Hello Everyone. I think I owe EVERYONE an explanation on why I want to construct a Y6-B. To begin with, I'm sorry I was so ignorant. I should've listened to everyone's criticism and not be so hardheaded. understand restoring 2156 would be the more fesable option, but Y6-B 2174 was ALMOST preserved, and the fact she was scrapped makes me incredibly angry. The Engine ALMOST was preserved, and I like to imagine it's simply abandoned, waiting for a preservationist to take it, but that's not the case, is it? With the last Y6-B scrapped I feel like a piece of the Norfolk and Western Legacy was GONE, like how Half of Earth's population disintegrated in Avengers: Infinity War. I honestly and genuinely feel passionate about this project, As I want to right this tragedy in Railroading history, and put that piece of the N&W's Legacy back into place. I hope you understand and I am dreadfully sorry for being such a jerk.

I get it man. but the main thing you have to understand is economics I'm 29 and have zero experience on running and maintain locomotives in general. I do understand that you want to bring back a piece of N&W history but there is a lot of politics that takes in place. I would like to build a brand new steam locomotive too but I have to be smart on what kind of a steam locomotive that should be built. A new Y6-B sounds good but I have questions

main questions are

1. do you have a strong solid plan?

2. A Y6-B weighs almost a million pounds so that limits where it can go. Do you have solid place to run it in to today world?

3. are you going to make the some necessary design changes to make it more maintenance and economically friendly?

Like I said before if you want to then go ahead.

My opinion is that if you want to bring back a piece of N&W history you should consider building a K3 class 4-8-2. the K3 weighs 688k and can run on minimum 115lb rail.

To answer your questions:
1: Yes I do. I have estimated a construction cost between 15-20 Million Dollars to build this sucker, and will be built in a rails-up fashion in 4 courses: The wheels (and tender trucks), the frames and valve gear (this will also include the pilot and cowcatcher as well as the tender frames), the boiler and tender tank, and finally the "finishing touches,” will will include the cab, headlight, tender doghouse, amongst other things.
2: That's where I'll likely run into some problems. The Y6-B's top speed was around 50-55 mph, so clearly lines with a 60 mph limit or slower is what we're looking at.
3: Yes, I do plan on making some design changes. The boiler, first of all, will have an all-welded design and the lighting for the locomotive will be powered by LED's to conserve power, and there will probably be other changes to smaller components as we go along, but other than that, it will be as authentic as you can get!
As for the idea of building a K class Mountain, that's not such a bad idea! It's definitely one of the more obscure N&W Engines and would contrast well with 611. I'd make mine of the non-streamlined variety as not to confuse it with Queen of Steam herself! ;)

I'm saying that building K3 is the best option to do because it's smaller and lighter than a Y6B.

Tweetie12 - how about getting your feet wet by checking with the T1 Trust folks for volunteer opportunities. This is a well organized effort to build a new Pennsy T1 from the rails up using only existing blue prints.

https://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/

The T1 is a excellent choice to recreate because it's fast and powerful and it's unique looks will attract a ton of attention.

I get your interest in a Y6-B they really were impressive machines. But trying to operate one on today's main line roads would be incredibly challenging due to the aforementioned reasons. Not trying to ruin your dreams but you have to start small - baby steps. Visiting Cheyenne and seeing the 4014 going through it's rebuild is eye opening.

I think the sarcasm of that K3 comment was wasted on him.

If there were one class to be 'replicated' with the ghastly bugs taken out of the design, the K3 ranks high as the poster child. It is hard to imagine a locomotive with so much so wrong in its design ... much of which might be remediable with knowledge.

But even so, why waste time on it when a Niagara represents about as much work and gives you much more locomotive for almost any practical modern purpose?

That was Sarcastic?! :(

When you read up about the Norfolk and Western K3, you will find that it was one of the very few dramatic mistakes in design that the railroad made. For example, even though given a four-wheel lead truck, the main rod is long and heavy to connect to the third and not the second driver pair, which in the pre-Eksergian world produced tremendous augment well outside of any theoretical improvement due to reduction in rod angularity.

It is possible that a replica of the K3 could be made specifically with the intent of fixing the various perceived deficiencies and problems of the K3. (It is possible that the result would have to be a 4-8-4 instead of 4-8-2). The problem, in a nutshell, is that nobody cares to that extent: the opportunity cost of the work is more valuably spent on locomotives of 'better worth' to large segments of the community.

