The Atlantic & Southern Saturday Report

[PRR Modeler]

Very interesting Bill. I look forward to the next installment.

[Judge]

Saturday Report - December 18, 2021

The Board of Directors met at 0830 hours as usual.  The main topic this week was the production of two new videos designed to complement this week's continued story of the USRA (United States Railroad Administration).  The A&S movie production studios are somewhat limited technologically in that editing is not an option.  This limitation required several "takes" before the videos met the standards expected by the producers. 

After the videos were completed, an ACL mixed freight powered by an A-B-A lash-up of ACL F3's made its run through the Midlands, and dropped local freight in route.  Then the train climbed the Ovalix and traveled through the main freight yard at Summit before being spotted on the mainline in anticipation of lunch at Del Dio's. 

This week's story is a continuation of the abbreviated story of the USRA.   

                                                                   Federal Takeover – The U.S. Railroad Administration (Part TWO)
                                                                                                         1917-1920

   By April, 1918, the USRA's locomotive committee had finished most of its work.  The committee was composed of locomotive users rather than locomotive builders.  As a result, the committee grappled with common problems as well as operational issues limited to one or more railroads.  The committee sought to achieve the best result possible while being under tremendous pressure to reach consensus quickly. 
   The committee first decided on three basic wheel arrangements for road locomotives, with a "light" and "heavy" version for each.  The choice for freight was the 2-8-2; for passengers, the 4-6-2; and for heavy passenger and fast freight the 4-8-2.  The light and heavy versions differed primarily in boiler size and in axel loading.  The heavy versions were limited to 30 tons per axel while the light versions were limited to 28.5 tons.  The light versions were designed for use by the smaller railroads with their lighter rail.  Two switchers, an 0-6-0 and an 0-8-0 were also approved.  Later, the wheel arrangements were expanded to include a light and heavy 2-10-2, and two mallet designs, a 2-6-6-2 and a 2-8-8-2.  Notably absent from the list of wheel arrangements were the workhorses still popular with many roads, the 4-6-0 ten-wheeler and the 2-8-0 consolidation.  These engines were simply too small to be considered adequate for the needs of the day.
   From this far remove, it is easy to imagine the heated arguments over designs among the various committee members.  One member, Robert Quayle, had this to say about the discussions that ultimately lead to consensus:
   "I was a member of the committee of nine that was called on to prepare these designs.  It was a big job to reconcile every member of the committee to each particular thing that was adopted.  All the roads represented had their own standards and they were all different.  Many had to give up fancy notions of someone else in order that the committee might agree.  We saw that we could not bring localism or sectionalism: what we did had to be for the good of the nation.  It was essential that we get together and do what we could to help out." 
   Imagine the chances of that kind of spirit of cooperation in today's political climate.
C. A. Greenough, Vice President of Baldwin Locomotive works, and who was not a member of the committee, had this to say on the subject of standardization:
   "The capacities of the locomotives are based upon average conditions; hence there is no provision for the extreme requirements which these locomotives do not cover.  Where even the light locomotives are too heavy - - and where the heavy locomotives are not sufficient capacity, then special locomotives will have to be provided. Those roads requiring heavier locomotives must change their system of operation so as to use the heavy standard government locomotives.  In such instance where railroads have been equipped from one end to the other to use power of maximum capacity for the purpose of reducing train movements, such action would prove a negative economy." 
   Greenhough's dissenting opinion on standardization expressed one of the main reasons dieselization occurred so rapidly thirty years later.  Moving people and goods efficiently required efficient use of both capital and labor.  Capital is wasted when crews operate locomotives that are bigger than the need.  And when crews operate locomotives that are even slightly too small, more crews have to be paid for the same total traffic.  Greenhough's dissent focused on the labor-cost dimension:  changing 'their system of operation" or arranging an operation "for the purpose of reducing train movements" is code for labor cost implications.  Greenhough could not have visualized the increased efficient use of both labor and capital by the use of multiple diesel units back in 1917.
   The committee agreed to recommend the use of the best of the proven devices and appliances of the time.  Devices that had been proven over time were included, while experimental devices were rejected.  The USRA designs included combustion chambers, firebox arches, superheaters, mechanical stokers for the large road engines, mechanical coal pushers for the smaller engines without stokers, mechanical grate shakers, air-operated power reverse gear, mechanically operated firebox doors, dual water glasses, gage cocks mounted on a water column, and better in-cab lighting. 
   The boiler proportions were quite advanced for the day.  Boiler capacity was generous, with large fireboxes.  The adoption of "flexible stay bolts" allowed the simi-controversial use of combustion chambers without appreciable increase in the cost of maintenance.

