Good info...hmm...if someone had the money, could they build a new Niagara? Not a replica or rebuild, but a continuation of the series?
Darn!!!!! I read somewhere a bit about building a new steam locomotive in this country. The cost would be prohibitive. It pretty much involves building a new infrastructure. A number of years ago, I was reading about some group that was interested in obtaining a "stuffed & mounted" locomotive and restoring it to operation. The biggest drawback was with the frame, which was a cast frame, and it was cracked. The frame could be welded, but there was no facility which had an annealing furnace of a size big enough to accomodate the frame! That is the sad state of affairs of our American heavy industry! CT
Boy, am I with you on that wish. However, two concerns come to mind that probably would prevent creation of a Niagara from the ground up, assuming original NYC specs and ALCO drawings were available. First would be the lack of craftsmen, engineers, and suppliers qualified in creating a steam locomotive from absolutely nothing. I accept that Steve Lee and his gang are doing a fantastic job with 3985 and 844, but he and his forebears started with fully operational locos that they have been able to baby and cajole. Second would be the availability the correct steel alloys, or metalurgists who could develop those alloys, or even foundries that could produce them. I have read enough to realize that many of the alloys used in the final thirty years of steam production were the result of a long evolution of experimentation and lucky breaks. Yes, there were formulas and specs, but in the end there was also a fair amount of alchemy known only to a handful of long-suffering artisans in those few foundries that could successfully produce boiler and firebox alloys. There have been attempts to use space-age alloys for this kind of application, but most, if not all have failed due to the severe conditions in which steam locos operated. I suspect that much of the money needed for a project of this magnitude would be spent on a lengthy process of back-engineering, research, and analysis. Also, I assume the only facility capable of erecting this baby is in Cheyenne, WY. Though I suspect Steve Lee and his bosses in Omaha would not take kindly to having a Niagara erected in their shops....:tb-hissyfit:
Good point, I'd forgotten about that project. Of course it required about 15 years and US$4.5 Million, but the enthusiasm for rail history in the UK is very high. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60163_Tornado
One must consider that the Central (after the 6000's test) was detuned somewhat, as the Central didn't need 6000 horsepower. The built after 6000 had a slightly smaller grate area, less steam pressure I believe, they didn't even add the booster, which the trailing trucks were designed for as the traction was quite sufficent as was. Another item they didn't enlarge the drivers but all had room to accommadate the larger driver diameter, or smaller ones. It is quite clear that taking all into consideration the Niagra and other late developed 4 8 4's were the ultimate steam engines, whom could of been more refined developed but wasn't being of the change over to diesels. Rob the Rebel, New York Central modeler
Hi Rob, I recall the 6000 was built with 75 inch drivers, but all subsequent 6000's with 79, and 6000 was retrofit with 79. You are right about the NYCS not needing 6000 hp, with no real significant grades and plenty of power with the Mohawks and Hudsons. Do you model a specific part or division of the NYCS? :tb-biggrin:
Well I'm in between layouts right now, my current layout is in a bedroom, and quite frankly its too small, I need to narrow the shelves to 18 inches and get more running room. (double deck) In the long term, I'm planning to do the hudson division with the four track main, and if the space is big enough, go west towards Chicago. But thats on the drawing board for later. Rob
Rob, are you thinking of including some electric trackage south of Harmon? On the other hand, I don't know where you would find any P, R, S, or T-Motor models...:tb-sad:
Hello Hytec, I tried to conceptualize doing that, and I think it would be deminishing returns. even if the equipment became available, the Harmon yard is so big, even selectly compressed it would be a monster, not to mention the third rail, whom would man it? The amount of trains entering and exchanging steam for electric would be mind boggling. I think using computer control one could get a reasonable rendentition of the Break Neck mountain area up to the tunnels, South would be that spit of land that sticks out of the Hudson river where the track kind of bends. Thats where the visable track would start, before that would be the staging, and I'm talking at least a 10 track staging yard on that end at least, more would be better. Since the Break Neck mountain was quite high, the other side could hide the staging yard quite nicely. Of course at that point the railroad would have to away from the wall so you could fit behind the mountain for maintenance and train make up. Up North past the BNTunnels, perhaps a few more Hudson scenes (we're talking at least 20 or more feet for that one long module. Just maybe if one could find the photo of the bridge at bear mountain, or the bridges at Albany, the other wall going left aka west over the river could represent the Line crossing the river, other scenes on maybe the Mohawk and the Huron perhaps. Maybe jump the scenes past the midwest to the Approaches to Chicago. or some of the trackage 100 miles prior. It was a huge Railroad, and how and where you model will definately depend on how much space you have, how you do the benchwork, I(single or double deck) etc. (we haven't even mentioned the West side freightline or the Jersey shore upto Westpoint. Rob Rob
Oh one thing for sure, it would sure be nice to see the Dryfuss Hudson barreling along with 14 to 15 passenger cars in tow, with maybe a Pacemaker freight on the opposite track doing the same, (only at 54 mph) vice the 90 the Hudson would skoot along at. Rob
Rob, if you really were into punishing yourself, you might consider building the New Haven bridge at Poughkeepsie. Of course, then you'd need a freight with an FA/FB at point crossing the bridge. Nah, that might be just a little extreme. What you are visualizing sounds great all by itself........:tb-biggrin:
I can get some photos with my HO scale Niagara #6016 and FEF-1 #806. XP I'll do it tonight, but I probably won't upload untill tomorrow.
Panthera, where have you been? Haven't seen you here for some time. I look forward to seeing your photo of the HO scale locos. We can't get a real Niagara for comparison. :tb-biggrin:
Very pretty models. What scale are they? It'd be interesting to see a table that compared their specification and performance figures side by side.
Thanks for posting the side by side shots. The later UP FEF's had PT tenders just like the Niagara, so the combinations were probably about the same length. Hank, I have that data, but have to dig it out from the archives. Both locomotive were great pullers. :tb-biggrin:
