These are amazing machines. Being the product of my era, I'm a diesel enthusiast, but I love learning about steam and especially being a C&O fan, these massive beasts have always captivated my attention.
I am a absolute Allegheny Partisan, so I got to throw in some points. 14,000 tons of freight at 45 MPH. 11,500 tons at 15 MPH (this is with a pusher, see later for single Allegheny) The Allegheny was absolutely used for timed freights and were used for that all the time. I would like to mention that at 3:12 you have a picture of a Allegheny in timed freight service as you are saying they never demonstrated their true abilities because they weren't used for that. The first order of 10 cost 230,000 dollars each. So a marginally more palatable 5 million dollar locomotive. As to your statement on the Allegheny cutting travel time by 20% on a 130 car train, I'm not sure where you are getting this from. On the Alleghany sub one H-7 would pull 4025 tons in 3 hours and 18 minutes. An Allegheny was timed at 1:46 with 5,800 tons. That is 40 percent more weight in half the time! Typically these were done with two engines but even then the Allegheny's would pull larger trains in half the time. In comparison to the T-1 Texas, the advantage is less marked, at about 40% more coal moved per minute in the best case. And I am going to try and dissuade you from the "Allegheny was misused" argument. People love to say that the C&O would have been better off with Y6's or functional equivalents, but they are looking at the situation through a tractive effort lens. Trains on the Allegheny Subdivision had a artificial limit placed on the tonnage they could be by the passing sidings of the alleghany yard, which was jammed between the Alleghany and Lewis tunnels barely a mile apart from each other. The eastbound siding was 7000 ft long, equating (roughly) to a 160 car train if you give yourself absolutely no wiggle room. So without the ability to increase the train length HP was the only way to get more tonnage past this choke point. Tests show that even in this service, pulling and pushing these trains upgrade at around 15 to 20 MPH, they were generating between 5000 and 6000 HP. A Y6 could not do this until the Y6b came out in 1948, when the last of the Allegheny's were being introduced. Before the Y6b's vastly expanded combustion chamber the Y6 could only make 4,400 HP tops. And even when the Y6b shows up it would be working at the absolute limit to match the Allegheny's performance in this role, while the Allegheny is not working at its limit. Yes, A Y6b would be way better at yanking a longer train at a slower speed, but because that was not a option for the C&O the Allegheny is a much better choice for them.
If I recall correctly, the coal trains were 140 hoppers eastbound from Hinton over the summit into Virginia. The 160 car limit was in the other direction, westbound from Hinton through Ohio to Toledo.
@@steveboguslawski114 my 160 car cap is based on the length of two Alleghenys, one 32 ft caboose, and the train consisting of 42 ft 70 ton hoppers. That eastbound siding length I got from 'C&O Side Track Record - Alleghany SD (DS-03-240)' at the C&O historical society store, but it does not really say where the usable length begins or if the length given is from point to point. The westbound siding is about 1000 ft longer so can comfortably carry the longer train.
@@commissarcarl1700 Thanks for the details. It may be that the 140-car length was based on tonnage and not siding length. C&O Power did mention that a pair of Alleghenies would handle 140-car trains eastbound to the summit but did not indicate that this was a limit. A single Allegheny would then handle the downhill grade to Clifton Forge. After diesels replaced the two H-8s with five GP-9s train length became 150-cars. This might be because their dynamic brakes allowed them to control more weight going downhill, but I am guessing.
@@steveboguslawski114 that downgrade being the limiting factor for the H-8's seems to make sense, as 5 GP9's is something like 30 ft longer than 2 H-8's and the caboose still needs to be accounted for.
Carl, I havent felt the greatest the past couple of days.. So i'm kinda by-passing the comments and getting into debates.. etc. .. In an effort to keep any anxiety, etc. down. But know that I ALWAYS want your input and that I appreciate your participation.
The point about enlarging the tunnel bores was important. The 2-8-8-2 H-6 class was made to fit the smaller tunnels. It was a "simple" (non-compound) design because there was no room for the large low-pressure cylinders that a true Mallet required. But they were designed in 1924, before the Lima A-1 introduced the 4-wheel trailing truck to support a larger firebox. correction: The 2-8-8-2 was class H-7. The H-6 was a 2-6-6-2 Mallet design, which were updated versions of the C&O class H-1 through H-4 (H-5 was the USRA version, with different dimensions). Their 35-inch low pressure cylinders were the maximum size that would squeeze through the old tunnels.
