Just a few comments on this excellent summary of the Allegheny. Much of the overweight problems on these engines arose from "elbow joggling" by AMC officials who would visit the Lima plant weekly and demand that various parts be made bigger, simply because they weren't proportioned that same as the older and smaller locomotives they were familiar with and despite the assurances from the Lima design engineers that the parts were indeed sized correctly. The rest occurred in the scale room at Lima when the engine was weighed. When the time came to weight the first H-8, No. 1600, only two men were allowed in the scale room: Dan Ellis, CMO of the AMC, and Bert Townsend of Lima. Once they finished their work and reset the scales, they went into the laboratory office and gave the figures to Lima's Chief Calculating Engineer Ralph Schmitt. He added up the weights of items not yet on the engine, and then SUBTRACTED that figure from the scale weights, giving a final weight of 724,500 lbs. He announce the figure to the room, and Alonso Trumbull, the head of the AMC asked "What did you say?" and Schmitt repeated his value. Trumbull replied "That's what I thought you said." and left the room. This story makes clear, I believe, that the AMC didn't care how much the engines weighed, and knew that the C&O would care. The next day, the engine was reweighed to accurately determine the proper locations for the pivot points on the equalizer bars, and that weight came out to be 775,330 lbs. After the deception became known, two H-8s from earlier orders were sent back to Lima to be reweighed. When they arrived Lima found that the lids on the sandboxes were welded shut, making it impossible to determine how much of the nominal 6,000 pounds of sand per sandbox. All of this was described to Gene Huddleston, who included it in his book The Allegheny, Lima's Finest. I know Gene, and as a university professor, he was a stickler for ensuring the accuracy of his sources. If he printed it, it's certain that, to the very best of his knowledge, it was true. The rated tractive effort (TE) of the Allegheny troubled me for a long time. Finally, about 10 years ago or so, I got my hands on a copy of the dynamometer test report for this engine and everything changed. It turns out that the H-8s were all capable of a TE of 119,000 pounds. Why the discrepancy, you might ask. The TE figures for most steam locomotives were not measured but calculated using a formula that assumes that the steam pressure delivered to the cylinders is 85% of the boiler pressure. Up through the early superpower days this was a reasonable assumption, but on the Allegheny, the steam pressure at the cylinders was 92% of the boiler pressure, accounting for the difference. Some, Gene Huddleston included, have wondered why the C&O didn't increase the TE of the Allegheny, either by increasing the boiler pressure, or increasing the cylinder diameter, or perhaps adding a booster. The fact is that the railroad couldn't have used the increased performance, since the train length on the Alleghany Subdivision had a hard limit imposed the the space between Alleghany Tunnel to the west of Alleghany, Va. and Lewis Tunnel to the east. This siding could accommodate trains up to about 170 cars, and that was it. There was no space to lengthen the siding, since Alleghany is nestled between two mountains, and railroads in general don't like to have sidings inside tunnels. So, handling longer trains was not an option. But, handling existing trains faster was. The dynamometer test report, and the few dispatchers train sheets we have show us that the H-8, with its higher horsepower, was capable of about double the Gross Ton-Miles per Train-Hour that the older H-7 simple 2-8-8-2s were producing. Since the 50 or so miles from Hinton to Alleghany were the bottleneck for the entire line, replacing the 45 H-7s in service on this line with a like number of H-8s essentially doubled the capacity of this line by getting trains over the road in roughly half the time. This is entirely due to the massively greater horsepower of the H-8. Karen Parker
Karen, this is the best explanation I've ever seen regarding the weight controversy of the H-8. Would you mind if highlighted this and printed it out for future reference? And if so, to whom would I site if I were to use it in future presentations? Wonderful insight here...Thank you very, very much for taking the time to tell us all about it.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower sure. I’m Karen Parker, a C&O HS member since 1975 or so. Over the last 22 years I’ve written 40 some articles for the COHS magazine and been author or co-author of 20-odd books, including one on the H-8s and one titled “ How a Steam Locomotive Works” I live near Columbus, Ohio.
I worked at the Henry Ford Museum in the early 80's. That Locomotive is absolutely MASSIVE! My family has photos of my Canadian Uncle Bill...his C&O crew were the ones responsible for getting that locomotive through the rear doors and into that Museum decades ago. You cannot fully appreciate how large that thing is until you climb up into the cab of it.
Cool memory. In the early 80's the Transportation Museum in Roanoke, VA (now the Virginia Museum of Transportation) had the other preserved Allegheny displayed side by side with N&W Class A 1218. It was a sight to behold. As I recall, there was not enough room within the Museum's fenced in yard to step back far enough to get a picture of both engines simultaneously. It would be really cool to see an A, an Allegheny, a Big Boy, a Yellowstone and a Y6 all displayed side by side!!
I've seen the Allegheny at the Henry Ford Museum. The thing is massive. I swear it has it's own gravity that pulls you in. You can almost hear how much it weighs.
This is my first video that I have watched from your channel. As a mechanic and a quality inspector, I found it to be well presented and very informative. New Subscriber looking forward to seeing more of your video's.
As someone that grew up in southern West Virginia and with a grandmother in Roanoke, my love of the rails included C&O, B&O, WM, Chessie System, CSX, NW and Norfolk Southern. My parents actually road behind NW 611 during revenue service and my step- grandfather worked at the Roanoke shops in the late 40's - late 50's. In '77, as a 13yo kid I got to ride behind the Chessie Steam Special 2101 from Saint Albans, WV to Hinton, WV and back. Iv3 got several lifelong friends that worked for C&O, Chessie and currently CSX.
The C&O "Allegheny" type is an impressive specimen of an articulated locomotive and one of the largest steam locomotives ever built. The h8 class locomotives were built for hauling coal drags in Virginia and West Virginia and it must have been truly impressive to see these Allegheny type locomotives in operation during the late stage of the steam era. I am satisfied that engines 1601 and 1604 were preserved for display in museums to be admired and observed by railfans to appreciate the giant representatives of articulated steam power.
Horsepower is tractive effort at a certain speed (ft-lb/hr); the adhesion constant (the Greek letter u) is pretty constant at 0.3 for all locomotives. Steam engines, like electric motors, can produce full power at stall, so speed really isn't an issue in starting a train. Horsepower comes in when you want to run a train at higher speeds.
Good stuff~ I agree with everything. Slipping usually occurs trying to gain speed with a full consist.. Or getting up a grade with a full consist. That's where my 3 Amigo's from the video come into play. That and a good engineer and fireman.
When you want to run an engine at ANY SPEED - BECAUSE HP is weight moved over DISTANCE in time. To generate a HP rating you must be moving. The faster a locomotive moved under load, the more HP it was producing.
@@organbuilder272 The problem with most large locos was their boilers would run out of steam and this was a problem for the UP 4000s. A boiler that could fit in an H-8s and cruddy coal that didn't help them. Plus they were designed more for speed on the flats and not the grades that they would hit. If the turntables on the C&O had been longer, there would have been no doubt as to which would have been heavier as the C&O would have had them built with larger tenders. Likely with 8-wheel trucks both front and rear. But the C&O was constrained for space and could not build bigger turntables. HP also drops off after a certain peak point and in the case of the H-8s it was between 45 and 50 MPH while the UP 4000s dropped off at 40 MPH. The siding length restrictions on the C&O plus the tunnels kind of restricted what the number of cars could be with a loco on the front and a helper on the rear. So we will never know what the maximum HP of the H-8 would actually be. Just what was recorded on the test.
Thank you! That's exactly the feedback I was looking for. And welcome!! And conversational is a better way of putting it regarding the tweak of the delivery, I like it!
