I'd like to see the N&W class J 611 be sent up there to run. It barely was runned above 40 mph on NS track in the older steam excursion program. Talk about under potential for a locomotive that could reach speeds of 110 mph.
I got to ride behind 614 on several occassions, and it was like nothing else in the world! The trip to, and the runby shots at port Jervis, New York took you back in time. The best part of the excursion was always the return trip with Ross Rowland at the throttle...no fear...80 MPH plus... telephone poles flew by like a picket fence!
Ross Rowland was like Mr. Claytor from the Southern. If he wanted to run his steam engine at 80+ mph, you just kept your mouth shut and let him do it! I've seen cab videos of him pegging 611's speedometer at 100mph. Very nice video!
It's a shame you zoomed out and then moved the camera as it went by; makes it nearly impossible to calculate the real speed. Watch the better railfan videos - the camera doesn't move!
Google the Yellow Ribbon Express. The 614 will be restored to operating condition and sent on a 3 year trip across the country stopping at 60+ cities. Kinda like the same idea as the Freedom Train
Once upon a time, this is the only thing you would get when you took a train - a Class I road running a steamer the way it's supposed to run - throttle wide open, Johnson bar in the company notch.
@bigboy4016 Most of the time, Diesels are added to supply the train with HEP. Obviously on this trip they had an HEP car in-train or the cars were equipped with their own generators.
It is not the 765. The 765 was a 2-8-4 primary freight locomotive. The 614 is a 4-8-4 primary passenger locomotive. The 765 is smaller and less powerful than the 614, and has a much lower top speed. Both were built by Lima Locomotive, and do have some similarities in appearance.
Hell yeah! That is how excursion trains should be fast and fun not this 10mph crap on bad track! Thanks so much for sharing with us. Anybody riding that train had a real treat that day behind an awesome locomotive.
now dont tell me that JUST 1 diesel could do that...my xact point...steam engines can carry almost anything without any help...not the case with the diesel!
Actually a new 4400 hp ES44AC would have no trouble pulling that many passenger cars at that speed. A 6000 hp AC6000 can out easily out pull either the UP 844 or the Challenger.
a single p42 could easily pull that faster and more fuel efficient too. The reason they usually use 2 locomotives is for better acceleration and because they can be multipled without the need for an extra engineer and fireman like the steam engines would.
The P42 is a very good passenger locomotive, however it does have less HP and lower top speed than the 614. A P42 is good for around 3800 HP at the drawbar. The 614 can produce 5000 HP at the drawbar with a top speed of 125MPH. The P42 is more economical at this point (unless the price of oil goes way up again).
Those sounds that you hear are NJT comet cars. They are used as everyday commuter cars but in the late 90's NJT lent them for the C&O 614 trips in 1996-98.
Not true. The 614 and 611 are both rated at 5000 HP at the drawbar. However, the 614 has a larger boiler that the 611 in terms of heating surface and gas surface area. The 614 can produce more tractive effort that the 611, and the 614 has a much better adhesion factor that the 611. The 614 also has a much higher operating speed than the 611.
The 614 was designed to run effectively at 120 mph. The 611 needed higher machinery speeds than the 614 due to its smaller drivers and longer piston stroke. The 614 was designed to operate at over 100 mph easily. The 611 could be operate at 100 mph, but, and this is a big but, is wasn't designed to maintain those speeds for any length of time. This was shown in tests of the N&W J by the PRR, where the J was damaged by the speeds tested by the PRR.
The 614 was designed to climb the steep grades of the Allegheny Mountains in West Virginia and maintain 120+ MPH on the flats. The 611, while an excellent locomotive, is an older design (All N&W J's were built to the original 1940 design), than the 614 (1948).
@PRRforlife The C&O 614 is not just "any" steam locomotive. It is the most advanced 4-8-4 ever made. Lima put everything it knew about steam locomotive engineering into the J3a design. The 614 will easily hit 120+ MPH based on its horsepower output and running gear design alone.
@UnIonPacCheyenne I still dont believe the 120mph statement for a locomotive with 72 inch drivers. The N&W J 611 was actually built after 614 and that hit 100 mph with 70 inch drivers. Now I dont see how you could get 20 mph more out of a locomotive with 2 inch larger drivers that was built earler. The PRR T1 with 80 inch drivers and super-effecient poppet values had a max speed of around 125 maybe 130 and that was with the best speed features there was to offer.
@PRRforlife It is important to note that while the N&W 611 was assembled after the C&O 614, it was designed 8 years before the 614, and therefore was not as a modern locomotive. All N&W Js, regardless of the year assembled, were build to the same 1940-41 engineering specifications. In addition, the N&W J could hit 110 mph, so I have no doubts that the 614 with its lower machinery speeds, larger drivers, and more advanced design could hit 10-15 mph higher top speed.
@UnIonPacCheyenne I would also like to add that in my opinion the NYC Niagra was the best 4-8-4 for its size and had over 6000 HP. As you can see by my name I am a Pennsy fan and a Pennsy didnt use the
4-8-4 and for good reason since its M1 mountain outpreformed many of the Northerns. I know I will probaly get bashed on this but I think that for frieght service the M1b is better that the J3a class.
@PRRforlife The Niagra was reported to produce 6000 indicated HP (when being pushed to the limit at inefficient steaming rates), but indicated HP is not the same as drawbar HP. Drawbar HP is typically 1000 to 1500 HP LESS than indicated HP. The Niagra produced 4500 to 5000 drawbar HP. The Niagra, 614, and 611 all produced similar drawbar HP outputs, but I would give the edge to the 614 and 611 due to their larger boilers.
@PRRforlife How do you define "best" in terms of freight service? In terms of power output, the M1b, while a very good Mountain Class locomotive, wasn't even in the same league as a big 4-8-4. The 614 had a 30% larger grate area, a 35% larger firebox area, and a 50% greater Superheater area. This resulted in the 614 producing nearly twice the drawbar HP of a Mountain Class.
