Is this engine generally accepted to be one of the better steamers ever made. I ask this question as many places I read, this engine is refered to as one of or the finest steamers made.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
If you can define "finest", this thread may go somewhere. Otherwise, it'll be the same old arguments and misplaced comparisons. FWIW, the Niagara, N&W J's, some of the ATSF 2900 Class and C&O's J3a's were technologically similar (roller bearings everywhere including rods, pressure lubrication, well proportioned boilers, cast frames, etc.....). They're the only 4-8-4's that I know of that have all the features.
However, if you want to open it up, some 4-6-4's were also similarly equipped, e.g., the final NYC J3a's, not to mention the final N&W Class A 2-6-6-4's.
Like I said, define "finest"
However, if you want to open it up, some 4-6-4's were also similarly equipped, e.g., the final NYC J3a's, not to mention the final N&W Class A 2-6-6-4's.
Like I said, define "finest"
I can;t define the finest as I am repeating what I have read about this engine and the word finest usually comes up. Notice I changed my post to better engines.
Oh boy...here we go again. 
My steam engine is better than your steam engine.
This will go nowhere.
My steam engine is better than your steam engine.
This will go nowhere.
Maybe "finest" on the New York Central. Just like the 800 class FEF-3 locomotives where the "finest" on the Union Pacific, while the O5a and O5b class where the "finest" on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. The list is endless, since one railroad's "finest" may NOT perform all that well on a different railroad due to fuel, water, heavy grades, weather conditions, clearances, etc., etc., etc..
The popcorn is almost done, drink is in hand, and I'm gonna settle back into
the easy chair. Now let the games begin! OBTW, your steamer may be better,
but mine is faster....Neener, neener, neeeeener!
the easy chair. Now let the games begin! OBTW, your steamer may be better,
but mine is faster....Neener, neener, neeeeener!
I think this is one of those questions which just ends up as Hotwater said "finest for that road". Now back to the trains.... 
Too bad we can't have a TOP SHOT type of game with these engines!
Just call me a silly ol' hairsplitter, but the "Niagras" were the National of Mexico 4-8-4s, which were about equivalent to those of the NC&StL.
Now, the "Niagaras" were something else. I believe they belonged to the New York Central, or some such other eastern pike of otherwise modest accomplishments . . .
EdKing
Now, the "Niagaras" were something else. I believe they belonged to the New York Central, or some such other eastern pike of otherwise modest accomplishments . . .
EdKing
Ironlake;
Please don't take our comments personally. It's just that the breadth of your question gets into an endless loop of comparing apples, oranges, grapes, and virtually every other fruit you can think of.
Now if you were to narrow the focus a little, such as the most operationally effective NYC freight steamer for crossing the Berkshires, or running the Water Level Route across Upstate NY, you might get some useful opinions. In the final analysis, operational effectiveness of a particular locomotive on a particular route of a particular railroad is what really matters.
Poppyl
Please don't take our comments personally. It's just that the breadth of your question gets into an endless loop of comparing apples, oranges, grapes, and virtually every other fruit you can think of.
Now if you were to narrow the focus a little, such as the most operationally effective NYC freight steamer for crossing the Berkshires, or running the Water Level Route across Upstate NY, you might get some useful opinions. In the final analysis, operational effectiveness of a particular locomotive on a particular route of a particular railroad is what really matters.
Poppyl
Gosh, I didn;t think you guys would take it so personnaly. It should be a simple question. Why does it always have to be a bashing of each other or each others favorite on this fourm.
I personally think the engine is ugly and certainly not my favorite steamer. The question is directed at variousl writers who tend to dive in on this engine as the best of steam, just as I have heard that the c&o northen was the most advanced steamer on this website.
Lets change it to compare the c&0 vs the nyc only and which one would come out on top.
Both must be close to the top of the list and both are northerns so the comparison should be a good one.
