Williamson to Portsmouth A s

[NW Mailing List]

The mileage between Williamson and Portsmouth was/is 112.  After the 
introduction of A tanks in 1952 the run was made non-stop.

EdKing
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
To: "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Williamson to Portsmouth A s



> There was a huge coal and watering point on the N&W at Prichard. Don Mills

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>

> To: "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>

> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:48 PM

> Subject: Williamson to Portsmouth A s

>

>

>> Road mileage is less than 90 miles so where did they take a brake on the

>> four hour trip (not including watering somewhere along the way?

>>

>> Just musing about this and realizing that 20 plus mph for a coal drag of

> 250

>> cars (mid fifties w/lots of non rolling bearing cars was a damn good

> result

>> even if it was a prevailing downhill drag. I can honestly say that at 

>> Coal

>> Grove I've watch thousands of these drags work their way west, and loved

>> every second of the passing; day or night - Grandparents lived on US 52

>> adjacent to R of W overlooking the Ice Creek bridge.The night was the 

>> best

>> just to listen to the coming burst of overwhelming sound and the rail

>> colicky - clack of 250 cars, great sleep sound.

>>

>> Now 65 years later this discussion does really add to the memory, to

>> understand tech facts underlying what it took to create this great piece

> of

>> world history (the foundation of this part of world civilization's

>> transition to the industrial/eco system of what we thought was the

>> outstanding level we were living at in those decades. Surprising that

>> today's resurrection of Rail will possibly have another great impact on

> this

>> century.

>> Steam being used does not surprise me when you see what "chips" have done

>> for all other forms of power generation/ecology. But I would suspect that

>> the final package this new steam would arrive in will not resemble

> anything

>> you are visualizing in these discussions of  A,Y&Js.

>>

>> Fun thinking.

>>

>> Oakie G Ford

>> IRONTON, OH

>>

>>

>>

>> ----- Original Message ----- 

>> From: "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>

>> To: "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>

>> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:03 PM

>> Subject: Re: [steam_tech] Re: TRAINS.com latest- can steam make a

> comeback?

>>

>>

>> > Let's try this again.  I posted most of this before, but I believe it

> will

>> > answer at least one or two of the questions posed here.

>> >

>> > The best I can do on an estimate of a Class A's capacity on level

> tangent

>> > track, at the total evaporation and firing rate N&W expected, is about

>> > 4,200 trailing tons at 60 mph. This reflects a maximum of about 5,550

> DBHP

>> > at 40 mph, the usual high point on an A's DBHP curve.

>> >

>> > It is highly unlikely that an A every pulled 7500 tons at 60 mph on

> level

>> > track.  I believe that would take over 10-11,000 drawbar HP.  AnA is

> good,

>> > but not that good!

>> >

>> > Now if you give 1218 about a 0.2% downgrade and enough distance.....

>> >

>> > N&W rated its locomotives very conservatively, and the often quoted

> 5,300

>> > DBHP is usually considered at the rear of the aux. water tank. Toward

> the

>> > end of steam, the A's were developing slightly more than this in order

> to

>> > get 16,000-18,000 ton trains from Williamson to Portsmouth in something

>> > less than 4 hours. That's where the 5,550 figure comes from.

>> >

>> > There are many examples of A's running a steady 60 mph on time freights

>> > nos. 84 and 85 (some of O Winston Link's recordings), but I've not been

>> > able to directly relate a trailing tonnage figure to this speed. As a

>> > result, the above estimate is derived from Davis equations commonly 

>> > used

>> > by the RR industry during the 1950's.

>> >

>> > Using the same estimating method as above, I changed the tonnage to 

>> > 4500

>> > and the grade to -0.022%, the average downgrade grade from Williamson 

>> > to

>> > Portsmouth. The estimated maximum speed was 60 mph. An A didn't average

>> > this speed from point to point. This is the best guess I can make as to

>> > why the A was rated at 4500 tons Wmsn-Ptsmth.

>> >

>> > I also agree with John, please sign your posts.  We would like to know

> who

>> > we're talking to.  Based on the Steam_Tech site I have a pretty good

> idea,

>> > but other on this board likely won't.

>> >

>> > Dave Stephenson

>> >>

>> >>> > Let's see if 1218 can do 60 mph or more with a

>> >> 7500 ton train, as the Class A has been reported to do since an early

>> >> test, and numerous times since> then.

>> >> >

>> > ,

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > ________________________________________

>> > NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org

>> > To change your subscription go to

>> > http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list

>> > Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at

>> > http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

>> >

>> >

>>

>>

>> ________________________________________

>> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org

>> To change your subscription go to

>> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list

>> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at

>> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

>>

>>

>>

>> -- 

>> No virus found in this incoming message.

>> Checked by AVG.

>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 

>> 5/28/2008

> 5:33 PM

>>

>>

>

> ________________________________________

> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org

> To change your subscription go to

> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list

> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at

> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

>