Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development

Wed Oct 16 10:07:07 EDT 2019

I have always wanted to see what the payback on capital was to deiselize.  I think it could have been more cost advantaged to do it more gradually.Jason MaxwellSent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> Date: 10/16/19  8:59 AM  (GMT-06:00) To: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> Subject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development The practicable limits make very interesting reading but the folks in the corporate board room had to be more than uneasy with any further commitments to steam. The obvious savings by its elimination were not to be deigned.Mike Pierry, Jr.On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:34 AM NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:John - Well, let’s look at the physical limitations.  The N&W’s standard turntable was 115 feet.  The A overhung it on both ends.  The original1910 Mallets (the X-1 0-8-8-0s and Y-1 2-8-8-2s) had low-pressure cylinders of 39 inch diameter.  This was the largest that would fit N&W’s clearances, which is why the 2100s LP cylinders were 39 inches. The proposal was that the engine would be as fast as the A but have the power of a Y-6.  The power requirements would neccessitate sixteen driving wheels and the speed requirements would necessitate drivers of at least 68 inch diameters.  Now, UP’s Big Boy had 68 inch drivers and it took a 130 foot turntable, even using the Centipede tender which was shorter and higher than a normal tender. I don’t doubt that they could have created a compound that could run that fast; the 2100s under throttle could run 45 to 50 (unofficial reports had them running faster than that).  But the 39 inch LP cylinder limit would still apply, and they would have had to lengthen every turntable on the system to handle such an engine. Now, I don’thave any hard data supporting my position; I do know what their parameters would have to have been, and I don’t believe they could have made such an engine work.  If you look at what they had to do to make a Y-7 fit a 115-foot table (they had to move the boiler forward on the frame to shorten the engine, which caused more front end overhang on curves) with the proposed 63-inch drivers, it becomes more apparent that the proposed A-Y combo would have have whit I believe to be unsurmountable problems. - Ed King From: NW Mailing ListSent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:01 PMTo: List NWHSSubject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development EdDo you have any data or information to back up your doubt or show why a faster Y would need to be any longer than a Y5 or Y6?  Or run up against the physical limitations of the N&W?  As to why N&W would want to speed up the Y class, it would me to increase profitability and return on investment. JimmyI understand your concern but the railroad industry determined that about 90% of the maintenance cost of the average steam engine was boiler related.  N&W built engines with cast frames and roller bearings so the added machinery maintenance would likely have been a low percentage of total maintenance costs and not a big deal. RegardsJohn Rhodes On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 6:49 AM NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:John - If it was possible to design a 16-drivered compound that would run as fast as the A, which I doubt, given N&W’s phusical limitations (I doubt if they could have gotten such an engine on a 115’ turntable for one thing, boiler overhang at the front and rear-end overhang at the other end would have been monstrous) why would they have wanted to?  Data have come to light that even the Y-7 might have had difficulties there.  Gurdon McGavock was said to have expressed concerns about those very items. N&W had its bases covered with the 2100s and the As.  Their results speak for themseoves. - Ed King From: NW Mailing ListSent: Monday, October 14, 2019 2:44 PMTo: List NWHSSubject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development Ed you are misunderstanding what I am saying.  I  am not talking about the Y7.  N&W could have built a compound Y that could have been just as fast and powerful as the A without being overly complex.  It should have helped them financially and operationally to not have 2 different road freight locomotives. John Rhodes On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 11:49 AM NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:The point was that N&W’s financial results using its steam locomotives were refined to the point that any thoughts of working around the margins would probably produce minuscule results.  It was probably a good thing that the Y-7 was never built.  It turned out that the Y-6 would run fast enough (far faster than anyone else’s Mallets, but that’s another story) for those territories where the Y-7 might have worked well.  And the Y-6 retained the economy of the compound. The argument has been made that N&W had too many A’s, but, again, what would be the benefit?  It’s arguable that they built too many S-1a engines, too, but again . . . - Ed King  From: NW Mailing ListSent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:32 PMTo: NW Mailing ListSubject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development The N&W did a great job and I am not trying to cast dispersion on them.  I am not trying to nit-pick them, I am trying to think about what if.  But it is interesting to think about what the result would have been if coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke were operated with improved Y engines that had equal speed capability as the A's.  Would it have improved locomotive utilization to the point to have increased N&W's profitability?John Rhodes On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 7:24 PM NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:I find it difficult to second-guess N&W’s motive power decisions in the 1950s.  