I personally think the engine is ugly and certainly not my favorite steamer. The question is directed at variousl writers who tend to dive in on this engine as the best of steam, just as I have heard that the c&o northen was the most advanced steamer on this website.
Lets change it to compare the c&0 vs the nyc only and which one would come out on top.
Both must be close to the top of the list and both are northerns so the comparison should be a good one.
C&O J3a vs. NYCS S1a....I'll grab the big Lima and never look back!
Better yet...N&W Class J after 1950. I'm really into working off the
backside of the horsepower curve!
Better yet...N&W Class J after 1950. I'm really into working off the
backside of the horsepower curve!
quote:Originally posted by OGR Webmaster:
Oh boy...here we go again.
My steam engine is better than your steam engine.
This will go nowhere.
My dog's smarter that your dog,
My dog's smarter than yours,
My dog's smarter cause he eats Kennel Ration.
My dog's smarted that yours!
Rich,
The avalanche has begun. The pebbles have no say!
Larry
quote:Originally posted by OGR Webmaster:
Oh boy...here we go again.
My steam engine is better than your steam engine.
This will go nowhere.
Duck and cover!
Rusty
Other than the USRA engines built to that spec, most roads had power tailored to their particular needs. Even roads that ran parallel to each other ended up with vastly different power. It's been said before, what one engine performed on one railroad, might not work for another. Thats why there's 10 different spec'd Berkshires, 30 different spec'd Northerns, and who knows how many different types of Articulated power.
To each their own. And most will agree, with a few exceptions, most railroads got the most out of the power they had.
To each their own.
And most will agree, with a few exceptions, most railroads got the most out of the power they had.
quote:Originally posted by ironlake2:
Is this engine generally accepted to be one of the better steamers ever made. I ask this question as many places I read, this engine is refered to as one of or the finest steamers made.
Comparing engines of different roads is like comparing apples and yes oranges.
The NYC Niagara were the best, most advanced steam motive power on the NYC. They out performed all other NYC steam engines and most of the first generation NYC diesels. Easily could go 27,000 miles a month without the need of major repairs. But in the end the infrastructure/man power to keep these beast going was to expensive and diesels won out.
front rnd, the "Selkirk". Makes the think look as if it has a headache or constipation.
Better than the first generation Diesels?...well mebby the Gerties and
Space Ships! That 27 K could never be maintained over a any serious
length of time. Remember that NYCS had in place a totally matured and
developed infrastructure to support steam in place during '47-'48,
while the Diesel infrastructure was still in the early phases of
development. Had Kiefer run the tests in 1950, the E7s would have blown
the S1b contingent off the track! Then too, by 1950 the E7s would have
been E8s.....Hasta la vista, baby! You may want to consider how many
of the S1b had their boilers replaced, some more than once!
Space Ships! That 27 K could never be maintained over a any serious
length of time. Remember that NYCS had in place a totally matured and
developed infrastructure to support steam in place during '47-'48,
while the Diesel infrastructure was still in the early phases of
development. Had Kiefer run the tests in 1950, the E7s would have blown
the S1b contingent off the track! Then too, by 1950 the E7s would have
been E8s.....Hasta la vista, baby! You may want to consider how many
of the S1b had their boilers replaced, some more than once!
quote:Originally posted by jaygee:
Better than the first generation Diesels?...well mebby the Gerties and
Space Ships! That 27 K could never be maintained over a any serious
length of time. Remember that NYCS had in place a totally matured and
developed infrastructure to support steam in place during '47-'48,
while the Diesel infrastructure was still in the early phases of
development. Had Kiefer run the tests in 1950, the E7s would have blown
the S1b contingent off the track! Then too, by 1950 the E7s would have
been E8s.....Hasta la vista, baby! You may want to consider how many
of the S1b had their boilers replaced, some more than once!
Well, it's not what I have read. 1950 really? the S1 came in 1946 when all the tests were done and the 27,000 miles a month came for the book NYC Later power by Staufer. Boiler replaced can be expected with all the miles they racked up. In the end they were still more expensive to run than diesels, hence they only lasted 10 years.
