Please keep it up Stuart so we can keep a running tally. You are reading much faster than I am.
Thanks. I am way behind as well. 
So are the photos good? I rarely read the captions anyway, preferring to spend my reading time on other subjects. I just like steam photos of high quality.
Yes, the photos and drawings are of good quality.
I like that. I like that. A fact confirmed...big front pistons cause a LOT of oscillation.
Ed
Be nice if someone (Stuart) also accumulated this information and provided t to the publisher. Perhaps it could be corrected if future editions are published.
BYRDIE: An excellent and constructive suggestion!
sgriggs posted:
Ironically, Lima gets credit for developing the superpower concept, but Alco actually got the order to build the first NKP Berks...
Yes, it is true that Alco built the first group of NKP Berks, but they were simply the low bidder on the job.
They were built to the LIMA-developed Super Power design specs.
Were the drivers on the T&P 2-10-4's changed for better counterbalancing so they could run at higher speeds?
I did see AFT 610. A lot of machinery in motion. Too bad she was only on a small leg of the AFT in Texas.
The Southern Railway did employ the T&P 610 in excursion service for a period of time, and I rode behind her on a couple of trips.
So far no one has picked up on a well-known, unsubstantiated assertion that has been effectively (IMO at least) contested, trashed and debunked over at least the past 10 years. I'll wait a couple of days to see what happens. Yes, I cheated and scanned ahead. I'm actually at page 211. So far I think it's a landmark book, but as noted above, it really needed a lot of additional expert proofreading. It's too bad, really, but individually, none of us has all the answers. Together, however, we may be a might force. That's why these forums are so worthwhile.
The suspence is too much, since I do not even have this book yet! I spent my monthly train book allotment on a mint copy of D.C. Buell's Basic Steam Locomotive Maintenance instead! Having previously had two copies, I needed to fill a gaping hole in my library! I also have an original copy of Alfred Bruce's The Steam Locomotive in America (1952). Both are excellent reference works for steam locomotive mechanical development in the US.
Wonder if health problems at the end precluded the author from "proofreading" the final before press manuscript, or forced a rush to print, in order to achieve a life's work?
colorado hirailer posted:Wonder if health problems at the end precluded the author from "proofreading" the final before press manuscript, or forced a rush to print, in order to achieve a life's work?
That is a wise and thoughtful comment.
MELGAR
Really liking it. It's well constructed and written.
feltonhill posted:So far no one has picked up on a well-known, unsubstantiated assertion that has been effectively (IMO at least) contested, trashed and debunked over at least the past 10 years. I'll wait a couple of days to see what happens. Yes, I cheated and scanned ahead. I'm actually at page 211. So far I think it's a landmark book, but as noted above, it really needed a lot of additional expert proofreading. It's too bad, really, but individually, none of us has all the answers. Together, however, we may be a might force. That's why these forums are so worthwhile.
FH,
What unsubstantiated assertion are you referring to?
Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY
To further augment the fine photography and information in the Withuhn book, I recommend two "oldies but goodies": Basic Steam Locomotive Maintenance by D.C. Buell, and The Steam Locomotive in America by Alfred Bruce. Both of these volumes cover the mechanical development of the steam locomotive in America in great detail. The Buell book was actually developed as a textbook on steam locomotives.
I have a copy of the Withuhn book, and so far I like it. Got mine from Amazon at a good price.
I also have a 1980 reprint of Basic Steam Locomotive Maintenance(Buell) . Good read. A companion to the Buell book is The 1925 Modern American Locomotive Construction and Operation by Frederick J. Pryor M.A.
The Pryor and Buell books were reprinted in the early 1980s by Rail Heritage Publications, Omaha, Nebraska. I found my copies in the gift shop of The National Museum of American History many years ago.
I have the Bruce original 1952 copy and the 1980 Buell reprint. Need to acquire the Pryor book.
