You said it yourself, the Y6B was a heavy hauler designed to slug it out on grades with heavy coal drags, which the Allegheny was not. However, I'm not certain that were positions reversed the Allegheny would be #1 top dog, because the Y6A and Y6B did see service outside the coal fields at times and did okay. Good comparison still.
yes, but C & O stuck the Allegheny where it wasn't designed on a primary basis.. Not just a temporary thing. If that wasn't the case, and Allegheny did what it was designed to do.. Then I think it likely would have been the GOAT. As things went down... Comparing it to the Y6B is reasonable in my mind. Because that's what the C & O made it.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower But did the Y-6Bs run at passenger train speeds with passenger trains? The answer there is no. While the H-8s did. So the H-8 were really a dual purpose loco that would have been better off used in manifest freight which did happen later in their life. Getting them off the grades/coal trains and on to more level track let them show what they could do. Too bad the N&W didn't save one of the Virginian 2-6-6-6s so that there could have been side by side on the same routes the Y-6B, A, and 2-6-6-6 in modern times.
Thanks for another interesting and conversation provoking video. Just a couple footnotes to share on Y6 development. The sources I have read do not attribute adding lead ballast to the front driver engine as a deterrent to wheel slippage while starting heavy trains in simple mode, but rather a deterrent to frame damage while moving trains at full power in compound mode with the booster valve engaged. After the advent of the booster valve mechanical forces began to notice frame cracks on the front driver engines of Y6’s due the increased power output of the front driver engine. In regard to factor of adhesion, it must be taken into consideration that the only time the Y6 is under the factor of 4 is in simple mode while starting a heavy train. No good engineer would stay in simple mode any longer than necessary to get moving. Once the train is started and the engineer switches over to compound the factor of adhesion is securely over 4. The boiler changes from Y6 to Y6a to Y6b were not dramatic. The biggest change in firebox dimensions in the Y class development occurred between the Y4 and Y5. The Y6a of 1942 was already developing near 5,000 hp at 25mph. The improvements that came with the Y6b and the booster valve probably assured that the Y7 simple expansion monster would never the leave the drawing board. Sources: “N&W: Giant of Steam”- Jeffries; “USRA 2-8-8-2 Classic Power Series 3A”-Dressler/King
Huh. The source that I have (Norfolk & Western's Y-Class Articulated Steam Locomotives by Tom Dixon, Karen Parker, and Gene Huddleston) puts the y6 and y6a at under 4500 HP and the Y6b at over 5500. perhaps I need to look at your books because there is a discrepancy here.
The Allegheny wasn't used in the coal fields. It was originally designed to expedite 160 car, 14,000 ton coal trains north from the Ohio River to the boat loading facilities in Toledo Ohio. They replaced the T1 2-10-4's that had held down this service since 1930. When C&O needed a better engine to haul coal trains eastward from the coal marshaling yards to replace the much slower H7 2-8-8-2s, they chose the proven H8. The H8 had far more tractive effort available than this service needed because the train length was limited by the distance between some significant tunnels. This second order happened during WW II when new designs for locomotives were being discouraged by the Federal government. So the proven H8 was utilized. The Allegeheny is what was known as a Super Power locomotive. Its boiler capacity was much greater than what the engine could use, so it always had full power potential available, and could also achieve and maintain higher operational speeds.
