 |
Re: If you could rebuild extinct steam what would you pick?
Author: yankingeorgia
Date: 07-29-2019 - 06:22
Carl A. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 3985 and 1218 (dreaming, so both of them back
> under steam) represent the ultimate in high-speed
> articulateds. (By high speeds, I mean high power
> output at 40 to 50 mph, combined with more
> tractive effort than any 4-8-4; and IIRC, 3985 had
> larger drivers than Big Boys.) But my #1 pick
> would be a N&W Class Y6b under steam again.
> (Compound Mallet, 2-8-8-2.) As to the surviving
> Y6a, #2156, that would be just as good if it got
> upgrades during its career to match Y6b's. Even if
> 2156 didn't get all of those upgrades, it would be
> my choice over any other big engine that's ever
> been restored.
>
> Reasoning: We've seen high-speed single-expansion
> articulateds under steam. But the N&W was unique
> in producing the best engines for heavy trains
> over serious grades. On routes like those, the
> N&W's late Mallet compounds were in a class by
> themselves. When operating at 20-30 mph, they had
> very high horsepower -- probably higher than any
> other engines could produce at those speeds. They
> could also move as fast as about 50 mph, at lower
> hp, when that was convenient. Being compounds,
> they needed less fuel and water. The N&W knew how
> to get the details right -- balancing, valves,
> roller bearings, combustion chambers, etc -- so
> they could make their Mallet compounds give more
> hp at speeds like 20-30 mph than anyone else's.
> That made them ideal for service on grades like
> the N&W had.
>
> I say this as a long-time SP fan. The 4294 would
> be a delight to see and hear. I remember seeing a
> cab-forward pulling a train when I was a little
> kid. But to actually move traffic, the N&W had
> better engines.
It is my understanding that 2156 received all the improvements, including the modified intercepting/reducing valve that served as a low-speed "booster" and the additional lead weight on the front engine. After modification the main differences between the improved Y5/Y6/Y6a engines and the Y6bs was the BL feedwater system on the older power vs. the newer SA system on the Y6b and the larger combustion chamber used on the Y6b.
From an operations standpoint, all "improved" Y5,Y6 and Y6a locomotives received the same tonnage ratings as the Y6bs.
Speaking only for myself, though they were no doubt efficient and did yeoman's work, I never found the Y class 2-8-8-2s particularly attractive. The A was a far better looking locomotive to me.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 3985 and 1218 (dreaming, so both of them back
> under steam) represent the ultimate in high-speed
> articulateds. (By high speeds, I mean high power
> output at 40 to 50 mph, combined with more
> tractive effort than any 4-8-4; and IIRC, 3985 had
> larger drivers than Big Boys.) But my #1 pick
> would be a N&W Class Y6b under steam again.
> (Compound Mallet, 2-8-8-2.) As to the surviving
> Y6a, #2156, that would be just as good if it got
> upgrades during its career to match Y6b's. Even if
> 2156 didn't get all of those upgrades, it would be
> my choice over any other big engine that's ever
> been restored.
>
> Reasoning: We've seen high-speed single-expansion
> articulateds under steam. But the N&W was unique
> in producing the best engines for heavy trains
> over serious grades. On routes like those, the
> N&W's late Mallet compounds were in a class by
> themselves. When operating at 20-30 mph, they had
> very high horsepower -- probably higher than any
> other engines could produce at those speeds. They
> could also move as fast as about 50 mph, at lower
> hp, when that was convenient. Being compounds,
> they needed less fuel and water. The N&W knew how
> to get the details right -- balancing, valves,
> roller bearings, combustion chambers, etc -- so
> they could make their Mallet compounds give more
> hp at speeds like 20-30 mph than anyone else's.
> That made them ideal for service on grades like
> the N&W had.
>
> I say this as a long-time SP fan. The 4294 would
> be a delight to see and hear. I remember seeing a
> cab-forward pulling a train when I was a little
> kid. But to actually move traffic, the N&W had
> better engines.
It is my understanding that 2156 received all the improvements, including the modified intercepting/reducing valve that served as a low-speed "booster" and the additional lead weight on the front engine. After modification the main differences between the improved Y5/Y6/Y6a engines and the Y6bs was the BL feedwater system on the older power vs. the newer SA system on the Y6b and the larger combustion chamber used on the Y6b.
From an operations standpoint, all "improved" Y5,Y6 and Y6a locomotives received the same tonnage ratings as the Y6bs.
Speaking only for myself, though they were no doubt efficient and did yeoman's work, I never found the Y class 2-8-8-2s particularly attractive. The A was a far better looking locomotive to me.
