One of the greatest steam locomotives of all time! Personally, it is tied with the UP FEF series 4-8-4s for my favorites. In fact, they were dimensionally very similar to UP locomotives (Tenders, most obviously), except the loading guage was a foot shorter on NYC.
Panthera, that is the first Niagara, No. 6000. You can tell by the smokelifters, as 6000 was the only one that had a squared off back end. All of the others were tapered from top to bottom. The person who owns the website that the image is linked to is quite upset. I see he has attached a hot link message to the photo. :tb-sad:
Panthera, I'm sure you know that the Niagaras had shortened, almost flat domes and stacks so that Alco could maximize boiler capacity while still allowing the loco to fit through the Central's "tiny" tunnels, such as the ones at Cold Spring and Cleveland.
If you would like to have another photo of a Niagara, I have plenty of them, but must credit the photographers in each case that they are used. I bought some from Harold K. Vollrath and always give him credit for them when I post them. Like this. Photo from the collection of Harold K. Vollrath. Notice the taper on the rear of the smokelifter, as I mentioned above.
I'm partial to the big 4-8-4's also and have chased UP's 844 across Oklahoma last year. I bought a DVD at the OKC Trainshow this weekend that showed both the UP 4-8-4 and the SP 4-8-4 steaming side-by-side on parallel track heading into LA for the 1989 50th anniversary of the Union Station there. Very nice.
Such a perfectly proportioned and functional machine and not a single solitary example was spared the scappers torch. That is tantamount to criminal negligence IMO!!! Charlie
At least a locomotive of similar capabilities was preserved... N&W J #611. They certainly had the best tracive effort of all 4-8-4s...
Niagaras et al The N&W's 'J' class had relatively small driving wheels for passenger power. They also had less horsepower then some Santa Fe giant 4-8-4s , as well as the last batches of SP 'GS' and the Niagaras. Interestingly, to me, the NdeM's pocket northerns were also called Niagaras by the Mexicans. The least remarked upon of northerns, because of the railroad's "disrespectable reputation", were the TP&W's. Like the Rutland, or Old Woman's 4-8-2s, they were really anachronistic power in the Tired Poor and Weary's power pool. The old Norfolk & Southern (Norfolk to Charlotte via the rural coastal plain and piedmont of N.C.) had a similar handful of Berkshires in a mix of old steam locos without trailing trucks. Still, the TP&W northerns were elegant, if small, members of the type. The all weather cab, new mikes on the AC&Y, were another elegant group of locomotives that were largely unseen and unnoted by most commentators. It is too bad indeed, that no Niagaras or Hudsons were saved from the NYC. Good-Luck, PJB
But the J did have the advantage in tractive effort, which is more important at low speeds than horsepower. Maximum hp is at higher speeds. J = 80,000 pounds tractive effort. Niagara = 61,500 pounds tractive effoft. Despite small drivers, Js could get over 90 mph. But both types were excellently maintained.
There were so many good looking 4-8-4's built, hardly any of which exist today. At the risk of sounding sacreligious, I always liked the lines and overall looks of the Richmond, Fredricksburg and Potomac engines, only 27 of which existed, and the Delaware, Lackawanna, and Western Poconos, 50. The Mexican railroad N de M called theirs Niagras, dropping the one "a" from the NYC designation. 3028 is being slowly, very slowly restored by the New Hope and Ivyton. Someday an N de M Niagra might run in the USA. :tb-biggrin:
I never saw an N&W J Class up close, but I saw hundreds of NYC's Niagaras at Harmon between '46 and '53, departing, arriving, and awaiting assignment. Guys, sorry for the nostalgia, but to me, between ages 11 and 18, these were very impressive and fantastic machines. Seeing an S Class standing next to an I, J, K, or L Class was like seeing the Incredible Hulk standing next to an ordinary scale actor, they were massive....sob, sob! Oh well, I was more impressive 60 years ago, too.....:tb-sad:
Well, the UP 800's would look even bigger, though. Although the Niagara was similar in dimensions, it had to be made shorter in height.
I dug out the old Cyclopedias and the UP and NYC boilers were almost identical, with 100 inch diameters on the firebox end and 90 at the smokebox end. Wheelbase, tractive effort, almost all parameters were very close. The reason the Niagara was not as tall, was that all the normally "stick up" appurtanances were shortened down, like the stack and the sand dome. Isn't it a shame that we couldn't see a Niagara side by side today with UP 844?? :tb-biggrin:
Or last night's Extreme Trains with 844 and either 6025 or 5500 sharing the limelight, Oh Well. :tb-sad:
There was a fascinating article on boiler and running gear efficiencies in this months Keystone Magazine (The magazine of the Pennsylvania Railroad Technical and Historical Society). Most of the focus was, unsurprisingly, on PRR stuff, but the last 10 pages or so were on the T1 Duplex where the writers made some direct comparisons between The T1, Niagara, and FEF3 since they were designed for similar use; long distance, high speed use (the J, K4s and E6s (PRR's Atlantic) were pitched in for running gear comparisons). Some of the high points were: - FEF3 had the best front end. By this, they were referring to the steam chest and exhaust nozzle efficiency. Low back pressure was required to draw the required draft. Low back pressure = more horsepower. - Niagara had the best valve area to cylinder volume ratio of all the two cylinder locomotives. Same valve diameter of the J, but smaller pistons. - The T1 had a huge valve area to cylinder volume ratio - even the piston valved version had a huge advantage over the two cylinder engines (All T1 Duplexes were built with poppet valves, one was converted to Walschearts gear piston valves), which allowed them to produce a lot of power at very high speeds. - The T1 and Niagara had "tight" boilers, which referes to how easily the buring coal gases could pass through the tubes and flues. Who knew they measured these things? - Niagara, FEF3 and the J were FAR more reliable than the T. A hot-rod before it's time. - The J ran a documented 111mph on a test on the PRR. As noted above, this locomotive wasn't designed for those speeds, which makes it all the more amazing that it could do it. T's were regularly reported to push over 110 if making up time. Just hearsay here, as that was faster than track speed allowed... Well, that's enough of mostly off topic information. I would recommend that everyone join the historical society of their favorite railroad - great stuff. I've found fantastic material in both PRR's and N&W's mags. I'll have to join NYC next as I have some interest there. Matt