The N&W operating mix of Y class and A class engines was applied very differently than the way the C&O used the H8. You saw a lot of situations where a Y class (or two) would shove the back of a train through the mountains with an A on the front end. The Ys would uncouple after the grades and the A would take it from there with its superpower, speed oriented design. As you point out the Y was absolutely designed for maximum power and efficiency at mountain climbing speeds. You will note the Y class had much smaller drivers than the H-8 or A class at 57". You are correct that the C&O did not use the H-8 in a way that really played to its superpower strength of power at speed with the slogging low speed mountain operations. Once it hit the flat lands, totally different story. Look into how the intercepting valve system works on the Y6b. It's not as much about adding pressure as it is reheating the once used, somewhat condensed steam before the compound stage. Heat = energy. This is one of the reasons the Y6b is the undisputed king of the compounds and the efficiency gains are notable. The simple starting mode of the Y6b really made that extra ballast weight on the front drivers a necessity as much as anything else. 300 psi hitting those massive front cylinders generated an unbelievable amount of thrust. Fun video. ❤
@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Check out "The World's Greatest Mallets" by Huddleston and "Perfecting the American Steam Locomotive", by Lamb. There's some excellent, objective, honest, academic level analysis and comparison of the Y6b, A, and H8.
@@dtj9923 Academic is all that I know.. I have no practical experience..Which honestly cant be replaced. I mean, who would you rather have engineering a nuke plant.. The new college grad, (Me) with a masters and PH.D... Or the person whose done it for 25 years?
They did not put the full 300 psi into those big front cylinders when starting simple. That would have been excessive as those pistons had about 2.5 times the area of the back cylinders. Cutting it to about 150 psi still would have increased the tractive effort over that in working compound.
The Niagara enjoyed so many monthly miles because they were used at high speeds on long distances. The N&W wasn't nearly as large of a railroad and had steeper grades and sharper curves. Being that the N&W was so efficient in using their Big Three like how you mentioned, if the N&W was as large as the NYC, I can imagine the availability/monthly miles on the J, A, and Y6. They'd each be unmatched for their types.
Great video 2 of the most interesting big locomotives out east it is unbelievable on what the n&w did with steam it’s sad to see that there is none of them running be good to see the three sisters run again one can wish
The Y-6 b was designed for a different application than the H-8. I have heard that they couldn't be used east of Clifton Forge, because it tended to break the lighter rail. Any photos of an H-8 on the James River line?
Yes, but the C & O stuck it on the coal runs and NOT nearly as much for what it was intended for. So the different application theory doesn't hold up in this case in my mind. And that's because the C & O made it that way inexplicably if you ask me. The Allegheny should have been doing Class A and Big Boy work.. That's what it was built to do. Not running coal exclusively.
there was no need to put the H-8 on the James River line, as it was basically all downgrade. a lowly Mikado could handle the loaded trains downgrade and empties back up just fine. in 1950 some H-8's got used between Richmond and the docks at Newport News Virginia, with 14,000 ton trains on basically level track. The issue wasn't the rails, but the bridges on the James river. the engines had to be lightened and then reassembled to complete the move.
The Y6B was slow because it had small driving wheels. That made it ideal for its intended purpose as they seldom saw anything above 35 mph. The tight curves just wouldn’t allow higher speeds. The class A had larger drivers and could go at much higher speeds. 70 mph was common, sometimes even faster.
I'd like to see what the C&O H-8s did when pulling Hospital Cars. I know for a fact that those cars could be run in the 75 MPH range and it would have been interesting to see if the C&O ever did run them that fast. Supposedly the H-8s were balanced for 60 MPH running which is why they had no problem when being tested were able to put out the max HP at 46 MPH. 16 of the H-8s were setup for passenger runs.
@@christophereaves862 I don't fly anywhere domestic.. i drive.. So I get a taste of your world fairly often and it's tough! I can't imagine driving a 18 wheeler.
7:15 god american engines look so much better when theyre fresh out the shops. I get it, theyre working machines first and far most so the grime is expected and aesthetics arent the priority, but damn.
before we start I can say the y6 was built for more lower end power, so it could out pull a slow train but the h8 made most of its power at a faster speed.
Hey, Them DM & IR's aren't anything to mess with. Nothing wrong with your choice. In fact, it's what C & O should have been using running coal to begin with.. Not the Allegheny.
