| Railway Preservation News http://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| NH&I 40 exhaust http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35516 |
Page 2 of 3 |
| Author: | Dave [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
Looks more like a bell mouth extension of the stack than a petticoat.......Jason, reckon you can find something showing the whole front end and the exhaust stand and nozzle? dave |
|
| Author: | jasonsobczynski [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
Nope, least not on the N&W site and I was rather disappointed as well. By definition, is a petticoat though..... a spade is a spade ;-) Cheers, Jason |
|
| Author: | JJG Koopmans [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
Then we agree to disagree. In my book a petticoat is a loose part between the exhaust orifice and the stack. Your second drawing shows a stack with internal elongation and bellmouth, precisely the equipment Goss found to give the best result! Kind regards Jos Koopmans |
|
| Author: | jasonsobczynski [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
Perhaps it is a matter of generational differences in terminology(historically, not between you and I). All petticoats have a "bell mouth" as it has now twice been referred to whether just an angle or more fluid as this one is drawn. Define a "loose part" if you would as all petticoats are "loose" until they are bolted into place. I have seen petticoats referred to by another name on prints dating from the '40s but it does currently escape me. Something simple like lower stack perhaps? Jason |
|
| Author: | JJG Koopmans [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
I am not a native speaker, with "loose" I mean that an airgap exists between the the stack and the petticoat. Kind regards Jos Koopmans |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
I find myself sharing Dr. Koopmans' perspective on the difference between the bottom of the stack that is inside the smokebox as the bottom of the stack, and a separate fabrication that doesn't directly attach to the stack but allows smokebox gasses to pass between it and the stack as a "petticoat". For purposes of clarity in this discussion can we agree on that? dave |
|
| Author: | whodom [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
The most interesting thing in the above drawings is what appears to be a solid "teardrop" section in the center of the second stack near the exit. That is a weird one. |
|
| Author: | JJG Koopmans [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
Hugh, To me it is just an enlarged detail of the profile at the stack exit. Look at its dimensions. Kind regards Jos |
|
| Author: | whodom [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
I think you're right Jos. That's just an odd way to show it. |
|
| Author: | Kelly Anderson [ Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
Dave wrote: I'd be very interested in seeing the drawings.......including the exhaust nozzle. dave Here it is, in two halves due to its size. Everything about it is way out of proportion to the standards later agreed on for the Master Mechanic’s front end. The exhaust nozzle is round, 5-1/4” in diameter, with a single bridge.  
|
|
| Author: | jasonsobczynski [ Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:33 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust | ||
Prints found on the N&W historical society page are obviously pay off a modernization program. Afterall, how many turn off the century locomotives were not modernized? (Lest they be on a shortline) What strikes me is the overlapping of revision dates, by a decade. The attached drawing is for the stand and nozzle which accompany the new stack arrangement. As is shown in the drawing you posted [Kelly] there was a need to move everything forward to clear the delivery "T". My guess would be (regarding redundant drawings) locomotives in more strenuous service received the improvements while they chose to not invest into motivepower that just loafs along a branch under light loads at a leisurely pace. Thoughts? Cheers, Jason
|
|||
| Author: | Gary Gray [ Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
jasonsobczynski wrote: My guess would be (regarding redundant drawings) locomotives in more strenuous service received the improvements while they chose to not invest into motivepower that just loafs along a branch under light loads at a leisurely pace. Thoughts? Cheers, Jason Jason my friend, Study your N&W history... something must have worked very well with the M's. Yes, they were branchline power in their later days, but many N&W branchlines had rather nasty profiles combined with relatively high traffic...they definitely didn't "loaf". If you don't believe me, ride a bike up the Virginia Creeper Trail, or look at the 3% + grade on the old Hanging Rock/Catawba line (part of the Salem Shifter job), which was the last assignment of the two surviving M's, 433 and 475....... |
|
| Author: | jasonsobczynski [ Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
Loaf as in speed, they weren't running 35 or so on all these braches were they? Low speed, heavy load was my point. Any other ideas regarding the double standard of design? Jason |
|
| Author: | Kevin Gilliam [ Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
jasonsobczynski wrote: Loaf as in speed, they weren't running 35 or so on all these braches were they? Low speed, heavy load was my point. Any other ideas regarding the double standard of design? Jason Can't speak for all of the branches, but the Abingdon branch job started in Bristol. That's 15 miles or so on the mainline, and there are at least a couple of times where the Ms equaled the speed of the Js on that section. Kevin |
|
| Author: | jasonsobczynski [ Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NH&I 40 exhaust |
Kevin Gilliam wrote: Can't speak for all of the branches, but the Abingdon branch job started in Bristol. That's 15 miles or so on the mainline, and there are at least a couple of times where the Ms equaled the speed of the Js on that section. Kevin So why were the J's running so slow in that area? |
|
| Page 2 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|