@UnIonPacCheyenne this is PRRforlife on my new account and I must say you are downrating the PRR M1 quite a bit. You said that the 614 could produce almost twice as much horsepower when in reality the M1 could produce over 4000 horsepower and the 614 5000. So yes the 614 does have more power but at the expense of a larger grate with a higher fuel comsumption and heavier weight which isnt good for the rails. The belpaire produces alot of steam so it doesnt need a large grate
@xxCallLibertyxx An PRR M1 could produce 4000 *Indicated* HP which is measured at the cylinders. It does not include the power lost by friction and air resistance and the weight of the tender moving the locomotive down the track at speed. A typical steamer can lose over 1000 HP between the cylinders and drawbar. The 614 can produce over 5000 Drawbar HP, an M1 may produce 2800-3000 Drawbar HP, so yea I stand by my comment that the 614 is nearly twice as powerful as an older M1
@xxCallLibertyxx "The belpaire produces alot of steam so it doesnt need a large grate"
The grate size determines the amount of coal burned, so bigger grate = more energy to produce steam. The belpaire shape has nothing to do with the ability to burn coal. The bottom line is the 614 has a much larger grate area to release heat from the coal, and a much larger firebox area to absorb the heat to make steam. The 614's boiler can produce near 2X the steam per hour than a M1s boiler.
@UnIonPacCheyenne If my info is correct which i am 99% sure is correct the M1a and M1b produced over 4000 drawbar horsepower not indicated. Look I dont have anything against the 614 all im trying to say is that you dont need a 4 wheel trailing truck with a huge grate to have the superpower that Lima advertised. Several railroads including the pennsy determined that the 4-8-4 didn't have any real additional power over there mountains
@xxCallLibertyxx The PRR M1 series only had a 69 sq.ft. grate and a total firebox heating surface of 390 sq.ft. There is simply no way you can produce 4000 DBHP out of something that small. It just isn't going to happen. I have nothing against the M1s, they simply weren't large locomotives compared to a big 4-8-4. The original C&O J3 had a 102 sq.ft grate and 520 sq.ft firebox. The C&O 614, a newer J3a, had a 102 sq.ft grate and 570 sq.ft firebox area. No 4-8-2 ever built could match that power.
"all im trying to say is that you dont need a 4 wheel trailing truck with a huge grate to have the superpower that Lima advertised. . "
Not true! All the PRR late steam designs had larger grates/fireboxes and 4 wheel trailing trucks! Look at a T1, or Q2. The PRR designed those engines ***because the 4-6-2 and 4-8-2 locomotives simply were not powerful enough for the longer and heavier passenger trains of the 1940's!!!***The PRR had to double head 4-6-2s and 4-8-2s to equal one 4-8-4!
@UnIonPacCheyenne Alright you mostly beat me but I must say that you are incorrect with your last statement. PRR did have to doublehead 4-6-2s to equal one 4-8-4 but not 4-8-2s to equal one 4-8-4. I dont know any 4-8-4s out there that could equal the power of two M1b mountains or any other mountain class for that matter. Don't forget that the M1b produced slightly more tractive effort than 614 does.
@xxCallLibertyxx The M1b didn't produce more TE than the 614 did with its Franklin High Speed Booster. The M1b produced 69,700 lbs TE, but its adhesion factor was down to 3.8. The 614 produced 83,000 lbs TE with a higher 4.25 adhesion factor. Besides, the 614 was never designed primarily for low speed lugging. It was designed to be a 100+ mph high speed, high horsepower passenger locomotive. The fact that it had so much low speed pull and adhesion was just icing on the cake.
@UnIonPacCheyenne I wouldn't even mention the Franklin booster for how unreliable they were. Thats the reason why most of the last steam locomotives built didn't have one. This class was one of the few exceptions but most railroads including N&W built there 4-8-4s without them. Then saying that the 614 was never designed for low speed lugging goes back to my original statement that the M1 would be better as a freight loco.
@UnIonPacCheyenne Horsepower in a steam locomotive is limited by how much it can start. To start a train you need tractive effort. This means the high horsepower wouldn't do you any good unless you had enough tractive effort to get a train started. This means if we sized a train for a 2-10-2 than gave that same train to a 4-8-4 with higher horsepower the 4-8-4 would haul it faster however it would never be able to get it out of the yard due to its lower tractive effort. It would need a helper
@xxCallLibertyxx You are just running in circles here with your statements, and are telling me nothing new. The bottom line was the PRR M1 was a good locomotive in its day (the mid 1920's), but the 614 was simply larger, more advanced, better engineered, and far more powerful than the smaller M1.
@UnIonPacCheyenne I have been reading your comments and all you ever talk about is firebox area. You say that the EM-1 was more powerful because it had a larger firebox area than the N&W A but the A overall had a better and maybe bigger boiler. The A had a larger grate area, Higher amount of evaporative heating surface, larger superheater, and much higher combined heating surface. This means the A overall had a bigger and more productive boiler that the EM-1 making it more powerful.
@xxCallLibertyxx Ok, I'll try to keep this simple since you don't understand this. The firebox (direct heating surface area) is the most important factor in steam production. The EM-1 had a much larger firebox than the Class A. The only reason the A had a higher indirect HS is because it used less thermo efficient, 3.5" flues. The EM-1 used more thermo efficient, shorter 4" flues. The EM-1 boiler pulled more air through its grate, produced more BTUs, and generated more steam.
