Yes, the N&W replaced the J’s with GP-9’s, but look a at a picture of the Powhatan Arrow with a J on the head end and then one with a Geep. It’s not the same, just not the same, and never would be the same. The life went out of the train, and that’s a fact. Foo.
I wonder how much their passenger revenues started to drop when the Geeps showed up.
Firelock: I completely agree with your point of view. There was no point in the Powhatan Arrow remaining without the J’s, as it had been conceived as a streamliner. The best thing was to either keep the J’s to run the Arrow or discontinue the train, which was sadly, not done until 1969, ten years after the last J (611) was retired. Lois
You must not have seen the fancy metalflake paint on those passenger Geeps… ;-}
Incidentally, I heard a story that the Geeps obtained in 1958 were actually part of a PRR order that was ‘diverted’ because of the recession. When the recession ended PRR wanted, and got their Geeps back, and N&W then had to wait to ‘re-dieselize’ a couple of years later.
Imagine: an A with the streamlining from a J or a K2a! Something to sketch…
NW
That particular order from EMD (order number 5570) resulted in a surplus of units due to the mentioned recession and a lengthy steel stike. The N&W in need of some power leased 30 units in 1958, and retained 18 of them into 1959. The temporary situation was a benefit to both roads.
But the N&W did not need to reactivate steam locomotives that had already been taken out of service.
Guys , I’m awfully sorry having to remark this thread is not about the financial / business relations between PRR and partly owned N&W and the consequences it had on dieselization less on how these diesels were painted or not at some times or other …
Would you mind to rejoin the thread or put up your own one as like “How N&W diesels were painted if you can believe it and why it was not the other way we thought it should have been were it not evil Pennsy had interfered …”
Without intending to complain , it strikes me that there are many kinds of details touched but the main question of interest and topical here doesn’t seem to really light up with more deeper thoughts contributed except for short interim bursts that die down quickly to make way for little details wayside , actually …
No insult intended
Juniatha
Hello…
I’m still interested in your three cylinder valve gear solution. Can you explain which method you would use?
Thanks,
NW
Ah Lois, dear lady, you hit the nail on the head. Now maybe if they kept the J’s on the train and called it a “ride” instead of “transportation”, who knows what might have happened? Steam-starved railfans from all over the country would have descended on it! OK everybody I know, railroads aren’t in the entertainment business, but still, it’s fun to speculate on.
Wayne
How can it be an insult if it’s the truth? Maybe this time there won’t be further distraction…
I do think that discussing N&W design solutions from the mid-Thirties, especially ones that were not later pursued, as if they were the ‘be-all and end-all’ of N&W practice, is a bit counterproductive. We very briefly got into some of the historical design details of the Y-7 without ever proposing explicit improvements on those details (which was, I thought, the point of the thread in the first place). Or noting how very preliminary some of those details were (e.g., those designed before practical experience with their counterparts on the A was obtained).
So far, nobody has commented much on the ‘improvements’ of the ancillary systems on steam locomotives if active development had continued past 1947. In particular, I raised the issues of combustion-air preheat and better circulation patterns in the water legs, for both of which very competent (as tested) modalities were developed. These are comparatively small changes that were reported to give large percentage gains in efficiency when used. (Note that I avoid naming the two prevalent systems being marketed – I have discussed them before, and am tired of being accused of ‘name-dropping’ when referring to particular engineers and their designs… ;-} )
I believe Juniatha commented waaaaaaaay far back that the greatest ‘improvements’ in steam operations, in the absence of dieselization, weren’t going to be thermodynamic; they were going to involve better maintenance and servicin
How often have other threads taken a side road to make a point or educate before returning to the topic a hand? It happens and many times with good intention.
The issue is that this thread has drifted so much in the past that Juniatha had to split it into a few threads: this one and a couple Extreme Steams. So that is why we need to keep it on track or start new threads. I caused it to drift a couple pages back, and I was the one who introduced GP9s into this thread, so I am to blame this time. Sorry Juniatha, and everyone, I will try to think of better examples next time.
Sorry,
NW
Hi Everyone,
As do I. There is the old joke of “Not two alike”, but only having to manufacture a couple types of rods would be cheaper then one per class.
I would like to see a system that conveyed it into a section of the tender, with a hopper style dump door for simultaneous fueling and ash dumping. Driven by a small engine, perhaps the booster through gearing?
Please tell us about this!
Thank you for the link,
NW
I think my preference would still be to drive it via the Lewty system (which was originally developed to make booster construction better). This uses a small triple-expansion engine, mounted in a ‘thermodynamically optimal location’, which drives a hydraulic pump. The locomotive ancillaries are then driven via ‘fluid power’ with simple hydraulic actuators or motors, of lighter weight, greater sealing ease, etc. It is not difficult to provide hydraulic accumulation to provide quicker actuation, decrease cycling time for the engine, etc.
Since ash handling is a high-temperature, abrasive, corrosive environment, I think it makes sense to have a minimum of complex machinery in that location. While it would be possible to put a Lewty engine and pump at the rear of the locomotive – in the general location of the present stoker drive whether on the engine or in the tender being one reasonable alternative – I think it is better to find a location similar to where Porta proposed.
I don’t know if the Lewty or Porta systems were developed so far as to specify the characteristics of the hydraulic fluid that would be used. But there are certainly modern products that fulfil the requirements, and given the relatively small volume and potentially long lifetime involved, these should be cost-effective in this service.
It is fun to speculate on the effective design of the ‘booster’ driven by a Lewty arrangement, but I will not go into that here… ;-}
[quote]
[quote user="Overmo
Far too often to maintain the strain on Juniatha’s good humour and patience. I believe that is her point, and her pointed request.
Crandell
And a VERY valid point it is. While thread drift in some circumstances may be enlightening, it is inappropriate when the title of a thread specifically references the topic being addressed. It is particularly inappropriate when the thread is the second or third ‘restart’ of a topic that has drifted beyond all recognition. (And I speak as one of the guilty, so I wear the tar and feathers for this with more than usual sackcloth and ashes…)
Rule on steam_tech (not always observed, but it’s a principle) is that if you want to discuss a different subject, start a different thread. That is what should have happened as soon as the N&W discussion veered off the streamlined A class, for example. If a subject is interesting enough, it merits its own thread. If it is not interesting enough, it still merits its own thread, which can then die without turning people off from thel point of the original thread, or confusing the original thread’s new readers.
[quote]
You may be unaware of it, but Juniatha has asked several times on several similar or precursor threads that those who participate overtly do so with more than a passing effort at sticking to the topic … All she i
I am the guiltiest here. I brought the diesels in to explain why I think the N&W would not have built a streamlined J2, without realizing the drift potential. So I am the cause of the drift. I have expressed my regret for doing this before, and wish to do it again. Juniatha, I am sorry for the drift. We have had many excursions off of her original topic, and I know I have created at least a few. So, please, lets stay on topic. I will do my best.
Sincerely,
NorthWest
Crandell ,
now I’d really like to see where my sentences are of worse English than some of those who don’t even distinguish between ‘their’ and ‘there’ or write ‘ancillaries’ when meaning ‘auxiliaries’ , spare me to name more examples , they abound !
I have seen enough quite mindboggling grammar here and never commented on it , just tried to find out what the writer meant to convey - not try to misunderstand reasonable sentences as best possible .
Introducing relaunch of this present thread I wrote >> The original thread was looking for what had been in the development line of the three major American builders in 1949 - along the lines steam had developed so far . << ending with my request for >> What further classes of ( conventional , i.e. in line with development so far ) steam locomotive could - realistically - have been expected to appear from the three builders had steam development been continued post 1949 … to , say , some ten more years ? <<
In which way was my defining of ‘steam we haven’t seen’ as quoted above supposedly imprecise , unclear or cryptic as some sentences I have read here and elsewhere by some who seem to always know what’s wrong with what other users write , yet are never able to present a better proposal ( other than mentioning the name of an engineer or inventor , mostly without any descriptive note on the device or machinery , less giving any explanation of it or reason why it should be recommendable or preferable ) and sometimes even indulge in trivial grinding of grammar instead of topical technical points ?
There was that absolutely superfluous and off-off-topic issue about my allegedly wrong form of plural for the term ‘duplex’ . I was informed that ‘the only correct plural in English’ was supposed to be ‘duplexes’ – something that doesn’t just sound awful but is completely
Hi , NorthWest
I am the guiltiest here.<<
No , you are not - certainly not .
Sincerely
= J =
How often have other threads taken a side road to make a point or educate before returning to the topic a hand? <<
Do we really have to count beans before returning to subject and then only if and when the beans are more than a number by one user ?
It happens and many times with good intention.<<
Well , I’d hope so at least !
Thank you for sharing these intriguing - uhm - scintillations g