You would probably enjoy the book “World’s Greatest Steam Locomotives” by Gene Huddleston. It is a 3 way comparison of the C&O Allegheny, N&W Class A and Union Pacific Big Boy. It also has a chapter exploring the capabilities of the N&W Y6b. Cheers!👍
@@machinist1879 I've already gotten a couple of request for a head to head with Allegheny and Big Boy. The problem is coming up with enough of a data set on Allegheny pulling freight. I dont want to have to rely on my own math for the entire thing. Pub's seem to focus on Allegheny being a coal hauler.
Could you do a video on the differences between the usra light and heavy designation? I couldn't find any sources elaborating this. Thanks for the awesome vids.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I think he's asking for a video going into detail of what the USRA was, as well as the locomotives they've designated as the standard for America
Im obviously going to have some comments once ive had a chance to dig a bit deeper, after all i am a massive Allegheny partisan, but my initial thoughts are that the Y6a would be the better comparison to the Allegheny. The first y6b was built just months before the last allegheny, and the design was something like 7 years newer. Is the Y6b being better than a engine almost two presidential cycles older than it really that impressive?
That's why I didnt go with the specs on the super mods Y6B. 2197 et. all. Granted, the design was newer.. And lessons learned.. But outside of the Variable valve plumbing.. Which admittingly is a big advantage, The design tech wasnt terribly different. But Carl.. The Allegheny should have been the All time great if it only was used correctly and as intended. Over Big Boy, over the Class A.. Challenger. Whatever.. it should have then the GOAT for what it was.. It just didnt get the chance.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I mean, you did go with the specs of the 'super mods' with the statement that they produced 166,000 pounds or more of tractive effort, which was a result of their booster valves. Which were available in 1952 or later, over 10 years after the Allegheny first entered service. The Y6b had double the combustion area of the Y6 and Y6a as well as the variable valves, meaning that while it could produce 5500 HP those were restricted to 4200 HP until they were modified to the Y6b standard. That is a major improvement. And finally, I do not understand your view that because the H-8 hauled coal on the Alleghany sub that meant that it never got the chance to be used correctly. a lone Allegheny hauling a 13,500 ton train at 45 miles per hour on the Northern subdivision should not be regarded as wasted and not performing fast, superpower service because it's hauling coal instead of boxcars. H-8's worked on the the Northern, the Peninsula, the New River, and the Toledo subdivisions all in that sort of fast service, and on all of them are rated for over 10,000 ton trains unassisted. The Allegheny pulled timed freights on all the divisions that it worked on , and you have posted multiple photos of it doing just that across these three videos. There is ample evidence of the Allegheny being used as a dual purpose freight locomotive.
Ok, the dual use points are valid on the photo's you mentioned. I dont know about you, if you got the wonderful opportunity to watch the Allegheny perform and all.. But I will speak about me.. Everything I know is not from practical experience point of view, but rather a book point of view. So basically im like a college grad working on their masters degree with an eventual PH.D. But I have no hands on experience. And nothing beats that practical kind of experience and the knowledge gained wherein. SO... all that to say that every pub and online source that I see and have talks at length about the Allegheny working on grades and coal drags. And comparably next to nothing about what they were actually designed to do. Often the rest are just footnotes. What, do they think it's sexier or something to put the loco in that category (coal dragging)?? I dunno.. But I really do think the Allegheny would have been the greatest Steam Locomotive of all time had it ran the Big Boy's duties as designed, ALL of The Time.. Allegheny dragging coal the way it did, to me, is like leaving Magic Johnson at Center permanently after he filled in for Kareem in that playoff game. As for the Y6B, The beefed up tractive effort actually worsened the issue, not fixed it. Im surprised the thing wasnt doing wheelies on startup..And I rattled off both factor of Adhesions numbers as built, and as modified. And because of that varible Valve setup.. The Y6B is simply the greatest compound of all time, IMO. Obviously im feeling a little better today :) LOL
