For the record, the Illinois Central was running steam into 1960. I think #2613 made its last run in May 1960. N&W steam held out a little longer. Grand Trunk Western was also running steam into early 1960. Roanoke Shops was likely the finest US steam shop but IC's Paducah Shops and PRR's Juniata Shops deserve honorable mentions.
To answer that question. If I was to make a railroad in the 1940's and I wanted to use a steam locomotive for it, I would go for some flavor of C&O Kanawha. It's probably the best rendition of the berkshire and would be ready able to do essentially any task fairly well.
@@H5691j It would be between the C&O K-4 and the L&N M-1. The K-4 has slight advantages in a few fields. Better tractive effort, better factor of adhesion,more heating and superheating area, cheaper. The K-4s had improved E and E-1 trailing truck boosters after the first order, can't tell if the M-1's got better boosters after their initial orders. Anyway, any advantages the K-4 has are very slim.
HEHE! When I posted this video I prepared myself for a great debate. Perhaps my view is more widely accepted than I first thought as the debate has not started yet. Thanks for commenting, much appreciated!
I'd definitely use Class A's, Y6b's and J-Class locos- they were efficient, powerful, and multi-functional. Smooth operation and ease of maintenance were added bonuses. So glad I was able to ride behind each, and shared my love of them with my daughter.
Agreed on the N&W take, they really knew how to build, maintain, and operate steam locomotives, and the "A"s and Y6s are easily top tier steamers. IMO, tho, the J is the pinnacle of steam technology. They were the absolute definition of modern steam. They even managed to cost less to maintain and operate than the diesels at the time. Not to mention the ride was smooth as butter, roller bearings pretty much on all reciprocating parts, very large steaming capacity, quick and easy to maintain, and even with just 70" drivers, they can exceed 100. I didn't even cover it all about the Js, but I didn't want my comment to be crazy long.
Agreed. Imho, the J class was also the most beautiful and elegant steam locomotive ever built. I'm a Brit, btw. I love our locos, but have to tip my hat to the J class. I hope one day to get over there and visit Roanoke and see 611 in operation.
@@laurieharper1526 Welcome! In the past I wish I were more of a study on the U.K.s steam locomotives. I've been diving into it a lot more the past few months. There will be a time in the near future where I feel confident enough to start posting feature video's. I understand the principles of the locomotives.. Just not the correct history.. The why's, you know? Afterall.. Most here in the States do not realize or know that's it's the U.K. where it all truly began. The J class will have it's own feature video in the near future. Standby :)
I mean.. the PRR tested the J once, got it up to over 110 mph but it still wanted to go faster and the crew got spooked over why a loco with just 70" drivers was doing that
@robertbalazslorincz8218 Yeah, it still amazes me how the N&W managed to make 70" drivers go so fast. Reminds me of the BR 9F doing 90 despite having only 60" drivers. Then again, I believe they were limited because of their plain bearings, the J is pretty much roller bearing the locomotive.
I heard a story once that someone asked the late Frank Collins (1218 excursion engineer and former regular service steam engineer) out of the N&W’s Big 3 (A, J & Y6) which was his favorite. Allegedly he replied “You tell me what kind of train that I’m going to pull and I’ll tell you which engine that I’ll pick.” It sounds like that he liked them all!
What locomotive would I choose ?? First you have to tell me where my railroad will run and what type of freight am I going to run... Then I could choose a steam Locomotive ...
Total agreement with you!! I read that the shareholders were getting 6% dividends as opposed to 1/2% from the surrounding companies. It was just the availability of special parts as everyone else wasn`t demanding them any more - that is what i read. Why couldn`t the N.& W buy the company and make their own? Then we would have the U.S.A. leading in modern steam traction (with, no doubt, future developments) and with world leading maintenance to boot!
I agree with the Norfolk & Western having some of the best steam locomotives ever to run on any US railroad. And it is great to have three of the best preserved, the A, Y6B and J classes. And all 3 had or have a time being operational as well. Where I had been thinking of a model railroad depicting the Rio Grande or SP in the diesel age, now I know that the N&W in the late forties / early fifties will be my subject. The Appalachians offer great scenery for a model layout as well.
Y6b #2174 languished in a scrapyard at South Roanoke, VA until the mid 1970’s. A group was raising money to buy it, but I think there was a death in the leadership of the group and the scrapyard changed ownership. The preservation effort fell apart and the last Y6b was lost. I think there there is a video about it on TH-cam.
@@machinist1879 Sad, but it has happened in many cases that an effort to save a loco failed, either the group wanting to preserve it not able to raise the money needed, in other cases because the locomotive already reserved for preservation being accidentally scrapped.
The valve to allow high pressure steam steam into the low pressure cylinders did not operate at "all" speeds as you stated. They only operated at low starting speeds to increase the starting pull. But as you stated, this could make the Y6 slippery. If left open, it would literally drain the boiler steam into the large low pressure cylinders. The operating procedure was to open the valve when starting to get some extra pull, then close the valve ASAP and operate in compound mode. The Y6 actually had a relatively small boiler for an articulated locomotive, basically the same size as a 4-8-4s boiler.
I often wondered why the Allegheny and Big Boy outclassed the Y6b, until now. It has to do with the adhesion factor. I always knew the Y6b was prone to slipping but just never connected the dots until now. I really appreciate your work in these presentations, thank you!!