@xxCallLibertyxx In addition, The Class A's longer flue section forced it to have a smaller direct HS section, which has the effect of producing LESS steam. All modern steam used shorter, 4" flues, and a larger firebox area. The Class A was not a modern steam design. The EM-1s superheaters were also more efficient, and needed less area. The EM-1 produced superheated steam temperatures 200 F higher than the Class A. The NYC Niagara, and C&O J3a had a similar design as the EM-1
@UnIonPacCheyenne You are right the 4" flues are more efficent. However with such large differences in indirect HS I doubt the EM-1's direct HS and its more efficient tubes caused it to produce more steam. The A had more than 1000 more sq. ft. of indirect HS. Firebox area account for about 85% of heat into water and tubes the other 15%. That 15% does matter! That along with the extra 5 sq ft. of grate area makes me believe that at best the EM-1 would equal the amount steam a A produced.
@xxCallLibertyxx I have devolped a pretty simple formula for balancing indirect and direct HS. You take the direct HS and mult. it by 0.85. Then you take the combined HS and mult. it by 0.15. You could subtract the direct HS from the combined HS to get the indirect HS but this isn't needed as long as you do the same thing to all the locomotives you are comparing. After the is done you add the 2 #'s to get a single #. The higher the number the more heat that can be transfered into the water.
@xxCallLibertyxx Heres how the EM-1 verses the A would do. First the EM-1. 756*0.85=642.6. 5298*0.15=794.7. 642.6+794.7=1437.3. Now the A. 587*0.85=498.95. 6639*0.15=995.85. 498.95+995.85=1494.8. This shows that the A's boiler could put more heat into the water. This doesn't mean the A could produce more steam however. I say that the A's larger grate area plus being able to put more heat into the water is why the A could produce more steam.
@xxCallLibertyxx Again, you are making the mistake that everything is equal. The grate on the A isn't producing as much BTU's per sq.ft. as the EM-1 because per unit of time, the EM-1 grate is getting a much higher air flow because of the larger diameter flues. Just like a smaller displacement high air flow V6 can produce more power that a larger displacement V8 with a more restrictive air flow. Same with the flues. A sq.ft of 4" flue produces many times the steam of a 3.5" flue
@xxCallLibertyxx Also, the Class A couldn't match the heat energy the EM-1s superheaters were adding to the steam, even assuming the total steam production was equal. Engines such as the EM-1, 614, Niagara produced superheated steam above 800 F, which added a tremendous amount of horsepower at high speed.
@UnIonPacCheyenne Though the tubes were only 3.5, there were more of them then there were 4" tubes. Its the same thing in Live steam. I have had boilers with lots of small 0.25" tubes get just a much draft as a boiler with a few 0.75 tubes. Theres also a circumstance where the smaller tubes cause the airflow though them to pick up speed and provide a stronger draft. Overall theres just to many circumstances between lots of ST and fewer BT to see which would be better.
@xxCallLibertyxx A 4" tube flows 50% more air per tube than a 3.5" tube. So even though a Class A had more 3.5" tubes, the EM-1 had greater airflow through its firebox. In any event, I think its safe to say that both of these engines were incredible machines, capable of both strong low speed pulling, and very high HP output at express speeds. Both locomotives excelled at pulling everything from coal drags to express freight and everything in between.
@UnIonPacCheyenne I agree with you that these were incredible machines. I would say the EM-1 would be better for low speed coal drags due to there high Factor of adhesion and smaller drivers while the A was better for high speed express frieght with its lower Factor of adhesion and larger drivers.
@xxCallLibertyxx I have been researching the EM-1 for about 2 years now, and I originally thought they were designed for slow speed mineral service like the DM&IR M3/M4, but they weren't. They were designed not to pull more tonnage than existing B&O articulated locomotives, but the same tonnage much faster. The EM-1 produced so much HP at speed that the B&O used them in 70-80 mph express service, replacing double headed T Class 4-8-2s with one EM-1.
@UnIonPacCheyenne Its amazing how fast and powerful steam was becoming near the end. Had the diesel come ten years later than it did it would have had a much tougher time beating the steam loco. The advent of roller bearings on all axles along with disc drivers, high boiler pressure, and large 100+ foot grate areas showed what the future of steam is capable of. I would love to see an engine like 614 but in a 4-8-6 having 135 sq feet of grate area. Could you imagine the power!!!
@UnIonPacCheyenne I thought the A used the Type E superheater like the EM-1. Even if it didn't it still had 600 more sq ft of superheater surface then the EM-1. The only possible way I could see the EM-1 having a much higher steam temperature is because the lower steam pressure on the EM-1 meant it took less surface area and heat to heat the steam than the A needed.
After seeing the performance of this nearly-60-year-old locomotive, I think that it's high time to build new, updated versions of this beautiful beast!
These steamers use American coal which is in plentiful supply, taking into consideration the price of fuel used in diesel locomotives, often obtained from nations not very friendly to the U.S.
@OldsVistaCruiser Amen to that man, I'd love to see the old steamers make a comeback, I think in today's economy they'd be a great alternative power. Make it the main power again the way it used to be.
@Hillbilly8904 When somebody who likes steam engines gets elected as president, why don't we have him put out a good ol' executive order that reads: "All remaining steam locomotives not currently owned by tourist railroads will be restored to running order and returned to active service on the railroads that they once served, and diesel production will stop. The era of second-generation steam engines will begin in four months from this date and steam will never again be abolished in the USA."
@scrambler250r no, it probly won't begin that soon. i was reffering to the date four months from the date that order is given, if it ever happens. i hope it does, though.
Wow!!! I have been a life long fan of the UP 844, but the C&O 614 is clearly a much more powerful engine. The 614's performance indicates it has a good 900-1000 HP over the 844. To be honest, I've never even seen the 4-6-6-4 Challenger pull as hard as the 614. Great video. Hope Ross gets the 614 running again!
I don't know if a Reading T-1 CAN move that fast, lol. They've got 70in. drivers and heavyweight rods compared to the 614's 74in. drivers and lightweight rods. Albeit, they can lug a coal drag up a mountain at 15mph like the 614 can only dream of.