If you're interested in the real thing, any book by Angus Sinclair or Charles McShane should be on your book shelves. Locomotive Engine Running and Management is pretty much a classic.
sgriggs posted:feltonhill posted:So far no one has picked up on a well-known, unsubstantiated assertion that has been effectively (IMO at least) contested, trashed and debunked over at least the past 10 years. I'll wait a couple of days to see what happens. Yes, I cheated and scanned ahead. I'm actually at page 211. So far I think it's a landmark book, but as noted above, it really needed a lot of additional expert proofreading. It's too bad, really, but individually, none of us has all the answers. Together, however, we may be a might force. That's why these forums are so worthwhile.
FH,
What unsubstantiated assertion are you referring to?
Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY
I went back and looked at my copy last night. I think you're referring to the story that the A and Y6 used in the 1952 Steam vs Diesel tests on the N&W had been 'hot rodded' with 315 psi boiler pressure, added weight, and other modifications. That can be found in the chapter in Withuhn's book on the N&W Big 3.
Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY
Bingo, see pgs 399 and 400. This group of arguments first appeared in Trains Magazine and included "modifications" made during the 1952 steam vs diesel tests. It has been disproved time and time again since 1991, but it still crops up. It isn't fact, it's invention. The three suspect sentences have no place in a book of this quality. I just finished reading it on Monday, and I still believe it's a landmark publication. But, caveat lector. There are errors. This argument has been rehashed so many times in the past 28 years I almost hate to bring it up, but if you want more info, I'll be glad to furnish it.
feltonhill posted:Bingo, see pgs 399 and 400. This group of arguments first appeared in Trains Magazine and included "modifications" made during the 1952 steam vs diesel tests. It has been disproved time and time again since 1991, but it still crops up. It isn't fact, it's invention. The three suspect sentences have no place in a book of this quality. I just finished reading it on Monday, and I still believe it's a landmark publication. But, caveat lector. There are errors. This argument has been rehashed so many times in the past 28 years I almost hate to bring it up, but if you want more info, I'll be glad to furnish it.
Thanks. I have found and read discussions on this subject on the internet. I don't know if I ever saw an explanation for how a story with such specificity came into being. For example, where did the notion of 315psi boiler pressure even come from? Or the half inch increase in piston diameter on the A? It does seem a little improbable to me that so many changes would have been made with nary an engineering drawing created to provide direction to the shop forces.
Another aspect of this story is the alleged modifications the EMD engineers made to their locomotives for increased performance. Has that part of the story also been investigated and debunked?
Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY
Thanks everyone, now I got to buy the book.........😛
sgriggs posted:Thanks. I have found and read discussions on this subject on the internet. I don't know if I ever saw an explanation for how a story with such specificity came into being.
It came from Robert LeMassena.
I haven't read that far into the book, so, I'll wait to read how this was presented before saying anything further. However, I am not liking what I may be seeing play out here.
Rumors abound on the internet. A little caveat is in order here. It is very unfortunate that Mr. Withuhn is not here to defend these challenges to his scholarship!
Dominic Mazoch posted:Were the drivers on the T&P 2-10-4's changed for better counterbalancing so they could run at higher speeds?
I did see AFT 610. A lot of machinery in motion. Too bad she was only on a small leg of the AFT in Texas.
Yes, starting in December 1937. Apparently very poorly counterbalanced prior to this point, and the railroad wanted to be able to run them at 70mph. Valve pilots, lightweight nickel steel main and side rods and Baldwin disc main drivers, and steam and signal lines. Done in house at the T&P shops in Marshall, TX. Last engine completed in 1941 just prior to the US entering WWII. Dig up a copy of the February 1978 Trains for more info on the T&P 2-10-4s than you ever wanted to know, written by someone who was there.
With a good running gear, they were good for 70. 610, by the time Southern got it....wasn't. Problems ensued, and Southern wasn't going to invest that much for a complete running gear rebuild.
sgriggs posted:feltonhill posted:Bingo, see pgs 399 and 400. This group of arguments first appeared in Trains Magazine and included "modifications" made during the 1952 steam vs diesel tests. It has been disproved time and time again since 1991, but it still crops up. It isn't fact, it's invention. The three suspect sentences have no place in a book of this quality. I just finished reading it on Monday, and I still believe it's a landmark publication. But, caveat lector. There are errors. This argument has been rehashed so many times in the past 28 years I almost hate to bring it up, but if you want more info, I'll be glad to furnish it.
