C&O Allegheny potential increase.

You've asked good questions.  To start with, the H8s were operated at 260psi, not 240 psi.  Secondly, if the BP was raised to 300 psi, the boiler shell would have to have been manufactured at a greater thickness, therefore causing the already overweight H8 to be even heavier.  I agree with your rated TE figures and references.  However, horsepower figures are another matter.  The Allegheny's peak DBHP was about 7500 based on over the road tests, but that was coming out of a sag.  The sustained DBHP was more in the range of 6700 DBHP, still a very high figure.   The PRR Q2's DBHP reading was something like 7,900, but that was actually locomotive drawbar hp on the Altoona test plant, and is not the same as DBHP at the rear of the tender.  UP's Big Boy was about 6200 DBHP at the rear of the tender.  Not much controversy there.  N&W's Y6's (Y6, Y6a, Y6b) developed about 5,600 DBHP at the rear of the tender in  everyday service and also on test.  Again, not much controversy.  AFAIK, the  DMIR 2-8-8-4's were never tested, but they would likely have developed about the same or slightly greater DBHP as the H8 at somewhat lower speed, based on my simulation studies, however good or bad they are.  This is totally from memory, an increasingly risky alternative for me these days  The full answer you're looking for  is in several books which compare most of these locomotives on a variably solid/shaky basis.

To me, the C&O and the Virginian wasted a lot of money on these 2-6-6-6 locomotives.  Maybe more 2-10-4 would have been a better. Buy.

The Purpose of these monsters was to eliminate the second crew on a double header.

If you want to find out more specific information on the Allegheny I suggest the book The Allegheny, Lima's Finest by Huddleston and Dixon. There's a lot of information about why it was designed the way it was and comparisons to other locomotives.

Ken

Thanks guys for your input. The H8 was already overweight causing damage to the rails and roadbed. Perhaps if it had two more axils (2-8-8-6?) it could have spread that weight out over a larger footprint AND and the same time, gained more traction force. I still think, when at the design phase, they could have altered that boiler to rather than making it thicker to handle the greater psi, they could have stretched it a bit more (to accommodate the two additional axils). It was built for the Allegheny mountains but a 8-8 driver locomotive would have worked just fine. Didn't the Class A, while weighing considerably less than the H8, actually have more traction force (cir. 114,000 pounds/cir. 124,000 pounds with the boosters) compared to the H8's 110,000 pounds (which in my mind, for such a heavy locomotive, was rather 'Whimpey'.)

The design was great ...

They were mis-used , by their owners ....

fast Locomotives used as drag locos ...

like hauling firewood with a sports car ..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WVNHywKHOOk

The N&W A's didn't have boosters.  Tractive effort is a calculated figure based on cylinders, boiler pressure and the geometry of the machinery.  Actual starting tractive effort could be higher if  rail conditions permitted.  On test both the N&W A's and the H8's developed more that their calculated/rated T (114,000 and 110,000 lbs respectively).  I'll try to look up some additional info for tomorrow.

Ralph - Here’s a more complete opinion, way too long, but that’s what happens whenever you get into steam locomotive comparisons and what-ifs.

It may be possible that the H8 could have been designed as a 2-8-8-6, thereby spreading the weight over more axles. However, another viewpoint is that the H8's should have been put on a diet, and significant effort should have been expended to get rid of excess iron. Actually this happened on a small scale, as each succeeding order for the Alleghenies by C&O (1941 and 1948) and Virginian (1945) weighed a little less.

You mentioned a very interesting locomotive class that may have been comparable to the H8. Gene Huddleston wrote an article comparing the DM&IR Yellowstone with C&O’s Allegheny in the Holiday 2009 issue of C&O Magazine. Included in the article were horsepower estimates for each type found in Ralph Johnson’s book, The Steam Locomotive (Appendix C). He also wrote the book The Allegheny, Lima’s Finest. At that time I was interested in how the relative performance of the two would compare. The following is a very abbreviated (11 pages to ½ a page) summary from a research paper I wrote but never published.