Per Kalmbach books, "Diesel Locomotives, the first fifty years", the Union Pacific's Gas Turbine three car units number 1-30 were rated at 8500 horse power. In 1964, traction motors were added to the fuel tenders to increase horse power to 10,000 hp.
The problem with the gas turbines were that they were exceptionally loud and weren't very cost effective versus standard diesels. Why they didn't gain traction in mass production.
I noticed the photo you used for the Pennsy Q2 is actually of a Q1. Aside from the picture issue, this is an awesome presentation - thank you for your time and effort in putting it together.
Great vid! Bookmarked. Both the T-1 and the Allegheny were limited to 160 cars. Boiler pressure could have been higher. The beast from the east was always on a leash.
On a leash for good reason though... The threat of coupler damage and train separation go's up dramatically on anything above 13,500t on your consist. One of those "just because you can, doesnt mean that you should" situations. Loved the comment!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Also because of the tunnels, the front loco would close it throttle down while the helper shoved on the rear. By the time the front loco was out of the tunnel, the helper would be going in or getting near to it. And on more than one occasion, it was an H-8 on the front and another on the rear. And I'll echo Karen's comment above, get Gene's book if you like the H-8s. I've never made it to the Ford Museum and when I was at the B&O Museum, they didn't have one either. But I got to see it near two other famous locos. The N&W 2-6-6-4 and their 4-8-4 because at the time all three were in the Roanoke Museum together. And the H-8 dwarfed them.
Steam pressure doesn't create the power. It is all about the heat of the steam. Steam locomotives work on thermodynamics, they do not work on steam pressure.
Lol I see what you did there with the 4 amigos 😂 we already talked about it in the y6b and big boy video, so it feels like a moot point to bring it up again. Instead, I pike how you did this video. It felt a bit more organic, like you were talking face to face with your audience, though that might just be me. And I agree with you on the allegheny. It's such a beast of a locomotive. I've actually got a rivarossi ho scale model of it with dcc that I've run a lot at my club layout. These engines are so underrated when compared to the big boys, y6b's and the yellowstones. Awesome video!
HAHA, Yes! Was I right or wrong about the Centennial still being the highest HP and largest of the diesels? Im glad you liked the format. Since you're the only comment thus far.. I can't say it's the winner... But I liked it better over the classroom documentary style. Thanks bear!
@TheRailroadCrossing-wc5gx no problem! And yeah, to my knowledge the centennial is the most powerful diesel locomotive ever built. That being said, and I know it's not a diesel, but the 3rd gen UP veranda turbine locos were far more powerful than the centennial and the allegheny, clocking in at 8500 horsepower. However they did suffer from reliability issues so they didn't last very long.
@TheRailroadCrossing-wc5gx yeah, same here, though I'm a bit more open to modern motive power, my heart will always be with the steam age. The romance and the sheer size and power both man and machine exerted to operate, maintain and innovate just cannot be beaten.
First: great video. These were some truly impressive machines. Second: althe the C&O has been informally known as Chessie for many years, the Chessie System didn't exist during the stram era. But having said that, the Cheasie System Railroads were effectively (IMO) a greatly expanded Chesapeake & Ohio Railway despite the C&O, B&O, and WM being separate entities.
That's awesome! Im glad you thought so! You will definitely like the video coming tomorrow about the Allegheny 1642 accident. IMO that is my best video yet :) Thanks again!
Thank you! I feel like I am getting a little better which each one. Public speaking was never my specialty, and having a life long speech impediment battle (I've largely overcome) I've never been very confident with it either. I've always had some talent in this arena, just never any confidence.
I noticed no speech impediment. I was talking about a great classic loco and your excellent presentation. As an old English major and a old hippie lawyer, I was impressed.
Another way to consider the power in practical terms was what they hauled and where. Big boys tended to haul reefers, trains that were much lighter than the coal trains pulled by Virginian and C&O. They tended to run at fairly high speeds for what they hauled and by doing so moved the train over the railroad faster than their predecessors. This actually increased capacity with out requiring more infrastructure. For the ultimate in pure drag era power look at the Virginian 2-10-10-2 articulated, not fast but it ran with what ever was ready to go and would often pull 200 car trains. Making headlines in the news papers with the massive amounts of tonnage they pulled into the Virginians coal piers.
The beginning of the end for Lima was not the Allegheny, but the coming of the diesel locomotive. Only World War Two extended the steam era by halting diesel design and production. Towards the end, it was Baldwin that killed Lima as a locomotive builder. Baldwain was bigger, but also financially weaker when the decision was made to merge, without public knowledge or input. Prior to this, Lima was financially strong, and beginning to surpass Baldwin in diesel production.
Only 25 Big Boys were produced. 68 Allegheny type were produced in total. (60 for the C&O, 8 for the Virginian). The 2-6-6-6 were actually more common than the Big Boys.
Built by the same company where my beloved steam locomotive Daylight 4449 and Daylight locomotives were built, Chesapeake and Ohio's Alleghenies, The most powerful, beautiful, but to make matters worse, heaviest steam locomotives ever built!
If you've got a credible source that backs that.. Im more than willing to entertain it. But not according to the C & O otherwise. Daylight is one of my favorites as well. It's just unfortunate that Lima, Baldwin and ALCO didn't prepare for the days without steam. such a rich history and legacy lost. Had they survived, I suspect we would see a lot more steam locomotives preserved. Thanks for the comment!
That would be most appreciative. Authors and historians are human.. And often they had their favorites, I think you know what I mean here. Which is exactly why im willing to entertain other creditable sources that I might not otherwise have here. I mean, I have a really strong library here collected through the years..But I dont have nearly everything!
You forgot the Yellowstone it had about the same as the y6b in simple in stead of compound steam and that is where the HP & tractive effort was the highest
That's the problem with keeping these video's under 10 minutes. Stuff gets left out. It's not necessarily that I forget.. But rather the more detail I get into, the more the video's become more for fans who have long studied these locomotives, like myself, and probably yourself. That kinda leaves the new or more casual fan behind. Which is the opposite of my goal. Which is to keep these machines alive for the younger or new fans to discuss in the future. These arent just a cool machine. But they are also the machines that literally built the world as we know it today. That's a legacy worth passing on.
I don't believe that. That would be pushing each 645E3A V16 engine to 3600 HP. Pushing them to 3300 HP caused increased wear and tear over the standard 3000 HP rating. The 20 cylinder 645 was rated at 3600 HP, and even with the 4 extra cylinders, it had reliability issues.
@@markantony3875 If you don't believe me , go look it up. The DDA40X''s were originally rated at 7200 horses and pulled back to 6600. I used to run them!!! They needed these extra horses because they were permanently wired in Parallel, and they took a long time to load up. You would be clear up to run 6 on a heavy train before they would load up.