Actually on my first mainline steam train ride back in '73 Reading T-1 No. 2102 was disguised as a D&H 4-8-4 with elephant ear smoke deflectors and other cosmetic thingies. It was a 2-day weekend thing where we went from Hoboken to Binghamton NY via the ex-Erie Southern Tier (seen above) and return via the Lackawanna main. At that time the Cutoff was still intact and heavily used and Mr. Rowland let her rip at 79 MPH from the Delaware River all the way to Port Morris. U-N-F-O-R-G-E-T-A-B-L-E!!
No kidding, wow! I wish the cutoff was still intact, it seems like it would be a very nice place for say, either 614, or Steamtown's 2317 to stretch their legs a bit. I wasn't doubting your knowledge at all, I was just looking at the physical side of things, lol. I live right across the street from the Erie main in Suffern, NY, and albeit I was only 7 or 8 when the 614 roared by, I'll never forget it.
Actually, the 614 produces more low speed than a T1. The 614 can produce 84,000 lbs pull vs. 79,000 lbs pull for the T1 (both with boosters). The 614 also has better adhesion than a T1. High speed is no contest, the 614 easily produces 1000+ more Hp than a T1 at high speed due to the 614's much more powerful boiler.
The c&o also used the 614 for freight and coal drags in the 1950's after they were retired from passenger service. The 614 was an excellent freight engine due to its high level of adhesion, and high pulling power in the steep mountains of West Virginia.
I'd like to see the N&W class J 611 be sent up there to run. It barely was runned above 40 mph on NS track in the older steam excursion program. Talk about under potential for a locomotive that could reach speeds of 110 mph.
tarmac2001 2 months ago
Now available on DVD. See link above.
typebangin 4 months ago
thats the power of coal baby.
GOCHICOAPRODUCTIONS 6 months ago
@GOCHICOAPRODUCTIONS doubt that idk speed like that wasnt around in the 19th century
mquiroz90 5 months ago
Helper diesel ? We dont need no stinking helper diesel.
woodweasle1 9 months ago
America, fuck yeah. Wished we could see some steam in Florida here.
jdoggybizzle 10 months ago
I got to ride behind 614 on several occassions, and it was like nothing else in the world! The trip to, and the runby shots at port Jervis, New York took you back in time. The best part of the excursion was always the return trip with Ross Rowland at the throttle...no fear...80 MPH plus... telephone poles flew by like a picket fence!
weldboy67 1 year ago
awesome!
mbw1001 1 year ago
Ross Rowland was like Mr. Claytor from the Southern. If he wanted to run his steam engine at 80+ mph, you just kept your mouth shut and let him do it! I've seen cab videos of him pegging 611's speedometer at 100mph. Very nice video!
anb740 1 year ago
Damned if I'd be standing that close to a speeding train! :)
Georooney 1 year ago
I think passenger trains should be allowed to go 90 miles per hour in most of the United States.
Jemalacane 1 year ago
@typebangin Shes eventually being moved to VMT in Roanoke
yerkees9891 1 year ago
It's a shame you zoomed out and then moved the camera as it went by; makes it nearly impossible to calculate the real speed. Watch the better railfan videos - the camera doesn't move!
nclemens 1 year ago
Google the Yellow Ribbon Express. The 614 will be restored to operating condition and sent on a 3 year trip across the country stopping at 60+ cities. Kinda like the same idea as the Freedom Train
AlexR47x 1 year ago
shes hauling ass
racerboy23432 1 year ago
why was that man taking a pic with his back to the train? was he a fan or what
shininghappyperson7 1 year ago
he was definitely motorvatin', wasn't he?
myrryxmas 1 year ago
Jesus Christ.
JaiahHazelnutBrown 1 year ago
This is the best steam loco video I have ever seen and Im 58 and have been looking at these for years
critchley3819 1 year ago
@typebangin wait wait wait... you means they will start restoration in 2011. too bad. i wish this engine and the 587 could double head
ripjump12 1 year ago
wow thats all that can be said.....wow
shininghappyperson7 1 year ago
That guy seemed a little close eh?
CSXboy1 1 year ago
O.O -.-
O.O
BlackDimond100 2 years ago
Sweet, I love fast steam!
JohnsZX2 2 years ago
Once upon a time, this is the only thing you would get when you took a train - a Class I road running a steamer the way it's supposed to run - throttle wide open, Johnson bar in the company notch.
Too bad it is but a memory.
OldsVistaCruiser 2 years ago
Man, that train is boogeyin'.
fordude60 2 years ago
Huh, who needs helper diesels anyway?
SeriosProductions 2 years ago
I know, I counted the number of diesels... OH Wait, She doesn't need any. I think it takes away when they have a diesel in a consist.
bigboy4016 2 years ago
@bigboy4016 Most of the time, Diesels are added to supply the train with HEP. Obviously on this trip they had an HEP car in-train or the cars were equipped with their own generators.
ConrailJon 1 year ago
it hauling ass
racerboy23432 2 years ago
That was great!
musthavejava 2 years ago
see, this is why someone needs to make C&O 614 for trainz. that would be awesome
railfanatic844 2 years ago
WOW
steveo928 2 years ago
that was awsome thanks for the cool vid WHO DOSE NOT LOVE STEAM
shininghappyperson7 2 years ago
Wow, and that thing isn't even struggling with that load. I am just awestruck
Jon13bur 2 years ago
How that guy with the camera managed to not flinch is beyond me. Dude's got some stones, I'll give him that.
crwi1983 2 years ago
hell yeah!!!
jimbo2317 2 years ago
sorry i was thinking of a differnet engine the 765 on week dressed up as a C@O engine that looked like this sorry,
ripjump12 2 years ago
thats the 765 berkshire
ripjump12 2 years ago
It is not the 765. The 765 was a 2-8-4 primary freight locomotive. The 614 is a 4-8-4 primary passenger locomotive. The 765 is smaller and less powerful than the 614, and has a much lower top speed. Both were built by Lima Locomotive, and do have some similarities in appearance.
