Railway Preservation News
https://www.rypn.org/forums/

Experimental N&W steam question *PIC*
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4022		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Brian Hebert [ Sun Sep 22, 2002 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Experimental N&W steam question *PIC*
I was browsing through the vast N&W steam locomotive photo archive at Virginia Tech, and came upon a few photos of Experimental Class M2 4-8-0s #1100 & #1112.(photo below)Can anyone tell me why the N&W was experimenting with 4-8-0 freight locomotives? What was being tested? Where can I find more info on these M2s? I haven't been able to find much on the net besides their pics.They sure are good looking engines.Thanks in advance for any help!
Brian Hebert


Image
btamper@hotmail.com
Author:  Jeff Lisowski [ Sun Sep 22, 2002 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Experimental N&W steam question
From October 1984 Trains magazine article entitled "4-8-0s to Mallets to Jawn Henry" by C.E. Pond

"At the end of World War II, a study had begun of replacing yard and transfer locomotives as the W 2-8-0's and M 4-8-0s in that service were getting old and inefficient, and they failed to meet smoke abatement laws being passed by many cities along the N&W. With a factor of adhesion of 4.5 and a tractive force of 52,457 pounds, surely footed M2 4-8-0 1100 was selected for these changes.

1) Boiler rebuilt, with shortened flues and incorporation of combustion chamber.

2)Provision of induced-draft fan in smokebox, driven by a steam turbine.

3)Application of automatic stoker and water level controls by Bailey Meter Company, so that locomotive could be left unattended for a long period of time, hence the term "Automatic Switcher" applied to this engine.

4)Mechanical lubrication provided.

5)Tender capacity increased to 20 tons of coal and 11,000 gallons of water to permit continous operation for 24 hours without servicing.

The experiment was short lived as the blades of the induced-draft fan were damaged by cinder erosion, and the soft exhaust emitted smoke and fly ash from the stack that were objectionable to the crews. A second M2, the 1112, was similary modofied in Roanoke Shops but with more heating surface, an increased in boiler pressure to 225 pounds, and a new cinder collector to return cinders to the firebox ahead of the exhaust fan. These changes were not entirely satisfactory. Both locomtives were retired in 1951."

Hope this answers your question.

Jeff Lisowski
West Chester, Pa

Good music!
unfunkyufo76@hotmail.com
Author:  Brian Hebert [ Sun Sep 22, 2002 8:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Thanks Jeff! *NM*
btamper@hotmail.com
Author:  H.O. [ Sun Sep 22, 2002 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thanks Jeff!
The N&W ceased further experimentation after purchasing 30 Baldwin-built 0-8-0s (Nos. 255-284, no change in numbers) from the Chesapeake & Ohio in 1950. They were classed S1 by N&W. The modified M2s 1100 and 1112 were retired and scrapped the following year. N&W liked the ex-C&O switchers so much it bought the plans and built another 44 as Class S1a in the Roanoke Shops between 1951 and 1953. The 244 (Roanoke c.n. 449) has the distinction as the last steam locomotive constructed for a major American railroad.

hcastle@rcn.com
Author:  L Beckman [ Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:33 am ]
Post subject:  N&W non-preservation
> The N&W ceased further experimentation
> after purchasing 30 Baldwin-built 0-8-0s
> (Nos. 255-284, no change in numbers) from
> the Chesapeake & Ohio in 1950. They were
> classed S1 by N&W. The modified M2s 1100
> and 1112 were retired and scrapped the
> following year. N&W liked the ex-C&O
> switchers so much it bought the plans and
> built another 44 as Class S1a in the Roanoke
> Shops between 1951 and 1953. The 244
> (Roanoke c.n. 449) has the distinction as
> the last steam locomotive constructed for a
> major American railroad.

As the very last steam locomotive constructed for a United States railroad, 0-8-0 #244 deserved to be preserved. A black mark for the Norfolk & Western.



midlandblb@cs.com
Author:  Richard [ Mon Sep 23, 2002 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: N&W non-preservation
Agreed, but remember that at the time steam locomotives were junk, plentiful, and medicore in just about every sense of the word. The identity of that particular locomotive was probably lost in the plethora of scrap steel these engines were regarded as.
I think steam locos were regarded as scrap up until around 1972, when people started to miss their presence and tourist roads became more popular. PRR scrapped the last I-1sa in 1962! Today, we have seen locomotives priced at exhorbitant rates, while others sit around in pieces.


glueck@maine.edu
Author:  H.O. [ Mon Sep 23, 2002 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: N&W non-preservation
Remember too, Stuart Saunders was in charge of the N&W at the time and could have cared less. Good thing for N&W that he left for the Pennsy or it could have been in the same shape as Penn Central. I've heard (maybe someone can confirm) that had the N&W followed the plan mapped out by Saunders predecessor, R.H. Smith (last Operating Dept. president), that N&W would have been retiring the last steam locomotives in the early or mid '70s.

hcastle@rcn.com
Author:  L Beckman [ Mon Sep 23, 2002 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: N&W non-preservation argument
> Agreed, but remember that at the time steam
> locomotives were junk, plentiful, and
> medicore in just about every sense of the
> word. The identity of that particular
> locomotive was probably lost in the plethora
> of scrap steel these engines were regarded
> as.
> I think steam locos were regarded as scrap
> up until around 1972, when people started to
> miss their presence and tourist roads became
> more popular. PRR scrapped the last I-1sa in
> 1962! Today, we have seen locomotives priced
> at exhorbitant rates, while others sit
> around in pieces.

Sorry Richard, but that argument just doesn't cut it. By the time that #244 was retired, there were literaly hundres of locomotives preserved around the country. The Norfolk & Western itself had donated two Consolidations to communities in 1955 and a Twelve-Wheeler in 1957. So they were certainly aware of the fact that steam locomotives were historically important by that time. No one expected them to save everything, but just a little common sense would have made them realize the historical importance of #244.

midlandblb@cs.com
Author:  Richard [ Mon Sep 23, 2002 10:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: N&W non-preservation argument
True enough, and I certainly honor the correction, however in the rush to Dieselize, particularly towards the end, everything was being rushed off the property. Steam was seen as a throwback to "the antiquated days". I doubt that anyone in management cared to even suggest that the 0-8-0 be salvaged for display. What became of her headlight, number plate and builder's plate? Even Pennsy kept those from the last B6sb.
What kills me is the remaining A's and Y-6's that went to the torch after serving into the late 60's as stationary boilers. One would have thought thatsomebody would have said, "Whoa guys, these are last of them...", yet they were cut up around 1970! Similarly, Norfolk Southern might have (key word is "might") looked at the Roanoke derelicts as stationary monuments.

What might have been is an exercise in bittersweet romance.

But you are right, they should have saved the 244. Heck, they should have saved every piece of modern power until they were worn out.

glueck@maine.edu
Author:  buddy bob [ Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: N&W non-preservation argument *NM*
staybolt2@netscape.net
Author:  buddy bob [ Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: N&W non-preservation argument
inregards to the modern n&w 4-8-0 i recall reading a detailed story about them in the railway mechanical eng. sorry i don't know the date. i also remember that they took out the supperheater. i think it was done so the fan would not burn them out when the loco was not useing steam. regards bb.

staybolt2@netscape.net
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/