New River Train, Steam or Diesel?

So CSX will allow special excursions like New River, and the other trips Collis P. Huntington operates with Amtrak like to DC, NYC, etc. but no steam power even with a reliable locomotive like 765 or 261? What exactly turned them off on steam? 611 is running on NS with no problem. How can 611 still be running with Wick gone, anyway? Is Jim Squires simply being a nice guy and letting VMT run more excursions with 611? This will be the third season of 611 excursions since its overhaul, and the second without Wick Moorman at the helm of NS. If Hunter Harrison wants to be boss of CSX, let him. He doesn't care about steam anyway, like CSX. He killed CP's steam program when he took over in the summer of 2012, but 2816 was down for repairs anyway, so it simply remained parked. It is hard to run special excursions on railroads that have shareholders and trade on the stock market because they have an obligation to their shareholders to perform (move freight quickly and efficiently) and show a ROI for what they do. NS, UP, and BNSF, though currently allow steam but only on their terms, like NS is only allowing 611 for now and UP only allows their own steam like 844 and BNSF allows steam excursions on a case by case basis, like with 261 and SP 4449.

Robert K posted:

So CSX will allow special excursions like New River, and the other trips Collis P. Huntington operates with Amtrak like to DC, NYC, etc. but no steam power even with a reliable locomotive like 765 or 261? What exactly turned them off on steam? 611 is running on NS with no problem. How can 611 still be running with Wick gone, anyway? Is Jim Squires simply being a nice guy and letting VMT run more excursions with 611? This will be the third season of 611 excursions since its overhaul, and the second without Wick Moorman at the helm of NS. If Hunter Harrison wants to be boss of CSX, let him. He doesn't care about steam anyway, like CSX. He killed CP's steam program when he took over in the summer of 2012, but 2816 was down for repairs anyway, so it simply remained parked. It is hard to run special excursions on railroads that have shareholders and trade on the stock market because they have an obligation to their shareholders to perform (move freight quickly and efficiently) and show a ROI for what they do. NS, UP, and BNSF, though currently allow steam but only on their terms, like NS is only allowing 611 for now and UP only allows their own steam like 844 and BNSF allows steam excursions on a case by case basis, like with 261 and SP 4449.

To my belief, and I may be wrong, CSX stopped using steam because of rising insurance costs. If something like a derailment occurred and a passenger was injured, it would cost CSX big bucks because they would be liable because the injury happened on their property. That's what killed the first Norfolk Southern steam program in the 90's. Also, steam locomotives wear out the rails when the pistons push down.

Railfan Brody posted:

Also, steam locomotives wear out the rails when the pistons push down.

 The only steam locomotive that has pistons that push down are on a Shay...

I suspect a 100 car coal train causes much more rail wear that the occasional steam locomotive excursion does.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

Railfan Brody posted:

Also, steam locomotives wear out the rails when the pistons push down.

 The only steam locomotive that has pistons that push down are on a Shay...

I suspect a 100 car coal train causes much more rail wear that the occasional steam locomotive excursion does.

Rusty

I'm talking about the hammer blows as the piston moves down.

Railfan Brody posted:

Rusty Traque posted:

Railfan Brody posted:

Also, steam locomotives wear out the rails when the pistons push down.

 The only steam locomotive that has pistons that push down are on a Shay...

I suspect a 100 car coal train causes much more rail wear that the occasional steam locomotive excursion does.

Rusty

I'm talking about the hammer blows as the piston moves down.

Unless you've got a Shay, or a major problem, pistons on steam engines don't move "down".

⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SJqQt__uW8 

Following your logic, ALL railroads should immediately ban any steam locomotive movement on their rails due to excessive wear. 

As I said earlier: "I suspect a 100 car coal train causes much more rail wear that the occasional steam locomotive excursion does."