UnIonPacCheyenne 2 years ago
@ripjump12 and this is a 4-8-4 northern, not a 2-8-4 berkshire, also i have something to say , GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! 614 IS GONA RETURN IN 2011!
trainlover479 1 year ago
YYYAYAYAYAAYAYAYAYAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
4202EJW 1 year ago
Don't even talk anymore!
4202EJW 1 year ago
@4202EJW i didnt mean anything to be mean. i love trains. END OF STORY!
ripjump12 1 year ago
I do to
4202EJW 1 year ago
Hell yeah! That is how excursion trains should be fast and fun not this 10mph crap on bad track! Thanks so much for sharing with us. Anybody riding that train had a real treat that day behind an awesome locomotive.
storrs19 2 years ago
Good LORD lol I was not expecting speed like that into that corner. Nice vid.
NismoFinder 3 years ago
oh gosh no she was out of service since 2000
Strasburg1991 3 years ago
though she is still around, they're trying to restore her again, i'd love to see her run.
keanerulz25 3 years ago
now dont tell me that JUST 1 diesel could do that...my xact point...steam engines can carry almost anything without any help...not the case with the diesel!
wannabeangel83 3 years ago
Actually a new 4400 hp ES44AC would have no trouble pulling that many passenger cars at that speed. A 6000 hp AC6000 can out easily out pull either the UP 844 or the Challenger.
UnIonPacCheyenne 3 years ago
Diesels are usually behind steam locos as an auxiliary, also they use diesels for their dynamic brakes.
callinstead09 3 years ago
a single p42 could easily pull that faster and more fuel efficient too. The reason they usually use 2 locomotives is for better acceleration and because they can be multipled without the need for an extra engineer and fireman like the steam engines would.
There is a reason steam is dying you know....
randknu 2 years ago
The P42 is a very good passenger locomotive, however it does have less HP and lower top speed than the 614. A P42 is good for around 3800 HP at the drawbar. The 614 can produce 5000 HP at the drawbar with a top speed of 125MPH. The P42 is more economical at this point (unless the price of oil goes way up again).
UnIonPacCheyenne 2 years ago
What are those white cars that making that sleek aero dynamic sound???
Xanthedark 3 years ago
Those sounds that you hear are NJT comet cars. They are used as everyday commuter cars but in the late 90's NJT lent them for the C&O 614 trips in 1996-98.
Xnewyork2 3 years ago
i really hope they get her running again, was what i'd give to go see her blazing past at 70mph!
keanerulz25 3 years ago
Whoa! I doubt if Superman is more powerful than THAT locomotive!! ;-D
ultragor 3 years ago
WOW!
philxbx 3 years ago
I'm wonderin which is more powerful the J 611 or C&O 614? I like both but I just want to know.
amtraklover 3 years ago
J 611 hands hands down
fasionbug 3 years ago
Not true. The 614 and 611 are both rated at 5000 HP at the drawbar. However, the 614 has a larger boiler that the 611 in terms of heating surface and gas surface area. The 614 can produce more tractive effort that the 611, and the 614 has a much better adhesion factor that the 611. The 614 also has a much higher operating speed than the 611.
UnIonPacCheyenne 3 years ago
Your kidding 611 was designed to run at 100+
mjkft22 3 years ago
The 614 was designed to run effectively at 120 mph. The 611 needed higher machinery speeds than the 614 due to its smaller drivers and longer piston stroke. The 614 was designed to operate at over 100 mph easily. The 611 could be operate at 100 mph, but, and this is a big but, is wasn't designed to maintain those speeds for any length of time. This was shown in tests of the N&W J by the PRR, where the J was damaged by the speeds tested by the PRR.
UnIonPacCheyenne 3 years ago
But remember, 611 was made to climb the blue ridge mountains. It wasnt meant to go 120+ on flatlands, even though she could get a good 100mph+ going.
phil
WhyAyeMann 2 years ago
The 614 was designed to climb the steep grades of the Allegheny Mountains in West Virginia and maintain 120+ MPH on the flats. The 611, while an excellent locomotive, is an older design (All N&W J's were built to the original 1940 design), than the 614 (1948).
UnIonPacCheyenne 2 years ago
ahh, i see. Being the most advanced steam locomotive in north america, im not surprised.
Kudos to all those steamers out there + their builders and crew.
WhyAyeMann 2 years ago
@WhyAyeMann I don't think that any steam engine could go 120+ with 72in. drivers even though the 614 probally could hit 110 at the max.
PRRforlife 1 year ago
@PRRforlife The C&O 614 is not just "any" steam locomotive. It is the most advanced 4-8-4 ever made. Lima put everything it knew about steam locomotive engineering into the J3a design. The 614 will easily hit 120+ MPH based on its horsepower output and running gear design alone.
UnIonPacCheyenne 1 year ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne I still dont believe the 120mph statement for a locomotive with 72 inch drivers. The N&W J 611 was actually built after 614 and that hit 100 mph with 70 inch drivers. Now I dont see how you could get 20 mph more out of a locomotive with 2 inch larger drivers that was built earler. The PRR T1 with 80 inch drivers and super-effecient poppet values had a max speed of around 125 maybe 130 and that was with the best speed features there was to offer.
PRRforlife 11 months ago
@PRRforlife It is important to note that while the N&W 611 was assembled after the C&O 614, it was designed 8 years before the 614, and therefore was not as a modern locomotive. All N&W Js, regardless of the year assembled, were build to the same 1940-41 engineering specifications. In addition, the N&W J could hit 110 mph, so I have no doubts that the 614 with its lower machinery speeds, larger drivers, and more advanced design could hit 10-15 mph higher top speed.