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower nah, i'm in the same boat as you. I just have a lot of books. that and I threw 50 bucks at the C&O Historical Society and have every issue of their newsletter in searchable PDF form. Lotta info on the H-8's there. The majority of my info comes from that, "Chesapeake and Ohio Allegheny 2-6-6-6 locomotive: a retrospective" by Karen Parker, and "The Allegheny: Lima's Finest" by Tom Dixon and Gene Huddleston. As to the suitability of the Allegheny in the coal drag service, it pulled trains over the route in half the time of the previous H-7 when double headed, and on a 1-1 comparison pulled 40% more in half the time. A major upgrade. And this also speaks to why I think that a comparison to the Y6a is more appropriate, or at least explains the Allegheny in coal drag service. The H-8 going upgrade to the Alleghany summit was recorded as bouncing between 5000 and 6000 HP. A Y6 and Y6a capped out at 4400 HP, so could literally not match the Allegheny in coal dragging. The Y6b sure could, but again it had 7 years of development on the Allegheny. So when it was introduced, no compound mallets could compete with the Allegheny in the service it was in. final thing on tractive effort, as long as it was dry and you were willing to throw down sand, even factors of adhesion of 3.3 could be acceptable. granted you are counting on things like dew and rain not existing but in ideal conditions that meant that the Y6b could put all that tractive effort to work. check out this cool book, covers a lot of steam loco stuff. babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015004535301&seq=11
@@commissarcarl1700 I just had a guy on the Wasatch video ask me for a comp. video of Allegheny vs. Big Boy.. I told him if I could find a reliable data set that I can break down on Allegheny doing those chores.. As it was designed to..Again.. That it was on.. And to not be surprised if Big Boy lost such a comparison if he was a fan of it.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower The service they saw mostly was with Hospital trains going to the hotel which had been made into a hospital during WW II. There with patients, you didn't want speed as much. But returning to the ports would have been a different story. Were the Hospital Unit cars good cars? Yes they were and even with friction bearings could travel with today"s top freight speeds. I know that because one left Crane, IN in 1988 on a Friday and was delivered south of Miami on Monday. Beating the keys that were coming by USPS. It had a restriction of 15 MPH from Crane to Louisville and was hauled at piggyback speeds from Louisville south.
Sure thing, Included in the Allegheny design was a booster option that the C & O could add on at additional cost. The booster engine would have added 15k additional tractive effort on startup. The C & O never picked up that option as they found (rightfully so) that the locomotive was performing just fine as it was. With a Factor of Adhesion at 4.61... Why mess with a good thing.. Right? Thanks for asking!
The booster was a steam powered, geared mechanism that could drive the axles of the trailing truck. In other words, on the Allegheny a booster would enable the 6 smaller wheels under the firebox to provide tractive power too. Some steam locomotives had this option to help with start up.
@@RyanKlapperich In most cases, they would have likely only powered two or four of the wheels because the wheels in the front two axles were smaller than the wheels in the rear axle of the trailing truck.
You said it yourself, the Y6B was a heavy hauler designed to slug it out on grades with heavy coal drags, which the Allegheny was not. However, I'm not certain that were positions reversed the Allegheny would be #1 top dog, because the Y6A and Y6B did see service outside the coal fields at times and did okay. Good comparison still.
yes, but C & O stuck the Allegheny where it wasn't designed on a primary basis.. Not just a temporary thing. If that wasn't the case, and Allegheny did what it was designed to do.. Then I think it likely would have been the GOAT. As things went down... Comparing it to the Y6B is reasonable in my mind. Because that's what the C & O made it.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower But did the Y-6Bs run at passenger train speeds with passenger trains? The answer there is no. While the H-8s did. So the H-8 were really a dual purpose loco that would have been better off used in manifest freight which did happen later in their life. Getting them off the grades/coal trains and on to more level track let them show what they could do. Too bad the N&W didn't save one of the Virginian 2-6-6-6s so that there could have been side by side on the same routes the Y-6B, A, and 2-6-6-6 in modern times.