For the all-steam part of that decade they were carrying gross income over to net at a rate that was the envy of the industry while handling a low-revenue commodity .  They were sparring with the mighty Union Pacific for the top spot in gross ton miles per train hour.  If people want to nit-pick their decisions, they’ll have to come upwith some very impressive facts that nobody else ever thought of to prove their points.  A case could be made that coal trains on the Kenova and Columbus Districts and east of Roanoke  could have been handled more economically with Y engines, but it couldn’t have been handless as fast, and locomotive utilization might have suffered. So I, for one, am content to enjoy what they did do rather than try to think up things I think they should have done.  Wnen I hired out on N&W in 1959 they were paying a $6.50 dividend on their common stock, the highest on the nYSE. - Ed King From: NW Mailing ListSent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 8:32 PMTo: List NWHSSubject: Re: Was Re: Roller Bearings and the Y6-b, Now Y6b Development So no opinions on what the result on N&W's operations would be if they had one loco instead of having to use both A's and Y's? John RhodesOn Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:19 PM NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:All,N&W instead of expanding the speed capability of the Y Class they created the A Class to take care of Fast Freight, flatter districts and the occasional heavy passenger train.  Later they realized that a single engine type to do all freight jobs would be better for the railroad operationally and financially.  N&W started investigating the Y7 for this role, assuming larger drivers and abandoning compound operation was necessary to meet the objective of a general purpose freight locomotive. I propose that in about 1930, N&W could have sped up the compound 58" drivered Y Class to allow it to also do everything that the Class A did as well so that the Class A would have never been designed or built. There are 2 issues to a Y class doing the work of an A. 1. Maximum speed and 2. Drop off of drawbar pull at higher speed. With respect to 1. The size of the low pressure cylinders and lack of ability to balance them for 70 mph is the issue. Dividing the 2 huge lp cylinders into 3 reasonable sized lp cylinders on 120 degree separation would likely have allowed 70 mph balancing.  Also the volume of the lp cylinders is driven by the volume of the hp cylinders. The hp cylinders size on the Y class is driven by tractive effort requirements for the 4 axles of the hp engine.  The lp engine due to size and the starting valve has no issue producing as much tractive effort as needed. Changing the wheel arrangement to 2-10-6-4 would have helped in allowing smaller hp and lp cylinders and balancing while keep TE high. Also the 3 cylinder  lp engine with less torque variation in a rotation should allow the lp engine to produce 25000 pounds of TE per axle vs 20000. So a 3 lp cylider Y class should have been capable of 180000 to 185000 pounds of TE versus 160000ish pounds of rating TE for a Y5 Y6. The second issue is drop of of drawbar pull at higher speed.  This is an issue of steam flow and pressure drops. A 3 cylinder lp engine and also reducing the cylinder sizes in general will help this tremendously.  But having 2 piston valves per cylinder with the longest practical travel lap and lead will greatly improve middle range and top end power without hurting the low end.  High lead in valve gears can make a locomotive slippery at low speed so variable lead based on cutoff like DRGW did would be appropriate based on what the N&W did with the Y Class. The live and intermediate steam piping from the dome through the superheater throttle  and cylinder steam ports should have cross section of 25% of the cylinder faces not 8-10% on the Y class. Also the Y class need more  steam chest volume about 125% of the cylinder volume.  More superheat like 850 degrees Farenheit would have helped but probably required saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. Also resuperheating of the exhaust steam to the lp engine would help.  More feedwater heat extraction using a 2 stage setup with open and closed type stages. Basically adding a 2nd shell and tube stage to a Worthington FWH would work. When finished with this you would end up with a loco of similar weight and size but have 70 mph top speed 185000 pounds TE and likely 7000 drawbar horsepower on the same coal and water consumption as a Y. And in the end Stuart Saunders would have dieselized anyway. John Rhodes  On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:10 AM NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:I'd like to throw another possible reason - roller bearing rods have large hubs and may have interfered with the clearance limits on  the lower part of the N&W's load gauge.  With the Y6's 58" drivers and 32" stroke, there's not a lot of room  for a roller bearing rod hub.  IIRC, load gauge interference was a problem with the P&LE's 2-8-4's and they had conventional solid bearing rods and 63" drivers. Dave Stephenson   On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:58:26 PM EDT, NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote: Bill      If you’re a Trainorders member (I am not)you can go back and read Wes Camp’s writing on this subject recently . Very interesting  There werea lot of reasons why probably it never happened .Larry Evans _______________________________________NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.orgTo change your subscription go tohttp://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-listBrowse the NW-Mailing-List archives athttp://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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20191016/83801082/attachment-0001.html>