@RickO posted:What a monster! Thanks for posting the video Lou!
2900s were big Northerns for sure.
I just hope they run it with the stack extension up 😁.
Attachments
Images (1)
@RickO posted:What a monster! ......
I saw 2912 years ago at Pueblo, CO, when it was undergoing cosmetic restoration. It was indeed a monster. Really stunning, it just appears so large when you're near it. Not sure why, but it hit me a good deal more with its size than the first time I saw the Challenger.
The only car that the NML&RHS has is a converted baggage car outfitted to carry spare parts and tools. Where do the cars that Bennett Levin's PRR E8 pull during excursions come from? I would expect that there are organizations and private owners that will lease there cars.
Rich, does the 765 has its own cars?
Jan
I have really come to like the Santa Fe 4-8-4's. Enough Said.
@breezinup posted:I saw 2912 years ago at Pueblo, CO, when it was undergoing cosmetic restoration. It was indeed a monster. Really stunning, it just appears so large when you're near it. Not sure why, but it hit me a good deal more with its size than the first time I saw the Challenger.
I think it's the drivers. I've seen both 3985 and 4014 up close. They are massive but the drivers aren't huge. I think 80 inch drivered Northerns seem so massive because of the wheel size. Standing next to a wheel that is taller than most people has the effect of making machinery just feel that much larger.
@Lou1985 posted:I think it's the drivers. I've seen both 3985 and 4014 up close. They are massive but the drivers aren't huge. I think 80 inch drivered Northerns seem so massive because of the wheel size. Standing next to a wheel that is taller than most people has the effect of making machinery just feel that much larger.
Exactly! The UP Challenger has 69" diameter drivers (only five feet nine inches), while the 4014 is only 68" diameter drivers. A Northern type, or Hudson type, with 80" diameter drivers (almost six feet eight inches) is visually so much taller, everything tends to look even more massive.
Yup. IRM has ATSF Northern 2903. Standing next to those big 80 inch drivers it just towers over you. Same thing with 844 and 4449.
@Lou1985 posted:I think it's the drivers. I've seen both 3985 and 4014 up close. They are massive but the drivers aren't huge. I think 80 inch drivered Northerns seem so massive because of the wheel size. Standing next to a wheel that is taller than most people has the effect of making machinery just feel that much larger.
Agree wholeheartedly.
Little wonder that the man with his hand on the throttle of a beast such as this running at speed, towing an obedient long line of freight, passenger cars, would generate awe and a romance in railroading. Just hearing that whistle made what hairs are left on this septuagenarian stand up...and salute?
Pretty humbling to compare what these guys have done...in comparison to the recent lubing I gave my gorgeous 3rd Rail 'sister' engine, 2929.
Thank you for the 12+ minute video. In comparison to other "gnus" of the day, this was totally refreshing.
KD
As an aside I think I read that due to a manufacturing issue or miscalculation 2926 can only be run up to 280psi of boiler pressure instead of the original 300psi it ran with in service. Is that correct? I'm curious how much that will have an effect on its performance.
@Lou1985 posted:As an aside I think I read that due to a manufacturing issue or miscalculation 2926 can only be run up to 280psi of boiler pressure instead of the original 300psi it ran with in service.
The issue was/is they purchased the incorrect thickness boiler tubes (some 'expert' led them astray, and they didn't bother to double-check with crews of SP4449 nor the UP Steam Crew manager in Cheyenne, many years ago). Thus, they are only "allowed" to operate at 290psi maximum working boiler pressure.
Is that correct? I'm curious how much that will have an effect on its performance.
It will not have any effect on performance for what they will be doing.
@Hot Water posted:
Ah cool. Thanks for the clarification.
I would think even at 290psi 2926 shouldn't have an issue pulling 10-15 passenger cars at track speeds.
Gee, and l was dreaming that if they could get to Santa Fe, they might relay the Chili Line, and be able ride a train into Durango? Was it the Chili Line or another into New Mexico that once was standard gauged to haul oil field development equipment? Probably used small power and light bridges....
@RickO posted:I think it dwarfs everything else in the shed there.
2903 dwarfs Milwaukee Road 265 (4-8-4) and N&W 2050 (2-8-8-2), the other large steam locomotives in the shed. It's longer and taller than both of them.
Whats top speed on the 2900's? I thought I "read" somewhere over 100 MPH
@RickO posted:Whats top speed on the 2900's? I thought I "read" somewhere over 100 MPH
ATSF listed them as 100mph locomotives in their employee timetable: Maximum Speed of Santa Fe Locomotives | O Gauge Railroading On Line Forum (ogaugerr.com)
@RickO posted:Whats top speed on the 2900's? I thought I "read" somewhere over 100 MPH
Yes, markedly "over 100 MPH". Stories are legendary about them handling long heavy passenger trains, cruising at 100+ MPH. What with their running gear design and high boiler pressure (which also provides very high superheated steam temperatures), they would be easily capable of 125 MPH. I know that the UP FEF-3 class 4-8-4s were tested at speeds over 120 MPH, and although pretty similar to the Santa Fe 2900s, they were/are without roller bearing side rods.