        The attached videos are of various USRA Steam Locomotives found on the roster of the Atlantic & Southern:

         The first viedo illustrates the "light" version of the USRA Pacific featuring the ACL P5A 1559, one of many copies of the original design acquired by the ACL

                                                                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZMHbrOqhrk

        The second video illustrates the "light" version of the USRA 2-8-2 Mikado, ACL's 835

                                                                             https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLk50mPWfbU

        The last video illustrates the Seaboard Air Line's version of a USRA copy with air pumps mounted on the smokebox and sporting a Vanderbilt tender.

                                                                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2emuCOQSYi8

NEXT WEEK – SELLING THE USRA DESIGNS
   

[PRR Modeler]

Great story about USRA locomotive design. Nice looking videos.

[Zephyrus52246]

Nice history lesson and videos, Judge.


Jeff

[ACL1504]

Nice history lesson and videos, Judge.


Jeff

Dr. Jeff,

We have fun with the videos. I hope to get a better camera and a video editing program to make our videos better. These videos were all shot using a small Sony Cybershot. I paid all of $99.00 for it 10 years ago.

The Judge controls the train action and I work the movie clapper.

Tom 

[deemery]

I'm always amazed at the changes from 1897 to 1917! 


dave

[GPdemayo]

Great yard and videos.....big thanks to the guys at the A&S. 

[jbvb]

Dave, regarding the freight running ahead of a late first class train: The underlying rule (86 in my old B&M book) says lower class trains must clear superior trains in the same direction by 5 minutes. Dispatchers, knowing a superior train was late, might issue an order to the superior train "#7 run 30 minutes late Auburndale to Jacksonville".  This would allow a freight to run ahead of #7, as long as they stayed more than 5 minutes ahead of #7's re-scheduled time at each station.  Should the freight get delayed between sidings, the rear-end crew was to drop burning 5 min. red/5 min. yellow fusees to warn following trains. I'd have expected Conductor Millstone to get the blame, as he was supposed to be aware of exactly where his freight was relative to the Floridian and direct the caboose crew appropriately. Many would drop the fusees themselves because they were most visible/reliable if the spike stuck in a tie and held them upright). Perhaps there were extenuating circumstances.

[deemery]

James, thanks!  That makes sense.  The orders would have to be addressed to both the superior passenger train and the inferior freight, right? 


dave

[jbvb]

A "run late" order would need to go to every train in the area and time period it affected.

[Judge]

The A&S does not have a "run late rule."  Our trains run on time or not at all. 

[Judge]

Saturday Report on Friday, December 23, 2021.

The Board of Directors convened at an unscheduled meeting at 9:40 a.m.  Since the meeting was not advertised, no business was conducted.  However, the Board did discuss various matters of interest, including the A&S Video Collection, which has disappointingly not received any awards or other recognition.

This week finishes the information on the United States Railroad Administration.  It is a fascinating subject for steam enthusiasts and its short life had lasting effects on steam locomotive construction.

We at the A&S wish all a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a fun Festivus for you Seinfeld fans.