If I'm doing a passenger service the GS-4 from the Southern Pacific and fraight service if I need it moved fast the S-3 from the Milwaukee Road, but there are so many great steam locos out there
Mind you, The N & W is my favorite railroad.. But their locomotives ARE NOT my favorites. My heart is always with Berkshire and Yellowstone. N & W was just that good!
If I were to start a Railroad during the ww2 era, to determine what sort of locomotive would Start, there's a lot of variables and conditions. During that time Railroads designed their locomotives to fit their specific needs. The NW is a fine example. They'd have to be familiar with their customer base, or industry. The terrian you are operating, the type of Railroad itself. Main line short line ect. The type of infrastructure and logistics is going to play a role. Cost and maintenance is another huge factor. This ties in with fuel source. If I'm operating in TX OH or KS and a couple other western states, I'm going to opt for oil. If Im operating in Appalachian region I'm running coal. Since we are a new Railroad, I'm going to opt for a simple S-2 2-8-4 Lima built Berkshire. The Berkshires are versatile. Until roles become more specific. For fast Freight I'm opting for a challenger. For fast passenger service I'm going with a Hudson design. The reason why I didn't include NW locomotives was because they were proprietary built for their Railroad. Otherwise NW did everything right.
If I where to start a railroad I would name it EASTERN PACIFIC and have a locomotive 4-8-8-4 wheel arrangement and designed like Union Pacific early challengers design with extended pilot deck.
There is no doubt the Y-6B was the pinnacle of compound design and efficiency, but the Challenger and Big Boy could run fast freights at 70 mph and passenger trains over 80
the Norfolk and Western to me epitomizes the operation of a steam railway worked out to every minute detail and achieving record after record. The company itself was so rich that they didn't have any hardships during the great depression due to their coal traffic and were so rich they could still get by using their own money, not taxpayer dollars, to keep everything maintained and up to top quality standards from the rails to the roadbed and so on. When I watched the Last of the Giants UP video I thought "ooh those look nice" but when I watched Operation Fast Freight I thought "dang those engines look sweet". Also cause I have the entire 9 N&W herron rail dvd set that has over 7 and a half hours of N&W footage with some additional N&W footage from Pennsy glory volume 4 articulateds americas biggest steam, trains at speed, glory machines volumes 1 and 2, and Cincinnati steam classics.
Thanks for doing a video on my favorite steam locomotive. These giants could pull loads that would have required three diesel engines. It's a shame that just when the design and evolution of steam locomotives were reaching the pinnacle of what could be done, the railroads abandoned any further improvements in favor of diesel engines.
If i had to choose one loco to start a railroad company with, itd be a tie between the class j from the n&w or the y6a from the same road. Outside the n&w, id say the fef-3 from the union pacific or the niagara from the nyc. Id say the n&w was the best steam outfit in the country. I might be a bit biased, because im from nc, and live around the southern and n&w's old stomping grounds.
In terms of height at the cab roof and length from coupler of pilot to coupler of tender, does anyone know these dimensions of each of these two locomotives.
The shame is the steam locomotive was being perfected. When Diesel Electric locomotives eventually replaced them. I truly believe that if the steam locomotives had another 10 years. Scrubbers would have been added to the smoke stack and very little water would have been wasted to the outside atmosphere. Through condensers most of the steam would have been cooled back to water. It would still require at least 1 man to stoke the coal or feed the fuel oil on each trailing steam locomotives. Using jumper cables the lead steam locomotive would have control of the traction effort of any trailing Steam Locomotives,creating a multiple unit, single steam locomotive. Just like diesel electric all electric locomotives and control Cab cars do today Diesel Electric locomotives would not have never become the locomotive of today. Except for switching locomotives. Of course the all electric locomotives would still have their place on electrified railroads. The Pennsylvania and New York Central along with some other railroads. Owned their own coal mines. Then again back then. The Pennsylvania Railroad and other railroads actually built their own steam and electric locomotives. Made the majority of the parts. My great grandfather worked at Altoona/Juniata shops and was directly involved in casting the GG-1s articulating trucks for the 12 traction motors. He told me that they were cast in the ground under the shop floors. The GG-1 was way ahead of its time. Then again the GG-1 was a pantograph,to tap switch transformer either a 21 or 22 position throttle, to the AC traction motors. If you ever look at the spoked driver wheels on thf GG-2. There are rubber faced starter motors to get the GG-1 up to speed so the AC traction motors could engage. In LETP we were taught they were tickler motors. Once the AC Traction Motors Engaged. You could easily draw 2,250 amps and have no wheel slip of wheel slip started to occur. You could either turn a valve that dropped sand on the leading drivers. Or push down the automatic brake valve handle that would engage a lever that would drop sand on all sanders. I believe the Automatic Brake valve was either a 24 or 26 RL. It’s been over 40 years since I operated a GG-1. I not once didn’t make it from point A to point B operating a GG-1. No one could just get on a GG-1 and operate it. I had to be taught how to operate the GG-1. It took a few months to know what I needed to know about the locomotive. Just operating the steam generator. You had to know what you were doing. There was 2 water tanks,one on each end of the locomotive if the number 1 water tank was starting to run low. You had to know how to siphon the water from the B water tank. Using steam. Nowadays no railroads that I can of. Don’t even cast their own brake shoes no less spare parts for locomotives.
You are overstating your case. First of all, that 6300 hp drawbar rating for the A is suspect. A lot of people, including the Norfork and Western historical society, consider that a fluke and think the HP is more like 5300. Second, saying that the alleghenys only advantage over the A is that is has greater steam capacity misses the fact that steam capacity is the main thing that a steam engine needs. The allegheny was, in the best case for the A, 20% more powerful. Could go as fast and had the same tractive effort, but with better adhesion. Its just a flat better locomotive because it was designed to be. As for the Y6b, at one point you say that it could pull 13500 tons at 25 mph, then later say it could do that at 50. Which would give it like 8000 HP when you say that 5500 indicated (not drawbar) is the best it can do. Another run of your script would probably have caught that oops. The N&W was good, but I think nowdays that allows people to overstate how good it was.
About anyone that is knowledgeable of the N&W Class A will tell you that 6300 hp was not the norm but neither was 7498 hp the norm for the Allegheny. Peak horsepower ratings are interesting topics of discussion for rail fans, but railroads were more interested in their locomotive’s ability to perform its designed task effectively and efficiently. This is where the “rub” comes in on the Allegheny. While it was designed using the “A” as a design benchmark, it was not deployed the same way. For a significant amount of time Alleghenies were used more like N&W’s Y6 rather than the class A. As a result the Allegheny’s operational efficiency suffered significantly.
Yeah, that strikes me as vey odd from the C & O. Why would you design a loco much more capable than what you're using it for? It's like buying a semi rig to do the same job as your 15 foot box truck. Makes no sense.
@@machinist1879 Sure, 7500 Hp is not the norm for the Allegheny, (its more like 6800) but the point that I was making wasn't that the A didn't normally make 6300 HP, it is that there are doubts that it ever made 6300 HP. I'm getting the book on the A (think it is called 'Norfolk and Westerns Mercedes of Steam' by Ed King) to get to the bottom of this. And a further point on the Allegheny, when you look at the test results that engine had on the Alleghany Subdivision, a N&W Y6 would not have been able to pull the amount of coal at the speed that the Allegheny did, period. Neither would a Y6a. It's only when the Y6b comes out with a combustion chamber twice as large as its predecessors that it can do what the Allegheny did in coal drag service, and that is 7 years after the Allegheny entered service.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower to use that locomotive for multiple tasks. Ask a Y6b to do what a A does and it wont be able to. Ask a A to do what a Y6b does and it won't be able to. Ask a Allegheny or Blue Ridge to do what a A does and it will blow it out of the water, and ask it to do what a Y6b does and it will do darn close to as well. Norfolk and Western built specific locomitives, and Chesapeake and Ohio built a multipurpose engine. Just a difference in management priorities.
@@commissarcarl1700 We all have our favorites, but I think what we're talking about here is efficiency. That was really the crux of TRX's video. The Allegheny/Blue Ridge is a cool machine, but performance records do not support the assertion that it was a superior design to the Class A. The evaporative surfaces of the Allegheny are about 10% larger than the A, but the Allegheny is almost 100 tons heavier. So, if the Allegheny peaked at 7500 hp then 6300 hp for the A should not be far out of line. The horsepower figures for the A did not come from a static boiler test but from road tests with dynamometer car #514780. The N&W kept Class A's in service that maximized their efficiency. They pulled 190 coal loads from Williamson, WV to Portsmouth, OH unassisted daily. They pulled 200 coal loads from Crewe, VA to Lamberts Point, Va unassisted daily. The production/utilization numbers posted by the N&W Class A's are hard to compete with by any locomotive. It was deployed in exactly the type of services that the N&W's mechanical team designed it for. Lima and the AMC targeted the A as a point of reference that they wanted to exceed in hp metrics, but the manner in which the locomotive was deployed made it inferior to the A and the Y6 on the basis of efficiency. The Allegheny outweighs a Y6 by 80 tons, but the Y6 has 20 tons more weight on drivers. At 25mph the Allegheny, the Big Boy and the Y6 all have about the same horsepower output. The Y6 running in compound mode with a boiler about the size of a large 4-8-4 makes its efficiency below 30mph nearly untouchable. In 1952, Y6b 2197 was cheaper on fuel than EMD's F7 4 unit demonstrator on tests on the Pocahontas division. The Allegheny is an awesome machine. I just don't think that Lima sold the C&O the most efficient machine for the required task. I highly recommend Ed King's book "The A: N&W's Mercedes of Steam". It is one of my favorites. I referred to it regarding the A's hp tests. I also referred to steamlocomotive.com regarding statistics on the Big Boy, Allegheny and the Y6. The Big Boy page has a really cool comparison spread sheet with all the big articulated engines on it. Cheers👍
Maybe if you only want to run a train at 20 to 25 mph. Above 25 mph, The Y6b took a big hit in power output and efficiency. It got worse as the speed increased.