To help you with your HP over TE on a 1% hill, choosing HP is fine but wont help you get over the hill. HP is the 'power' of the loco (boiler output [different from drawbar hp]). Factor of Adhesion is the 'stickiness' or 'gription' of the steel wheel on steel rail under weight (weight on drivers - because you have to know steel on steel is very slippery!). TE is the 'answer' to the equation of HP and FoA. You have to know how much power you have, and how well that loco is gonna grip (before slipping) before you can figure on how much it will pull. Having all the horsies in the world wont help you if you cant get that HP to the rails. It takes HP to make TE, but having more HP only works to a point until you supercede the FoA (spin the wheels). Thus, more HP is not totally the answer - you may need to add weight (FoA increase). So, choose TE.... the higher HP and FoA are included to make this figure to begin with. Meaning youd already get your higher HP which you chose originally. (now you know why the axle loadings of Big Boy, H8's, and the like are so heavy - takes alot of weight to keep that much HP from slipping the drivers under load) How does this translate to the Allegheny? You mentioned track base, but not track structures. Alot had to be moved and upgraded to handle the H8s, not just track. This is why the Allegheny IS smaller than the Big Boy (and others!). The east coast railroads had much more tighter dimensions to work with than the west coast railroads. Same with weight, the H8 WEIGHS LESS than the Big Boy (and others!). You can only upgrade so many bridges and so much trackage before it becomes too much $$$ even for a railroad. Lima simply packed as much as they could into the space allowed. Yet still made one of the best locos out there, easily comparable to 'larger' locos - rightfully so. The Big Boy (and others) were never put under the same design restrictions as was the H8. This is why the H8 and Big Boy will forever be pitted agin one another. While Big Boy takes the crown in the respects that its larger, heavier, and has a higher HP, Lima proved you can move just as much freight, just as fast, given less to work with by restriction. So the age old battle of which is bigger, heavier, more powerful, hasnt really been the argument all along..... it was just another underdog story and whoever bet on the obvious loser.... actually won! (and dont forget, you can only pull so many cars no matter what loco is up front before you pull the face right off of a coupler! Metallurgy was a serious factor of the day too folks.)
Yeah, I grabbed the wrong image when I assembled the video and didnt catch it. Good thing it was just an example image, and not pertaining to the main topic. Thanks for the comment!
Correct me if I’m wrong… I was a kid when I read this, probably about 15, and that was back in the 70s, so I might be off a bit. Was the Allegheny the locomotive that five miles of cars were put behind as a publicity stunt? I know that this was done, and the story was that there were a couple of helpers to start the train moving, and then they decoupled. So where along the train, slack action had its way with a couplet, and the the brakes locked up. When that happened, another drawbar got plucked out entirely. I can’t think of any other locomotives that could possibly do this.
I have never read this story that you described... But I do know that the C & O limited the Allegheny to a 160 car consist specifically because of the seriously heightened risk of coupler damage and train separation. The locomotive had the 2nd highest horse power recorded in Steam..and along with that a high draw bar horse power. So the story you describe is plausible, and perhaps this is how that limitation came about!! Thanks for the comment!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I was a reader way back when… So, in the days of steam, there was this crew in a locomotive that their job was turns to the local foundry. Along with ingots and scrap going in, and new steel coming out, they always had hoppers full of coke stone. Like I said, it burns like coal, just a whole lot hotter. The rather new fireman asked the engineer if he had ever used that stuff in the locomotive. The engineer said no, and then suggested they find out what it would do. So, the fireman jumped up on the hopper that was behind the tender, and started throwing those big lumps into the tender. When he figured he had a decent amount, he went back down and started throwing it into the firebox, making a decent heel in both sides. When the stuff took off, it warmed up the boiler, all right. Pressure kept going up, fireman makes sure that the water level stays up. On this loco, there was three safety valves. They all started going off, one after the other. When they got to the yard, it was hissing like crazy. The coke was burning out by that time, and a few shovels of coal finished the day. The fireman looked into the firebox, and saw that the bricks of the brick arch were melted away. The engineer and fireman tied it up at the roundhouse, and walked away. They never got asked about it, but they wondered what the shop mechanics thought when they found all the firebricks missing and melted over the piping!
Many railfans will complain about the Allegheny's operating steam pressure of 260 psi. Steam pressure doesn't create the power. It is all about the heat of the steam. Steam locomotives work on thermodynamic principles, they do not work on steam pressure. They are a Heat Engine, not a pneumatic tool like an air tool that a mechanic would use.
Regarding horsepower, the class H-8 Allegheny was measured at 7498 HP using a dynamometer car while hauling a train, and it represented a peak reading of drawbar horsepower. The relevant paragraph from C&O Power also mentioned frequent peaks between 6700 and 6900 horsepower. Interpreting this, it should be obvious that the Allegheny could not sustain 7000 HP. Peak power is a momentary reading and does not represent long-term pulling power. It would be more realistic to say the Allegheny was a 6000 HP locomotive, since it would have been capable of producing that in regular service, all day long. 6000 drawbar HP is entirely consistent with a well proportioned superheated locomotive using good bituminous coal and a grate area of 135 square feet. It could be pushed harder than that if the crew didn't care about black smoke from incomplete combustion at higher firing rates. Of course, when other HP measurements are being compared you must account for the circumstances of those measurements too. The Pennsy Q2 was measured at the cylinders, not the drawbar. Drawbar HP would be much lower in actual service. Diesel locomotives are rated by the horsepower produced by the diesel engine alone. To achieve 6000 drawbar HP requires 7000 HP or more from a diesel.
On the drawbar... Basically you'd be busting the couplers and separating trains if you actually ran the 200 car consist that the Allegheny was capable of. Which is the chief reason why C & O had their self imposed 160 car limit. The wildcard for ALL of the railroads, not just the C & O wass wartime demands. I suspect they went full throttle more than you think in order to meet demands. Cost and common sense be damned.. et. all. Good Stuff!! I appreciate the comment!
Sorry I missed your comment! I can't say as I have anything to throw back you that adds to what you said. Pretty good and straight forward stuff. Thank you for the comment! Again, sorry I missed it the first time.
@@Dachamp2001 Could they have... YES.. Was it economically feasible...NO. For pusher help, you'd want the cheapest running locomotive that you could get the job done with. Allegheny didn't need much help. Now, of course during the war, outside demands might have forced the C & O to double up Allegheny front and back, this simply for speed purposes. Allegheny was at the pinnacle of steam motive power. C & O had a 160 car limit on their consist. The reason for that was simply safety. Any more than that and the risk of coupler damage (stress) and car separation increasingly grows. Allegheny was one of those "Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should" types of locomotives.
Just my opinion, I prefer this style of presentation. I feel like I’m listening to the docent at the museum vs. an AI created voice that is robotic. I find trains and railroad history very interesting.
I made the switch several video's ago regarding the AI wash. The change I made was going largely off script, which allowed me to interject and place more of my own feeling into the presentation. Before, I had been scripting the whole thing, Me, or whether it was the original AI wash.. the result was a unemotional presentation. Which I didnt like. And it's not what I wanted. The change in these last two video's are the result..
If you increased the boiler pressure by 10 pounds, made the cylinders an inch larger in diameter, and added a booster. The Allegheny would have out pulled the Bog Boy.
Im sorry you cant see them! I have a Allegheny follow up video coming tomorrow that I think you will also enjoy! Thank you for the comment, and you are most welcome!
I definitely hear you on that! I lived in Harrisburg Pa for a few years and I frequently went to the Strasburg and Scranton (Steamtown) museums. I dearly miss them! Strangely, I neveer went to the B&O museum in Baltimore!! Which was the same drive for me to Scranton.. LOL.. Some things just never make any sense. Thanks for the comment!
the only electros that made more power were the up turbines at around 10000 hp or the russian turbine electros that put out more as the 2010's vintage that had more, there are pure electro engines though that have more all out tractive effort, one reason also that they didn't pull longer trains then the up was they didn not have sidings for longer trains, and as you stated they never used the boosters they didn't need to it did the job of pulling 2 times the tonnage at 2 times the speed dragging it and less overall fuel consumption then the h 7's they replaced. according to c and o magazine that had an article that I read on videos about 5 years back after I found the article
0:29 It's tragic that 3 loco operators had to lose their lives through no fault of their own. The lack of maintenance is appalling. One thing I noticed through watching these two videos is how the weights are expressed in pounds. Would it not be easier to state amounts in tons or is it only the British who do this. (I'm British).
It's definitely an American thing..Everything is published in pounds.. While most of the rest of the world does kilo's, etc... Consequently if I do express things in tons, that makes a large number of people think. 😜 That's just how we are taught here.. It wasn't meant to be a slight on anyone domestically.