                                                                                               SELLING THE USRA DESIGNS – (Part III)

During the second and third decades of the new century, railroads spent some considerable effort acquiring "dual service" locomotives.  Railroads blessed with level routes or minimal grades discovered that larger boilers and slightly smaller drivers could convert a passenger locomotive into a satisfactory engine capable of adequately handling both freight and passenger trains.  Perhaps the most famous examples of these dual service engines were the 1600 series of Pacifics on the Atlantic Coast Line. 
   The ACL had seventy P-5-A (USRA light Pacifics), numbered 1500-1569, which appeared during the first world war and it used these locomotives in both freight and passenger service.  They developed 40, 750 lbs. in tractive effort using 25" x  28" cylinders and 73" drivers and steam pressure of 200 psi.  The advantage for these engines was their ability to pull passenger trains at a sustained speed of over 70 mph.  Naturally, a locomotive with such speed capabilities had its drawbacks as an efficient freight engine.
   The Baldwin Locomotive Works and ACL mechanical engineers set out to design a true dual-purpose Pacific to replace the 1500 series, resulting in the design of the P-5-B.  Baldwin built 165 of these engines between 1922 and 1926.  They became the standard mainline freight locomotive and were also capable of making fast running time with heavy passenger trains.  The size of their drivers was reduced from 73" to 69" and steam pressure was raised to 210 psi.  The cylinder size remained the same, but the tractive effort was increased to 45,275 lbs.
   Some of the engines of both classes were equipped with disc-type main drivers, which increased their maximum speed to 75 mph.
   The overall appearance of the P-5-B class engines closely resembled the original USRA design to the untrained eye, the addition of a delta trailing truck on later deliveries being a notable difference.  The P-5-B class weighed slightly more (less than a ton) than the P-5-A class.

Following is a complete list of the twelve designs and the number of original locomotives built and sold:
Type Name                   No. Built
0-6-0 6-Wheel Switcher             255
0-8-0 8-Wheel Switcher             175
2-8-2A Light Mikado                625
2-8-2B Heavy Mikado             233
2-10-2A Light Santa Fe             94
2-10-2B Heavy Santa Fe            175
4-6-2A Light Pacific               81
4-6-2B Heavy Pacific                20
4-8-2A Light Mountain             47
4-8-2B Heavy Mountain             15
2-6-6-2 Mallet                  30
2-8-8-2 Mallet                        106
  Total 1856
Note:  A number of railroads ordered copies of the USRA designs. A total of 3251 copies were built.

THE FIRST USRA ENGINE
The first USRA engine produced was the 4500 for the B&O.  The 4500 was built in only 20 days, which is a record for any locomotive of similar capacity. This was the result of the wishes of Samuel M. Vauclain, then the Senior Vice President of Baldwin, who wanted his company to have the honor of completing the first USRA engine. In accordance with his orders, the engine was finished on July 4, 1918, and was decked out with American flags

THE LAST USRA ENGINE
The last road freight steam locomotive constructed was a N&W 2-8-8-2 (Y6B), which was a development of a USRA design.  The last steam locomotive constructed in America was a N&W 0-8-0 of USRA design based upon the original 1917 blueprints, with the addition of some modern appliances.


For more information on USRA locomotives see:

https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/resourcefiles/aboutasme/who%20we%20are/engineering%20history/landmarks/147-baltimore-ohio-4500-freight-usra-2-8-2a.pdf - Or Google number of USRA Steam Locomotives.

[PRR Modeler]

Great history Bill. Merry Christmas to the board of the A & S.

[Judge]

Saturday Report - Friday, December 31, 2021.

    The Board met at 0930 this morning - an hour late due to a prior appointment.
    Last week, we noted that 1559, a USRA Pacific, would run for about 20 feet and stop.  It would run again when given a little throttle.  Your reporter suggested that we try resetting the decoder to the factory default and see if that would fix the problem.  NO NEED!  The decoder fixed itself during the week (A&S decoders often do that) so we decided to run 1559 on a mixed freight at Summit. 
    The engine ran without a problem but it would short out when it ran through the Summit freight yard.  After much testing and a few expletives, it was discovered that the problem was a Kay-Dee freight car.  We did not have time to figure out why the car caused a short when it ran over a turnout but that is a problem to be solved when next we meet.
    The A&S CEO is scheduled for surgery on January 6 and will be out of action for a few weeks.  Your reporter will post information about his progress. 