@@markantony3875 That doesn't really accurately reflect the versatility of Y6's in revenue service. It was not uncommon to see Y6's running at 40mph in revenue service. There is a report of a Y6b running a train at 70mph on the Bristol Line in the Dressler/King book "USRA 2-8-8-2 Series 3A". That was certainly not the norm. The Y6b was the ultimate culmination of steady improvements and refinements that began with the USRA 2-8-8-2 Y3. While the Y6's peak horsepower occurred at 25mph, that was not an operational limitation. Between Williamson and Roanoke Y6's pulled virtually every type of freight train until the 77 & 78 hot shots were put on using Class A's. One of the Y6's greatest characteristics is that its peak horsepower actually occurs within a speed range that is applicable in "everyday" train handling. Cheers
@@machinist1879 Y6s may have been run at 40 mph, but their power peaked at 25 mph. This is all documented in reports preserved by the N&W Historical Society, which I am a member of.
@@machinist1879 Running at 70 mph with 58" drivers is silly! It is almost impossible to effectively counterbalance drive wheels smaller that 64". I can only imagine the track damage from hammer blows from 58" drivers turning fast enough for 70 mph service, not to mention the machinery speeds of those 39" x 32" low pressure cylinders! Ed King was known to make stuff up for his books. Hi writings are VERY entertaining, but not technically accurate. Ed was a railfan writing to entertain other railfans and sell books, so whether something was historically or technically accurate meant very little to him. Bob LeMassena was the same. Fun to read, but take what he said with a VERY large grain of salt.
N&W didn't have Wooten fireboxes. By the late steam era the Reading converted to all bituminous coal for locomotive fuel. Hard coal burns too slow in larger locomotives to make any power.
For the record, the Illinois Central was running steam into 1960. I think #2613 made its last run in May 1960. N&W steam held out a little longer. Grand Trunk Western was also running steam into early 1960. Roanoke Shops was likely the finest US steam shop but IC's Paducah Shops and PRR's Juniata Shops deserve honorable mentions.
I would have to agree with this.
To answer that question. If I was to make a railroad in the 1940's and I wanted to use a steam locomotive for it, I would go for some flavor of C&O Kanawha. It's probably the best rendition of the berkshire and would be ready able to do essentially any task fairly well.
The response for Berkshires in general have been very surprising.
The L&N Berkshire was reportedly the most modernized of this type though I don’t know if they had the reliability to claim Best-in-Class status.
@@H5691j It would be between the C&O K-4 and the L&N M-1. The K-4 has slight advantages in a few fields. Better tractive effort, better factor of adhesion,more heating and superheating area, cheaper. The K-4s had improved E and E-1 trailing truck boosters after the first order, can't tell if the M-1's got better boosters after their initial orders.
Anyway, any advantages the K-4 has are very slim.
I whole heartedly agree with you about the N&W
HEHE! When I posted this video I prepared myself for a great debate. Perhaps my view is more widely accepted than I first thought as the debate has not started yet. Thanks for commenting, much appreciated!
I'd definitely use Class A's, Y6b's and J-Class locos- they were efficient, powerful, and multi-functional. Smooth operation and ease of maintenance were added bonuses. So glad I was able to ride behind each, and shared my love of them with my daughter.
Agreed on the N&W take, they really knew how to build, maintain, and operate steam locomotives, and the "A"s and Y6s are easily top tier steamers. IMO, tho, the J is the pinnacle of steam technology. They were the absolute definition of modern steam. They even managed to cost less to maintain and operate than the diesels at the time. Not to mention the ride was smooth as butter, roller bearings pretty much on all reciprocating parts, very large steaming capacity, quick and easy to maintain, and even with just 70" drivers, they can exceed 100. I didn't even cover it all about the Js, but I didn't want my comment to be crazy long.
Shhhhh!!! Dont ruin it for me J... Yeesh! :)
Agreed. Imho, the J class was also the most beautiful and elegant steam locomotive ever built. I'm a Brit, btw. I love our locos, but have to tip my hat to the J class. I hope one day to get over there and visit Roanoke and see 611 in operation.
@@laurieharper1526 Welcome! In the past I wish I were more of a study on the U.K.s steam locomotives. I've been diving into it a lot more the past few months. There will be a time in the near future where I feel confident enough to start posting feature video's. I understand the principles of the locomotives.. Just not the correct history.. The why's, you know? Afterall.. Most here in the States do not realize or know that's it's the U.K. where it all truly began. The J class will have it's own feature video in the near future. Standby :)
I mean.. the PRR tested the J once, got it up to over 110 mph but it still wanted to go faster and the crew got spooked over why a loco with just 70" drivers was doing that
@robertbalazslorincz8218 Yeah, it still amazes me how the N&W managed to make 70" drivers go so fast. Reminds me of the BR 9F doing 90 despite having only 60" drivers. Then again, I believe they were limited because of their plain bearings, the J is pretty much roller bearing the locomotive.
I heard a story once that someone asked the late Frank Collins (1218 excursion engineer and former regular service steam engineer) out of the N&W’s Big 3 (A, J & Y6) which was his favorite. Allegedly he replied “You tell me what kind of train that I’m going to pull and I’ll tell you which engine that I’ll pick.” It sounds like that he liked them all!
And that's true.. they had specific loco's for everything at the N&W with the A being the closest to dual purpose.
Norfolk and Western made the best steam engines. They were produced in the Roanoke shop, and there was nothing more beautiful than the Jays
What locomotive would I choose ?? First you have to tell me where my railroad will run and what type of freight am I going to run... Then I could choose a steam Locomotive ...