Thanks for another interesting and conversation provoking video. Just a couple footnotes to share on Y6 development. The sources I have read do not attribute adding lead ballast to the front driver engine as a deterrent to wheel slippage while starting heavy trains in simple mode, but rather a deterrent to frame damage while moving trains at full power in compound mode with the booster valve engaged. After the advent of the booster valve mechanical forces began to notice frame cracks on the front driver engines of Y6’s due the increased power output of the front driver engine. In regard to factor of adhesion, it must be taken into consideration that the only time the Y6 is under the factor of 4 is in simple mode while starting a heavy train. No good engineer would stay in simple mode any longer than necessary to get moving. Once the train is started and the engineer switches over to compound the factor of adhesion is securely over 4. The boiler changes from Y6 to Y6a to Y6b were not dramatic. The biggest change in firebox dimensions in the Y class development occurred between the Y4 and Y5. The Y6a of 1942 was already developing near 5,000 hp at 25mph. The improvements that came with the Y6b and the booster valve probably assured that the Y7 simple expansion monster would never the leave the drawing board. Sources: “N&W: Giant of Steam”- Jeffries; “USRA 2-8-8-2 Classic Power Series 3A”-Dressler/King
Huh. The source that I have (Norfolk & Western's Y-Class Articulated Steam Locomotives by Tom Dixon, Karen Parker, and Gene Huddleston) puts the y6 and y6a at under 4500 HP and the Y6b at over 5500. perhaps I need to look at your books because there is a discrepancy here.
The Allegheny wasn't used in the coal fields. It was originally designed to expedite 160 car, 14,000 ton coal trains north from the Ohio River to the boat loading facilities in Toledo Ohio. They replaced the T1 2-10-4's that had held down this service since 1930. When C&O needed a better engine to haul coal trains eastward from the coal marshaling yards to replace the much slower H7 2-8-8-2s, they chose the proven H8. The H8 had far more tractive effort available than this service needed because the train length was limited by the distance between some significant tunnels. This second order happened during WW II when new designs for locomotives were being discouraged by the Federal government. So the proven H8 was utilized. The Allegeheny is what was known as a Super Power locomotive. Its boiler capacity was much greater than what the engine could use, so it always had full power potential available, and could also achieve and maintain higher operational speeds.
The N&W operating mix of Y class and A class engines was applied very differently than the way the C&O used the H8. You saw a lot of situations where a Y class (or two) would shove the back of a train through the mountains with an A on the front end. The Ys would uncouple after the grades and the A would take it from there with its superpower, speed oriented design. As you point out the Y was absolutely designed for maximum power and efficiency at mountain climbing speeds. You will note the Y class had much smaller drivers than the H-8 or A class at 57".
You are correct that the C&O did not use the H-8 in a way that really played to its superpower strength of power at speed with the slogging low speed mountain operations. Once it hit the flat lands, totally different story.
Look into how the intercepting valve system works on the Y6b. It's not as much about adding pressure as it is reheating the once used, somewhat condensed steam before the compound stage. Heat = energy. This is one of the reasons the Y6b is the undisputed king of the compounds and the efficiency gains are notable. The simple starting mode of the Y6b really made that extra ballast weight on the front drivers a necessity as much as anything else. 300 psi hitting those massive front cylinders generated an unbelievable amount of thrust.
Fun video. ❤
Yeah, Im surprised the thing didnt do "wheelies" on startups with all of that thrust.
@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Check out "The World's Greatest Mallets" by Huddleston and "Perfecting the American Steam Locomotive", by Lamb. There's some excellent, objective, honest, academic level analysis and comparison of the Y6b, A, and H8.
@@dtj9923 Academic is all that I know.. I have no practical experience..Which honestly cant be replaced. I mean, who would you rather have engineering a nuke plant.. The new college grad, (Me) with a masters and PH.D... Or the person whose done it for 25 years?
