Forums
Search
Video Clips
OGR Forum Member
 
August 12, 2013 9:38 PM

I'll take N&W 1238, the first of the five roller-bearing rod sisters of 1218.  You can hear her on the latest Link CD "Time Freight".

 

No 2-6-6-6 was her equal, per pound or per dollar.

 

No Challenger was her equal.  Period.

 

EdKing

 

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 12, 2013 10:01 PM

Ed, I knew you would have selected a N&W locomotive.

The N&W had so many fine units to choose from.

The N&W is lucky to have you as one of her ambassadors. 

 

Allow me to challenge you to pick your favorite non-N&W engine that you would like to see on the rails again.

 

Bryan Smith

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Home of the Fort Wayne Railroad Historical Society 
and the Nickel Plate Road 765

 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 12, 2013 11:27 PM

While we're talkin' pipe dreams...

 

I'll toss in my vote for PRR 1361. Who wants to bet that UP 4014 will run first?

 
-Mike
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 12, 2013 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Bryan Smith:

Ed, I knew you would have selected a N&W locomotive.

The N&W had so many fine units to choose from.

The N&W is lucky to have you as one of her ambassadors. 

 

Allow me to challenge you to pick your favorite non-N&W engine that you would like to see on the rails again.

 

Thanks for the kind words, Bryan . . .

 

The non-N&W locomotive I'd like most to see would be a Seaboard R-2 2-6-6-4.

 

A few decades ago I worked with some folks who had fired and run them, and for designers to put together a locomotive that would do what those engines would do within the limits of a 55,000 pound axle load limit was not something that I think Alco nor Lima could have done.  But Baldwin did.

 

I pick the R-2 over the R-1 for esthetic reasons; they had the Walschaerts valve gear which I always thought was "prettier" than Baker, although I know that operationally, mechanically and maintenance-wise,  Baker was better.

 

BTW - I'd rather see PRR E6 460 than the 1361 although the K4 would be a real treat.  Thirty-five years ago I would have liked to fire the 460 for a few miles, just to see what it was like.

 

EdKing

 

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 12:38 AM

Any of those - but I would dearly love to see our SP Harriman ten- wheeler once again run on steam.  It was drop- dead gorgeous in the 1990s, but now I understand it needs a whole new boiler.

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 5:26 AM

There would be two.

 

Timken's 4 Aces or the Cotton Belt's L5 class 4-8-4's

 

A living Steam Engine hauling a train with commerce, reaching across time and space; is a wonderful journey undertaken by Man.

 

A product of our fine College System that has been made redundant by imports of Foreign Workers willing to push a Keyboard for a living.

 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 7:11 AM

Yes, the 3985 may not be the equal of the 1238. However, the people who own

the 3985 have a steam program, and the money, but not the desire to restore her

to the rails. A dad blasted shame, IMO. There are a lot of steam locomotives I'd like

to see restored, and running, such as the C&O 614. Heck, for that matter, build a new NYC Hudson, one of the most handsome steam locos ever built. But that's just dreaming.

 

This isn't dreaming! Come on UP, do the right thing..restore 3985 to operation once more.

 

E

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 7:16 AM

As long as we're ressurecting the dead:

 

5632

 

Rusty

 
 
 
Photos (1)
5632
 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Lee 145:

Timken's 4 Aces

Excellent!  I would love to see the 4 Aces as well.
That was one handsome looking locomotive?   (or should I say beautiful?)

trbc1111

 

Bryan Smith

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Home of the Fort Wayne Railroad Historical Society 
and the Nickel Plate Road 765

 
 
Photos (1)
 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 11:39 AM

Just to be a bit different, I would vote for one of the two C&O 1300's.  A slow drag Mallet would be different.  A design that dates about a hundred years, but was still in use and had new versions built at the end of steam.  

 

To enter crazy land, a Virginian 2-10-10-2.  They ran for 30 years.

 

Bob

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Rusty Traque:

As long as we're ressurecting the dead:

 

5632

 

Rusty

I'll second this one...

 

DV

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 12:25 PM

Any Lima built SuperPower Locomotive would be just fine, (Build #8673 September 1944 is a fine example), but I would love to see the C&O H-8.

 

Larry

 

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary, and those who don’t

 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 1:27 PM

Originally Posted by LLKJR:

Any Lima built SuperPower Locomotive would be just fine, (Build #8673 September 1944 is a fine example), but I would love to see the C&O H-8.

 

Larry

Larry...this is tooo easy, as Lima Build #8673 is in my backyard.

