Home Open Account Help 191 users online

Steam & Excursion > 844 vs 2926


Pages:  [ 1 ][ 2 ] [ Next ]
Current Page:1 of 2


Date: 05/22/23 21:09
844 vs 2926
Author: ApproachCircuit

Lets assemble 1500 tons of Roller -Bearing equipment, tie it on the drawbar of each engine and let's see who will reach 110 mph first!
Well it would have to be the same cars so nobody could cry about frictional loss.
This contest would be very close.
I have my favorite, what is yours.
Now not to exclude our Eastern Railfans and steam experts, we'll throw in the N&W "J" Class!
But remember those 70 inch drivers start to lose horsepoer  once the engine reaches 80 and change.
But if you want to reduce the tonnage, the choices multiply!
If you want to really run, then you crack open the regulator on the Milwaukee Atlantics and watch the speedo hit the pin at 128 mph!

Memorial Races coming up, get your Pabst Blue Ribbon ready.



Date: 05/22/23 22:58
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: ATSFSuperChief

Would love to see it happen; but never will as Ed cannot get a diesel that goes that fast to help the poor neglected UP844. N&W611 rumored to hit 105 due to great balancing. My vote goes to AT&SF2926 because I am a Santa Fe Fan. Been a serious steam engineer from 1964 through 1998 and was Chief Engineer on ships with 120,000HP from two (2) boilers producing over 960,000 pounds of steam an hour each at 875 PSI/945 Degrees Fahrenheit. Any beer will do that is not either "Light" or worse "Woke". Too old to argue so screw off.

ATSFSuperChief



Date: 05/22/23 23:59
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: coach

2926 is longer and heavier than 844, and was built to run fast for long distances, but I don't know how well it accelerates a train from low speed....



Date: 05/23/23 00:56
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: wcamp1472

You would want to have all candidates have the opportunity to
run with test trains for an hour, or so, to get each candidate's firebox
refractory bricks up to incandescence. The 'warm-up' trains don't
have to be with the "Time-Test cars".  

It's also crucial to have a dynamometer car in the consists,
and qualified test techs... for any such "race track" runs..

Any combination of qualified coaches, etc. will "do" for the warm-up
loading --- the aim is to draft the loco fires strongly, and keep sustained
flame heats  at 3,000F,  to get the refractory bricks sufficiently heated ...
. for the contest runs.

The "warm-up" period needs only to involve sustained speeds near
80-85 mph, each loco.   You don't get to producing superheated steam
until the brickwork (in any locomotive) reaches incandescence!

Once "warmed-up" the brickwork will remain hot for about
an hour, as long as you keep a sufficient fire-brightness maintained, 
So, you would want to run the tests within that 'keep hot' time frame.

Also, you could use the same contest-train for the time trials, as long
as you keep the brickwork substantially at hot temps----
as each loco waits it's turn.  No need for drag-race romping here...
The stop watch will tell the story.   

What would you use to capture the highest track speeds?
Could you cheat with a doctored loco speedometer?
( If I was firing, I'd keep one safety valve blowing steadily, during 
  acceleration ...).

I would give each loco "3-heats" ( timed events) to allow 
 each loco to have  it's "best runs"....

My money is on the 2926;  but,  she needs a year's worth of
fan trips to have the crew learn it's quirks and habits, and to 
find the weak ( failed) components, and get them corrected.
There's a lot of testing, yet to be done...

With 2926 the "proving period" has not yet begun...
( it's mostly a 'crew thing' because they have no experience 
   with that specific loco, yet.  She has important lessons
    yet to be learned by her operators...)

W.

( Even diesel locos on the load-box' are warmed up for a couple of hours,
   before HP standard-settings' procedures are begun..
   If your curious about diesel loco "load-box" testing, as HotWater...

    See also, the 1939 AAR steam loco Test Races with 16 PRR P70  coaches...  
    Same train, different locos tested...
    Where a poppet-valve equipped PRR K4, 4-6-2, matched the speed performance
    within 99%  of a UP FEF-1, 4-8-4, best speeds ...)

    

 



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/23 08:25 by wcamp1472.



Date: 05/23/23 06:59
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: elueck

N&W 610 was tested by the Pennsylvania, not the 611.   The locomotive was tested against a T-1 on the Broadway Limited across Indiana.  In one test the engine reached a speed of 110 mph and was regularly run at speeds above 100 mph.  In another test, the 610 took the Broadway 45 miles maintaining a average speed of 94 mph.  Just the same the PRR people went with the T-1, (although the J accelerated a train to track speed faster because of the 70" drivers) for the reason that the PRR experts were not happy with the high machinery speeds of the 610 (over 550 rpm) at 100 mph.  



Date: 05/23/23 07:08
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: elueck

Getting off topic, but it was sort of alluded to by the Milw A class mention,  for all over high speed possibilities, let us not forget the Santa Fe 3460s, the Milw F-7s and the C&NW E-4s.  All 84" drivered machines with 300 psi boiler pressure.  The Santa Fe and Milw engines were virtually identical, and the C&NW had 1.5 inch larger cylinders and an 1 inch shorter stroke, so all were very close cousins.  The F-7s daily ran through the famous curve on the C&NW at Rondout, IL with its "SLOW TO 90" sign.



Date: 05/23/23 07:55
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: RRBMail

 Any beer will do that is not either
> "Light" or worse "Woke". Too old to argue so screw
> off.
>
> ATSFSuperChief

Good grief, what is "woke" beer???