    The stories posted for the last few weeks have been derived (but not plagiarized) from a book entitled "American Steam Locomotives - Design and Development -1880-1960.  As I previously explained, the book has a lot of information in it that engineers and physicists might understand, but that stufff is all Greek to me.  (Lawyers go to law school when they realize they are mathematically challenged.)  Anyway, there are sections of the book that are of interest to the readers of this report so I have decided to devote two or three weeks to the subject of railroad safety.
 
                                                                                                   Locomotive Safety and Regulation
                                                                                                                         Part I

   Those of us who are old enough to remember steam locomotives when they were still in service look back in amazement at just how dangerous the iron horse in particular, and railroading in general, could be.  The subject of safety in railroading is all too broad a topic for a report such as this one, but your reporter has opted to pick and choose a couple of examples of how steam crews risked life and limb on a daily basis, especially before enactment of the Locomotive Inspection Act of 1911.  This week's topic has to do with boiler safety.
      Modern investigators from OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) would no doubt be appalled at the conditions inside the cab of a steam locomotive.  Temperatures up to 130 degrees F, constant vibration, noise levels exceeding 90 decibels, noxious gases laden with particulates and sulfur, tripping and head bumping hazards everywhere, and no sign of safety concerns and crashworthiness.  Crews regularly worked in these conditions up to 16 hours at a stretch.  One engineer remarked, "You parboiled in the summer and froze in the winter.  It was part of the job.  We loved that job.  Sure, we had a union.  That was to get us better pay.  Safety?  I always thought the job had its dangers. But it was as safe as any other."
Boiler explosions were not uncommon and occurred at alarming frequency.  Interestingly, boilers in steamships came under federal inspection in 1852, largely because explosions on a ship tended to cause mass casualties.  Explosions on steam engines usually only killed a couple of crew members, so these catastrophes did not attract the same public ire as explosions on steamships.
      The fireman and the engineer manually controlled the flow of boiler feedwater and visually monitored its level.  If the crew allowed the water level to fall too low, a boiler even in the best condition would explode due to catastrophic structural failure of the firebox from overheating.  Without adequate water surrounding the firebox, steel in its walls failed from softening by the 2,000-degree fire. The pressure containment of the boiler then ruptured, a couple of thousand gallons of superheated water flashed almost instantaneously into steam, and the consequent explosion generally ripped the boiler off its frame and sent it flying a hundred feet or more into the air and several hundred feet down the track.  The damage was generally so severe that the cause of the explosion was unclear – whether it was crew error (no surviving cab crew), faulty water monitoring devices, or some prior flaw in the boiler.
      While crews were generally hesitant to admit that common practices on board risked dangerous consequences, in situations where the engine was being worked hard, a fireman often "traded water for steam."  This trade occurred when the fireman saw his boiler pressure falling – from poor coal, inexpert firing, or poor running technique by the engineer.  In such case, the fireman could aggressively tend to the fire while cutting back temporarily on the water supply.  Feedwater cooled the boiler, thereby lowering boiler pressure.  Cutting back on the water rate allowed the boiler pressure to recover, preventing a loss of power.  In cases where the locomotive was working at full power on a steep hill, cutting back on the water could prevent a stall, the worst professional embarrassment for both fireman and engineer. 
      Well-experienced crews were able to trade off the firing rate and the water supply against each other and keep boiler pressure steady while anticipating the ever-changing power demands on the boiler due to changing grades and train speeds.  Whether the trade-off was bad or good depended upon the skill of the fireman, familiarity with the road, and the tolerance of the engineer. 
      The Locomotive Inspection Act of 1911 required periodic inspections of boilers and significantly reduced boiler explosions caused by defective boilers.  It did little to reduce explosions caused by negligent operation, which remained a problem until the end of steam. 
      Next week – Danger Beyond Boilers

   

[bparrish]

Judge..................

Your remarks this week are great...........  I really like the shot at lawyers and math! ! ! ! !


The discussion on steam locomotives is spot on.   They would surely win the "OSHA goes apoplectic" award on any day.


Thanx'
Bob