UnIonPacCheyenne 11 months ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne I would also like to add that in my opinion the NYC Niagra was the best 4-8-4 for its size and had over 6000 HP. As you can see by my name I am a Pennsy fan and a Pennsy didnt use the
4-8-4 and for good reason since its M1 mountain outpreformed many of the Northerns. I know I will probaly get bashed on this but I think that for frieght service the M1b is better that the J3a class.
PRRforlife 11 months ago
@PRRforlife The Niagra was reported to produce 6000 indicated HP (when being pushed to the limit at inefficient steaming rates), but indicated HP is not the same as drawbar HP. Drawbar HP is typically 1000 to 1500 HP LESS than indicated HP. The Niagra produced 4500 to 5000 drawbar HP. The Niagra, 614, and 611 all produced similar drawbar HP outputs, but I would give the edge to the 614 and 611 due to their larger boilers.
UnIonPacCheyenne 11 months ago
@PRRforlife How do you define "best" in terms of freight service? In terms of power output, the M1b, while a very good Mountain Class locomotive, wasn't even in the same league as a big 4-8-4. The 614 had a 30% larger grate area, a 35% larger firebox area, and a 50% greater Superheater area. This resulted in the 614 producing nearly twice the drawbar HP of a Mountain Class.
UnIonPacCheyenne 11 months ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne this is PRRforlife on my new account and I must say you are downrating the PRR M1 quite a bit. You said that the 614 could produce almost twice as much horsepower when in reality the M1 could produce over 4000 horsepower and the 614 5000. So yes the 614 does have more power but at the expense of a larger grate with a higher fuel comsumption and heavier weight which isnt good for the rails. The belpaire produces alot of steam so it doesnt need a large grate
xxCallLibertyxx 7 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx An PRR M1 could produce 4000 *Indicated* HP which is measured at the cylinders. It does not include the power lost by friction and air resistance and the weight of the tender moving the locomotive down the track at speed. A typical steamer can lose over 1000 HP between the cylinders and drawbar. The 614 can produce over 5000 Drawbar HP, an M1 may produce 2800-3000 Drawbar HP, so yea I stand by my comment that the 614 is nearly twice as powerful as an older M1
UnIonPacCheyenne 7 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx "The belpaire produces alot of steam so it doesnt need a large grate"
The grate size determines the amount of coal burned, so bigger grate = more energy to produce steam. The belpaire shape has nothing to do with the ability to burn coal. The bottom line is the 614 has a much larger grate area to release heat from the coal, and a much larger firebox area to absorb the heat to make steam. The 614's boiler can produce near 2X the steam per hour than a M1s boiler.
UnIonPacCheyenne 7 months ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne If my info is correct which i am 99% sure is correct the M1a and M1b produced over 4000 drawbar horsepower not indicated. Look I dont have anything against the 614 all im trying to say is that you dont need a 4 wheel trailing truck with a huge grate to have the superpower that Lima advertised. Several railroads including the pennsy determined that the 4-8-4 didn't have any real additional power over there mountains
xxCallLibertyxx 6 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx The PRR M1 series only had a 69 sq.ft. grate and a total firebox heating surface of 390 sq.ft. There is simply no way you can produce 4000 DBHP out of something that small. It just isn't going to happen. I have nothing against the M1s, they simply weren't large locomotives compared to a big 4-8-4. The original C&O J3 had a 102 sq.ft grate and 520 sq.ft firebox. The C&O 614, a newer J3a, had a 102 sq.ft grate and 570 sq.ft firebox area. No 4-8-2 ever built could match that power.
UnIonPacCheyenne 6 months ago
"all im trying to say is that you dont need a 4 wheel trailing truck with a huge grate to have the superpower that Lima advertised. . "
Not true! All the PRR late steam designs had larger grates/fireboxes and 4 wheel trailing trucks! Look at a T1, or Q2. The PRR designed those engines ***because the 4-6-2 and 4-8-2 locomotives simply were not powerful enough for the longer and heavier passenger trains of the 1940's!!!***The PRR had to double head 4-6-2s and 4-8-2s to equal one 4-8-4!
UnIonPacCheyenne 6 months ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne Alright you mostly beat me but I must say that you are incorrect with your last statement. PRR did have to doublehead 4-6-2s to equal one 4-8-4 but not 4-8-2s to equal one 4-8-4. I dont know any 4-8-4s out there that could equal the power of two M1b mountains or any other mountain class for that matter. Don't forget that the M1b produced slightly more tractive effort than 614 does.
xxCallLibertyxx 2 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx The M1b didn't produce more TE than the 614 did with its Franklin High Speed Booster. The M1b produced 69,700 lbs TE, but its adhesion factor was down to 3.8. The 614 produced 83,000 lbs TE with a higher 4.25 adhesion factor. Besides, the 614 was never designed primarily for low speed lugging. It was designed to be a 100+ mph high speed, high horsepower passenger locomotive. The fact that it had so much low speed pull and adhesion was just icing on the cake.
UnIonPacCheyenne 2 months ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne I wouldn't even mention the Franklin booster for how unreliable they were. Thats the reason why most of the last steam locomotives built didn't have one. This class was one of the few exceptions but most railroads including N&W built there 4-8-4s without them. Then saying that the 614 was never designed for low speed lugging goes back to my original statement that the M1 would be better as a freight loco.
xxCallLibertyxx 2 months ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne Horsepower in a steam locomotive is limited by how much it can start. To start a train you need tractive effort. This means the high horsepower wouldn't do you any good unless you had enough tractive effort to get a train started. This means if we sized a train for a 2-10-2 than gave that same train to a 4-8-4 with higher horsepower the 4-8-4 would haul it faster however it would never be able to get it out of the yard due to its lower tractive effort. It would need a helper
xxCallLibertyxx 2 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx You are just running in circles here with your statements, and are telling me nothing new. The bottom line was the PRR M1 was a good locomotive in its day (the mid 1920's), but the 614 was simply larger, more advanced, better engineered, and far more powerful than the smaller M1.
UnIonPacCheyenne 2 months ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne I have been reading your comments and all you ever talk about is firebox area. You say that the EM-1 was more powerful because it had a larger firebox area than the N&W A but the A overall had a better and maybe bigger boiler. The A had a larger grate area, Higher amount of evaporative heating surface, larger superheater, and much higher combined heating surface. This means the A overall had a bigger and more productive boiler that the EM-1 making it more powerful.
xxCallLibertyxx 2 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx Ok, I'll try to keep this simple since you don't understand this. The firebox (direct heating surface area) is the most important factor in steam production. The EM-1 had a much larger firebox than the Class A. The only reason the A had a higher indirect HS is because it used less thermo efficient, 3.5" flues. The EM-1 used more thermo efficient, shorter 4" flues. The EM-1 boiler pulled more air through its grate, produced more BTUs, and generated more steam.
UnIonPacCheyenne 2 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx In addition, The Class A's longer flue section forced it to have a smaller direct HS section, which has the effect of producing LESS steam. All modern steam used shorter, 4" flues, and a larger firebox area. The Class A was not a modern steam design. The EM-1s superheaters were also more efficient, and needed less area. The EM-1 produced superheated steam temperatures 200 F higher than the Class A. The NYC Niagara, and C&O J3a had a similar design as the EM-1
UnIonPacCheyenne 2 months ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne You are right the 4" flues are more efficent. However with such large differences in indirect HS I doubt the EM-1's direct HS and its more efficient tubes caused it to produce more steam. The A had more than 1000 more sq. ft. of indirect HS. Firebox area account for about 85% of heat into water and tubes the other 15%. That 15% does matter! That along with the extra 5 sq ft. of grate area makes me believe that at best the EM-1 would equal the amount steam a A produced.
xxCallLibertyxx 2 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx I have devolped a pretty simple formula for balancing indirect and direct HS. You take the direct HS and mult. it by 0.85. Then you take the combined HS and mult. it by 0.15. You could subtract the direct HS from the combined HS to get the indirect HS but this isn't needed as long as you do the same thing to all the locomotives you are comparing. After the is done you add the 2 #'s to get a single #. The higher the number the more heat that can be transfered into the water.
xxCallLibertyxx 2 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx Heres how the EM-1 verses the A would do. First the EM-1. 756*0.85=642.6. 5298*0.15=794.7. 642.6+794.7=1437.3. Now the A. 587*0.85=498.95. 6639*0.15=995.85. 498.95+995.85=1494.8. This shows that the A's boiler could put more heat into the water. This doesn't mean the A could produce more steam however. I say that the A's larger grate area plus being able to put more heat into the water is why the A could produce more steam.
xxCallLibertyxx 2 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx Again, you are making the mistake that everything is equal. The grate on the A isn't producing as much BTU's per sq.ft. as the EM-1 because per unit of time, the EM-1 grate is getting a much higher air flow because of the larger diameter flues. Just like a smaller displacement high air flow V6 can produce more power that a larger displacement V8 with a more restrictive air flow. Same with the flues. A sq.ft of 4" flue produces many times the steam of a 3.5" flue
UnIonPacCheyenne 2 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx Also, the Class A couldn't match the heat energy the EM-1s superheaters were adding to the steam, even assuming the total steam production was equal. Engines such as the EM-1, 614, Niagara produced superheated steam above 800 F, which added a tremendous amount of horsepower at high speed.
UnIonPacCheyenne 2 months ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne Though the tubes were only 3.5, there were more of them then there were 4" tubes. Its the same thing in Live steam. I have had boilers with lots of small 0.25" tubes get just a much draft as a boiler with a few 0.75 tubes. Theres also a circumstance where the smaller tubes cause the airflow though them to pick up speed and provide a stronger draft. Overall theres just to many circumstances between lots of ST and fewer BT to see which would be better.
xxCallLibertyxx 2 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx A 4" tube flows 50% more air per tube than a 3.5" tube. So even though a Class A had more 3.5" tubes, the EM-1 had greater airflow through its firebox. In any event, I think its safe to say that both of these engines were incredible machines, capable of both strong low speed pulling, and very high HP output at express speeds. Both locomotives excelled at pulling everything from coal drags to express freight and everything in between.
UnIonPacCheyenne 2 months ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne I agree with you that these were incredible machines. I would say the EM-1 would be better for low speed coal drags due to there high Factor of adhesion and smaller drivers while the A was better for high speed express frieght with its lower Factor of adhesion and larger drivers.
xxCallLibertyxx 2 months ago
@xxCallLibertyxx I have been researching the EM-1 for about 2 years now, and I originally thought they were designed for slow speed mineral service like the DM&IR M3/M4, but they weren't. They were designed not to pull more tonnage than existing B&O articulated locomotives, but the same tonnage much faster. The EM-1 produced so much HP at speed that the B&O used them in 70-80 mph express service, replacing double headed T Class 4-8-2s with one EM-1.
UnIonPacCheyenne 1 month ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne Its amazing how fast and powerful steam was becoming near the end. Had the diesel come ten years later than it did it would have had a much tougher time beating the steam loco. The advent of roller bearings on all axles along with disc drivers, high boiler pressure, and large 100+ foot grate areas showed what the future of steam is capable of. I would love to see an engine like 614 but in a 4-8-6 having 135 sq feet of grate area. Could you imagine the power!!!
xxCallLibertyxx 1 month ago
@UnIonPacCheyenne I thought the A used the Type E superheater like the EM-1. Even if it didn't it still had 600 more sq ft of superheater surface then the EM-1. The only possible way I could see the EM-1 having a much higher steam temperature is because the lower steam pressure on the EM-1 meant it took less surface area and heat to heat the steam than the A needed.
xxCallLibertyxx 2 months ago
Any possible restoration hope?