Rusty

Railfan Brody posted:

⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓

                

That has to be one of the worst illustrations of steam locomotive motion I've ever seen. The piston rod and crosshead are in a straight line with the driving axle centers on a real locomotive, and as such the main rod is never at as acute a downward angle as in that illustration. Yes, there is hammer blow with a reciprocating steam locomotive, but is mitigated to a great extent by proper counterbalancing of the reciprocating weight. The larger the driving wheels, the easier it becomes to counter hammer blow.

Most of today's main lines are laid with rail that is much heavier than that which existed in the days of steam. PRR used 152 lbs/yard rail, but that was at the high extreme. New York Central standard main line rail was 127 lbs. Other roads were laid with 110 lb or 115 lb rail.

Most mainlines today are laid with 131lb rail.

Rusty is correct when he says that the daily passage of hundreds of 263000 lb hopper cars creates more aggregate damage to the track structure than a modern steam locomotive running a few times a year.

RickO posted:

Its was discussed on this past thread. https://ogrforum.com/t...locos-and-track-wear

In short, "later" steam locomotives do not "pound" the rails.

Locomotive manufacturers figured out how to properly balance the drivers.

If the rail pounding was true, I would imagine that also would result in a rough ride for the engineer and fireman as well.

In addition to the FWRHS being billed for the replacement hundreds of miles of rail near Chicago last year. Rich may have needed to see a proctologist after this run:

Now for Rich and/or Hotwater to clarify....

 

Zach Hall was running the engine on that excursion.

Nick Chillianis posted:

Railfan Brody posted:

⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓

                

That has to be one of the worst illustrations of steam locomotive motion I've ever seen. The piston rod and crosshead are in a straight line with the driving axle centers on a real locomotive, and as such the main rod is never at as acute a downward angle as in that illustration.

I'm just glad I didn't make it. 

The insurance/liability is the killer.  It killed SLSTA and the 1522, especially when the Been Nuthin' Since Frisco withdrew even lukewarm support.

Yes, poorly balanced steam engines do pound the rails.  They can even kick the rails our from under the locomotive.  But NONE of the currently running engines (or the ones which have run in modern times) fall into that category.

Nick Chillianis posted:         

That has to be one of the worst illustrations of steam locomotive motion I've ever seen. The piston rod and crosshead are in a straight line with the driving axle centers on a real locomotive, and as such the main rod is never at as acute a downward angle as in that illustration.

 

Further, the main rod will be connected to the 2nd or even 3rd drivers, reducing the angle even more.

Railfan Brody posted:

Also, steam locomotives wear out the rails when the pistons push down.

Brody, this is simply not correct. It may have been true for a handful of poorly balanced steam locomotives back in the early 20th century, but it is not true for any modern locomotive built since the 1930s.

Modern steam locomotives like 765, 611, 261, 4449, etc. do not harm the track in any way. They are well balanced, so impact loads to the track structure are almost non-existent. They ride about the same as a diesel and do not involve any significant impact loads to the rails.

OGR Webmaster posted:

Railfan Brody posted:

Also, steam locomotives wear out the rails when the pistons push down.

Brody, this is simply not correct. It may have been true for a handful of poorly balanced steam locomotives back in the early 20th century, but it is not true for any modern locomotive built since the 1930s.

Modern steam locomotives like 765, 611, 261, 4449, etc. do not harm the track in any way. They are well balanced, so impact loads to the track structure are almost non-existent. They ride about the same as a diesel and do not involve any significant impact loads to the rails.

So a locomotive like 765 is fine, but a locomotive like the Reading T1's before they were converted to 4-8-4's would have a bad effect on the rails because they had enormous boilers but small drivers?

Railfan Brody posted:

So a locomotive like 765 is fine, but a locomotive like the Reading T1's before they were converted to 4-8-4's would have a bad effect on the rails because they had enormous boilers but small drivers?

 

No.  The T1s are just fine, which is why several of them have operated in excursion service.  Same with the N&W 611.  Counterbalancing took care of the problem.  They aren't rough on the track by any means.