They did not put the full 300 psi into those big front cylinders when starting simple. That would have been excessive as those pistons had about 2.5 times the area of the back cylinders. Cutting it to about 150 psi still would have increased the tractive effort over that in working compound.
The Niagara enjoyed so many monthly miles because they were used at high speeds on long distances. The N&W wasn't nearly as large of a railroad and had steeper grades and sharper curves. Being that the N&W was so efficient in using their Big Three like how you mentioned, if the N&W was as large as the NYC, I can imagine the availability/monthly miles on the J, A, and Y6. They'd each be unmatched for their types.
I love it! Nice comment
Great video 2 of the most interesting big locomotives out east it is unbelievable on what the n&w did with steam it’s sad to see that there is none of them running be good to see the three sisters run again one can wish
Glad you enjoyed it
The Y-6 b was designed for a different application than the H-8. I have heard that they couldn't be used east of Clifton Forge, because it tended to break the lighter rail. Any photos of an H-8 on the James River line?
Yes, but the C & O stuck it on the coal runs and NOT nearly as much for what it was intended for. So the different application theory doesn't hold up in this case in my mind. And that's because the C & O made it that way inexplicably if you ask me. The Allegheny should have been doing Class A and Big Boy work.. That's what it was built to do. Not running coal exclusively.
there was no need to put the H-8 on the James River line, as it was basically all downgrade. a lowly Mikado could handle the loaded trains downgrade and empties back up just fine.
in 1950 some H-8's got used between Richmond and the docks at Newport News Virginia, with 14,000 ton trains on basically level track. The issue wasn't the rails, but the bridges on the James river. the engines had to be lightened and then reassembled to complete the move.
@@commissarcarl1700 Agree on all.. Ive read the same.
Did I misunderstand you or are you saying 1 Y6b Outpulled 2 Alleghenys?
@@davebarnhart9415 No, it was double for double on a equal stage.
The Y6B was slow because it had small driving wheels. That made it ideal for its intended purpose as they seldom saw anything above 35 mph. The tight curves just wouldn’t allow higher speeds. The class A had larger drivers and could go at much higher speeds. 70 mph was common, sometimes even faster.
yep!
I'd like to see what the C&O H-8s did when pulling Hospital Cars. I know for a fact that those cars could be run in the 75 MPH range and it would have been interesting to see if the C&O ever did run them that fast. Supposedly the H-8s were balanced for 60 MPH running which is why they had no problem when being tested were able to put out the max HP at 46 MPH. 16 of the H-8s were setup for passenger runs.
New subscriber here, I’m an over the road semi driver. I really enjoy your videos man 👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you! Be safe out there and I am glad I can help keep you entertained while you're at a Loves and whatnot.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPowerthanks, it’s well appreciated
@@christophereaves862 I don't fly anywhere domestic.. i drive.. So I get a taste of your world fairly often and it's tough! I can't imagine driving a 18 wheeler.
If this chat was in person....... it would be fairly animated.
if you knew me, you know that wouldnt happen
7:15 god american engines look so much better when theyre fresh out the shops. I get it, theyre working machines first and far most so the grime is expected and aesthetics arent the priority, but damn.
Hear, Hear!
I think a Y6B would win overall in this comparison as they are compound loco's and a allegheny is a simple expansion type of loco.
Not just compound, but the way the N & W did it with the Y6B. That Variable Valve Gear setup was no joke.
Ok thank you!
I really enjoyed this
before we start I can say the y6 was built for more lower end power, so it could out pull a slow train but the h8 made most of its power at a faster speed.
im still in heavy favor of the 2-8-8-4 yellowstone as im special
Hey, Them DM & IR's aren't anything to mess with. Nothing wrong with your choice. In fact, it's what C & O should have been using running coal to begin with.. Not the Allegheny.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower If the H-8 was never used anywhere apart from the Allegheny sub then this is absolutely correct.