@Hot Water posted:Yes, markedly "over 100 MPH". Stories are legendary about them handling long heavy passenger trains, cruising at 100+ MPH. What with their running gear design and high boiler pressure (which also provides very high superheated steam temperatures), they would be easily capable of 125 MPH. I know that the UP FEF-3 class 4-8-4s were tested at speeds over 120 MPH, and although pretty similar to the Santa Fe 2900s, they were/are without roller bearing side rods.
The 2900s came from Baldwin with plain bearing, tapered rods. They got Timken roller bearing rods in 1947. ATSF rated them at 90mph prior to the Timken rods. After they were upgraded they got the 100mph rating.
Fun trivia bit: the rods removed from the 2900s were passed down to the locomotives in the 3751 class.
More than you ever wanted to know about 3765, 3776, and 2900 variations: AT&SF 4-8-4 Photos (keymodels.net)
@Lou1985 posted:Ah cool. Thanks for the clarification.
I would think even at 290psi 2926 shouldn't have an issue pulling 10-15 passenger cars at track speeds.
When I saw your original question I got curious.
The 300 psi design yields a force of about 172,000 lbs-ft at the piston surface. Unbelievable almost. That said, all the calculations seem to be linear (no squared terms) so from my layman's perspective a drop of 10 psi from the original value of 300, is about a 3 and 1/3rd percent reduction in power.
Warning: Fantasy Land... 3751 and 2626 double-header.
I doubt it would happen under the best of circumstances, but it sure would be a sight to behold!
Rusty
So does anyone happen to know how much of a maintenance reduction there will be on 2926 vs. other mainline excursion steam locomotives because of the roller bearing rods? Obviously there will have to be inspection of bearing lube levels but will maintenance at stops be less than on a similar locomotive like 844/4449/3751/261? ATSF used to run the 2900s from La Junat to LA without a locomotive change (~1200 miles) so I assume the roller bearing rods play a roll in this.
@Rusty Traque posted:Warning: Fantasy Land... 3751 and 2626 double-header.
I doubt it would happen under the best of circumstances, but it sure would be a sight to behold!
Rusty
I'd see it on my layout with 3759 and 2903 before it would happen in the real world probably.
But it would be something to see. The only way might be if BNSF gets frisky, but we all know that won't happen.
@Lou1985 posted:So does anyone happen to know how much of a maintenance reduction there will be on 2926 vs. other mainline excursion steam locomotives because of the roller bearing rods?
Just like N&W 611 and C&O 614, both with roller bearing rods, soft grease is done only once a day, regardless of milage that day.
Obviously there will have to be inspection of bearing lube levels but will maintenance at stops be less than on a similar locomotive like 844/4449/3751/261?
You can NOT inspect "lube levels" on roller bearing rods as they are sealed. Simply apply small amounts of soft grease each day. Locomotives with plain bearing rods, generally receive hard grease (Pin Dope) about ever 100 to 150 miles (at least that is what happens on 4449), which is done with a large compressed air operated Alimite Gun.
ATSF used to run the 2900s from La Junat to LA without a locomotive change (~1200 miles) so I assume the roller bearing rods play a roll in this.
Yes. Just like NYC roller bearing equipped Hudsons and Niagaras, only fuel, water, and refilling of the mechanical lubricators is done at about 250 to 500 miles, depending on the terrain.
@Rusty Traque posted:As long as the subject came up: Here's a comparison, although in model form of a 2900 and Y3:
Rusty
Awww look! A huge "tender moment"!
@Rusty Traque posted:As long as the subject came up: Here's a comparison, although in model form of a 2900 and Y3:
Rusty
If you take away the tender and just measure the length of the locomotive a 2900 is longer than a Y3. The tender on a 2900 is massive, but so is the locomotive itself.
@Lou1985 posted:If you take away the tender and just measure the length of the locomotive a 2900 is longer than a Y3. The tender on a 2900 is massive, but so is the locomotive itself.
Interestingly enough, according to Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail, the Santa Fe was impressed with their ex-N&W Y3's steaming abilities that they were considering mounting the Y3 boilers on some 3751 class Northerns.
Rusty
@Rusty Traque posted:Interestingly enough, according to Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail, the Santa Fe was impressed with their ex-N&W Y3's steaming abilities that they were considering mounting the Y3 boilers on some 3751 class Northerns.
Rusty
Except,,,,,,,,,,,N&W "boilers", including the firebox, were designed/modified/improved to burn West Virginia Pocahontas Range, VERY high BTU, coal. I wonder how well they would have worked with the Santa Fe Bunker C oil fuel?
@Hot Water posted:Except,,,,,,,,,,,N&W "boilers", including the firebox, were designed/modified/improved to burn West Virginia Pocahontas Range, VERY high BTU, coal. I wonder how well they would have worked with the Santa Fe Bunker C oil fuel?
A good question for which I don't have an answer for. It's an interesting footnote none the less for the Santa Fe given they had virtually sworn off articulated locomotives.
Still, apparently the Santa Fe was sufficiently impressed with how the Y3's steamed on whatever their local coal supply was to give it some consideration. I doubt they were importing West Virginia coal for their Y3 helper locomotives.
Rusty