Choose a favorite you'd like to work with.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I think I'd choose the UP 844 because of it's balance of power and speed.. A heavy high speed passenger locomotive...
Great video! Love the N&W!
Thank you!
Total agreement with you!! I read that the shareholders were getting 6% dividends as opposed to 1/2% from the surrounding companies. It was just the availability of special parts as everyone else wasn`t demanding them any more - that is what i read. Why couldn`t the N.& W buy the company and make their own? Then we would have the U.S.A. leading in modern steam traction (with, no doubt, future developments) and with world leading maintenance to boot!
I agree with the Norfolk & Western having some of the best steam locomotives ever to run on any US railroad. And it is great to have three of the best preserved, the A, Y6B and J classes.
And all 3 had or have a time being operational as well.
Where I had been thinking of a model railroad depicting the Rio Grande or SP in the diesel age, now I know that the N&W in the late forties / early fifties will be my subject.
The Appalachians offer great scenery for a model layout as well.
Indeed! Thank you for taking the time to comment!
Unfortunately, the Y6 that survives isn't a Y6b. It's a Y6a, 2156. Though it has been modified to nearly match the Y6b later in her service life.
@@09JDCTrainMan yeah, that's disappointing on the part of the N & W. They, the most enthusiastic steam locomotive railroad of them all.
Y6b #2174 languished in a scrapyard at South Roanoke, VA until the mid 1970’s. A group was raising money to buy it, but I think there was a death in the leadership of the group and the scrapyard changed ownership. The preservation effort fell apart and the last Y6b was lost. I think there there is a video about it on TH-cam.
@@machinist1879 Sad, but it has happened in many cases that an effort to save a loco failed, either the group wanting to preserve it not able to raise the money needed, in other cases because the locomotive already reserved for preservation being accidentally scrapped.
The valve to allow high pressure steam steam into the low pressure cylinders did not operate at "all" speeds as you stated. They only operated at low starting speeds to increase the starting pull. But as you stated, this could make the Y6 slippery. If left open, it would literally drain the boiler steam into the large low pressure cylinders. The operating procedure was to open the valve when starting to get some extra pull, then close the valve ASAP and operate in compound mode. The Y6 actually had a relatively small boiler for an articulated locomotive, basically the same size as a 4-8-4s boiler.
I often wondered why the Allegheny and Big Boy outclassed the Y6b, until now. It has to do with the adhesion factor. I always knew the Y6b was prone to slipping but just never connected the dots until now. I really appreciate your work in these presentations, thank you!!
1. Berkshire
2. Hudson
3. Decapod
Gotcha!
The y6b hands down one of my favorite locomotive.
Mine too!
I wished Steam Locomotives Never retired I wished we were like China.
well, they still have their place in a greatly reduced role.. That's something. But I hear ya!
I like the smaller N&W steam, like the class M 4-8-0 and the class Z mallet
If I was starting a RR with steam power and I had to only pick ONE ,Id pick the Illinois Central Paducah built 2600 series of Mountains ...
Noted!
My top 15 extinct US steam locomotives:
1. N&W Y6B
1.5. SP AC-9
2. NYC Hudson
3. NYC Niagara
4. B&O EM-1
5. UP Fetter Challenger
6. PRR T1
7. C&O T1 and PRR J1
8. Northern Pacific/SP&S Challenger
9. Virginian AG Blue Ridge
10. Western Maryland J1 Potomac
11. N&W K class
12. Every Erie railroad steam locomotive
13. Virginian 2-10-10-2
14. Northern Pacific Z5 Yellowstone
15. Rio Grande L-131
If I'm doing a passenger service the GS-4 from the Southern Pacific and fraight service if I need it moved fast the S-3 from the Milwaukee Road, but there are so many great steam locos out there
Pick 1 please :)
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower S-3
@@dannyking748 You got it!
How about PRR Q2 duplex for freight and PRR T1 for passanger service.
Pick one to start your RR with..any loco.
I have always been a fan of the Allegheny. But I agree with you about the N & W.
Mind you, The N & W is my favorite railroad.. But their locomotives ARE NOT my favorites. My heart is always with Berkshire and Yellowstone. N & W was just that good!
I like to see you do the Southern Pacific AC-9 2-8-8-4 Yellowstone locomotives!
SO that's your pick to start a new railroad in the early 1940's?
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower And Union Pacific Big Boys, 4-12-2s, 2-10-2s
Noted... thank you!
If I were to start a Railroad during the ww2 era, to determine what sort of locomotive would Start, there's a lot of variables and conditions. During that time Railroads designed their locomotives to fit their specific needs. The NW is a fine example. They'd have to be familiar with their customer base, or industry. The terrian you are operating, the type of Railroad itself. Main line short line ect. The type of infrastructure and logistics is going to play a role. Cost and maintenance is another huge factor. This ties in with fuel source. If I'm operating in TX OH or KS and a couple other western states, I'm going to opt for oil. If Im operating in Appalachian region I'm running coal. Since we are a new Railroad, I'm going to opt for a simple S-2 2-8-4 Lima built Berkshire. The Berkshires are versatile. Until roles become more specific. For fast Freight I'm opting for a challenger. For fast passenger service I'm going with a Hudson design. The reason why I didn't include NW locomotives was because they were proprietary built for their Railroad. Otherwise NW did everything right.