Date: 05/23/23 08:14
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: Trainhand

I know a good place to do the race. CSX Nahunta sub leaving Savannah to Jesup. 53 miles one curve, one speed restriction on the Altamaha River. At one time it was 100 mph double track. Its level, one small hill at Waltourville. And I would come out of retirement to run them. That would be fun.

Sam



Date: 05/23/23 08:27
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: PHall

RRBMail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  Any beer will do that is not either
> > "Light" or worse "Woke". Too old to argue so
> screw
> > off.
> >
> > ATSFSuperChief
>
> Good grief, what is "woke" beer???

And who was arguing with him???



Date: 05/23/23 13:10
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: co614

With admitted perjudice the winner would be C&O 614 winning by a nose over the 611 with the 2926 coming in 3rd. and the 844  a respectable 4th. For sustained long distance running at 90 mph + it would be 2926 first, 844 second, 614 third and 611 fourth.  

   Of the 4 which one has the most recent sustained track speed ( 79mph) running with a full tonnage train.....614 

       IMHO-Ross Rowland 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/23 13:24 by co614.



Date: 05/23/23 13:38
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: wcamp1472

IIRC, the ATSF 2900s ran from mid-Kansas to L.A., one-engine all the way!
Several crews got replaced during station stops..

Seems that the big  4-6-4s brought the trains from Chicago to mid-Kansas?

Many years later, I was surprised by the elevations in western Kansas,  
higher than the 'Mile-high City'...  no Kansas mountains, and the
flat horizons are deceptive..  It doesn't feel like you're gaining 
altitude..

I was more appreciative of the train loads behind the 2900s..

W.



Date: 05/23/23 16:56
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: agentatascadero

I'd think such a contest would want to include an NYC Niagra and perhaps an SP GS as well.....and there are a lot more 4-8-4s still out there.
Candidates would be severely limited if only surviving 4-8-4s are eligible.

AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA



Date: 05/23/23 17:29
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: HotWater

Since this discussion is specifically about Santa Fe #2926, because they "rebuilt" her with the incorrect wall thickness of the tubes & flues, she can not operate at her full 300 psi working boiler pressure. Thus, it would never be a fair contest of a "Santa Fe 2900 class" against ANY other 4-8-4. 



Date: 05/23/23 17:50
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: LocoPilot750

Weight wise, 2926 out weights 844 by about 30 tons, bigger tender too.

Posted from Android



Date: 05/23/23 18:09
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: Txhighballer

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since this discussion is specifically about Santa
> Fe #2926, because they "rebuilt" her with the
> incorrect wall thickness of the tubes & flues, she
> can not operate at her full 300 psi working boiler
> pressure. Thus, it would never be a fair contest
> of a "Santa Fe 2900 class" against ANY other
> 4-8-4. 

So, they rebuilt her with tubes and flues thinner than they were supposed to be. What was the thickness of the tubes they used vs. the one AT&SF used?



Date: 05/23/23 18:48
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: coach

Txhighballer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Since this discussion is specifically about
> Santa
> > Fe #2926, because they "rebuilt" her with the
> > incorrect wall thickness of the tubes & flues,
> she
> > can not operate at her full 300 psi working
> boiler
> > pressure. Thus, it would never be a fair
> contest
> > of a "Santa Fe 2900 class" against ANY other
> > 4-8-4. 
>
> So, they rebuilt her with tubes and flues thinner
> than they were supposed to be. What was the
> thickness of the tubes they used vs. the one AT&SF
> used?

And "who" are you refering to?  ATSF, or the current group?



Date: 05/24/23 04:03
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: needles_sub

Was the thinner tubes a mistake or because of the cost of the tubes?

Posted from Android



Date: 05/24/23 04:19
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: Spoony81

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Txhighballer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > HotWater Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Since this discussion is specifically about
> > Santa
> > > Fe #2926, because they "rebuilt" her with the
> > > incorrect wall thickness of the tubes &
> flues,
> > she
> > > can not operate at her full 300 psi working
> > boiler
> > > pressure. Thus, it would never be a fair
> > contest
> > > of a "Santa Fe 2900 class" against ANY other
> > > 4-8-4. 
> >
> > So, they rebuilt her with tubes and flues
> thinner
> > than they were supposed to be. What was the
> > thickness of the tubes they used vs. the one
> AT&SF
> > used?
>
> And "who" are you refering to?  ATSF, or the
> current group?

Current group

Posted from iPhone



Date: 05/24/23 05:26
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: UP951West

In this discussion of UP 844 vs ATSF 2926 , what about these different features :
1. UP 844 has twin exhaust stacks providing less back pressure . 
2. UP 844 and tender weigh less than ATSF 2926. 
Would these features offer faster exceleration ?

ATSF 2926 has
1. Roller bearing side rods providing less crank pin resistance .
2. Greater tractive effort .

Wes, what do think ? 



Date: 05/24/23 05:29
Re: 844 vs 2926
Author: LocoPilot750

> Was the thinner tubes a mistake or because of the
> cost of the tubes?
>
> Posted from Android

I heard they ordered the correct tubes for the engine as specified when it was in regular service decades ago, but the specs were changed over the years, and they weren't aware of the changes, so now it operates at 290 instead of 300 psi.



Pages:  [ 1 ][ 2 ] [ Next ]
Current Page:1 of 2


[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.0995 seconds