I like the new video format. An interesting locomotive to be sure but the layout on this one doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's like Lima took a Northern Pacific Z-5 boiler and plunked it down on a Union Pacific Challenger running gear. Not really sure what they expected to gain. Also the 263,000 lbs of Locomotive weight that's supported by the leading and trailing trucks seems excessive.
And the weight of the Allegheny was something the Norfolk and Western sighted as a issue when they designed the y6B. NW's came in 100,000 Lbs lighter and offered similar performance. And you're not to far off, the Allegheny was a bit of a jalopy on ALCO's part in order to meet the C & O's requirements. That not to write a book, but you get my meaning I think.
Tractive effort is the most misunderstood thing about steam locomotives. Tractive effort is not power. It is the calculated starting pull at 0 mph. A steam locomotives calculated starting pull has nothing to do with how much power it can produce at speed.
Horsepower isn’t as reliable as tractive effort. Why would want to measure the power at which they only start at. Tractive effort measures the continuous output so it is the most reliable.
I actually have the 3 amigo's that you really want in a locomotive.. Horsepower being one of them. And I agree, HP is more of a diesel thing in the pecking order of importance.
Nahh, it's no problem! Just me grabbing the wrong photo from the folder is all.. Those off subject photo's are really just meant to give folks an idea of the locomotive (SUBJECT) i'm referring to. Of course I would like to get the right photo in place.. But it's not a catastrophic error on the same hand if i'm going to make such a mistake.. It likely wont be the last time I do something like this. Thanks for the comment! I REALLY DO APPRECIATE IT!
In terms of overall weight, the big boys may have been heavier if but by a couple tons. Big boys were faster than these engines and they were also much longer. The Yellowstone engines on the other hand eclipse both the big boy and Allegheny.
Yellowstone in terms of weight??? Do you mind sharing what your source is that verifies this? Because I have NOTHING that suggests this. Thank you for the comment! I most definitely appreciate it and I am most intrigued by this possibility.
@@sharkheadism Big Boy was substantially faster than any other articulated heavy freight locomotive. They were capable of running 80 mph max.. But 55 to 70 mph on the norm. Thanks for the question! I will also note that Big Boy wasn't specifically designed to haul coal and iron.. They did... But it wasn't their main consist unlike the Allegheny, Yellowstone and Y6B et. all. As built, I suspect Big Boy would have some pretty regular maintenance issues if you stuck one in the Appalachian coal runs on a regular basis. It simply wasnt designed for those kind of runs
There is a massive mistake made. The creator left of a 0 in the weight. It should say that they weighed as much as 771,300lbs, not 77,130. If 77,130 were correct, then even an old Pershing tank M26, weighing in at 92,355 lbs would be a heavy load, let alone cars full of them.
Well, one thing is for certain... The C & O never used them to the abilities, therefore I dont even know why they bothered ordering them when lesser locomotives could ahve done the job they were asking for. My guess is EGO.
The Allegheny was actually pretty comparable to the Y6B in terms of cruising speed (40-45 mph) But it took upwards to that 7500 HP to do it.. Meaning it's less efficient with the Coal and Water. Allegheny could make it's primary Clifton Forge to Hinton run with that 12k consist on it's own (barely) But anything longer, particularly the Columbus run, you'd have to have pusher or pull assistance from the rear or front, from a lesser locomotive. And most certainly auxiliary water cars on top of it. Wartime efforts required expediency.. So it's not like the Railroads had much of a choice in all of this. I think the war was what helped speed up the Diesel delivery time frame. Because that push happened extremely quickly.
@@AstroKnight118 Sure, it's just one of things that happens when you're not using a script. We all do it in general conversion. It's no different doing video's. Im finding that sometimes I catch it, sometimes I don't.
That's not to say that the Big Boy didnt run coal.. It just wasnt the Union Pacific major revenue source unlike the C & O and Norfolk and Western. But I get your meaning. Allegheny and the Y6B were obviously designed for coal runs.
1:13 What do we need the Lionel ad here for ? I'd venture to guess anyone serious enough to want to learn about the real Allegheny loco wouldn't have interest in the toy 4-4-2, and a pretty bad toy at that !! What is it in this video for ? 5:19 Here's a decent model but with a derailed pony truck ! 6:51 Do we really need another Lionel pic with their giant flanges accompanying a 1:1 scale documentary ? whether or not you use a script doesn't seem to matter. But leave out the unnecessary filler pics.. You asked..
Just a few comments on this excellent summary of the Allegheny.
Much of the overweight problems on these engines arose from "elbow joggling" by AMC officials who would visit the Lima plant weekly and demand that various parts be made bigger, simply because they weren't proportioned that same as the older and smaller locomotives they were familiar with and despite the assurances from the Lima design engineers that the parts were indeed sized correctly.
The rest occurred in the scale room at Lima when the engine was weighed. When the time came to weight the first H-8, No. 1600, only two men were allowed in the scale room: Dan Ellis, CMO of the AMC, and Bert Townsend of Lima. Once they finished their work and reset the scales, they went into the laboratory office and gave the figures to Lima's Chief Calculating Engineer Ralph Schmitt. He added up the weights of items not yet on the engine, and then SUBTRACTED that figure from the scale weights, giving a final weight of 724,500 lbs. He announce the figure to the room, and Alonso Trumbull, the head of the AMC asked "What did you say?" and Schmitt repeated his value. Trumbull replied "That's what I thought you said." and left the room.
This story makes clear, I believe, that the AMC didn't care how much the engines weighed, and knew that the C&O would care.
The next day, the engine was reweighed to accurately determine the proper locations for the pivot points on the equalizer bars, and that weight came out to be 775,330 lbs.
After the deception became known, two H-8s from earlier orders were sent back to Lima to be reweighed. When they arrived Lima found that the lids on the sandboxes were welded shut, making it impossible to determine how much of the nominal 6,000 pounds of sand per sandbox.
All of this was described to Gene Huddleston, who included it in his book The Allegheny, Lima's Finest. I know Gene, and as a university professor, he was a stickler for ensuring the accuracy of his sources. If he printed it, it's certain that, to the very best of his knowledge, it was true.
The rated tractive effort (TE) of the Allegheny troubled me for a long time. Finally, about 10 years ago or so, I got my hands on a copy of the dynamometer test report for this engine and everything changed. It turns out that the H-8s were all capable of a TE of 119,000 pounds. Why the discrepancy, you might ask. The TE figures for most steam locomotives were not measured but calculated using a formula that assumes that the steam pressure delivered to the cylinders is 85% of the boiler pressure. Up through the early superpower days this was a reasonable assumption, but on the Allegheny, the steam pressure at the cylinders was 92% of the boiler pressure, accounting for the difference.
Some, Gene Huddleston included, have wondered why the C&O didn't increase the TE of the Allegheny, either by increasing the boiler pressure, or increasing the cylinder diameter, or perhaps adding a booster. The fact is that the railroad couldn't have used the increased performance, since the train length on the Alleghany Subdivision had a hard limit imposed the the space between Alleghany Tunnel to the west of Alleghany, Va. and Lewis Tunnel to the east. This siding could accommodate trains up to about 170 cars, and that was it. There was no space to lengthen the siding, since Alleghany is nestled between two mountains, and railroads in general don't like to have sidings inside tunnels. So, handling longer trains was not an option. But, handling existing trains faster was. The dynamometer test report, and the few dispatchers train sheets we have show us that the H-8, with its higher horsepower, was capable of about double the Gross Ton-Miles per Train-Hour that the older H-7 simple 2-8-8-2s were producing. Since the 50 or so miles from Hinton to Alleghany were the bottleneck for the entire line, replacing the 45 H-7s in service on this line with a like number of H-8s essentially doubled the capacity of this line by getting trains over the road in roughly half the time. This is entirely due to the massively greater horsepower of the H-8.