Much to my surprise.. Berkshire is comfortably in the lead.
Question: Why didn't other railroads use N&W type locomotives? An oil fired Y6b cab forward might have been a better fit for the SP.
The Roanoke shops were by far the best at designing and building steam locomotives. All the others were at best a very very distant second place.
Not only that, but maintaining them as well!
The Southern Pacific Sacramento shops were a very close second.
@@Hogger280 No argument there!
I heard that one Y6b was clocked in at 63 MPH
I would not be surprised at all!
If I where to start a railroad I would name it EASTERN PACIFIC and have a locomotive 4-8-8-4 wheel arrangement and designed like Union Pacific early challengers design with extended pilot deck.
Please do a video on the L&HR 4-8-2.
I start my railroad with SNCF 242 A 1
Noted
Such great locos to watcj in action even if on youtube
Maybe UP Challenger 3985
Noted
If i was to some up the N&W in a short phrase it would be this: A modern Class one but with steam.
I would go for the NKP s. Class Berkshire.
Dual service would be SLSF 1500 4-8-2. Drag USRA 2-10-2. USRA 0-8-0 switcher. Heavy 2-8-2 all other service
Of those three, which would you choose if you could only have one?
SLSF 1500
@@dannyhonn973 you got it!
Similar thinkers ...
ICRR 2600 4-8-2
ICRR 2800 2-10-2 HVY USRA
ICRR and Frisco were similar roads ...
If I'm starting a railroad in the 1940's, I'm buying NYC class L3/L4 Mohawks! Best dual purpose steamer ever made!
USRA Heavy Mikado
Noted
Great choice for a locomotive
My answer would probably be a mikado or a 2-8-0 then just get bigger and bigger
I think the N&W 611 model J is and was the best steam locomotive ever.
It's certainly very high on the list for sure.
Agreed
The Loco contest should be interesting!
Yep! I agree!
When did N&W start building it’s own steam locomotives?
I think it was 1926.
That's pretty close.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPowerWas it because the loco builders did not produce locos the UP needed?
probably a mountain type or the up overlands
Noted
A1 Berkshire in Boston and Albany
Noted
There is no doubt the Y-6B was the pinnacle of compound design and efficiency, but the Challenger and Big Boy could run fast freights at 70 mph and passenger trains over 80
As has been pointed out... they were designed for radically different things.
I wouldnt mind using a 4-8-4 for dual use for my railroad
The N&W did NOT fuck around with steam, and I love that
the Norfolk and Western to me epitomizes the operation of a steam railway worked out to every minute detail and achieving record after record. The company itself was so rich that they didn't have any hardships during the great depression due to their coal traffic and were so rich they could still get by using their own money, not taxpayer dollars, to keep everything maintained and up to top quality standards from the rails to the roadbed and so on. When I watched the Last of the Giants UP video I thought "ooh those look nice" but when I watched Operation Fast Freight I thought "dang those engines look sweet". Also cause I have the entire 9 N&W herron rail dvd set that has over 7 and a half hours of N&W footage with some additional N&W footage from Pennsy glory volume 4 articulateds americas biggest steam, trains at speed, glory machines volumes 1 and 2, and Cincinnati steam classics.
Thanks for doing a video on my favorite steam locomotive. These giants could pull loads that would have required three diesel engines. It's a shame that just when the design and evolution of steam locomotives were reaching the pinnacle of what could be done, the railroads abandoned any further improvements in favor of diesel engines.
Glad you enjoyed it
If i had to choose one loco to start a railroad company with, itd be a tie between the class j from the n&w or the y6a from the same road. Outside the n&w, id say the fef-3 from the union pacific or the niagara from the nyc. Id say the n&w was the best steam outfit in the country. I might be a bit biased, because im from nc, and live around the southern and n&w's old stomping grounds.
J it is!
Interstingly, PRR owned 1/3 of N&W and had influence over the company....but PRR steam was somewhat more antiquated than N&W steam.
Yes, the N&W was for me the best Railway in the US., their Locomotives were second to none.
Quality, bar none
Bro I agree with this guy more than anyone
Thank you for the props!
The mudracker berks or heavy pacifics
Noted! Thank you!
The big boy.
Noted!
In terms of height at the cab roof and length from coupler of pilot to coupler of tender, does anyone know these dimensions of each of these two locomotives.
Class A 121"9" long, 15"10" high,. Y6 114'10", height 15'8" Length included tenders
I would probably choose the Hiawatha or Yellowstone.
The mighty 2-8-4 Berkshire😮
Either a New York Central Hudson or Niagara
UP FEF-3
Noted
A western Maryland class M-2
Noted
The information on the Delaware and Hudson l read stated that they had the third most 4-6-6-4 in the 40's, is that true.
I’m picking a New York central Niagara
Noted!