H-7. Before those changes it was basically a unbearable locomotive to drive through the tunnels. incredibly hot, impossible to breath (but the company was kind enough to give you a gas mask to put on before entering a tunnel) they had to give up on using the H-7 and revert to the 2-6-6-2's until the infrastructure changes.
Mountain railroading limits speed even when you have horsepower to spare. The grades are part of the problem but there are also numerous curves. Heavy freight trains also had to stop at the crest of the grade in order to set the retaining valves on enough cars to prevent a runaway going downhill. And at the bottom of the grade the train must stop again to release those retainers. Downhill trains are also limited in speed for safety reasons. A train cannot be allowed to go faster than the brakes can handle. For these reasons the downhill 1.14% grade to Clifton Forge was probably slower than the 0.57% eastbound grade to the summit.
Thank you again and I already gave you a like the first time that I watched it. But I believe that I said to you before that the Allegheny is one of my favorites along with the Big Boy. If I had the money I would have a brand new one built. Thank you again.
Can you do a video on the N&W E2, E2a, and E2b class? I think that they need some recognition concerning that number 578 is in preservation. If you have any questions or want some more information, please feel free to contact me! P.S., love the videos you do!
I wonder why the C&O would look at Seaboard's 2-6-6-4 and not the more advanced N&W A class. As David P. Morgan wrote about the A class "Other roads had 2-6-6-4s but they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath.".
The C&O absolutely looked at the A. Without the A they probably would have just ordered more T-1 Texans. But with the N&W very publicly stating that the A put out a unbelievable (and I mean this literally as I dont believe it) 6300 HP, the C&O decided that while they were getting new freight engines they might as well bury their competitor. Hence the Allegheny.
There was one locomotive that topped the Allegheny which was the Pennsylvania Q2. While beset with teething issues, mainly due to wartime shortages, it did develop 7952 hp at the drawbar.
Nope, that's IHP, not DBHP. Check again. Only source I've ever seen for DBHP is Will Whituhn's "American Steam Locomotives design and development 1880-1960" and that gives 6650 DBHP. And that is on a test stand instead of over the road.
This test was done by the PRR at the Altoona test station, which measured DBHP. If I am not mistaken, the Pennsy was the only railroad which had a in-house test facility. Not surprising considering that their Juniata works was the third largest builder of steam locomotives in the U.S.
@@TucsonBillD the indoor test facility also measured indicated horsepower, which is what the near 8000 number comes from. I again strongly urge you to check again or provide a source for that number being drawbar.
the design was from the van swergan group, they were built to be fast freight over the mountains but used in coal drag but, the h8 allegheny did twice the work in half the time at half the fuel used compaired to the h7 class, but your spot on on most information, yes the c and o upgraded during the down years and they were primed for the show by the time was needed, though part of why they made the allegheny as powerful as it was was trying to just go ahead and beat the n and w a class on horsepower, as I said they also pulled 40 car troop trains
From memory, the Allegheny boilers produced 15% more steam than the engine could actually use, which is the haul mark of the Super Power engine line. To make use of two additional axles would have required an additional 33% more steaming capacity. That is a huge increase in boiler capacity to be looking for.
Stop talking about horse power.,steam locomotives used tractive effort because a steam engine can’t start everything like a diesel engine. If they can start something, they can continue it unlike diesels.
Like it or not, at any speed above zero every engine is using horsepower. Every engine has a horsepower curve. So while something like a Y6b or Big Boy has way more tractive effort than a Allegheny, past 25 MPH the Allegheny is going to be pulling more than either of them. Which then leads to a question, is it better to pull one really big train slower, or two smaller trains quicker. Depending on the route, HP might be the chief consideration.
If you're referring to the Y6B V Allegheny video then... #1) I told you all not to take any of it very seriously 2) Both the Y6B and Allegheny are on my MT. Rushmore of steam locomotives #3) A college football analogy .. just because #1 beat #3 doesn't mean that #3 isn't a championship caliber football team. One mechanical device on the Y6B and economics is what beat the Allegheny in a coal field setting on grades. That's real, that's not stuff I just cooked up so the Y6B would win.
These are amazing machines. Being the product of my era, I'm a diesel enthusiast, but I love learning about steam and especially being a C&O fan, these massive beasts have always captivated my attention.
I am a absolute Allegheny Partisan, so I got to throw in some points.
14,000 tons of freight at 45 MPH.
11,500 tons at 15 MPH (this is with a pusher, see later for single Allegheny)
The Allegheny was absolutely used for timed freights and were used for that all the time. I would like to mention that at 3:12 you have a picture of a Allegheny in timed freight service as you are saying they never demonstrated their true abilities because they weren't used for that.