Karen Parker
Karen, this is the best explanation I've ever seen regarding the weight controversy of the H-8. Would you mind if highlighted this and printed it out for future reference? And if so, to whom would I site if I were to use it in future presentations? Wonderful insight here...Thank you very, very much for taking the time to tell us all about it.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower sure. I’m Karen Parker, a C&O HS member since 1975 or so. Over the last 22 years I’ve written 40 some articles for the COHS magazine and been author or co-author of 20-odd books, including one on the H-8s and one titled “ How a Steam Locomotive Works” I live near Columbus, Ohio.
Thank you Karen for this information. I luv H-8s.I am grateful for your contribution and wealth of your knowledge.
Thank you for replying to her! She had Really good stuff!
That's awesome! Thank you for that! And thank you again for taking the time to share this with us all.
I worked at the Henry Ford Museum in the early 80's. That Locomotive is absolutely MASSIVE! My family has photos of my Canadian Uncle Bill...his C&O crew were the ones responsible for getting that locomotive through the rear doors and into that Museum decades ago. You cannot fully appreciate how large that thing is until you climb up into the cab of it.
Cool memory. In the early 80's the Transportation Museum in Roanoke, VA (now the Virginia Museum of Transportation) had the other preserved Allegheny displayed side by side with N&W Class A 1218. It was a sight to behold. As I recall, there was not enough room within the Museum's fenced in yard to step back far enough to get a picture of both engines simultaneously. It would be really cool to see an A, an Allegheny, a Big Boy, a Yellowstone and a Y6 all displayed side by side!!
And that I rarely have the opportunity to do. It must have been something!
Me too!
Indeed that would be quite the lineup!
@@machinist1879 Been there and did that during the time they were there. And yeah, you just could not get the two articulateds in the same shot.
I've seen the Allegheny at the Henry Ford Museum. The thing is massive. I swear it has it's own gravity that pulls you in. You can almost hear how much it weighs.
That I can believe!
My favorite is easy hands down H-8.thanx for heads up on lacation of the 2 retored h-8s.nice video.
You bet! Thank you!
This is my first video that I have watched from your channel. As a mechanic and a quality inspector, I found it to be well presented and very informative.
New Subscriber looking forward to seeing more of your video's.
Thanks and welcome
As someone that grew up in southern West Virginia and with a grandmother in Roanoke, my love of the rails included C&O, B&O, WM, Chessie System, CSX, NW and Norfolk Southern. My parents actually road behind NW 611 during revenue service and my step- grandfather worked at the Roanoke shops in the late 40's - late 50's.
In '77, as a 13yo kid I got to ride behind the Chessie Steam Special 2101 from Saint Albans, WV to Hinton, WV and back. Iv3 got several lifelong friends that worked for C&O, Chessie and currently CSX.
Love the story! Thank you!
The C&O "Allegheny" type is an impressive specimen of an articulated locomotive and one of the largest steam locomotives ever built. The h8 class locomotives were built for hauling coal drags in Virginia and West Virginia and it must have been truly impressive to see these Allegheny type locomotives in operation during the late stage of the steam era. I am satisfied that engines 1601 and 1604 were preserved for display in museums to be admired and observed by railfans to appreciate the giant representatives of articulated steam power.
Well said
Horsepower is tractive effort at a certain speed (ft-lb/hr); the adhesion constant (the Greek letter u) is pretty constant at 0.3 for all locomotives. Steam engines, like electric motors, can produce full power at stall, so speed really isn't an issue in starting a train. Horsepower comes in when you want to run a train at higher speeds.
Good stuff~ I agree with everything. Slipping usually occurs trying to gain speed with a full consist.. Or getting up a grade with a full consist. That's where my 3 Amigo's from the video come into play. That and a good engineer and fireman.
When you want to run an engine at ANY SPEED - BECAUSE HP is weight moved over DISTANCE in time. To generate a HP rating you must be moving. The faster a locomotive moved under load, the more HP it was producing.
@@organbuilder272 Nothing to dispute there! Nice comment!
@@organbuilder272 please build me a left kidney...or a hammond b3
@@organbuilder272 The problem with most large locos was their boilers would run out of steam and this was a problem for the UP 4000s. A boiler that could fit in an H-8s and cruddy coal that didn't help them. Plus they were designed more for speed on the flats and not the grades that they would hit. If the turntables on the C&O had been longer, there would have been no doubt as to which would have been heavier as the C&O would have had them built with larger tenders. Likely with 8-wheel trucks both front and rear. But the C&O was constrained for space and could not build bigger turntables. HP also drops off after a certain peak point and in the case of the H-8s it was between 45 and 50 MPH while the UP 4000s dropped off at 40 MPH. The siding length restrictions on the C&O plus the tunnels kind of restricted what the number of cars could be with a loco on the front and a helper on the rear. So we will never know what the maximum HP of the H-8 would actually be. Just what was recorded on the test.
Really enjoy your conversational style here and all the great facts and pics! new sub here ubet
Thank you! That's exactly the feedback I was looking for. And welcome!! And conversational is a better way of putting it regarding the tweak of the delivery, I like it!
Per Kalmbach books, "Diesel Locomotives, the first fifty years", the Union Pacific's Gas Turbine three car units number 1-30 were rated at 8500 horse power. In 1964, traction motors were added to the fuel tenders to increase horse power to 10,000 hp.
The problem with the gas turbines were that they were exceptionally loud and weren't very cost effective versus standard diesels. Why they didn't gain traction in mass production.
I noticed the photo you used for the Pennsy Q2 is actually of a Q1. Aside from the picture issue, this is an awesome presentation - thank you for your time and effort in putting it together.
Great vid! Bookmarked. Both the T-1 and the Allegheny were limited to 160 cars. Boiler pressure could have been higher. The beast from the east was always on a leash.
On a leash for good reason though... The threat of coupler damage and train separation go's up dramatically on anything above 13,500t on your consist. One of those "just because you can, doesnt mean that you should" situations. Loved the comment!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Also because of the tunnels, the front loco would close it throttle down while the helper shoved on the rear. By the time the front loco was out of the tunnel, the helper would be going in or getting near to it. And on more than one occasion, it was an H-8 on the front and another on the rear. And I'll echo Karen's comment above, get Gene's book if you like the H-8s. I've never made it to the Ford Museum and when I was at the B&O Museum, they didn't have one either. But I got to see it near two other famous locos. The N&W 2-6-6-4 and their 4-8-4 because at the time all three were in the Roanoke Museum together. And the H-8 dwarfed them.
Steam pressure doesn't create the power. It is all about the heat of the steam. Steam locomotives work on thermodynamics, they do not work on steam pressure.
I like this format you sound a lot more relaxed👍
Lol I see what you did there with the 4 amigos 😂 we already talked about it in the y6b and big boy video, so it feels like a moot point to bring it up again. Instead, I pike how you did this video. It felt a bit more organic, like you were talking face to face with your audience, though that might just be me. And I agree with you on the allegheny. It's such a beast of a locomotive. I've actually got a rivarossi ho scale model of it with dcc that I've run a lot at my club layout. These engines are so underrated when compared to the big boys, y6b's and the yellowstones. Awesome video!
HAHA, Yes! Was I right or wrong about the Centennial still being the highest HP and largest of the diesels? Im glad you liked the format. Since you're the only comment thus far.. I can't say it's the winner... But I liked it better over the classroom documentary style. Thanks bear!