When I started the comparison, I didn’t know exactly what the outcome would be. I didn’t expect the M3 to be particularly close to the Allegheny. BTW, these are not maximum on-test figures, but rather what one could expect to achieve in over-the-road service. Here’s what happened:

C&O H8 max. DBHP - 6,342 @ 50 mph

DMIR M3 max DBHP - 6,449 @ 40 mph

The results of the simulation should not have been surprising because they are about what one would expect from these two similar sized but very differently intentioned locomotives. The Allegheny was designed for power at speed, 40-60 mph. The Missabe Yellowstone was designed for high output at lower speeds up to 30-40 mph.

Steam locomotives are usually developed to match the specific operating conditions on a given railroad. The Missabe had a 30 mph speed limit for loaded trains and a 35 mph limit on empties. The 2-8-8-4's showed very high drawbar pull in the lower speed ranges, and were almost ideally suited for the road’s operations. The Allegheny’s best performance was in higher speed service, and part of the argument surrounding them is that they were not used sufficiently in this type of operation. However, it should be noted that the Alleghenies were eventually used over many divisions of the C&O and were not just assigned to the 78-mile stretch from Clifton Forge to Hinton, where their misapplication is frequently cited.

So I believe you were on the right track (pun intended) with the 2-8-8-x idea, but in 1941 there was no reason to reinvent the wheel. C&O may have been better served by a locomotive similar to DMIR’s 2-8-8-4s.

Every 6 months we get a "what if"  Allegheny thread.

If you do a forum search you will find other interesting discussions on this same topic.

While the H8’s were good in the flatlands hauling fast freight, slugging over the mountains was simply not what they were designed for. The C&O would have been better off with a version of the N&W Y6’s to get heavy tonnage coal trains over the steep grades.

Eric Hirsimaki's book "LIMA, the history" gives a lot of insight as to how the H8 was developed.  In a nutshell, The Van Swerigan roads used their Advisory Mechanical Committee (AMC) in the design of all their locomotive projects.  Notable examples include the NKP 2-8-4 Berkshires and the C&O T-1 2-10-4 locomotives.  In an effort to compete with rival Norfolk & Western, the AMC decided to increase the size of the T-1 to a 2-12-4.  As this wheel arrangement would not be practical on the C&O, the AMC designed it as a 2-6-6-6.  The six wheel trailing truck was needed to support the extra weight of the enlarged firebox, which was necessary for the increased steam capacity.

The AMC calculated the weight to be 695,000 pounds, however,  Lima calculated it to be 730,000 pounds.  A final weight of 724,500 pounds was agreed upon.  The AMC subsequently made several unnecessary changes that significantly increased the weight to 778,000 pounds, however, on paper they still "officially" weighed 724,500 pounds.

It is very interesting to see how these, and other, locomotives were designed. They were designed and built for a specific purpose.  I highly recommend Hirsimaki's book.  It gives quite a bit of insight into the process of locomotive design and development.

Tom

IMHO the problem with the Allegheny was that the people specifying and designing the engine (Lima, the AMC, and C&O Engineering Dept) never got a buy-in from the people that were actually going to operate the engine (C&O Operating Dept). The operating folks felt like for higher speed service the T-1, 2-10-4 and later the K-4, 2-8-4 were sufficient. So the operating department put the Alleghenies in low speed drag service because the primary drag service engine they were using at the time, the H-7, 2-8-8-2 were very slow and wearing out.

Ken

The H8s were used over 550 route-miles.  The section from Clifton Forge to Hinton was where they may have been misapplied, 78 miles or 14% of the total miles they were assigned.  The N&W Y6 would have been properly applied over the same 14% and perhaps not so optimally applied for 86% of the assigned mileage.  C&O did not have N&W's numerous heavy grades, nor did it have sustained running wide open at 25 mph.  Both of these conditions were where the Y6's excelled.

I've run the 765 between Clifton Forge and Hinton. The ruling grade for the entire C&O railroad lies on that section of railroad. It is the 22 miles of 1.14% to 1.4% between Covington, Virginia and the summit at Alleghany (yes, I spelled that right) Tunnel. That is a long, tough climb, with lots of curves and five tunnels, Kelly, Lakes, Moore, Lewis and Alleghany.

The absolute worst night I ever endured while running the 765 occurred hauling 44 cars up that hill and through Lewis Tunnel. In fact, there is a chapter in my book entitled "The Lewis Tunnel Incident" that describes it very well. Here's a clue. This is what the 765 looked like after that trip...just a bit dirty. Guess what the crew looked like.