If you see me at the Open House, come over and say HI!

 

Picture courteous of Matt Robison from MetroScenes.com 

nkp_765_sept_2012_metroscenes.com_22

 

Bryan Smith

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Home of the Fort Wayne Railroad Historical Society 
and the Nickel Plate Road 765

Last edited by Bryan Smith August 13, 2013 7:23 PM
 
 
Photos (1)
 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 9:22 PM

AFAIK, nobody ever out axle weighted the C&O H8. I'm guessing that this was an insurance policy over the fact that she's a six coupled design, and hence more likely to bust loose on the same TE as an eight coupled machine.  If Chessie had upped the boiler pressure and run these big girls in flatter country by policy, they'd have done much better, cost wise.  In the real world, N&W laughs all the way to the bank!

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 13, 2013 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by jaygee:

AFAIK, nobody ever out axle weighted the C&O H8. I'm guessing that this was an insurance policy over the fact that she's a six coupled design, and hence more likely to bust loose on the same TE as an eight coupled machine.  If Chessie had upped the boiler pressure and run these big girls in flatter country by policy, they'd have done much better, cost wise.  In the real world, N&W laughs all the way to the bank!

 

One has to compare the reasons for the designs.  The N&W A, like all their home designs, was intended to produce the maximum possible transportation at the lowest possible cost - in other words, with the maximum efficiency.

 

In reading about the 2-6-6-6, author Eugene Huddleston in his various works and Eric Hrsimaki in his Lima history tell us that no such intention was put forward in its design.  It was intended simply to produce more drawbar horsepower than any other steam locomotive, with special emphasis on beating N&W's Class A. 

 

It was designed at least partly by the Van Sweringen Advisory Mechanical Committee which had produced several outstanding designs for the C&O, Erie and Nickel Plate.  The C&O management had demonstrated over the years that they'd buy anything the AMC told them was good, so they knew they could sell the 2-6-6-6 no matter what.

 

The 2-6-6-6 did, as everyone knows, produce more DBHP than N&W's A, but it was a hundred thousand dollars more expensive and weighed a full 100 tons more than the A.  But they sold them to C&O - sixty of them (N&W only had 43 As).

 

There was a difference in the top managements.  N&W had promoted top executives through the ranks and had, in the steam era, folks upstairs who knew what made the wheels go around.

 

C&O's top managers were lawyers and financiers who weren't even located on line; they relied on someone like the AMC to tell them what was good.

 

So the Allegheny will remain as the most spectacular locomotive that was ever designed without regard to weight or cost.

 

And you can have it.

 

EdKing 

 

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 14, 2013 2:22 PM

If you read huddlestons book you will also find out the c&o sued lima for lying about the weight on drivers.  This engine just did not do what it was supposed to.  What would the weight on drivers do if they ran the engines at 60 mph.  Tear up the track.  The 2-10-4 was the superior engine for c&o in the LONG run.  How one of them to run?

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 14, 2013 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by ironlake2:

If you read huddlestons book you will also find out the c&o sued lima for lying about the weight on drivers.  This engine just did not do what it was supposed to.  What would the weight on drivers do if they ran the engines at 60 mph.  Tear up the track.  The 2-10-4 was the superior engine for c&o in the LONG run.  How one of them to run?

 

According to what I've read, there was no track damage problem with the 2-6-6-6s at that particular speed; it's just that the general weight was far too much.  They seem to have been pretty well counterbalanced.

 

I haven't seen all the particulars about the lawsuit, but saying Lima flat lied about their weight seems a little extreme.  If you read Hrsimaki and Huddleston closely, you'll note that C&O's mechanical folks visited the drawing boards often during the design process, and often asked that certain parts be "beefed up".  Side and main rods were mentioned.  Therefore, it seems to me that Lima had a rebuttal, at least in part, for the suit.  Maybe that was taken into account in the settlement - I don't know.

 

Of course, the prime mover in this suit was the engineer's union, which felt cheated out of a lot of weight-on-drivers pay, and they were probably right.  They filed claims for all the trips engine crews had made, which amounted evidently to a considerable sum of money, which C&O tried to recoup from Lima.  I've forgotten just what it was that tipped the unions off, but it's in there somewhere.

 

And it's obvious that the C&O 2-10-4s (and maybe their KCS sisters as well) were actually Lima's finest locomotives.

 

EdKing

 

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 14, 2013 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by jaygee:

AFAIK, nobody ever out axle weighted the C&O H8. I'm guessing that this was an insurance policy over the fact that she's a six coupled design, and hence more likely to bust loose on the same TE as an eight coupled machine.  If Chessie had upped the boiler pressure and run these big girls in flatter country by policy, they'd have done much better, cost wise.  In the real world, N&W laughs all the way to the bank!

