About the NYC Niagaras--I find it interesting that railfans didn't always like them, though I have to admit I can understand not liking air horns on steam locomotives. Just ain't right!

I'll also admit the appearance of the S class was a bit different from what most NYC fans were accustomed to, but that wouldn't have bothered me--but then, I'm a strong C&O fan, and that road's power didn't look at all like typical steam either, so what do I know?

My comments about the "primitive facilities" referred to others' comments in print about ancient roundhouses, some of them quite cramped, and to some of the measures taken to keep the Niagaras and other engines on the road. In the case of the 4-8-4s, that included minor staybolt work in the firebox with the fire dropped but the engine still in steam! There were stories about men doing this on a plank on the grates, dressed in "hot suits" with steam leaking in from the staybolts due to the changes in thermal stress with the fire being dropped. I'm not sure the N&W had to do things like that, or at least haven't heard of them.

N&W did have mainline coaling plants, but no track pans. Track pans seem to have been a strictly Notheastern type of facility; only the Pennsy, the Reading, the NYC, and the B&O (Washington-Jersey City only) used them in America to my knowledge. A few C&O 2-8-0s and 2-8-2s had scoops, but those engines were used on a New York Central line in Canada on which the C&O had trackage rights.

None of this is meant to disparage the Niagaras--in fact, you take a look at that monthly mileage, take out a day or two per month for the standard inspections, work the mileage down to a daily figure and then to an hourly one, and you find the 4-8-4s are averaging 40 mph., 24 hours per day, 30 days per month! That DOESN'T account for the three or so hours' daily servicing time! How fast did those beasts run?

Like you, I wish one or two were still around.

P.S.--Longest runs, the original question here, remain the AT&SF runs from Kansas City or so to California with oil burners, and the NP runs mentioned for coal eaters.

My late Dad observed operations at Wayneport on occasion. According to him everything stopped there, even the Century. When it stopped, the engineer did not get off the engine to "oil around" - he pulled out his watch. The crew was given exactly three minutes to service the engine - clean the fire, lubricate, add coal, whatever was necessary. According to Dad, everybody at Wayneport dropped whatever they were doing, to service the engine on the Century. At the end of the three minutes, it was on its way again.

JR

J3a wrote;

"My comments about the "primitive facilities" referred to others' comments in print about ancient roundhouses, some of them quite cramped, and to some of the measures taken to keep the Niagaras and other engines on the road. In the case of the 4-8-4s, that included minor staybolt work in the firebox with the fire dropped but the engine still in steam! There were stories about men doing this on a plank on the grates, dressed in "hot suits" with steam leaking in from the staybolts due to the changes in thermal stress with the fire being dropped. I'm not sure the N&W had to do things like that, or at least haven't heard of them."

I have read of many other railroads that "caulked" staybolts to fix leaks with the boiler "hot".

I do indeed admire the N&W railroad and it's home built locomotives, no doubt about that.

Funny thing is many of the delays dispatching the Niagara's out of the shop and onto their trains happened with "turntable" incidents. They where very hard (damn difficult in fact) to center on the NYCRR's turntables. There was only about 6 inches leftover on each end. Miss it by a little bit and try to turn the table and you have a derail, which delayed that engine and every other engine you want to get "out of the house" and onto it's train.

My father told me about how dang hard it was to spot one of those on the table. He did it for a while before he got "setup" running.

Kudo's to both the NYCRR and the N&W for very fine execution of the steam locomotive.

Cheers, Kevin.

HI All
How about the Rexall Train , a New York Central Mohawk # 2783 , toured the US and parts of Canada in 1936 . The locomotive traveled 29,000 miles and did tour 47 out of 48 states , missing Nevada and parts of Canada . The blue and white train did carry 12 Air-conditioned Pullman coaches . The locomotive was rented by the Rexall Company to promote Rexall Drug Products . Would this count as a Longest Nonstop Run by a Steam Locomotive ? Pat

If the record-setting non-stop run of Flying Scotsman (locomotive) in the UK was based upon use of the last remaining track pans, how was its run in Australia accomplished? Or was it not non-stop in the literal sense?

Steve

That particular locomotive probably made "A" nonstop run of 800 miles however it seems that from this question different interpretations have been asked. If the question is about a regular scheduled train and longest distance then Santa fe gets the nod with the Grand canyon limited running regular scheduled trains from LA to Kansas. The train was never broken and the same engine and train ran through with only crew changes.

nonstop can sure have different interpretations though.

I think I should have clarified my question. My actually question is what is the longest distance without physically bringing the locomotive to a halt (and completely under it's own power) has anyone gotten out of a steam locomotive.

Two "tank cars" of water and a maintenance coach with a water pump inside and relief crews for the loco:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index. ... own-under/

It was literally "non-stop" for 422 miles.

THAT sounds about right. At best the longest runs possible were fuel dependent, not water dependent. My understanding is that a typical long distance steam loco carried roughly 60-100 miles worth of water and 400-450 miles worth of coal (or oil). Long non-stop runs were possible ONLY with extra water cars or with facilities and equipment for watering on the fly.

British steam locomotives, by comparison with North American steamers, were/are miserly in their fuel consumption, a virtue of their smaller size and loading gauge. I'm trying to dredge up my copy of a book accounting the Australian tour, but as I recall the run was very much a publicity gimmick, involving not only the tank cars for additional water but possibly even sacks of coal wheeled in through the tender's corridor from that support coach! But at the same time, British steamers, even the record-setters, could typically be fired by the moral equivalent of a child's beach shovel, if your thinking is built around big American steamers. (I have seen humour cartoons from British publications revolving around the idea of British firemen simply tossing individual lumps of coal into the firebox. Consider, however, that standard British loco fuel was often mine run, little processed and often requiring a hammer to break up the occasional large slabs...)

If anyone wanted to pursue this kind of record here, we'd have to find an oil burner, extra tanks for both water and fuel, crews willing to crawl over a couple of tenders to change shifts, and a co-operative main line railroad........