Using the H8s on this hill took advantage of their high tractive effort, but in this assignment the C&O left much of the horsepower that they paid for back in the stable. You can't develop a lot of horsepower dragging a freight uphill at 25 mph.

@Rich Melvin posted:

Using the H8s on this hill took advantage of their high tractive effort, but in this assignment the C&O left a lot the horsepower that they paid for back in the stable. You can't develop a lot of horsepower dragging a freight uphill at 25 mph.

The chapter you mentioned is very interesting. 

The AMC got the 765 right.  And the 1600's were overbuilt.  And it seems most AMC locomotives fit the railroad well.

You have to wonder if the Allegheny wasn't a case of the AMC trying to out do the N&W.  N&W comes out with the Class A 2-6-6-4 to much acclaim, so AMC tries to "one-up" the N&W and produces the H-8 2-6-6-6, which on paper looks great, but in service doesn't amount to much.  Much like Airbus vs Boeing.  Boeing has the 747, so Airbus produces the A380, which flops.

Stuart

There's actually video evidence of Alleghenys running fast along the Clifton Forge to Hinton route. I recently uploaded a short clip recorded by Fred McLeod. He was known to record audio as well, so I know for a fact this isn't sped up.

Counting the time between the poles, it looks to be almost 33 mph.

My slip. Yes, it was 260 psi and not 240. Had they placed two additional axils under it we could have called it the "Big Boy of the east"!!  LOL.

I had always heard that the C&O never really used the Allegheny to it's full potential. That's what lead me to my original question of had the Allegheny been increased to 300psi, would that have changed HP and/or tractive force. I would think that it would increase greatly the top end HP though it wouldn't do much for the tractive force (which, for a locomotive that size) should have been at least 130,000 pounds, even with just 12 drivers. And what about boosters on the trailing truck? Anyways, thank you for your response. That 765 looked a bit beat after that experience. I'd assume you guys looked like your engine afterwards!!  LOL!

I've seen this clip before as well. I think you're right. I thought it was between 30 and 40 MPH.

Yeah, the old 'Simple Simons' were for some reason not upgraded like the N&W did for the Y6 series. With 16 drivers, one would think that it could have been upgraded and thus the H8 would have never even been built. Too bad the C&O didn't purchase the Yellowstone which the DM&IR used, considerably less weight (less damage to the rails) AND significantly more tractive force. They could have used that on those coal drags.

I have that book. Only problem is, I live in Texas and my books are in storage in Tennessee. I gotta get up there and go through my storage unit.

That's what I've heard too. That C&O never really used them to their fullest potential.

Very interesting!! Thank you for this response. I know that various steam locos were designed for specific railroads with differing conditions. I always thought that the C&O could have benefited from the DM&IR Yellowstone but probably the N&W's Y6b as well as it was designed for lower speed/high tractive force like the Yellowstone. I'd love to see #1601 (because it has been indoors for decades for protection) receive a restoration to operating condition (with engineering improvements like the Big Boy received). I assume it would of course be converted to oil burning as well but I'd be okay with that. Maybe they could then put it on a "diet" LOL like you said. Thanks again for your input. BTW, I have Huddleston's book: Lima's Finest the Allegheny but it's in storage up in another state in a storage unit.

Thanks, I don't have that book. I do have Huddleston's book: Lima's Finest.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

To me, the C&O and the Virginian wasted a lot of money on these 2-6-6-6 locomotives.  Maybe more 2-10-4 would have been a better. Buy.

I cannot speak to the C&O.  For the Virginian aside from their shortened lifespan I don't see a basis for this claim.

@Bill N posted:

I cannot speak to the C&O.  For the Virginian aside from their shortened lifespan I don't see a basis for this claim.

I've seen it stated in the press that considering that the C&O pulled the same length trains with the H-8s as it did with the T-1s that maybe they would have been better off buying more T-1s (at least financially).  Once they started running the H-8s at higher speeds on the flatter lines then the H-8s had the advantage.

Stuart

Thanks for the explanation Stuart.  I don't think it applies to Virginian though.  Virginian didn't have the T-1s and was having to make do with some updated 2-8-2s. 

@Bill N posted:

Thanks for the explanation Stuart.  I don't think it applies to Virginian though.  Virginian didn't have the T-1s and was having to make do with some updated 2-8-2s.