 

Dr. Huddleston died believing that the boiler pressure of the H8 could be raised to 300 pounds from its designed 260.

 

A Lima calculating engineer named James Cunningham retired to St. Louis, where he was interviewed by a friend of mine named Ray Curl, who had been Chief Draftsman for the C&EI at Danville, Ill. and who had moved to St. Louis after the MoP took the C&EI over.

 

Curl asked Cunningham the question directly:  "Was the H8 designed so that its pressure could be raised from 260 to 300 pounds?"

 

Cunningham replied "absolutely not." 

 

Dr, Huddleston believed that it was possible because the H8's boiler plates were thicker than those of the N&W A (this was in part a lot of the weight difference between the two locomotives).  But he made no mention of firebox sheets, flue sheets, staybolting or any other item subjected to full boiler pressure. 

But Cunningham knew, and through him and Ray Curl we know the truth.

EdKing

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 15, 2013 3:35 AM

Originally Posted by Ed Mullan:

Yes, the 3985 may not be the equal of the 1238. However, the people who own

the 3985 have a steam program, and the money, but not the desire to restore her

to the rails. A dad blasted shame, IMO. There are a lot of steam locomotives I'd like

to see restored, and running, such as the C&O 614. Heck, for that matter, build a new NYC Hudson, one of the most handsome steam locos ever built. But that's just dreaming.

 

This isn't dreaming! Come on UP, do the right thing..restore 3985 to operation once more.

 

E

They are working on it. 3985 is on the back burner at the moment.

 

Here is the source page with the revelant post borrowed and quouted here...

 

http://www.trainorders.com/dis.../read.php?10,3081544

 

The 3985 is down for the mandatory 15 year FRA inspection and will be getting a complete overhaul. The steam crew has devoted all their time and effort to getting the 844 ready and the 3985 has been put on the back burner. It will likely be at least 2 years or more before the 3985 is ready. With the 838 and the 3985 parked next to each other it looked like a scene right out of the 1950's in the old roundhouse.

 

Cotton Belt 4-8-4 will likely never run again, more towards politics than anything else I think. It would be a good thing if the UP allows a little room. This engine kept 60+ cars at 80 mph into and out of Texas.

 

Regarding the other Poster with the 4 Aces, Sunset has one being produced now in the process. I think they ask for about 1500 dollars for it before taxes and shipping. A beautiful engine, but more importantly, one which was able to get 12 passenger cars across the eastern mountains without a helper. And that was a feat unmatched for a while.

 

To the other poster with the Burlington 4-8-4, these were beautiful engines and I think Sunset has a number of them. I think also the C&O Greenbrier has a place as well.

 

A living Steam Engine hauling a train with commerce, reaching across time and space; is a wonderful journey undertaken by Man.

 

A product of our fine College System that has been made redundant by imports of Foreign Workers willing to push a Keyboard for a living.

 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 15, 2013 7:23 AM

Originally Posted by Lee 145:
 

 

To the other poster with the Burlington 4-8-4, these were beautiful engines and I think Sunset has a number of them. I think also the C&O Greenbrier has a place as well.

I have the 3rd Rail model and can admire the beauty of a Burlington O5b at my convienence.  The true shame is that 5632 suffered an untimely death due to ego.

Fortunately, there's three Q 4-8-4's still in existence, so there's always the extremely but unlikely remote possibility one could be restored to operation. 

 

But, I won't be holding my breath.

 

Rusty

 
 
 
Like (0 likes)
OGR Forum Member
 
August 15, 2013 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Bryan Smith:
Originally Posted by LLKJR:

Any Lima built SuperPower Locomotive would be just fine, (Build #8673 September 1944 is a fine example), but I would love to see the C&O H-8.

 

Larry

Larry...this is tooo easy, as Lima Build #8673 is in my backyard.

If you see me at the Open House, come over and say HI!

 

Picture courteous of Matt Robison from MetroScenes.com 

nkp_765_sept_2012_metroscenes.com_22

Wanted to see if FWRHS members were snoozing!

 

If I get there I'll be sure to stop and say hello!

 

Larry

 

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary, and those who don’t

 
 
Like (0 likes)
 
Post Reply
 
 
Powered By Hoop.la


OGR Publishing, Inc.
33 Sheridan Road, Poland, OH 44514
330-757-3020

www.ogaugerr.com