Probably at the top of this list is the Niagara, as Ross Rowland has just recently reaffirmed: this is the somewhat unexpected apotheosis of a design exemplified by the late Rock Island R67b's, the Milwaukee S3 (of which we still have examples) and the D&H locomotives. As late as April 1945 Kiefer was still expecting the C1a to be the postwar steam passenger power (in part because it could run Harmon-Chicago at high speed on one tender's worth of fuel) and the Niagara was still the dual-service 75"-drivered follow-on to the big Mohawks. Things turned out radically differently, and not because the C1a would have been unworkable in the same ways the PRR T1s were supposed to be.

Similarly, there would be little if any point in replicating, say, a C&NW E-4 instead of a Milwaukee F7: one class was a ridiculous flop at providing high speed while the other has become famous for it. More to the point: any theoretical improvement in the steam tracting or whatever that could be proven to 'fix' the E-4s inadequacies could be applied in near-equal measure to make the F7 an even better locomotive... on top of which is all the Hiawatha magic and cachet.

As I said before, I am quite certain that a Y6 variant could be detail-designed to run reliably at modern track speeds while still making reasonable horsepower. But that will not be a Y6b as described, say, in Dressler's and King's book on the 2-8-8-2s, where even excessive compression during drifting could seriously derange the motionwork, and even normal wear with full lubritorium PM and Multirol installation resulted in clearance noises like a boiler factory even at typical speeds. It's cute to claim that this sort of thing doesn't establish problems with making the Y6 go faster, but when all the high-speed tales hinge on the averred or announced honesty of N&W enginemen, it becomes increasingly an act of faith to rebuild a class member with the assumption that no common-sense improvements would be appropriate.

Now, there are at least three projects that involve considerably lower expense but should still have widespread technical and funding interest. The problem with them has been that they are comparatively small locomotives that cannot effectively earn their keep in typical modern excursion service ... but now, with the Amtrak ban on most such operations, the idea of cheaper construction combined with an excuse to build not rooted primarily in revenue might prove more attractive.

The first is to replicate (as I suspect there is no point in "restoring") the full-tilt McQueen 999, 86" drivers, Ohio tender-truck suspension, and all. Then tweak that to get it to run to its design speed (perhaps training the fireman the same way McCready trained the Gossamer Condor pilot!) which would likely involve some interesting secondary suspension and radial-buffer improvements. That locomotive would run virtually anywhere and would arrest attention wherever it went; it would likely be something easily trucked wherever it needed to go, and would require relatively small service and support vehicles.

The second would be less interesting except to hardcore steam people: rebuild PRR 7002 as she was in 1905, and re-learn the techniques Jerry McCarthy used to get high speed out of her. Now this is more of an 'experiment meant to fail' (as I think the nominal record speed is a timing artifact differing by a whole consist length between AY and Elida) but there is no way a replication other than physical rebuilding would establish what the engine could do 'at its limits'.

The third is to rebuild a Hiawatha A class, which was famously announced by no less an authority than Alfred Bruce (who you'd think would know!) as having reached speeds of 128mph a number of times. Very little crapshoot involved in running brake-dynamometer testing on the result, and it might be argued there are places where the smaller clearances and lower forces of a properly-instrumented example could be allowed to run under control at least up to any detected emergent critical speeds. I'd suspect the equivalent of a Lewty booster on the tender would neatly allow the locomotive to start any train it could pull at speed...

Ok, so first consider this. Why are you planning to build a whole new locomotive when you can restore a locomotive in preservation of a similar class? NW 2156 could use some attention first. In reality, why spend 5 BILLION dollars to build a locomotive, then spend maybe 5-10 MILLION to restore one! I usually support steam restoration, but when it involves building something from scratch for billions, then rather using that money to restore actual history, is a whole different story. PRR 5550 is once again a different case. First, all of the T1 or C&O J1s were scrapped. Unlike a Y6b, there are no T1s in existence. We have a Y6a, but no one ever cares about that locomotive kind of like the other SP daylight that no one cares about. These factors are proof that money should be spent on things that need it! Please take these facts into consideration. Also the Y6 classes were meant for freight service and could only run at lower speeds.

Instead of posting nonsense, find a park locomotive to which you can offer some positive energy.

Why do you consider this nonsense? Don't you think that was a little harsh? I have a dream, and I want to stick to it. Okay?