SeniorMinch229018 3 years ago
#614 is a J3E, not a J3A.
TVRM610 3 years ago
Nope, the official C&O name is J3a for the 614.
UnIonPacCheyenne 3 years ago
On a pentrex video I have, they call it a J3E Greenbriar
TVRM610 3 years ago
Ok, if you say so, I will agree with you, you may know more than Pentrex, and I hope you do.
TVRM610 3 years ago
I'm quite certain that is an error. All the literature and videos I've ever seen refer to it as a J3a class 4-8-4.
typebangin 3 years ago
You are right, it is a J3A, I went on the IHE Website and found out. By the way, did they ever have a J3E?
TVRM610 3 years ago
J3a My friend !
prr1361 3 years ago
Ok, if you say so, I will agree with you, you may know more than Pentrex, and I hope you do.
TVRM610 3 years ago
Pentrex makes tapes. They make mistakes too.
prr1361 3 years ago
I hope C&O #614 will be running again soon in the future and pull trains again!
juligirl00 3 years ago
Is the 614 still running? If not where is she?
SeniorMinch229018 3 years ago
port clinton stored inoperable
Strasburg1991 3 years ago
After seeing the performance of this nearly-60-year-old locomotive, I think that it's high time to build new, updated versions of this beautiful beast!
These steamers use American coal which is in plentiful supply, taking into consideration the price of fuel used in diesel locomotives, often obtained from nations not very friendly to the U.S.
OldsVistaCruiser 3 years ago 4
Actually, when I looked up the 614 on Wikipedia, I found out that now (June 2008) is the 60th birthday of the 614!
Happy 60th, and best wishes for a return to active service - and many more years scorching the ballast!
OldsVistaCruiser 3 years ago 2
@OldsVistaCruiser Amen to that man, I'd love to see the old steamers make a comeback, I think in today's economy they'd be a great alternative power. Make it the main power again the way it used to be.
Hillbilly8904 1 year ago
@Hillbilly8904 When somebody who likes steam engines gets elected as president, why don't we have him put out a good ol' executive order that reads: "All remaining steam locomotives not currently owned by tourist railroads will be restored to running order and returned to active service on the railroads that they once served, and diesel production will stop. The era of second-generation steam engines will begin in four months from this date and steam will never again be abolished in the USA."
Fireheart528 1 year ago
@Fireheart528 What do you mean second generation steam will begin in four months? Please tell me more.
scrambler250r 1 year ago
@scrambler250r no, it probly won't begin that soon. i was reffering to the date four months from the date that order is given, if it ever happens. i hope it does, though.
Fireheart528 1 year ago
Nice! That's the one shot I really wish I had in my 614 collection. Steam hauling ass! Nice.
busyboy85 3 years ago 2
Wow!!! I have been a life long fan of the UP 844, but the C&O 614 is clearly a much more powerful engine. The 614's performance indicates it has a good 900-1000 HP over the 844. To be honest, I've never even seen the 4-6-6-4 Challenger pull as hard as the 614. Great video. Hope Ross gets the 614 running again!
UnIonPacCheyenne 3 years ago
It has- just not in a long time
FGLK1702 3 years ago
Great Video - thanks for sharing! I'd like to see an GE P42 do that with a 22 car train
mjb430 3 years ago
YOW that's fast
Strasburg1991 3 years ago
Yeah she was haulin'!! I'd give anything to see a Reading T-1 move that fast again!!
RDG484 3 years ago
I don't know if a Reading T-1 CAN move that fast, lol. They've got 70in. drivers and heavyweight rods compared to the 614's 74in. drivers and lightweight rods. Albeit, they can lug a coal drag up a mountain at 15mph like the 614 can only dream of.
ThatYankeeKid 3 years ago
Actually on my first mainline steam train ride back in '73 Reading T-1 No. 2102 was disguised as a D&H 4-8-4 with elephant ear smoke deflectors and other cosmetic thingies. It was a 2-day weekend thing where we went from Hoboken to Binghamton NY via the ex-Erie Southern Tier (seen above) and return via the Lackawanna main. At that time the Cutoff was still intact and heavily used and Mr. Rowland let her rip at 79 MPH from the Delaware River all the way to Port Morris. U-N-F-O-R-G-E-T-A-B-L-E!!
RDG484 3 years ago
No kidding, wow! I wish the cutoff was still intact, it seems like it would be a very nice place for say, either 614, or Steamtown's 2317 to stretch their legs a bit. I wasn't doubting your knowledge at all, I was just looking at the physical side of things, lol. I live right across the street from the Erie main in Suffern, NY, and albeit I was only 7 or 8 when the 614 roared by, I'll never forget it.
ThatYankeeKid 3 years ago
Actually, the 614 produces more low speed than a T1. The 614 can produce 84,000 lbs pull vs. 79,000 lbs pull for the T1 (both with boosters). The 614 also has better adhesion than a T1. High speed is no contest, the 614 easily produces 1000+ more Hp than a T1 at high speed due to the 614's much more powerful boiler.
UnIonPacCheyenne 3 years ago
The c&o also used the 614 for freight and coal drags in the 1950's after they were retired from passenger service. The 614 was an excellent freight engine due to its high level of adhesion, and high pulling power in the steep mountains of West Virginia.
UnIonPacCheyenne 3 years ago
WOW that gal was booking it! Thanks for sharing!
hoolg 3 years ago
Yay finally some new footage of the port jarvis trips!! Have any more?
xspfdhardcorekid417x 3 years ago