Thanks. I have found and read discussions on this subject on the internet. I don't know if I ever saw an explanation for how a story with such specificity came into being. For example, where did the notion of 315psi boiler pressure even come from? Or the half inch increase in piston diameter on the A? It does seem a little improbable to me that so many changes would have been made with nary an engineering drawing created to provide direction to the shop forces.
Another aspect of this story is the alleged modifications the EMD engineers made to their locomotives for increased performance. Has that part of the story also been investigated and debunked?
Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY
I've always heard that the enhanced diesel part was correct.
per the N&W Giant of Steam book...pg. 79
The new four-unit diesel, EMD F7 459, was compared to the N&W's own Class A 1239 and Class Y6b 2197 in 1952 on the Scioto and Pocohontas divisions. 459 was rated at 6000HP, but actually each unit was modified to boost its ratings to 6800HP for this test. EMD confessed when questioned by N&W test officials since the dynamometer results exceeded published ratings in service. Subsequently the 459 was changed back to "standard" and delivered to the Union Pacific.
Tinplate Art posted:Rumors abound on the internet. A little caveat is in order here. It is very unfortunate that Mr. Withuhn is not here to defend these challenges to his scholarship!
Amen!!!
I have bought the book - reading material for the next few months when I’m recuperating from a knee replacement. I am not a rivet counter, so many of the fine points that folks are disputing will, I’m sure, go right over my head. Maybe the critics will write a book of their own...
HONEST mistakes in any endeavor can occur, but it appears that many less qualified critics are jumping on the "discredit the author" express, while I for one say we should instead enjoy the multitudes of insight, as well as the fine photography in this tome. Valid, authenticated corrections can be made for a future ammended edition.
The fuel block modifications to the F7's are correct. Bud Jeffries' N&W Giant of Steam Revised Edition and Ed King's The A, Revised Edition both confirm that EMD raised the fuel consumption to increase horsepower, and that N&W knew about it. I believe that the tests were run that way, but I'm trying to confirm that detail now. It may not have made any difference.
Edit 4/17 - According to both Jeffries and King (via e-mails yesterday), N&W discovered the difference in the F7's HP but ran the tests as is. The results are usually called a draw. It shows what top end modern steam could do when compared to an equally new diesel of the era. It's kind of interesting that the F7's were putting out about the same HP as the GP9's that N&W started purchasing later in the 1950's.
Despite what has been written about "EMD resetting the fuel racks", the explanation may be much simpler. My experience has been that when a Speed-Tractive Effort curve is provided to a railroad, the curve is usually corrected to "Standard Conditions", which is (or was?) a 60 degree F ambient temperature and a standard barometric pressure, which I believe is the baro at 1000 ft altitude. If it was colder, and I think it was, the EMD's may well have been putting out higher HP due to more dense inlet charge air. Remember that these were not turbocharged engines, and "used whatever air (and air temp.) was available".
An old N&W railroader by the name of Bob Hord told me though that "EMD played some tricks", so the home team played some tricks on their own, by "hot oiling" all of the journals in the steam train, so it looks like we will never know for certain.
I thought that this was worth identifying, as it has been my experience that both railroad and builder test crews are career engineers obsessed with test accuracy, and have no axe to grind when testing of this type is performed.
Hudson5432, thanks for writing that last sentence. I think we need to realize that test crews were primarily interested in accurate results. They weren't shills for their company. IIRC, Hudson5432 knows this first-hand!!
Hudson5432 posted:An old N&W railroader by the name of Bob Hord told me though that "EMD played some tricks", so the home team played some tricks on their own, by "hot oiling" all of the journals in the steam train, so it looks like we will never know for certain.
Is “hot oiling” a way of warming the journal bearings to reduce friction?
Yes
