Aarne,
One thing I learned in the military is to ask questions. The old saying " No question is a dumb one". With retirement in about 4 years I'm hoping to stay here in Jersey and try to get involved with one of the museums in the area---New Hope---Black River--Steamtown.
Being the boss for a small squadron I'm hoping to go to Steamtown and help them. We have been in contact with them and I'm trying to get smart on steamers. I'm trying to get a bunch of guys to go up and help with the rebuild of the two steamers that are down right now.

I almost forgot that one modification we did make to PM 1225 was to replace the Hennessy oilers with grease. After watching the travails of the 2101 crew we asked if we could exchange the Hennessy driving-box cellars between the 1225 and the other preserved sister engine, which had grease. (For reasons that we have never been able to learn, half the 1941 2-8-4 order had grease and half oil lubrication, and half had Nathan oil pumps and half Detroit.) It is a lot easier to fill the Hennessy's with oil than to fit up the grease cakes, but we felt the risk of water contamination wasn't worth it. We have been laboriously changing grease cakes and running cool ever since.

Trevor- that's a good point. I know that these conversions used SKF spherical roller bearings and proper cannon boxes. Perhaps the engines were originally designed with adequately large pedestal openings to accommodate later conversion to roller bearings.

As noted on my site, the failed Great Smokey Mountains RR roller bearing conversion attempted to use off-the-shelf packaged roller bearings intended for freight car applications. I still wonder if they'd had more resources at their disposal if a reliable roller bearing application could have been engineered for this application. David Wardale gives a very good idea of what this would have involved in his book "The Red Devil" when he describes what he had to do to engineer a full roller bearing conversion for a Chinese QJ. This was actually intended to be applied to a new locomotive but the Chinese were adamant that no changes to the frames could be made. It took a LOT of effort, including extensive discussions with SKF, to provide a workable arrangement for the main drivers.

.

Kelly makes a very important point above. The friction vs. roller subject is critically dependent (in todays world) on the intended service. If, as Kelly properly states the engine in question is intended to be used exclusively in branch line-regional type service never seeing sustained high speeds (over 50mph sustained) that's one thing. However if she will be asked to perform trouble free at sustained speed that's an entirely different equation.

It's also important to remember that when friction bearinged locomotives comprised the entire fleet and ran daily at sustained high speeds reliably there was a cadre of shop forces throughout the system whose job was to keep them out there running trouble free. Unfortunatley, that capability is long gone and today if you venture onto the mainline you MUST be self sufficient and have BOTH the crew and the machine that can do the job. There's more than enough nay-sayers in the industry just looking for an excuse to say "see-I told you they'd tie up the main"!!!

IMHO-Ross Rowland

Kelly- the Zimbabwe Garratts have American-type "bar" frames. Dusty Durrant's book "Garratt Locomotives of the World" has a few photos of these locomotives during their overhaul/modernization in the early 1980's, including some showing the new cannon boxes for the roller bearings.

If memory serves, the Zimbabwe Garrats have a much lighter axle load than common n US practice. This could provide for an easier fit of a smaller bearing assembly into generously sized pedestals.

dave

Hi All

It should be noted that rollers due provide less rolling resistance at low speeds (speeds up to 20 mph). It should also be noted that rollers due not like sharp impacts so using a roller bearing locomotive rod as an anvil is out of the question.

But perhaps more importantly the real question in my mind is why would a museum even consider converting anything on a locomotive? Preservation is the absence of alteration. While renewing may be fine without loosing much of the historical fabric it would seem to me that the technology the machine has is just as important as the efficiencies. So many people want to change to improve their old Betsy. If everyone changes their machine will be in the future find that the best preserved locomotive is the one still in the park?

Robby

I am reminded of a conversation I had with Bill Medlin at Williams Grove in my early years of volunteering on steam. I made the comment that it was a shame the B-4a did not have roller bearings. Bill replied "Bite your tongue. If these break I can fix whatever is wrong right here. If something happened to a roller bearing who knows where I would have to go to get a replacement or how much it would cost?" I knew he was right for his operation.

Having some experience with plain bearing engines on the mainline including with 2101 I have made several observations. One of these observations is some seem to run cooler and give less trouble than others. I remember the Southern steam program running 4501 down the N&W at speeds in excess of 50 mph for mile after mile and nothing ran hot. When 2839 made a trip to Charlottsville running at speeds in excess of 70 mph I felt the mains at both ends of the run and they were not hot. The guys running 4449 have a long history of running plain bearings at high speeds on oil and I think 2816 is doing the same on grease.

By the same token I can well remember the "What is hot now?" times with 2101 and working on the lubricators in Hagerstown. I also remember 2102 comming into Gallitzen with 4070 at 10 mph because her mains were as hot as a 2 dollar pistol.

Perhaps someone here can answer some questions I have had for a long time. How much does weight on drivers have to do with trying to keep a box cool? I know the bearings are sized to match the weight but could it be the builders should have put a bigger journal in when the weight got close to the maximum for the application? What are the missing or changed substances in the grease made today? Even the guys running 4449 have had trouble with changes in the composition of the oil over the years. How much trouble are the shortlines and museums having with the oils they are using because they are changed?