One thing to keep in mind is that the railroads of the 1930s, 40s, 50s were just as concerned with track condition as they are now.  Railroads are a business, and are interested in the bottom line cost.  Any poorly designed steam locomotive that caused excessive wear on the rail had severe speed restrictions placed on the class very quickly, and generally speaking, they were not kept on the roster any longer than was absolutely necessary to get a replacement.

Therefore, pretty much anything that caused problems, or excessive wear, or whatever was scrapped long before the preservation movement got into full swing.  That means, generally speaking, there are very few of those "problem childs" in existence today.

Railfan Brody posted:

⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓

                

Item #4 is the piston. As you can see, it does not move down. As others have said, a balanced engine shouldn't be much of a problem.

kgdjpubs posted:

Railfan Brody posted:

So a locomotive like 765 is fine, but a locomotive like the Reading T1's before they were converted to 4-8-4's would have a bad effect on the rails because they had enormous boilers but small drivers?

 

No.  The T1s are just fine, which is why several of them have operated in excursion service.  Same with the N&W 611.  Counterbalancing took care of the problem.  They aren't rough on the track by any means.

One thing to keep in mind is that the railroads of the 1930s, 40s, 50s were just as concerned with track condition as they are now.  Railroads are a business, and are interested in the bottom line cost.  Any poorly designed steam locomotive that caused excessive wear on the rail had severe speed restrictions placed on the class very quickly, and generally speaking, they were not kept on the roster any longer than was absolutely necessary to get a replacement.

Therefore, pretty much anything that caused problems, or excessive wear, or whatever was scrapped long before the preservation movement got into full swing.  That means, generally speaking, there are very few of those "problem childs" in existence today.

They weren't always 4-8-4's. They were originally built by Baldwin, and had an 8-foot boiler, and a 2-8-0 wheel arrangement. Though they had enormous amounts of tractive effort, they were slow movers. So in the mid 40's, Reading converted the 2-8-0's to 4-8-4's in their Reading, PA shops. Thus the T1 was born. That's what the picture in my previous post is.

OGR Webmaster posted:

Railfan Brody posted:

Also, steam locomotives wear out the rails when the pistons push down.

Brody, this is simply not correct. It may have been true for a handful of poorly balanced steam locomotives back in the early 20th century, but it is not true for any modern locomotive built since the 1930s.

Modern steam locomotives like 765, 611, 261, 4449, etc. do not harm the track in any way. They are well balanced, so impact loads to the track structure are almost non-existent. They ride about the same as a diesel and do not involve any significant impact loads to the rails.

Rich, there were a few modern locomotives with balancing issues and excessive hammer blow problems. But they are more the exceptions that prove your statement to be true.

Two well known examples were the New Haven's I-5 4-6-4s and RF&P's 4-8-4s (both Baldwin products, BTW).

If I recall correctly, the problem was with some new theory in vogue at Baldwin at the time with regard to "overbalance" that was incorporated into these two designs (and perhaps others of their contemporaries).

The New Haven was apparently able to work out the problem and the rebalanced "Shoreliners" gave no further trouble whereas I have read that the RF&P "Generals" "Governors" and "Statesman" were never made 100% satisfactory in that regard.

Pity, because they were real "lookers".

Railfan Brody posted:

kgdjpubs posted:

Railfan Brody posted:

So a locomotive like 765 is fine, but a locomotive like the Reading T1's before they were converted to 4-8-4's would have a bad effect on the rails because they had enormous boilers but small drivers?

 

No.  The T1s are just fine, which is why several of them have operated in excursion service.  Same with the N&W 611.  Counterbalancing took care of the problem.  They aren't rough on the track by any means.

One thing to keep in mind is that the railroads of the 1930s, 40s, 50s were just as concerned with track condition as they are now.  Railroads are a business, and are interested in the bottom line cost.  Any poorly designed steam locomotive that caused excessive wear on the rail had severe speed restrictions placed on the class very quickly, and generally speaking, they were not kept on the roster any longer than was absolutely necessary to get a replacement.

Therefore, pretty much anything that caused problems, or excessive wear, or whatever was scrapped long before the preservation movement got into full swing.  That means, generally speaking, there are very few of those "problem childs" in existence today.