That 27K was only possible in a highly regulated test cycle. Yes, they did
it, and no certainly NOT all the time. NYCS S1b was limited by weight
restrictions, overall height requirements, and choice of construction
materials...related to the weight restrictions. In the end it didn't really
matter, as they finished up on the Big Four. I'll bet you that in cost
per mile of operation, the J3a 4-6-4 was a more effective use of the
motive power dollar, especially towards the end of Central steam. The
Hudsons lasted longer too, and for a reason. Even the ancient J1s.
it, and no certainly NOT all the time. NYCS S1b was limited by weight
restrictions, overall height requirements, and choice of construction
materials...related to the weight restrictions. In the end it didn't really
matter, as they finished up on the Big Four. I'll bet you that in cost
per mile of operation, the J3a 4-6-4 was a more effective use of the
motive power dollar, especially towards the end of Central steam. The
Hudsons lasted longer too, and for a reason. Even the ancient J1s.
Well you are entitled to your opinion and we'll leave it at that. 
And we'll have to agree to disagree.
And we'll have to agree to disagree.
Waiting to see if this thread had cooled off....
The book you need to read is
A Practical Evaluation of railroad Motive Power, by Paul W. Kiefer.
He was Chief Engineer Motive Power and Rolling Stock of the NYC. The book was published June 1947 and contains among many other things, the comparison between the Niagara's and E7's that were available at the time. The book is small, only 65 pages, but there's a lot of info there. It's not particularly rare and if you want the print version, it still appears on the various used books sites. However, Google books (IIRC) has made this available free. I downloaded it in 2010 to supplement my well worn original. Give it a look.
FWIW, there were six Niagaras involved in the mileage tests, including 5500 (pgs 38-40 in the book)
The book you need to read is
A Practical Evaluation of railroad Motive Power, by Paul W. Kiefer.
He was Chief Engineer Motive Power and Rolling Stock of the NYC. The book was published June 1947 and contains among many other things, the comparison between the Niagara's and E7's that were available at the time. The book is small, only 65 pages, but there's a lot of info there. It's not particularly rare and if you want the print version, it still appears on the various used books sites. However, Google books (IIRC) has made this available free. I downloaded it in 2010 to supplement my well worn original. Give it a look.
FWIW, there were six Niagaras involved in the mileage tests, including 5500 (pgs 38-40 in the book)
You're all wrong!
Sandy River & Rangeley Lakes Railroad #24 was the finest locomotive
ever built in the world.
If you disagree, meet me last night with your choice of weapon at
the Area 51 firing range for a duel.
Lee
Sandy River & Rangeley Lakes Railroad #24 was the finest locomotive
ever built in the world.
If you disagree, meet me last night with your choice of weapon at
the Area 51 firing range for a duel.
Lee
#24 was great but #6 was cuter.
At least you spelled "duel" correctly.quote:Originally posted by Lee Carlson:
You're all wrong!
Sandy River & Rangeley Lakes Railroad #24 was the finest locomotive
ever built in the world.
If you disagree, meet me last night with your choice of weapon at
the Area 51 firing range for a duel.
Lee
quote:Originally posted by feltonhill:
Waiting to see if this thread had cooled off....
The book you need to read is
A Practical Evaluation of railroad Motive Power, by Paul W. Kiefer.
He was Chief Engineer Motive Power and Rolling Stock of the NYC. The book was published June 1947 and contains among many other things, the comparison between the Niagara's and E7's that were available at the time. The book is small, only 65 pages, but there's a lot of info there. It's not particularly rare and if you want the print version, it still appears on the various used books sites. However, Google books (IIRC) has made this available free. I downloaded it in 2010 to supplement my well worn original. Give it a look.
FWIW, there were six Niagaras involved in the mileage tests, including 5500 (pgs 38-40 in the book)
Cool off, can't people disagree without others thinking it's a war.
I will look up the book, anything I can get on NYC steam motive power is a most have. I might even learn something.
Searching for the book. How accurate is this info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_Niagara
My previous point about the Niagara tests is this...Whatever data Kiefer
was able to obtain in the mid '40s was obsolete by 1950. Everything was
changing so rapidly that no steamer was going to be competitive by 1950-
'52. N&W was able to pull it off as long as they did for reasons that
had little to do with the locomotives themselves...altho theirs were
among the best, if not THE best ever built in this country. Bill
Withun once stated "The situation for steam was extremely dangerous in
1945, and hopeless in 1950." Once the GEEP hit the market, and a few
roads tried 'em out, it was game over, as fast as the capital could be
raised.
was able to obtain in the mid '40s was obsolete by 1950. Everything was
changing so rapidly that no steamer was going to be competitive by 1950-
'52. N&W was able to pull it off as long as they did for reasons that
had little to do with the locomotives themselves...altho theirs were
among the best, if not THE best ever built in this country. Bill
Withun once stated "The situation for steam was extremely dangerous in
1945, and hopeless in 1950." Once the GEEP hit the market, and a few
roads tried 'em out, it was game over, as fast as the capital could be
raised.
The Wikipedia figures seem to be developed from Table 2 (pg 48) in Kiefer's book. The original figures are in cost per mile, and the Wikipedia table multiplies these unit figures by the total annual mileage. So, not checking each figure, it appears to represent the same information.
quote:Originally posted by superwarp1:quote:Originally posted by feltonhill:
Waiting to see if this thread had cooled off....
The book you need to read is
A Practical Evaluation of railroad Motive Power, by Paul W. Kiefer.
He was Chief Engineer Motive Power and Rolling Stock of the NYC. The book was published June 1947 and contains among many other things, the comparison between the Niagara's and E7's that were available at the time. The book is small, only 65 pages, but there's a lot of info there. It's not particularly rare and if you want the print version, it still appears on the various used books sites. However, Google books (IIRC) has made this available free. I downloaded it in 2010 to supplement my well worn original. Give it a look.
FWIW, there were six Niagaras involved in the mileage tests, including 5500 (pgs 38-40 in the book)
Cool off, can't people disagree without others thinking it's a war.
I will look up the book, anything I can get on NYC steam motive power is a most have. I might even learn something.
Searching for the book. How accurate is this info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_Niagara
Superwarp1 thank you for that link
clem
I believe the Niagaras and the N&W J's were the only 4-8-4's proven under actual road tests to develop 5,000 dbhp or better. ( Ed King commented on that some time back in a similar thread. ) I think the Niagaras' boiler replacements had something to do with the type of steel used, so really didn't reflect the quality of the design itself. I don't think the C&O J3, good as it was, measured up to the 2 above locos. The point someone made about the 6000's being more loco than the NYC really needed for most of its varnish runs is probably true, too.
I took a longer look at the Wikipedia table and found some things that were not part of the NYC data in Kiefer's book.
1. The Niagara did not develop 6,000 DBHP. The maximum based on the over-the- road tests was 4,650 DBHP (Test 107, 23 cars, 5-minute max reading). In the test report (separate document, not the book), a maximum of 5,050 was noted, but no supporting data was furnished. I'm referring to test conditions such as evaporation and firing rate, train weight, etc, which are available for all of the OTR tests. It was probably in the workpapers for the test report, but so far they haven't surfaced. Anyway, as a result of this, whoever reworked the data from the book added misinformation.
2. The book did not calculate a cost per drawbar hp. It stopped with the total annual cost per mile. This comparison is not part of NYC's analysis.
3. The book did not use annual cost figures except for total operating cost and total annual cost. All others were in unit cost per mile. Because the annual mileage varied from 288,000 (steam) to 324,000 (diesel), the components should be compared on a unit basis, not an annual basis, in order to get any meaning out of the details. NYC had good reason to develop the table as they did, and Wikipedia's contributor did us no favors by embellishing it.