I’d like to see your comparison of the y6 and h8 to the Big boy? The Big boy seems to get so much press.
You would probably enjoy the book “World’s Greatest Steam Locomotives” by Gene Huddleston. It is a 3 way comparison of the C&O Allegheny, N&W Class A and Union Pacific Big Boy. It also has a chapter exploring the capabilities of the N&W Y6b. Cheers!👍
@@machinist1879 I've already gotten a couple of request for a head to head with Allegheny and Big Boy. The problem is coming up with enough of a data set on Allegheny pulling freight. I dont want to have to rely on my own math for the entire thing. Pub's seem to focus on Allegheny being a coal hauler.
Could you do a video on the differences between the usra light and heavy designation? I couldn't find any sources elaborating this. Thanks for the awesome vids.
Are you talking about the Mikes.. or a different type? but yes I can
@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower the designation as a whole. I've heard the pacifics with the light and heavy as well.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I think he's asking for a video going into detail of what the USRA was, as well as the locomotives they've designated as the standard for America
@@Ohiotrucker1 not gonna lie, I wouldn't mind seeing that video
Gotcha! Yes I can
Awesome video 👍
Thank you! Cheers!
If only 2174 was saved tho at least we have 2156 still
Thanks!
You bet! Thank you so very much! Truly much appreciated!
Im obviously going to have some comments once ive had a chance to dig a bit deeper, after all i am a massive Allegheny partisan, but my initial thoughts are that the Y6a would be the better comparison to the Allegheny. The first y6b was built just months before the last allegheny, and the design was something like 7 years newer. Is the Y6b being better than a engine almost two presidential cycles older than it really that impressive?
That's why I didnt go with the specs on the super mods Y6B. 2197 et. all. Granted, the design was newer.. And lessons learned.. But outside of the Variable valve plumbing.. Which admittingly is a big advantage, The design tech wasnt terribly different. But Carl.. The Allegheny should have been the All time great if it only was used correctly and as intended. Over Big Boy, over the Class A.. Challenger. Whatever.. it should have then the GOAT for what it was.. It just didnt get the chance.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower
I mean, you did go with the specs of the 'super mods' with the statement that they produced 166,000 pounds or more of tractive effort, which was a result of their booster valves. Which were available in 1952 or later, over 10 years after the Allegheny first entered service.
The Y6b had double the combustion area of the Y6 and Y6a as well as the variable valves, meaning that while it could produce 5500 HP those were restricted to 4200 HP until they were modified to the Y6b standard. That is a major improvement.
And finally, I do not understand your view that because the H-8 hauled coal on the Alleghany sub that meant that it never got the chance to be used correctly. a lone Allegheny hauling a 13,500 ton train at 45 miles per hour on the Northern subdivision should not be regarded as wasted and not performing fast, superpower service because it's hauling coal instead of boxcars. H-8's worked on the the Northern, the Peninsula, the New River, and the Toledo subdivisions all in that sort of fast service, and on all of them are rated for over 10,000 ton trains unassisted. The Allegheny pulled timed freights on all the divisions that it worked on , and you have posted multiple photos of it doing just that across these three videos. There is ample evidence of the Allegheny being used as a dual purpose freight locomotive.
Ok, the dual use points are valid on the photo's you mentioned. I dont know about you, if you got the wonderful opportunity to watch the Allegheny perform and all.. But I will speak about me.. Everything I know is not from practical experience point of view, but rather a book point of view. So basically im like a college grad working on their masters degree with an eventual PH.D. But I have no hands on experience. And nothing beats that practical kind of experience and the knowledge gained wherein. SO... all that to say that every pub and online source that I see and have talks at length about the Allegheny working on grades and coal drags. And comparably next to nothing about what they were actually designed to do. Often the rest are just footnotes. What, do they think it's sexier or something to put the loco in that category (coal dragging)?? I dunno.. But I really do think the Allegheny would have been the greatest Steam Locomotive of all time had it ran the Big Boy's duties as designed, ALL of The Time.. Allegheny dragging coal the way it did, to me, is like leaving Magic Johnson at Center permanently after he filled in for Kareem in that playoff game.
