11800-BTU coal.

15

As it concerns the engine & (loaded) tender weight, the 1st 15 9000s were 782,000 lbs as delivered. By 1938 new & larger tenders brought these same ones up to 805,500 lbs. Then starting with #9015 the engines were delivered 1,500 lbs heavier; 807,000 lbs. Somewhere between #9029 & #9063 the locos arrived 18,500 lbs heavier still; 825,500 lbs until end of production. So, 391 (US) tons, 402.75 tons, 403.5 tons, 412.75 tons.

Incidentally, 391 US tons is 354.7 metric tons.

16

@ ValorStorm:

quote :

They had no inherent problems, …<<

Well , well … they had the inherent problem their conjugated gear caused extra mass forces load on outer gear and at the same time started to develop slack in bearings tolerably quickly . Both of this contrasted disfavorably with UP’s desire to run power at maximum monthly mileage simply because mileage of power under repair in shop is nil while being worked on . As I see it they made a compromise and ran the engines until exhaust beat became so irregular that some drivers wondered how many cylinders there really were - active . This was an inherent problem of the Gresley gear which in fact the ALCO conjugated gear really was . True , this was late fought by the general cure-all in steam loco bearing problems , roller bearings . However since the extra load on external rod bearings of valve gear still remained the solution was incomplete and running the Nines at fast paces always resulted in rapid wear . Unfortunately running long trains fast is just what optimizes ton-mile productivity and so - again - running of the Nines on Nebraska lines still was far from an optimum operation . The locomotives lasted simply because they where needed , they belonged to the most powerful steam locomotives on the system an UP could not afford to drop them as long as steam ruled . Let’s say , they were just successful enough - power output and maintenance balance was just acceptable - for them to remain on the roster . Finally , at least after final batches of FEFI and BB had been delivered and decission tochange over to diesel traction was made , steam was run out the way it was - that’s why no further efforts were made to solve the Nine’s valve gear problem .

As concerns firing :

The nines may have been easy to fire yet that’s no prove the very feature of having front firebox cut off

17

It’s not just about the BTU content, but how how the coal burns. Western coal just doesn’t burn as well as eastern bituminous. Anthracite coal has a high BTU, but makes a poor locomotive fuel - it just burns too slow. The best eastern bituminous, such as what was found in the Pocahontas Field or the Connellville section of the Pittsburgh Seam had a BTU as high as anthracite, but burned much quicker. That’s why railroads that used this coal, such as the N&W and B&O only needed relatively small grate areas on their locomotives to get the output they wanted.

18

The tractive effort and drawbar pull curves for the UP 9000s are on pg 186 of the book, “Union Pacific Type,” by Kratville and Bush, published 1990. I’ll convert them to IHP and DBHP curves during the next couple of days if I can. I’m at the NWHS archives in Roanoke and they have a library with most of the major railroad books. Great research tool. I should be able to get a preliminary curve but will be able to do better when I get home and have some photoshop capability to enlarge the graphs for more accurate readings. FWIW, maximum IHP (at the cylinders) was 4,917 at 37 mph.

19

Firelock76, by no means did I wish to sound disrespectful.

Yes, they lasted into the early 90s I think, and in Serbia some were towing until 2010 or so. I think there might be some industrial railways in Bosnia still operating on steam. We had mostly Austro-Hungarian types (our railroads were the home of the mighty MAV Mallets), tho we also used a couple of German Kriegsloks (50,42,52) and American Mikes(?) (C-160 or S-160 or even -260, can’t remember)

I don’t know, I think the N&W J Class restoration wasn’t a great idea either. Then again, maybe they’re like old cars - if you fully restore them, you got to exercise them or they’ll rust…

Well, if you pay for their stay, I’m 99% sure the dampf-freaks would love to help! But who would run the loco? Which railroad? What would support it? (coal, water) What if something breaks down? And the insurance costs are likely to be fairly high too! But just in case you need to contact these dampf-freaks, my German is fluent… give me a shout if you need it :wink: (I guess you probably don’t work on the restoration, but maybe someone might once read this, as a fascinated UP 9000 fan, trying to soak up all the knowledge there is about this locomotive)

ValorStorm, thank you for the useful infos! Especially the weight ones are intriguing!

My guess would’ve been about 12300BTU, I didn’t expect the coal to be that… “bad” - calorie-wise, that is.

Juniatha, I don’t really know what to say about the quality of the Nines, but I don’t think that maintenance was such a huge problem. Could a “hidden” 3rd cylinder create the need for more work than the 2 outer cylinders of the CSA?

Feltonhill, I’m indebted forever! I hope I’ll be able to repay you one day! So 4750bhp at 42mph should be correct then, I guess, as highest ihp is usually reached before highest bhp. Well, I’m looking forward to these! Thanks again!

20

This is from William W. Kratville’s book, “The Union Pacific Type”, page 186. These figure were read from several graphs .

Actual TE (Speed - Lbs)

0 - 98,000

10 - 97,800

20 - 79,500

30 - 60,000

40 - 46,000

45 - 41,200 (last data on graph, didn’t go to 50 mph

Drawbar Pull (Speed - lbs)

0 - 93,000

10 - 93,000

20 - 76,000

30 - 56,000

40 - 41,500

50 - 31,000

60 - 24,000

Hope this helps!