@TheRailroadCrossing-wc5gx no problem! And yeah, to my knowledge the centennial is the most powerful diesel locomotive ever built. That being said, and I know it's not a diesel, but the 3rd gen UP veranda turbine locos were far more powerful than the centennial and the allegheny, clocking in at 8500 horsepower. However they did suffer from reliability issues so they didn't last very long.
@@bear470 It go's to show you that im not enthused with diesels..Because i've never heard of a Veranda, now I have to look it up.
@TheRailroadCrossing-wc5gx yeah, same here, though I'm a bit more open to modern motive power, my heart will always be with the steam age. The romance and the sheer size and power both man and machine exerted to operate, maintain and innovate just cannot be beaten.
@@bear470 IMO diesels just dont have the eye appeal, or the charisma that steam has in abundance.
First: great video. These were some truly impressive machines. Second: althe the C&O has been informally known as Chessie for many years, the Chessie System didn't exist during the stram era. But having said that, the Cheasie System Railroads were effectively (IMO) a greatly expanded Chesapeake & Ohio Railway despite the C&O, B&O, and WM being separate entities.
Oh I know... "Cheesie" was always my favorite logo as a kid, and I loved seeing it. I couldn't resist throwing it in.. LOL
This is a great video definitly subbing
That's awesome! Im glad you thought so! You will definitely like the video coming tomorrow about the Allegheny 1642 accident. IMO that is my best video yet :) Thanks again!
You sure do know how to make a good video. And Alleghany's were very cool locomotives.
Thank you! I feel like I am getting a little better which each one. Public speaking was never my specialty, and having a life long speech impediment battle (I've largely overcome) I've never been very confident with it either. I've always had some talent in this arena, just never any confidence.
I noticed no speech impediment. I was talking about a great classic loco and your excellent presentation. As an old English major and a old hippie lawyer, I was impressed.
Thank you
Happy new year! 🎉
To you as well John!
What a great video.
Another way to consider the power in practical terms was what they hauled and where. Big boys tended to haul reefers, trains that were much lighter than the coal trains pulled by Virginian and C&O. They tended to run at fairly high speeds for what they hauled and by doing so moved the train over the railroad faster than their predecessors. This actually increased capacity with out requiring more infrastructure.
For the ultimate in pure drag era power look at the Virginian 2-10-10-2 articulated, not fast but it ran with what ever was ready to go and would often pull 200 car trains. Making headlines in the news papers with the massive amounts of tonnage they pulled into the Virginians coal piers.
The Virginian will get a video. It is an impressive locomotive despite the speed.
The beginning of the end for Lima was not the Allegheny, but the coming of the diesel locomotive. Only World War Two extended the steam era by halting diesel design and production. Towards the end, it was Baldwin that killed Lima as a locomotive builder. Baldwain was bigger, but also financially weaker when the decision was made to merge, without public knowledge or input. Prior to this, Lima was financially strong, and beginning to surpass Baldwin in diesel production.
The Allegheny might weigh more and have more tractive effort, but the Wasatch is a beautiful beast, especially hi-ballin down the track.
This locomotive is quite obscure compared to the big boys. It might be one of my favorites.
Quite a few loco's are diminished because of the Big Boy's revival, in particular.
Only 25 Big Boys were produced. 68 Allegheny type were produced in total. (60 for the C&O, 8 for the Virginian). The 2-6-6-6 were actually more common than the Big Boys.
Built by the same company where my beloved steam locomotive Daylight 4449 and Daylight locomotives were built, Chesapeake and Ohio's Alleghenies, The most powerful, beautiful, but to make matters worse, heaviest steam locomotives ever built!
If you've got a credible source that backs that.. Im more than willing to entertain it. But not according to the C & O otherwise. Daylight is one of my favorites as well. It's just unfortunate that Lima, Baldwin and ALCO didn't prepare for the days without steam. such a rich history and legacy lost. Had they survived, I suspect we would see a lot more steam locomotives preserved. Thanks for the comment!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Sure No problem!
That would be most appreciative. Authors and historians are human.. And often they had their favorites, I think you know what I mean here. Which is exactly why im willing to entertain other creditable sources that I might not otherwise have here. I mean, I have a really strong library here collected through the years..But I dont have nearly everything!
I have seen online that Allegheny was the largest locomotive ever built once or twice
You will see a lot of various sources that claim that. The only widely accepted one is from the C & O. Thanks for the comment.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower thank u for the video and the channel. It was very well presented for being on the spot
I do make a mistake here and there. But I certainly try my very best to present everything accurately! Thanks for being here and the support!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Well it is taller than a UP 4000. ;-)
Most of the articulated steam engines were not run to capacity from the engineers, they were resented because crews being replaced 2 to 1
You forgot the Yellowstone it had about the same as the y6b in simple in stead of compound steam and that is where the HP & tractive effort was the highest
That's the problem with keeping these video's under 10 minutes. Stuff gets left out. It's not necessarily that I forget.. But rather the more detail I get into, the more the video's become more for fans who have long studied these locomotives, like myself, and probably yourself. That kinda leaves the new or more casual fan behind. Which is the opposite of my goal. Which is to keep these machines alive for the younger or new fans to discuss in the future. These arent just a cool machine. But they are also the machines that literally built the world as we know it today. That's a legacy worth passing on.
TY
YOU'RE WELCOME!
The Centennials on the UP were originally rated at 7200 HP. They were cut back to 6600 HP after about 6 months of being on the system.
Why??
I don't believe that. That would be pushing each 645E3A V16 engine to 3600 HP. Pushing them to 3300 HP caused increased wear and tear over the standard 3000 HP rating. The 20 cylinder 645 was rated at 3600 HP, and even with the 4 extra cylinders, it had reliability issues.
@@markantony3875 If you don't believe me , go look it up. The DDA40X''s were originally rated at 7200 horses and pulled back to 6600. I used to run them!!! They needed these extra horses because they were permanently wired in Parallel, and they took a long time to load up. You would be clear up to run 6 on a heavy train before they would load up.
To help you with your HP over TE on a 1% hill, choosing HP is fine but wont help you get over the hill. HP is the 'power' of the loco (boiler output [different from drawbar hp]). Factor of Adhesion is the 'stickiness' or 'gription' of the steel wheel on steel rail under weight (weight on drivers - because you have to know steel on steel is very slippery!). TE is the 'answer' to the equation of HP and FoA. You have to know how much power you have, and how well that loco is gonna grip (before slipping) before you can figure on how much it will pull. Having all the horsies in the world wont help you if you cant get that HP to the rails. It takes HP to make TE, but having more HP only works to a point until you supercede the FoA (spin the wheels). Thus, more HP is not totally the answer - you may need to add weight (FoA increase). So, choose TE.... the higher HP and FoA are included to make this figure to begin with. Meaning youd already get your higher HP which you chose originally. (now you know why the axle loadings of Big Boy, H8's, and the like are so heavy - takes alot of weight to keep that much HP from slipping the drivers under load)
How does this translate to the Allegheny? You mentioned track base, but not track structures. Alot had to be moved and upgraded to handle the H8s, not just track. This is why the Allegheny IS smaller than the Big Boy (and others!). The east coast railroads had much more tighter dimensions to work with than the west coast railroads. Same with weight, the H8 WEIGHS LESS than the Big Boy (and others!). You can only upgrade so many bridges and so much trackage before it becomes too much $$$ even for a railroad. Lima simply packed as much as they could into the space allowed. Yet still made one of the best locos out there, easily comparable to 'larger' locos - rightfully so. The Big Boy (and others) were never put under the same design restrictions as was the H8.
This is why the H8 and Big Boy will forever be pitted agin one another. While Big Boy takes the crown in the respects that its larger, heavier, and has a higher HP, Lima proved you can move just as much freight, just as fast, given less to work with by restriction. So the age old battle of which is bigger, heavier, more powerful, hasnt really been the argument all along..... it was just another underdog story and whoever bet on the obvious loser.... actually won!