As for the Y6B, The beefed up tractive effort actually worsened the issue, not fixed it. Im surprised the thing wasnt doing wheelies on startup..And I rattled off both factor of Adhesions numbers as built, and as modified. And because of that varible Valve setup.. The Y6B is simply the greatest compound of all time, IMO.
Obviously im feeling a little better today :) LOL
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower nah, i'm in the same boat as you. I just have a lot of books. that and I threw 50 bucks at the C&O Historical Society and have every issue of their newsletter in searchable PDF form. Lotta info on the H-8's there. The majority of my info comes from that, "Chesapeake and Ohio Allegheny 2-6-6-6 locomotive: a retrospective" by Karen Parker, and "The Allegheny: Lima's Finest" by Tom Dixon and Gene Huddleston.
As to the suitability of the Allegheny in the coal drag service, it pulled trains over the route in half the time of the previous H-7 when double headed, and on a 1-1 comparison pulled 40% more in half the time. A major upgrade. And this also speaks to why I think that a comparison to the Y6a is more appropriate, or at least explains the Allegheny in coal drag service. The H-8 going upgrade to the Alleghany summit was recorded as bouncing between 5000 and 6000 HP. A Y6 and Y6a capped out at 4400 HP, so could literally not match the Allegheny in coal dragging. The Y6b sure could, but again it had 7 years of development on the Allegheny. So when it was introduced, no compound mallets could compete with the Allegheny in the service it was in.
final thing on tractive effort, as long as it was dry and you were willing to throw down sand, even factors of adhesion of 3.3 could be acceptable. granted you are counting on things like dew and rain not existing but in ideal conditions that meant that the Y6b could put all that tractive effort to work.
check out this cool book, covers a lot of steam loco stuff. babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015004535301&seq=11
@@commissarcarl1700 I just had a guy on the Wasatch video ask me for a comp. video of Allegheny vs. Big Boy.. I told him if I could find a reliable data set that I can break down on Allegheny doing those chores.. As it was designed to..Again.. That it was on.. And to not be surprised if Big Boy lost such a comparison if he was a fan of it.
we can check the speeds if they are faster
allegnhy: 45 mph
Y6B: 50 mph
oh
The Allegheny was supposedly ran at 70 mph pulling war trains
Yes, On the rare occasion the Allegheny ran Passenger Service it was indeed capable of 70mph
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower The service they saw mostly was with Hospital trains going to the hotel which had been made into a hospital during WW II. There with patients, you didn't want speed as much. But returning to the ports would have been a different story. Were the Hospital Unit cars good cars? Yes they were and even with friction bearings could travel with today"s top freight speeds. I know that because one left Crane, IN in 1988 on a Friday and was delivered south of Miami on Monday. Beating the keys that were coming by USPS. It had a restriction of 15 MPH from Crane to Louisville and was hauled at piggyback speeds from Louisville south.
Can you explain the booster option further?
Sure thing, Included in the Allegheny design was a booster option that the C & O could add on at additional cost. The booster engine would have added 15k additional tractive effort on startup. The C & O never picked up that option as they found (rightfully so) that the locomotive was performing just fine as it was. With a Factor of Adhesion at 4.61... Why mess with a good thing.. Right? Thanks for asking!
The booster was a steam powered, geared mechanism that could drive the axles of the trailing truck. In other words, on the Allegheny a booster would enable the 6 smaller wheels under the firebox to provide tractive power too. Some steam locomotives had this option to help with start up.
@@RyanKlapperich In most cases, they would have likely only powered two or four of the wheels because the wheels in the front two axles were smaller than the wheels in the rear axle of the trailing truck.