Who wants to see a reconstructed NYC 4-6-4? Bah, I'll take a Niagara, thank you!

https://nycshs.files.wordpress.com/2015 ... -story.pdf

https://nycshs.files.wordpress.com/2016 ... gara21.pdf

https://nycshs.files.wordpress.com/2014 ... agaras.pdf

Good stuff, thanks!

Thank you, Brian.

I'll add that it's interesting that there was at least a ghost of a chance that the NYC may have been considering alternatives to diesels during WW II and very immediately afterward. That included standardizing on Niagaras for the main line power, perhaps 125 or so (and from the NYC articles mentioned, in freight and passenger versions, the difference being driver diameter)--and electrification to at least Buffalo.

Do the cabs on this proposed unit look like those of a PA to you?

download/file.php?id=14433

Some more reading.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... =1up;seq=1

Credit goes to the NYC design team - getting such a powerful engine in those tight clearances.

Question: were the Type A poppet valves on the 5500 problematic? PRR had trouble with the valves themselves breaking on the T1's.

Phil Mulligan

I don't really know, but based on the lack of comments about troubles on the NYC, I'm inclined to think they didn't have the issues the PRR had.

At that, the PRR troubles may have come from the slipping the T-1s were vulnerable to (apparently at least partially due to poor engine handling--the Duplex was a hot rod compared to a K4s), and the PRR seems to have operated the engines at higher speeds than the NYC did (even with Automatic Train Stop, the NYC had a system speed limit of 80 mph--the PRR regularly ran much faster than that in the midwest). Either of those factors could account for more trouble compared to what the NYC experienced.

Again, the PRR also had a fleet of 52 such engines, while the 5500 was a one-off. It would be interesting to find repair records of other engines that were poppet valve equipped for comparison. Most would be conversions (a single 4-8-4 on the Santa Fe, another on the Burlington). Only one other American railroad actually had a fleet of poppet engines; that was the C&O, with five engines in class L-1 (rebuilt F-19 4-6-2s, No. 490 survives in Baltimore), and another five in class L-2a (310-314, Baldwin, 1948, the last Hudsons for an American road, and the heaviest in the world).

https://www.american-rails.com/co-l.html#gallery[pageGallery]/2/

Hello,

To the original post of J3a-614, may I say a hardy AMEN!

In it's extremely short life, the Niagara pulled off some impressive accomplishments.

The best representation in video of what Niagaras may have been like in service are the many modern clips of the South African class 25NCs.

The Hudsons got all the glory however the Niagaras were much fewer and were the serious big stick on the Central! Flying almost under the radar.

The articles posted by J3a were by Tom Gerbracht who has just wrote the book " Know Thy Niagaras". Having my order entered for some time, I am looking forward to the delivery which will be very soon. I understanf Tom has a very large collection of Niagara history. It should be an interesting read.

Sincerely,

Randy

Regarding J3a-614's initial post:

1st link - This description is comparable to or better than anything in Railway Mechanical Engineer regarding the Niagara. Very competent technical presentation

3rd link - One of the very best locomotive test descriptions I've ever read. Dick Dawson nails everything, from over-view down to the details. Great piece of writing.

2nd link - Not so good. Locomotive comparisons are a minefield and Tom Gerbracht appears to have hit several of them. For example, I believe he has compared N&W J performance curves calculated using the Baldwin estimating method with actual test data for the Niagara. These two methods are about as non-comparable as you can get. I hope to have more on this tomorrow, time and ambition willing. We all have to be more careful when looking at various locomotives. Comparisons may be fun, but comparing them on an equal basis is very difficult, if not impossible.

Additions 5/20/18

I'll cite two examples to indicate what I mean by being careful with test results and other performance statistics. All comments are directed to Link2, Making of Legend, Parts VI to XII and Bibliography.

Pg 16 - The two curves compared here are not comparable. To start with, the Y-axis is incorrectly labeled T.E (Tractive Effort). It should be Drawbar Pull. The NYC S1b curve is drawbar pull and taken from the Niagara test report, pg 44. This is may have beeni estimated using the test report as a basis, but there is no supporting data regarding how it was developed. Still, it has plenty of gravitas because it was included in the Test Report. Somewhere in the archives of the NYCSHS there may be a final version of this report, but the general opinion is that the available Preliminary Report is all that was ever written. It's the gold standard for over-the-road modern locomotive testing IMO

The N&W J curve is also based on Drawbar Pull, but it is calculated using the Baldwin method. This was a widely used approach in the railroad industry, and is very conservative. However, it is not an actual performance curve. So we're left with two curves that are not developed on a comparable basis.

If you were to calculate the Niagara's performance using the Baldwin method in the same way N&W used it, the two curves would not intersect. The J curve would always be higher than the S1b curve. AFAIK, there is no actual performance curve for a J, so any curve would have to simulated. I've done this, but I'm not getting into it here because it would serve no purpose.

Pg 18 - Here two drawbar HP curves are compared. The S1b curve is from the Niagara test report pg 43. The N&W J curve is taken from a test report wherein N&W cites the Baldwin method used to develop the curve.

Again, we have the same problem as noted on pg 16 - A very conservative, calculated curve for the J compared to an undocumented but believable actual performance curve for the S1b. It is simply not reasonable to compare these two curves and come up with a conclusion regarding which locomotive "wins."

There are other examples throughout the article, but these two examples illustrate that we have to be very careful when making steam locomotive comparisons, and equally discerning when we read such comparisons.

Yielding the rivet counting soapbox to others..........