Caveat lector (me included)!
1. The Niagara did not develop 6,000 DBHP. The maximum based on the over-the- road tests was 4,650 DBHP (Test 107, 23 cars, 5-minute max reading). In the test report (separate document, not the book), a maximum of 5,050 was noted, but no supporting data was furnished. I'm referring to test conditions such as evaporation and firing rate, train weight, etc, which are available for all of the OTR tests. It was probably in the workpapers for the test report, but so far they haven't surfaced. Anyway, as a result of this, whoever reworked the data from the book added misinformation.
2. The book did not calculate a cost per drawbar hp. It stopped with the total annual cost per mile. This comparison is not part of NYC's analysis.
3. The book did not use annual cost figures except for total operating cost and total annual cost. All others were in unit cost per mile. Because the annual mileage varied from 288,000 (steam) to 324,000 (diesel), the components should be compared on a unit basis, not an annual basis, in order to get any meaning out of the details. NYC had good reason to develop the table as they did, and Wikipedia's contributor did us no favors by embellishing it.
Caveat lector (me included)!
The choice of steel in the Niagara boilers is certainly a factor in the
initial reboilering, but some units had to be done a second time. The
actual cost per mile can only be compared on one given road, if you
really want to get down to the nuts, bolts, and washers.
initial reboilering, but some units had to be done a second time. The
actual cost per mile can only be compared on one given road, if you
really want to get down to the nuts, bolts, and washers.
quote:Originally posted by feltonhill:
I took a longer look at the Wikipedia table and found some things that were not part of the NYC data in Kiefer's book.
1. The Niagara did not develop 6,000 DBHP. The maximum based on the over-the- road tests was 4,650 DBHP (Test 107, 23 cars, 5-minute max reading). In the test report (separate document, not the book), a maximum of 5,050 was noted, but no supporting data was furnished. I'm referring to test conditions such as evaporation and firing rate, train weight, etc, which are available for all of the OTR tests. It was probably in the workpapers for the test report, but so far they haven't surfaced. Anyway, as a result of this, whoever reworked the data from the book added misinformation.
2. The book did not calculate a cost per drawbar hp. It stopped with the total annual cost per mile. This comparison is not part of NYC's analysis.
3. The book did not use annual cost figures except for total operating cost and total annual cost. All others were in unit cost per mile. Because the annual mileage varied from 288,000 (steam) to 324,000 (diesel), the components should be compared on a unit basis, not an annual basis, in order to get any meaning out of the details. NYC had good reason to develop the table as they did, and Wikipedia's contributor did us no favors by embellishing it.
Caveat lector (me included)!
Did you rate the information or send them a email that they may not be totally have it correct?
Unfortunately, the book is copyright. Therefore, it is lost.
A23086 KIEFER PAUL WALTER A practical evaluation of railroad motive power New York Steam Locomotive Research Institute I9I4 7 65 p illus Paul W Kiefer 13Feb48 A21221
A23086 KIEFER PAUL WALTER A practical evaluation of railroad motive power New York Steam Locomotive Research Institute I9I4 7 65 p illus Paul W Kiefer 13Feb48 A21221
Concerning Wikipedia, one must be VERY carefull about "taking to the bank" highly technical information/facts about railroad motive power, steam or diesel. Just my opinion but, if Wikipedia says that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west,,,,,,I think I'll just double check THAT this evening!
Yeah, as anyone can post information and make things up. They rely on us to make corrections or point out errors.
Ed King had made a footnote in his book on the Class A engine, about some builders trying nickel steel in the boilers, but soon discontinued it when they started cracking. Seems there was something about the steel being easily corroded from the water treatment chemicals used as well...
Concerning the re-boilerings: How many engines had this done, and when? ALCO shut down steam production - and the foundry - sometime in '48. So, who made the new boilers? Also, I thought the Centipede tanks Lima made were for some of the Hudsons. Did Lima really build the Niagara tenders? Thank for any info.