The first order of 10 cost 230,000 dollars each. So a marginally more palatable 5 million dollar locomotive.
As to your statement on the Allegheny cutting travel time by 20% on a 130 car train, I'm not sure where you are getting this from. On the Alleghany sub one H-7 would pull 4025 tons in 3 hours and 18 minutes. An Allegheny was timed at 1:46 with 5,800 tons. That is 40 percent more weight in half the time! Typically these were done with two engines but even then the Allegheny's would pull larger trains in half the time. In comparison to the T-1 Texas, the advantage is less marked, at about 40% more coal moved per minute in the best case.
And I am going to try and dissuade you from the "Allegheny was misused" argument. People love to say that the C&O would have been better off with Y6's or functional equivalents, but they are looking at the situation through a tractive effort lens. Trains on the Allegheny Subdivision had a artificial limit placed on the tonnage they could be by the passing sidings of the alleghany yard, which was jammed between the Alleghany and Lewis tunnels barely a mile apart from each other. The eastbound siding was 7000 ft long, equating (roughly) to a 160 car train if you give yourself absolutely no wiggle room. So without the ability to increase the train length HP was the only way to get more tonnage past this choke point. Tests show that even in this service, pulling and pushing these trains upgrade at around 15 to 20 MPH, they were generating between 5000 and 6000 HP. A Y6 could not do this until the Y6b came out in 1948, when the last of the Allegheny's were being introduced. Before the Y6b's vastly expanded combustion chamber the Y6 could only make 4,400 HP tops. And even when the Y6b shows up it would be working at the absolute limit to match the Allegheny's performance in this role, while the Allegheny is not working at its limit. Yes, A Y6b would be way better at yanking a longer train at a slower speed, but because that was not a option for the C&O the Allegheny is a much better choice for them.
If I recall correctly, the coal trains were 140 hoppers eastbound from Hinton over the summit into Virginia. The 160 car limit was in the other direction, westbound from Hinton through Ohio to Toledo.
@@steveboguslawski114 my 160 car cap is based on the length of two Alleghenys, one 32 ft caboose, and the train consisting of 42 ft 70 ton hoppers. That eastbound siding length I got from 'C&O Side Track Record - Alleghany SD (DS-03-240)' at the C&O historical society store, but it does not really say where the usable length begins or if the length given is from point to point. The westbound siding is about 1000 ft longer so can comfortably carry the longer train.
@@commissarcarl1700 Thanks for the details. It may be that the 140-car length was based on tonnage and not siding length. C&O Power did mention that a pair of Alleghenies would handle 140-car trains eastbound to the summit but did not indicate that this was a limit. A single Allegheny would then handle the downhill grade to Clifton Forge. After diesels replaced the two H-8s with five GP-9s train length became 150-cars. This might be because their dynamic brakes allowed them to control more weight going downhill, but I am guessing.
@@steveboguslawski114 that downgrade being the limiting factor for the H-8's seems to make sense, as 5 GP9's is something like 30 ft longer than 2 H-8's and the caboose still needs to be accounted for.
Carl, I havent felt the greatest the past couple of days.. So i'm kinda by-passing the comments and getting into debates.. etc. .. In an effort to keep any anxiety, etc. down. But know that I ALWAYS want your input and that I appreciate your participation.
Love your videos very informative thanks keep them coming
You bet
The point about enlarging the tunnel bores was important. The 2-8-8-2 H-6 class was made to fit the smaller tunnels. It was a "simple" (non-compound) design because there was no room for the large low-pressure cylinders that a true Mallet required. But they were designed in 1924, before the Lima A-1 introduced the 4-wheel trailing truck to support a larger firebox.
correction: The 2-8-8-2 was class H-7.
The H-6 was a 2-6-6-2 Mallet design, which were updated versions of the C&O class H-1 through H-4 (H-5 was the USRA version, with different dimensions). Their 35-inch low pressure cylinders were the maximum size that would squeeze through the old tunnels.
H-7. Before those changes it was basically a unbearable locomotive to drive through the tunnels. incredibly hot, impossible to breath (but the company was kind enough to give you a gas mask to put on before entering a tunnel) they had to give up on using the H-7 and revert to the 2-6-6-2's until the infrastructure changes.
Those Alleghenies were crawling as they went over Alleghany Summit.