The shame is the steam locomotive was being perfected. When Diesel Electric locomotives eventually replaced them. I truly believe that if the steam locomotives had another 10 years. Scrubbers would have been added to the smoke stack and very little water would have been wasted to the outside atmosphere. Through condensers most of the steam would have been cooled back to water. It would still require at least 1 man to stoke the coal or feed the fuel oil on each trailing steam locomotives. Using jumper cables the lead steam locomotive would have control of the traction effort of any trailing Steam Locomotives,creating a multiple unit, single steam locomotive. Just like diesel electric all electric locomotives and control Cab cars do today Diesel Electric locomotives would not have never become the locomotive of today. Except for switching locomotives. Of course the all electric locomotives would still have their place on electrified railroads. The Pennsylvania and New York Central along with some other railroads. Owned their own coal mines. Then again back then. The Pennsylvania Railroad and other railroads actually built their own steam and electric locomotives. Made the majority of the parts. My great grandfather worked at Altoona/Juniata shops and was directly involved in casting the GG-1s articulating trucks for the 12 traction motors. He told me that they were cast in the ground under the shop floors. The GG-1 was way ahead of its time. Then again the GG-1 was a pantograph,to tap switch transformer either a 21 or 22 position throttle, to the AC traction motors. If you ever look at the spoked driver wheels on thf GG-2. There are rubber faced starter motors to get the GG-1 up to speed so the AC traction motors could engage. In LETP we were taught they were tickler motors. Once the AC Traction Motors Engaged. You could easily draw 2,250 amps and have no wheel slip of wheel slip started to occur. You could either turn a valve that dropped sand on the leading drivers. Or push down the automatic brake valve handle that would engage a lever that would drop sand on all sanders. I believe the Automatic Brake valve was either a 24 or 26 RL. It’s been over 40 years since I operated a GG-1. I not once didn’t make it from point A to point B operating a GG-1. No one could just get on a GG-1 and operate it. I had to be taught how to operate the GG-1. It took a few months to know what I needed to know about the locomotive. Just operating the steam generator. You had to know what you were doing. There was 2 water tanks,one on each end of the locomotive if the number 1 water tank was starting to run low. You had to know how to siphon the water from the B water tank. Using steam.
Nowadays no railroads that I can of. Don’t even cast their own brake shoes no less spare parts for locomotives.
*N&W superiority intensifies!*
Except for maybe it's Ohio operations.. otherwise I would agree
I mean.. *insert the comment from the Cargo Moving People over N&W derailments video about how they came back stronger every time here*
I would have 4 The N&W J 4-8-4 605 with no streamlining and a Yb6 4-6-6-4 with A NYC Hudson 4-6-4 and Last a UP Big boy
i wiold star with the norther pacific bull mose 2-8-8-0
The Steamengine is the best to go with.!!!!!!!!!!
In some ways.. for sure!
Pennsylvania Railroad class S2
Noted
Berkshires and mikados.
If just one, Berkshire or the Mike? :)
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Berkshires. I currently have 1 DCC and 3 dc in my roster.
@@MacTrom1 You got it!
@@MacTrom1 BTW, For me, as a fan... The NKP's Berkshire is where my fandom began. It has a special place in my heart!
The 4.8 .2.mountain train
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway 2-8-4 Kanawha!
Noted!
NKP S1
Noted
I want to contribute $20 for a 2-8-0 Connie video. Please send me instructions. 😊
N&W 2-8-8-2's had more horsepower than the Big Boy's.
UP 4-8-4 is my choice.
FeF-3 it is!
The reason would be because it is universal freight/passenger. I love all these locomotives in that era that were mentioned in the comments and video.
@@brian-te4xs It's a great choice, and currently FEF 3 is in second place of poll. Trailing only the Berkshire
A class act locomotive for sure.
@@brian-te4xs Indeed!
thay shuld have converted to oil and kept going
UP 844 not retitrd. So UP is yhe last one standing.
You are overstating your case.
First of all, that 6300 hp drawbar rating for the A is suspect. A lot of people, including the Norfork and Western historical society, consider that a fluke and think the HP is more like 5300.
Second, saying that the alleghenys only advantage over the A is that is has greater steam capacity misses the fact that steam capacity is the main thing that a steam engine needs. The allegheny was, in the best case for the A, 20% more powerful. Could go as fast and had the same tractive effort, but with better adhesion. Its just a flat better locomotive because it was designed to be.
As for the Y6b, at one point you say that it could pull 13500 tons at 25 mph, then later say it could do that at 50. Which would give it like 8000 HP when you say that 5500 indicated (not drawbar) is the best it can do. Another run of your script would probably have caught that oops.
The N&W was good, but I think nowdays that allows people to overstate how good it was.
About anyone that is knowledgeable of the N&W Class A will tell you that 6300 hp was not the norm but neither was 7498 hp the norm for the Allegheny. Peak horsepower ratings are interesting topics of discussion for rail fans, but railroads were more interested in their locomotive’s ability to perform its designed task effectively and efficiently. This is where the “rub” comes in on the Allegheny. While it was designed using the “A” as a design benchmark, it was not deployed the same way. For a significant amount of time Alleghenies were used more like N&W’s Y6 rather than the class A. As a result the Allegheny’s operational efficiency suffered significantly.
Yeah, that strikes me as vey odd from the C & O. Why would you design a loco much more capable than what you're using it for? It's like buying a semi rig to do the same job as your 15 foot box truck. Makes no sense.
@@machinist1879 Sure, 7500 Hp is not the norm for the Allegheny, (its more like 6800) but the point that I was making wasn't that the A didn't normally make 6300 HP, it is that there are doubts that it ever made 6300 HP. I'm getting the book on the A (think it is called 'Norfolk and Westerns Mercedes of Steam' by Ed King) to get to the bottom of this.