(and dont forget, you can only pull so many cars no matter what loco is up front before you pull the face right off of a coupler! Metallurgy was a serious factor of the day too folks.)
Good video but the picture of the q2 was a q1. The q2 had 4 forward facing cylinders instead of 2 forward and 2 backward
Yeah, I grabbed the wrong image when I assembled the video and didnt catch it. Good thing it was just an example image, and not pertaining to the main topic. Thanks for the comment!
Correct me if I’m wrong…
I was a kid when I read this, probably about 15, and that was back in the 70s, so I might be off a bit.
Was the Allegheny the locomotive that five miles of cars were put behind as a publicity stunt?
I know that this was done, and the story was that there were a couple of helpers to start the train moving, and then they decoupled.
So where along the train, slack action had its way with a couplet, and the the brakes locked up.
When that happened, another drawbar got plucked out entirely.
I can’t think of any other locomotives that could possibly do this.
I have never read this story that you described... But I do know that the C & O limited the Allegheny to a 160 car consist specifically because of the seriously heightened risk of coupler damage and train separation. The locomotive had the 2nd highest horse power recorded in Steam..and along with that a high draw bar horse power. So the story you describe is plausible, and perhaps this is how that limitation came about!! Thanks for the comment!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I was a reader way back when…
So, in the days of steam, there was this crew in a locomotive that their job was turns to the local foundry.
Along with ingots and scrap going in, and new steel coming out, they always had hoppers full of coke stone.
Like I said, it burns like coal, just a whole lot hotter.
The rather new fireman asked the engineer if he had ever used that stuff in the locomotive.
The engineer said no, and then suggested they find out what it would do.
So, the fireman jumped up on the hopper that was behind the tender, and started throwing those big lumps into the tender.
When he figured he had a decent amount, he went back down and started throwing it into the firebox, making a decent heel in both sides.
When the stuff took off, it warmed up the boiler, all right.
Pressure kept going up, fireman makes sure that the water level stays up.
On this loco, there was three safety valves.
They all started going off, one after the other.
When they got to the yard, it was hissing like crazy.
The coke was burning out by that time, and a few shovels of coal finished the day.
The fireman looked into the firebox, and saw that the bricks of the brick arch were melted away.
The engineer and fireman tied it up at the roundhouse, and walked away.
They never got asked about it, but they wondered what the shop mechanics thought when they found all the firebricks missing and melted over the piping!
no no i liked the new style of video
I gathered that you did.. I was merely explaining exactly what else I changed. Dumping the AI wash was the first change. :)
Many railfans will complain about the Allegheny's operating steam pressure of 260 psi. Steam pressure doesn't create the power. It is all about the heat of the steam. Steam locomotives work on thermodynamic principles, they do not work on steam pressure. They are a Heat Engine, not a pneumatic tool like an air tool that a mechanic would use.
Was there ever a certified scale anywhere that could have settled this dispute?
Why are there so few N scale Alleghenies? There are so many Big Boys and so many N&W Y6s. It sure would be nice to have some in plastic!!!
Marketing is all I can tell you.
Regarding horsepower, the class H-8 Allegheny was measured at 7498 HP using a dynamometer car while hauling a train, and it represented a peak reading of drawbar horsepower. The relevant paragraph from C&O Power also mentioned frequent peaks between 6700 and 6900 horsepower.
Interpreting this, it should be obvious that the Allegheny could not sustain 7000 HP. Peak power is a momentary reading and does not represent long-term pulling power. It would be more realistic to say the Allegheny was a 6000 HP locomotive, since it would have been capable of producing that in regular service, all day long. 6000 drawbar HP is entirely consistent with a well proportioned superheated locomotive using good bituminous coal and a grate area of 135 square feet. It could be pushed harder than that if the crew didn't care about black smoke from incomplete combustion at higher firing rates.
Of course, when other HP measurements are being compared you must account for the circumstances of those measurements too. The Pennsy Q2 was measured at the cylinders, not the drawbar. Drawbar HP would be much lower in actual service. Diesel locomotives are rated by the horsepower produced by the diesel engine alone. To achieve 6000 drawbar HP requires 7000 HP or more from a diesel.
On the drawbar... Basically you'd be busting the couplers and separating trains if you actually ran the 200 car consist that the Allegheny was capable of. Which is the chief reason why C & O had their self imposed 160 car limit. The wildcard for ALL of the railroads, not just the C & O wass wartime demands. I suspect they went full throttle more than you think in order to meet demands. Cost and common sense be damned.. et. all. Good Stuff!! I appreciate the comment!
Sorry I missed your comment! I can't say as I have anything to throw back you that adds to what you said. Pretty good and straight forward stuff. Thank you for the comment! Again, sorry I missed it the first time.
@TheRailroadCrossing-wc5gx couldn't have C/O put a Allegheny in the seat of the 200 car consist pushing while the one in the front pulls.
@@Dachamp2001 Could they have... YES.. Was it economically feasible...NO. For pusher help, you'd want the cheapest running locomotive that you could get the job done with. Allegheny didn't need much help. Now, of course during the war, outside demands might have forced the C & O to double up Allegheny front and back, this simply for speed purposes. Allegheny was at the pinnacle of steam motive power. C & O had a 160 car limit on their consist. The reason for that was simply safety. Any more than that and the risk of coupler damage (stress) and car separation increasingly grows. Allegheny was one of those "Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should" types of locomotives.
So are you saying Big Boy possibly had more horsepower?
I have seen both the one at Henry j Museum and the one in Baltimore, and as a Swede living in Sweden that must be unique :-)
Just my opinion, I prefer this style of presentation. I feel like I’m listening to the docent at the museum vs. an AI created voice that is robotic.
I find trains and railroad history very interesting.
I made the switch several video's ago regarding the AI wash. The change I made was going largely off script, which allowed me to interject and place more of my own feeling into the presentation. Before, I had been scripting the whole thing, Me, or whether it was the original AI wash.. the result was a unemotional presentation. Which I didnt like. And it's not what I wanted. The change in these last two video's are the result..
The Yellowstones are great too
Yes they are indeed!
If you increased the boiler pressure by 10 pounds, made the cylinders an inch larger in diameter, and added a booster. The Allegheny would have out pulled the Bog Boy.
I think it just might have as is? We will never know.
Thank you for the video. Very much appreciated it. Besides UP's 4014, I would like to see a Allegheny also; but a pipe dream.
Im sorry you cant see them! I have a Allegheny follow up video coming tomorrow that I think you will also enjoy! Thank you for the comment, and you are most welcome!
was tyhe alleghevy a steam turbine loco
I was lucky enough to grow up going to the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, MI my entire life where they have one of these on display. Awesome machine.
I definitely hear you on that! I lived in Harrisburg Pa for a few years and I frequently went to the Strasburg and Scranton (Steamtown) museums. I dearly miss them! Strangely, I neveer went to the B&O museum in Baltimore!! Which was the same drive for me to Scranton.. LOL.. Some things just never make any sense. Thanks for the comment!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower thanks for sharing!
@@ericcriteser4001 You're welcome! Thank you for being here!
As did I. My family made weekly visits to the Henery Ford Museum.
@@tomsurface9538 That's really cool to hear!
You showed a picture of a Q1 but called it a Q2
Yes I know, I grabbed the incorrect photo... It's an error that has already been pointed out. Thanks for commenting!
Don't really care, these locomotives are all Kool and glad to see them rebuilt so everyone can see their beauty.