They weren't always 4-8-4's. They were originally built by Baldwin, and had an 8-foot boiler, and a 2-8-0 wheel arrangement. Though they had enormous amounts of tractive effort, they were slow movers. So in the mid 40's, Reading converted the 2-8-0's to 4-8-4's in their Reading, PA shops. Thus the T1 was born. That's what the picture in my previous post is.

Not necessarily.  It all depends on what the class was designed for.  A big boiler and small drivers indicates that the engine was designed for hauling heavy trains at generally lower speeds (meaning, not on mainline 60mph operation).  That was what the Reading needed to move coal out of the mountains of Pennsylvania.  Now, as far as the actual operating characteristics of that particular class, you've above my pay grade.

Maybe there were problems, maybe not, but the success rate of a particular locomotive class goes well beyond what size boiler you put on what size driving wheels.

You're confusing steam engine design and poor steam engine design.  It's how the parts fit and interact with each other, not just the parts used.  Same with automobiles.  Some are good, some are bad.  The bad ones go away quickly.

In addition to poor design, there is simply specific design philosophy.  Much of the trouble with balancing was a product of the Drag Freight era when *nobody* was trying to move freight quickly.  Their ideal was to move every car in the yard with one engine.  It moved slowly, but it got there.  Exceeding 30 mph on these trains was a rarity. 

One example:  the Frisco spot-series 2-10-2s.   They were ponderous and massive, and the yardmasters emptied the yards on their drawbars.  They weren't great steamers, but they did the plodding drag jobs just fine.  BUT:  every time they exceeded 35 mph, they twisted or broke rails.  The Operating Department loved 'em; the Track Department loathed 'em.

By the '40s, all but two had been rebuilt into modern, high-speed Mountains.  Those two, #19 & #40 lingered on as the primary power on the Ft. Leonard Wood branch in Missouri, and they saw heavy use because of high wartime traffic in and out of the base.  Unfortunately, the demands of the traffic caused the engineers to push the speed limits.  One of them--#40, IIRC--kicked the rails out from under herself on a curve atop a tall, timber trestle over the Little Piney River.  The track gang had to go out on that trestle and jack up the engine and relay the track under her while suspended in mid-air.  Not long after, the two drag-era orphans ended up the nearest deadline, probably because the Army failed to see the humor in the situation.

The problem here was not really one of bad design but of using the wrong tool for the job.  An engine designed for one job fared poorly trying to do another.

Edited to add:  Source    Collias, Joe.  Frisco Power.

I doubt if Rich Melvin or Zach Hall would have to see a protologist after the runs in Chicago. The 765 had been extensively rebuilt and is in good shape.
Besides, the NKP Berkshires did that kind of running everyday when they were in regular service. The NKP enginemen who I talked to back in the old days said that they ran the 700's all the time at 70.
I used to park my bicycle under the Powell Ave. overpass on Erie's west side right by Erie airport and very often eastbounds would come roaring by at what looked like to be 70 to me, and later verified by the NKP enginemen. The NKP was out in the country at that point so an eastbound could sneak up on you as they were not using the whistle very much at that location. They were still a good two miles from taking their first bite of air when crossing Pittsburgh Ave. to slow down for the street running in Erie.

Jim Kreider

palallin posted:

An engine designed for one job fared poorly trying to do another.

I could not have said it better myself! 

Back in 1994 Fort Wayne leased Milwaukee Road 4-8-4 #261 to pull the New River trains. The 261 has 74" drivers and is a high speed passenger locomotive. She was designed to handle a relatively light passenger train at very high speeds - 80+ mph.

When we put the 261 to work on the New River Train in 1994, we could not get her over 45 mph on the eastbound (uphill) run. Once east of Montgomery, engineer Tom Stephens and I ran with the throttle wide open for almost 2 hours. No matter what we did with cutoff settings, we could not get her over 45 mph. The 765 on the same train routinely ran at 55 mph.

Does that mean the 765 is "better" than the 261?   Nope.

