I read the full article and have ridden the WMSR to Frostburg a few times. The problem is the 22 degree curve just as the train arrives at Frostburg, not the turntable or clearances.
The Baldwin specs say 1309 can negotiate at 22.5 degree curve. The railroad management isn’t sure the big articulated engine can bend that extra half degree. If 1309 gets to the turntable, it will be turned. Remember, that turntable came from Elkins where the Westerm Maryland used some pretty large locomotives.

Let’s try and be at least somewhat positive regarding the railroad and the difficult path to finishing 1309.

Of course it was done, just like lateral clearances, tunnel clearance, bridge ratings, turntable, etc. The curves were a problem for 734, it is a problem for six axle diesels, and it would be a problem for 1309. The difference is management.

Previous managers knew the problem and mitigated it by keeping the rails greased, working with the track crew to open up the gauge a little, and walking the locomotives under close eye by the operating crews. Some days, crews would even report metal shavings coming off of the first driver of 734 it was so tight.

As reported on another site:

Date: 04/19/18 05:27
Re: C&O 1309
Author: nathansixchime

"What we know is what Baldwin Locomotive says the locomotive can do as far as going around curves," said Garner. "The curve at Frostburg, that's the final curve into the (Frostburg) station that goes into the turntable; it's 22.5 degrees and our locomotive is only rated at 22 degrees. We are not 100 percent sure it can go around that curve and get to the turntable."

What's embarrassing is that rebuilding the curve and extending the siding were part of the plan to accommodate 1309 there...but that's never once mentioned or attributed to anyone in the article. That's the logical solution - and was part of the original plan.

What's even more embarrassing is the implication that this wasn't already considered. Instead it's more "woe unto us."

edited to add: WMSR wants Frostburg to pay for the siding/curve work, so this article is partially posturing to put pressure on Frostburg. But the intent is absolutely undercut because then they say "well we can always run backwards..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/18 06:04 by nathansixchime.

My concern isn't about curvature in general; the 1309's rigid wheelbase is only 10 feet, shorter than many if not most diesel trucks.

It'll fit the table, too--the table is 100 feet long, and the 1309's total wheelbase is only about 88 feet.

What would worry me, or at least give some concern, is the vertical curve onto the turntable. It's not even a vertical curve, it's a vertical kink!

I remember watching one of the late Jack Showalter's Canadian Pacific 4-6-2s climbing onto the table, and it reminded me of a model in the way the lead truck seemed to drop from the front of the locomotive. The same thing was visible on the 734, and being closer that time, I also observed some the angles the springs and equalizers went into.

And then I remember the C&O had restrictions on articulated engines, in particular on H8s (Alleghenies), that at least that class was not to be operated over a hump in a hump yard.

I figure C&O had a reason for that.

And how would you fix it? There's a grade crossing right there, and the station and its platforms are not too far below that.

It would be a major job.

If I understand correctly, it's not fitting on the table that is the problem, it's the curvature approaching it and the drop off down to the table that could be the problem.

Folks are welcome to correct me, but my understanding is that the 20 degree maximum curve shown on the Baldwin Locomotive sheet is faced with a 20 and 1/2 degree curve in reality.

So the question is will the locomotive squeak by the tighter curve or will they need to realign to curve. If they have the real estate to ease the curve, that would be the better solution in the long run.

I have no idea if this was a total surprise to the original planners, but more likely it was considered something to deal with later after a few other Mount Everest's were climbed.

Brian

I suspect the problem with Alleghenies (and Alco's Challengers, and the original N&W A-class design) negotiating rapid changes in vertical curvature will not apply as strongly, if at all, to a H-6.

The problem can be read about in Bruce's book: in order to build a true high-speed articulated locomotive, there can be little if any vertical accommodation or even play in the hinge between engines, and the effect is that the primary suspension relies on the equalization over the driver wheelbase, almost as if you had a long 12-coupled, and this gives much better dynamics for the system between the lead truck and the forward engine than if it were attached with the old Baldwin double-axis hinge.

The H-6 on the other hand was built to be more flexible on uncertain trackwork than a locomotive with a rigid eight-driver wheelbase, and I suspect that extends to the degrees of freedom in the hinge.

I would suspect that along with the plan to ease the approach curve at Frostburg (I am not sure that all the recent posters actually read the quote indicating this was in fact part of the planning for 1309 operation from the beginnning) there are plans to reduce or perhaps even spiral the peak rate of change of the vertical curve onto the table. Hell, I'll volunteer to do some of that work if they get a crew with the appropriate survey equipment together for it.

Which is precisely why I stated what I did. Illustrating the point that the pulling faces were less than 100' so the wheel base then must also be. mld

Didn't the Chesapeake & Ohio use their 2-6-6-2's quite a lot on runs up branches to coal mines? If so, my guess is that a lot of these coal mine branches didn't have turning facilities so that much of the service was done running in reverse. Or am I wrong on that?

Les

[quote="Overmod"]And who cares what the dimension between pulling faces is? All you care about is the effective wheelbase, from engine truck to rear tender truck (which I could calculate from the data on the plan, but it's much shorter than 100' so I'll let someone else do it)


No need to calculate the effective wheelbase, it has already been done. It is the next line above the coupler pulling face dimension.

Ed

Why are we spending this bandwidth agonizing over something that isn't going to prevent the operation and for all we know has already been worked out by those whose job it actually is to do so? You want to contribute, send some actual help....

I think it's because all the information that seems to be coming out of WMSR lately seems to be pointing to dropping, or building the foundation for dropping, the rebuild /operation of 1309. Why would anyone drop a story to the media like the Cumberland Times-News article unless they were building up to a cancellation? If they're already begging to get more funds to finish the engine, it doesn't seem like this would be the way to go to beg for fixing the Frostburg issue if it was known from the beginning.

I hope I'm wrong, but this has a bad smell to it to me.

I think the article was likely dropped to pave the way for a request from WMSR for some sort of governmental assistance to fix the Frostburg track issues. What better way to pave the way, then get willing allies in the media to assist?

I think it is a bad strategy to think you can use the press to influence a certain outcome. All of the comments here demonstrate so many potential alternate, negative interpretations. If this is a conscious attempt to influence decision makers, it could easily backfire.

I just theorized that they were trying to use the press to influence decision making. I didn't say they were good at it, or that it might provoke unexpected outcomes.

Too many people are missing a take-home message:

1) This was a known issue, addressed in principle before the work on 1309 started.

2) There are two 'halves' to the physical problem: (1) the horizontal curve leading to the turntable, and (2) the vertical curves leading onto and across the table itself.

We have answers for both. It would not be particularly difficult to walk the curve with instruments and determine if there is a particular section that is 'tight' and then determine what amount of rebuilding is needed to ease the whole curve (which, as noted, was much 'easier' when it led to the tunnel). I suspect there is a certain amount of regrading necessary to get the vertical curves 'optimal' (and while it might be difficult to camber the rails on the table as it now exists, I don't think the idea is impossible, especially since its operation is essentially only to two adjacent track positions). That might result in a more severe 'hump' in the road access adjacent to the table, but from the views I've seen there is nothing major preventing the vertical S-curve from being adjusted to suit 1309's hinging.

If there is some way to get public money, or public works assistance, with doing either of those tasks, I'm all for it, even if yellow-press methods are sometimes employed. But that should not distract from the idea that the work can be done by volunteers, likely in the time required for the restoration to be re-commenced and then successfully concluded. I would submit that at least some surveying and grade-stake placement could be done at nearly zero cost, in a short timeframe from now...