That's the mission! Thanks for commenting on the Allegheny!
the only electros that made more power were the up turbines at around 10000 hp or the russian turbine electros that put out more as the 2010's vintage that had more, there are pure electro engines though that have more all out tractive effort, one reason also that they didn't pull longer trains then the up was they didn not have sidings for longer trains, and as you stated they never used the boosters they didn't need to it did the job of pulling 2 times the tonnage at 2 times the speed dragging it and less overall fuel consumption then the h 7's they replaced. according to c and o magazine that had an article that I read on videos about 5 years back after I found the article
great information! Thank you!
At 1:48, the photo shows a Q1, not a Q2
So sorry!
0:29 It's tragic that 3 loco operators had to lose their lives through no fault of their own. The lack of maintenance is appalling. One thing I noticed through watching these two videos is how the weights are expressed in pounds. Would it not be easier to state amounts in tons or is it only the British who do this. (I'm British).
It's definitely an American thing..Everything is published in pounds.. While most of the rest of the world does kilo's, etc... Consequently if I do express things in tons, that makes a large number of people think. 😜 That's just how we are taught here.. It wasn't meant to be a slight on anyone domestically.
I like the new video format.
An interesting locomotive to be sure but the layout on this one doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's like Lima took a Northern Pacific Z-5 boiler and plunked it down on a Union Pacific Challenger running gear. Not really sure what they expected to gain. Also the 263,000 lbs of Locomotive weight that's supported by the leading and trailing trucks seems excessive.
And the weight of the Allegheny was something the Norfolk and Western sighted as a issue when they designed the y6B. NW's came in 100,000 Lbs lighter and offered similar performance. And you're not to far off, the Allegheny was a bit of a jalopy on ALCO's part in order to meet the C & O's requirements. That not to write a book, but you get my meaning I think.
Tractive effort is the most misunderstood thing about steam locomotives. Tractive effort is not power. It is the calculated starting pull at 0 mph. A steam locomotives calculated starting pull has nothing to do with how much power it can produce at speed.
Horsepower isn’t as reliable as tractive effort. Why would want to measure the power at which they only start at. Tractive effort measures the continuous output so it is the most reliable.
I actually have the 3 amigo's that you really want in a locomotive.. Horsepower being one of them. And I agree, HP is more of a diesel thing in the pecking order of importance.
Yep, I would bet Money on Big Boy , Allegheny wasn't able to start as heavy a Train.
Another correction, the pic labeled Q2 was really the single Q1 4-6-4-4. The Q2 was 4-4-6-4. The problem of goofing around train nerds. 😁
Nahh, it's no problem! Just me grabbing the wrong photo from the folder is all.. Those off subject photo's are really just meant to give folks an idea of the locomotive (SUBJECT) i'm referring to. Of course I would like to get the right photo in place.. But it's not a catastrophic error on the same hand if i'm going to make such a mistake.. It likely wont be the last time I do something like this. Thanks for the comment! I REALLY DO APPRECIATE IT!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower 👍👍👍
N&W's Y6b were much better for heavy coal hauling at slow speeds than the H8.
The device used to measure power is called a dynaMOMeter, not dynameter.🤣
Well, it's like this... I have battled a life long speech impediment that I have largely overcome.. Maybe can you cut me a little slack there?
you needed 132 lb rail for coal , any line that ran coal trains could handle a Allegheny
Yep..that was just a blanket statement on my part to let the casual fan know that you just couldn't run a locomotive like the Allegheny on any track.
that is because most track was not 132 lb rail@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower
Nope. Stated rail weight for an H-8 was 141lb/yd rail.
@@gravelydon7072 C&O never had rail that heavy ,
Adhesion for the Allegheny was a guaranteed 22%.
Pretty darn sure footed!
The BIGBOY wight was or is one million five hundred LBS.
In terms of overall weight, the big boys may have been heavier if but by a couple tons. Big boys were faster than these engines and they were also much longer. The Yellowstone engines on the other hand eclipse both the big boy and Allegheny.
Yellowstone in terms of weight??? Do you mind sharing what your source is that verifies this? Because I have NOTHING that suggests this. Thank you for the comment! I most definitely appreciate it and I am most intrigued by this possibility.
Were the Big Boys really any faster than the Alleghenies? I think both would have a similar top speed
@@sharkheadism Big Boy was substantially faster than any other articulated heavy freight locomotive. They were capable of running 80 mph max.. But 55 to 70 mph on the norm. Thanks for the question! I will also note that Big Boy wasn't specifically designed to haul coal and iron.. They did... But it wasn't their main consist unlike the Allegheny, Yellowstone and Y6B et. all. As built, I suspect Big Boy would have some pretty regular maintenance issues if you stuck one in the Appalachian coal runs on a regular basis. It simply wasnt designed for those kind of runs
@@sharkheadism big boys had 68 inch drivers, Alleghenys had 67. Big boys could hit 80, the Allegheny could hit 60 and that was that.
That's correct! Thanks for the comment!
DM&IR Yellowstone. The debate goes on.
There is a massive mistake made. The creator left of a 0 in the weight. It should say that they weighed as much as 771,300lbs, not 77,130. If 77,130 were correct, then even an old Pershing tank M26, weighing in at 92,355 lbs would be a heavy load, let alone cars full of them.
You have misspelled Alleghany. In Virginia that is how it is spelled not as in Pennsylvania where it is AlleghEny.
It's Big but not much more than a Challenger in performance.
Well, one thing is for certain... The C & O never used them to the abilities, therefore I dont even know why they bothered ordering them when lesser locomotives could ahve done the job they were asking for. My guess is EGO.
You know I never thought about HP ratings in terms of coal burn- 3 hours of fuel available. Maybe you’d just start grabbing coal from the cars 😂
Like with jet engines, it's all about pounds of thrust, not horsepower which changes with speed.
The Allegheny was actually pretty comparable to the Y6B in terms of cruising speed (40-45 mph) But it took upwards to that 7500 HP to do it.. Meaning it's less efficient with the Coal and Water. Allegheny could make it's primary Clifton Forge to Hinton run with that 12k consist on it's own (barely) But anything longer, particularly the Columbus run, you'd have to have pusher or pull assistance from the rear or front, from a lesser locomotive. And most certainly auxiliary water cars on top of it. Wartime efforts required expediency.. So it's not like the Railroads had much of a choice in all of this. I think the war was what helped speed up the Diesel delivery time frame. Because that push happened extremely quickly.
Allegheny ran at high end HP a good bit of the time.. And not very efficiently compared to similar Monsters.
It was common practice for class 1 railroads to have a coaling facility near the mid point of a division.
Elevate the nickel plate.
Not sure what you're referring to.
It's wheel ARRANGEMENT, not wheel alignment!
Nobody is ever perfect.
i think we all knew what he meant anyway
@@AstroKnight118 Sure, it's just one of things that happens when you're not using a script. We all do it in general conversion. It's no different doing video's. Im finding that sometimes I catch it, sometimes I don't.
the big boy never had much coal unit trains
That's not to say that the Big Boy didnt run coal.. It just wasnt the Union Pacific major revenue source unlike the C & O and Norfolk and Western. But I get your meaning. Allegheny and the Y6B were obviously designed for coal runs.
Not on a regular basis, you are correct!
1:13 What do we need the Lionel ad here for ? I'd venture to guess anyone serious enough to want to learn about the real Allegheny loco wouldn't have interest in the toy 4-4-2, and a pretty bad toy at that !! What is it in this video for ? 5:19 Here's a decent model but with a derailed pony truck ! 6:51 Do we really need another Lionel pic with their giant flanges accompanying a 1:1 scale documentary ? whether or not you use a script doesn't seem to matter. But leave out the unnecessary filler pics.. You asked..
Scripted is better. Thank you.
The C & O crews reporting on the actual weight of the Alleghaeny locomotive is accurate because they worked on them.