Don't forget that the Virginian did have five class BA  "Van Sweringen" 2-8-4 Berkshires.

Stuart

@Stuart posted:

You have to wonder if the Allegheny wasn't a case of the AMC trying to out do the N&W.  N&W comes out with the Class A 2-6-6-4 to much acclaim, so AMC tries to "one-up" the N&W and produces the H-8 2-6-6-6, which on paper looks great, but in service doesn't amount to much.  Much like Airbus vs Boeing.  Boeing has the 747, so Airbus produces the A380, which flops.

Stuart

I would suggest the group procure "American Steam Locomotives: Design and Development, 1880-1960" by William L. Withuhn.
In it, he addresses the Big Boy/Alleghany debate. Particularly telling is the disconnect between the AMC, C&O Executives, C&O Marketing,  and Lima.
Reading this chapter in Withuhn's book, the reader will come away with the impression that the AMC Chairman Daniel S. Ellis was not much interested in creating an appropriate locomotive for the railroad. Rather, he was overjoyed to the point of tears when the tests revealed the  Allegheny's horsepower readings decidedly beat N&W's homemade Class A's 6,300 drawbar horsepower set in 1936.
Ellis was also involved in the Allegheny Lima weigh-in debacle. Only AMC's Ellis and Lima's Woodward's principal deputy, Bert Townsend, were allowed in the scale room (no other engineers!) and they alone emerged with the numbers, numbers that were ultimately proved false.

@Stuart posted:

Don't forget that the Virginian did have five class BA  "Van Sweringen" 2-8-4 Berkshires.

Stuart

I believe the BAs did not show up on the Virginian until a year after the AGs.  I also don't see the BAs being as good in coal drag service.

@ChooChooDennis posted:

I would suggest the group procure "American Steam Locomotives: Design and Development, 1880-1960" by William L. Withuhn.
In it, he addresses the Big Boy/Alleghany debate. Particularly telling is the disconnect between the AMC, C&O Executives, C&O Marketing,  and Lima.
Reading this chapter in Withuhn's book, the reader will come away with the impression that the AMC Chairman Daniel S. Ellis was not much interested in creating an appropriate locomotive for the railroad. Rather, he was overjoyed to the point of tears when the tests revealed the  Allegheny's horsepower readings decidedly beat N&W's homemade Class A's 6,300 drawbar horsepower set in 1936.
Ellis was also involved in the Allegheny Lima weigh-in debacle. Only AMC's Ellis and Lima's Woodward's principal deputy, Bert Townsend, were allowed in the scale room (no other engineers!) and they alone emerged with the numbers, numbers that were ultimately proved false.

Withuhn's book is excellent and the chapter on the Allegheny vs Big Boy comparison is well written.  In it, he talks about the design processes for both locomotives.  When discussing the UP 4000 class, he lays out very logically how the performance requirements and the axle loading limitations of the railroad drove selection of the wheel arrangement, driver size, cylinder dimensions, and boiler design.  His summary was that the 4-8-8-4 was a well-designed locomotive which fully met the railroad's requirements and physical plant limits.

In contrast, during the discussion of the C&O H8, he talks about how the design team seemed predisposed to the 2-6-6-6 wheel arrangement, even though it did not provide significant improvement in adhesive weight or starting tractive effort over the existing T1 2-10-4 or H7 2-8-8-2 classes.  Withuhn then described how the AMC people insisted on making unnecessary changes to the Lima design, in ways that added significantly to the locomotive weight, and with no real functional benefit.  The result was a locomotive which didn't really meet the operational needs of the railroad and was not a particularly balanced design from a standpoint of overall optimization.  Withuhn also dispels the claim made in the Huddleston book that, as designed, the H8 was capable of 300psi boiler pressure, pointing out that such an increase would require thicker boiler steel and would thus make the weight problem even worse.

@Bill N posted:

I believe the BAs did not show up on the Virginian until a year after the AGs.  I also don't see the BAs being as good in coal drag service.

The BAs were built to replace the rebuilt MCA 2-8-2's in fast freight service.

Stuart

So, that book by Withuhn book looks intetesting.

Was there anybody in the C&O organization that had the Hans Solo: I got a bad feeling about this?

Locomotives are not STAR WARS.  But a critical eye can be a good thing.