At 45 mph, the 261 was way below her horsepower peak. She simply could not develop enough horsepower at that relatively low speed to get the train over 45 mph. The 765 has smaller 69" drivers. This means that her horsepower peaks at around 45-50 mph. In other words, at the track speeds required on the New River trains, the 765 was right in her "sweet spot" at the peak of her horsepower curve while the 261 with her taller drivers was really struggling to make horsepower.

You must have the right tool for the job. Handling a 34-car passenger train at 45 mph was the wrong job for the 261.

OGR Webmaster posted:

 

The 765 has smaller 69" drivers. This means that her horsepower peaks at around 45-50 mph. In other words, at the track speeds required on the New River trains, the 765 was right in her "sweet spot" at the peak of her horsepower curve while the 261 with her taller drivers was really struggling to make horsepower.

I could tell when I watched Runnin' That New River Train. But 765 did slip an awful lot. At least Rich was able to recover from the slip. On the deadhead move to Youngstown, Ohio in 2015, the engineer didn't cut the throttle, and 765 sounded like a Shay coming up the hill with a fast paced exhaust at 5 mph.

Slipping is caused by rail conditions, not the locomotive.

The weather on the day we shot those cab scenes for "Runnin' That New River Train"  is what caused all that slipping. A thunderstorm had moved through the New River Gorge about 5 am that morning.  We were the first train east over the railroad after the rain that morning. 

A thunderstorm on a railroad in the fall does two things...both of them bad.

• The wind gusts associated with the storm brings down leaves at that time of year. Wet leaves on the rail make the rail very slippery.
• The rain water puts a thin film of rust on the top of the rail. That rust is also slippery, making traction tough for the first train over the railroad after the rain.

Rail conditions change from day to day, depending on the temperature, humidity and weather. On a hot, dry summer day you could not make the locomotive slip if you tried. I have been in situations where at walking speed I opened the throttle all the way and the 765 just dig in and moved. 245 psi in the cylinders and no slipping. On other days, however, with wet rail, cool temps and high humidity, only 75 psi in the cylinders was enough to break the wheels lose.

The slipping in Ashtabula was caused by a well-meaning NS employee who greased the rails in the curve in the wye. He didn't realize that all he needed to do was grease the inside edge of the outside rail only. Instead he lathered grease all over the top of the rail on both sides! The 765 stalled there in the grease, unable to move ahead on the grade. We had to spread sand on the rail ahead of the locomotive by hand in order to get enough sand on the rail to counteract the grease.

OGR Webmaster posted:

Slipping is caused by rail conditions, not the locomotive.

The weather on the day we shot those cab scenes for "Runnin' That New River Train"  is what caused all that slipping. A thunderstorm had moved through the New River Gorge about 5 am that morning.  We were the first train east over the railroad after the rain that morning. 

A thunderstorm on a railroad in the fall does two things...both of them bad.

• The wind gusts associated with the storm brings down leaves at that time of year. Wet leaves on the rail make the rail very slippery.
• The rain water puts a thin film of rust on the top of the rail. That rust is also slippery, making traction tough for the first train over the railroad after the rain.

Rail conditions change from day to day, depending on the temperature, humidity and weather. On a hot, dry summer day you could not make the locomotive slip if you tried. I have been in situations where at walking speed I opened the throttle all the way and the 765 just dig in and moved. 245 psi in the cylinders and no slipping. On other days, however, with wet rail, cool temps and high humidity, only 75 psi in the cylinders was enough to break the wheels lose.

The slipping in Ashtabula was caused by a well-meaning NS employee who greased the rails in the curve in the wye. He didn't realize that all he needed to do was grease the inside edge of the outside rail only. Instead he lathered grease all over the top of the rail on both sides! The 765 stalled there in the grease, unable to move ahead on the grade. We had to spread sand on the rail ahead of the locomotive by hand in order to get enough sand on the rail to counteract the grease.

I thought one of the rail fans greased the rails for their own entertainment, which is a really stupid and selfish thing to do. Is railfan grease a common problem?