And a further point on the Allegheny, when you look at the test results that engine had on the Alleghany Subdivision, a N&W Y6 would not have been able to pull the amount of coal at the speed that the Allegheny did, period. Neither would a Y6a. It's only when the Y6b comes out with a combustion chamber twice as large as its predecessors that it can do what the Allegheny did in coal drag service, and that is 7 years after the Allegheny entered service.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower to use that locomotive for multiple tasks. Ask a Y6b to do what a A does and it wont be able to. Ask a A to do what a Y6b does and it won't be able to. Ask a Allegheny or Blue Ridge to do what a A does and it will blow it out of the water, and ask it to do what a Y6b does and it will do darn close to as well. Norfolk and Western built specific locomitives, and Chesapeake and Ohio built a multipurpose engine. Just a difference in management priorities.
@@commissarcarl1700 We all have our favorites, but I think what we're talking about here is efficiency. That was really the crux of TRX's video. The Allegheny/Blue Ridge is a cool machine, but performance records do not support the assertion that it was a superior design to the Class A. The evaporative surfaces of the Allegheny are about 10% larger than the A, but the Allegheny is almost 100 tons heavier. So, if the Allegheny peaked at 7500 hp then 6300 hp for the A should not be far out of line. The horsepower figures for the A did not come from a static boiler test but from road tests with dynamometer car #514780. The N&W kept Class A's in service that maximized their efficiency. They pulled 190 coal loads from Williamson, WV to Portsmouth, OH unassisted daily. They pulled 200 coal loads from Crewe, VA to Lamberts Point, Va unassisted daily. The production/utilization numbers posted by the N&W Class A's are hard to compete with by any locomotive. It was deployed in exactly the type of services that the N&W's mechanical team designed it for. Lima and the AMC targeted the A as a point of reference that they wanted to exceed in hp metrics, but the manner in which the locomotive was deployed made it inferior to the A and the Y6 on the basis of efficiency. The Allegheny outweighs a Y6 by 80 tons, but the Y6 has 20 tons more weight on drivers. At 25mph the Allegheny, the Big Boy and the Y6 all have about the same horsepower output. The Y6 running in compound mode with a boiler about the size of a large 4-8-4 makes its efficiency below 30mph nearly untouchable. In 1952, Y6b 2197 was cheaper on fuel than EMD's F7 4 unit demonstrator on tests on the Pocahontas division. The Allegheny is an awesome machine. I just don't think that Lima sold the C&O the most efficient machine for the required task. I highly recommend Ed King's book "The A: N&W's Mercedes of Steam". It is one of my favorites. I referred to it regarding the A's hp tests. I also referred to steamlocomotive.com regarding statistics on the Big Boy, Allegheny and the Y6. The Big Boy page has a really cool comparison spread sheet with all the big articulated engines on it. Cheers👍
Union Pacific big boy
Noted! Thank you!
Y6 b better than big boy
Mechanically and Efficiency wise, I certainly agree.
Maybe if you only want to run a train at 20 to 25 mph. Above 25 mph, The Y6b took a big hit in power output and efficiency. It got worse as the speed increased.
@@markantony3875 That doesn't really accurately reflect the versatility of Y6's in revenue service. It was not uncommon to see Y6's running at 40mph in revenue service. There is a report of a Y6b running a train at 70mph on the Bristol Line in the Dressler/King book "USRA 2-8-8-2 Series 3A". That was certainly not the norm. The Y6b was the ultimate culmination of steady improvements and refinements that began with the USRA 2-8-8-2 Y3. While the Y6's peak horsepower occurred at 25mph, that was not an operational limitation. Between Williamson and Roanoke Y6's pulled virtually every type of freight train until the 77 & 78 hot shots were put on using Class A's. One of the Y6's greatest characteristics is that its peak horsepower actually occurs within a speed range that is applicable in "everyday" train handling. Cheers
@@machinist1879 Y6s may have been run at 40 mph, but their power peaked at 25 mph. This is all documented in reports preserved by the N&W Historical Society, which I am a member of.
@@machinist1879 Running at 70 mph with 58" drivers is silly! It is almost impossible to effectively counterbalance drive wheels smaller that 64". I can only imagine the track damage from hammer blows from 58" drivers turning fast enough for 70 mph service, not to mention the machinery speeds of those 39" x 32" low pressure cylinders! Ed King was known to make stuff up for his books. Hi writings are VERY entertaining, but not technically accurate. Ed was a railfan writing to entertain other railfans and sell books, so whether something was historically or technically accurate meant very little to him. Bob LeMassena was the same. Fun to read, but take what he said with a VERY large grain of salt.
Seems like they had a WOOTEN FIREBOX like Reading steam locomotives. The Reading burned hard coal...
My resources dont specifically say The Y6B had a Wooten. One thing is for certain, they had a larger firebox than any other Y or the A.
N&W didn't have Wooten fireboxes. By the late steam era the Reading converted to all bituminous coal for locomotive fuel. Hard coal burns too slow in larger locomotives to make any power.
A Chesapeake and Ohio 2-8-4 Kanawha Berkshire.
Noted