Concerning 2101 in particular. The change from oil to grease in 2101 did make a major improvement in her performance. You will never run plain bearings without having to tinker with the lubrication, wedges, etc. A question I have had about the 2101 success is how much of the success can be attributed to the grease and how much must be given to the quality and depth of the overhaul in Reading? Prior to Reading most of the repairs had been to the boxes, journals, and brass as far as I know. In Reading other things were included. Most notably were the spring rigging as well as the springs in the pony and trailing trucks. To me the whole locomotive performed better in 1978 and that can not be totally explained just with the grease. Perhaps Ross or anyone else with knowlege of these reparis can offer some insight here.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

John Bohon

You make a good point John. When we overhauled the 2101 in the Reading shop the winter 0f '77-'78 we completely redid the entire running gear and as a matter of fact used the heavy duty overhead crane to lift the boiler/frame off so as to have unobstructed access. We renewed (as needed) the springs,pins,bushings, bearings,shoes,wedges,brake rigging etc.,etc.,etc. When we put her back together in the spring of '78 she was like new.

That complete running gear overhaul without question was a major factor in her near trouble free performance on the 40 some trips in '78, all of which operated at track speed. But, you'll also recall as a stalwart member of the loco. crew that the grease cellars were ALWAYS given priority after each run which meant someone was on their back in the ballast "lookin-up"!!

As I stated above the HUGE difference with the 614 is we never have to worry or wonder if she'll be ok at speed as the Timkens never give us a lick of trouble and according to the Timken folks who kindly did a complete inspection (gratis mind you) of her after the '96-'98 NJTransit program they're good for "another 750,000-1,000,000 miles". Highly doubtful that we'll ever use those up!!

Ross Rowland

Ross makes a good point I actually thought of this afternoon while mowing grass. In the old days when the locomotives reached the end of their run they went to the roundhouse and over a pit for inspection, repair, or replacement of whatever needed it. The same is basically true for most of the steam tourist and museum operations today. That is not the case on the road. Regardless of what you are running you will be on your back in the ballast looking up. There is no way around it. The fact rollers make that less frequent is an important point of fact.

I certainly remember the first trip to Martinsburg with 614. I had never been around a fully roller bearing engine before. Getting the 614 ready for the return trip to Baltimore consisted of little more than turning and taking water. Do I remember correctly that 614 did have one bushing on the eccentric cranks we had to drag the gun out and shoot? Being around N&W 611 later only served to drive the point home.

If there are any people here who are familure with Hennessy driver bearing lubricators I have another question. Do you think they are a reliable lubricator in todays world? I remember old Western Maryland machinists telling me they would send an eleven hundred (huge decapod) west to Cumberland, MD with a new set of Hennessy's. Months later when the engine returned to the shop it would be sitting on grease. Instead of leaving it that way they were ordered to install a new set of Hennessy's. This happened over and over again probably with other power as well. One old timer said they must have kept a couple of guys busy in the Cumberland shop building grease boxes or Hagerstown must have been shipping the ones they took out back. Obviously that is an exageration but the point was that the Hennessy was to prone to failure. Would engines with these lubricators be better off with a simpler but perhaps more reliable pad type of oil delivery system?

John Bohon

Ross if that's the case, how come you run No. 40 at New Hope? lol.

Len.

The post on the Garratt locomotives is correct And some are still operating there today with the roller bearing conversation. The Driver axles recieved Timken style bearings with the full split axle box which when bolted together makes a box which extends between both frame rails. The biggest problem converting most plain bearing locomotives is the lack of sufficent space between the pedestal jaws.On the Garratts RESCO had to machine metal from the jaws for the required clearance plus they used manganese steel liners in place of shoes and wedges to save space. Making the bearing boxes and purchasing the bearings would be very expensive.

The Hennessy Lubricators were not prone to failure if installed and maintained properly. One of the biggest issues was the failure of maintenance forces to drain the accumulated water and dirt from the oil reservoirs. Where does this water and dirt come from, from rain, steam condensate, and the occasional wash rack, the dirt consists of cinders and fines blown up from the right of way. Once the water emulsifies with the oil the quality of lubrication drops to zero. The dirt would block the passageways and checks to the pumping units. The maintenance forces also had to deal with occasionally "brushing" out the felt, if it overheated or became glazed, similar to maintaining the traction motor support bearing lubricator wicks still in use today. Just like the steam locomotive they were a labor intensive device. They give an axle a film of oil as soon as the axle rotated, unlike a grease cake which requires some degree of heat to provide additional lubrication.

I do agree with Kelly about the lack of consistent quality with the grease that is currently available. Years ago, I had obtained a supply of old stock Hytex8 and there is no comparison to the current products for quality and longevity in service. I believe oil lubrication using a conventional pad is probably the most cost effective way to go in todays world, as long as you maintain the oil reservoirs and the clearance in the bearing.
Mike Tillger