Chesapeake & Ohio 614 70+ MPH

http://www.steamtrainvideos.com

With engineer Ross Rowland at the throttle, C&O J3a 4-8-4 614 races back towards Hoboken NJ with the 22-car "Erie Limited." This spot is just east of Middletown NY on the former Erie Railroad Graham Line. Track speed for New Jersey Transit / Metro North passenger trains on this section is 79 mph.

June 15, 1997

My DVD of these trips is available now at:
http://www.steamtrainvideos.com

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• steam
• engine
• train
• locomotive
• northern
• greenbrier
• ross
• rowland
• chessie
• njt
• new
• jersey
• transit
• urhs
• port
• jervis
• 70
• mph
• 79mph
• high
• speed
• railfan
• videos

[typebangin]

Now available on DVD. See link above.

[xxCallLibertyxx]

@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]

@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.

[xxCallLibertyxx]

@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.

[UnIonPacCheyenne]

@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.

[xxCallLibertyxx]

@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]

@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.

[UnIonPacCheyenne]

@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.

[xxCallLibertyxx]

@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.

[UnIonPacCheyenne]

@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]

@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.