Mountain railroading limits speed even when you have horsepower to spare. The grades are part of the problem but there are also numerous curves. Heavy freight trains also had to stop at the crest of the grade in order to set the retaining valves on enough cars to prevent a runaway going downhill. And at the bottom of the grade the train must stop again to release those retainers. Downhill trains are also limited in speed for safety reasons. A train cannot be allowed to go faster than the brakes can handle. For these reasons the downhill 1.14% grade to Clifton Forge was probably slower than the 0.57% eastbound grade to the summit.
@steveboguslawski114 ya, I just recall the shots of the 2-6-6-6's as they crested Alleghany Summit on a VCR video entitled Artculateds in Appalachia.
Thank you again and I already gave you a like the first time that I watched it. But I believe that I said to you before that the Allegheny is one of my favorites along with the Big Boy. If I had the money I would have a brand new one built. Thank you again.
Can you do a video on the N&W E2, E2a, and E2b class? I think that they need some recognition concerning that number 578 is in preservation. If you have any questions or want some more information, please feel free to contact me!
P.S., love the videos you do!
rest assure that nearly everything locomotive will be getting a video or 3
The 578 is in a fair number of N&W videos.
I wonder why the C&O would look at Seaboard's 2-6-6-4 and not the more advanced N&W A class. As David P. Morgan wrote about the A class "Other roads had 2-6-6-4s but they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath.".
The C&O absolutely looked at the A. Without the A they probably would have just ordered more T-1 Texans.
But with the N&W very publicly stating that the A put out a unbelievable (and I mean this literally as I dont believe it) 6300 HP, the C&O decided that while they were getting new freight engines they might as well bury their competitor. Hence the Allegheny.
There was one locomotive that topped the Allegheny which was the Pennsylvania Q2. While beset with teething issues, mainly due to wartime shortages, it did develop 7952 hp at the drawbar.
Nope, that's IHP, not DBHP. Check again. Only source I've ever seen for DBHP is Will Whituhn's "American Steam Locomotives design and development 1880-1960" and that gives 6650 DBHP. And that is on a test stand instead of over the road.
This test was done by the PRR at the Altoona test station, which measured DBHP. If I am not mistaken, the Pennsy was the only railroad which had a in-house test facility. Not surprising considering that their Juniata works was the third largest builder of steam locomotives in the U.S.
@@TucsonBillD the indoor test facility also measured indicated horsepower, which is what the near 8000 number comes from. I again strongly urge you to check again or provide a source for that number being drawbar.
the design was from the van swergan group, they were built to be fast freight over the mountains but used in coal drag but, the h8 allegheny did twice the work in half the time at half the fuel used compaired to the h7 class, but your spot on on most information, yes the c and o upgraded during the down years and they were primed for the show by the time was needed, though part of why they made the allegheny as powerful as it was was trying to just go ahead and beat the n and w a class on horsepower, as I said they also pulled 40 car troop trains
The Rest Of The Story, Paul Harvey would be proud! 😁
Haha!! I didnt even think about that! Nice!!
I gots an N scale Allegheny in brass and she runs smooth and slow. Also an HO by Fujimamma and she runs gud too. Better than s#×.
Love this story ❤❤❤❤
I would also like to make a 6-6-6-6 and name it APPALACHIA type
I wonder how they would have turned out if they were enlarged to 2-8-8-6
Well, they wouldn't have fit on the turntables. So that's a pretty solid point against them.
From memory, the Allegheny boilers produced 15% more steam than the engine could actually use, which is the haul mark of the Super Power engine line. To make use of two additional axles would have required an additional 33% more steaming capacity. That is a huge increase in boiler capacity to be looking for.
Can you do one on UPS coal turbine please
Stop talking about horse power.,steam locomotives used tractive effort because a steam engine can’t start everything like a diesel engine. If they can start something, they can continue it unlike diesels.
Like it or not, at any speed above zero every engine is using horsepower. Every engine has a horsepower curve. So while something like a Y6b or Big Boy has way more tractive effort than a Allegheny, past 25 MPH the Allegheny is going to be pulling more than either of them. Which then leads to a question, is it better to pull one really big train slower, or two smaller trains quicker. Depending on the route, HP might be the chief consideration.
What a hypocrite. Calls the y6b better, then extolls the virtues of Allegheny.
If you're referring to the Y6B V Allegheny video then... #1) I told you all not to take any of it very seriously 2) Both the Y6B and Allegheny are on my MT. Rushmore of steam locomotives #3) A college football analogy .. just because #1 beat #3 doesn't mean that #3 isn't a championship caliber football team. One mechanical device on the Y6B and economics is what beat the Allegheny in a coal field setting on grades. That's real, that's not stuff I just cooked up so the Y6B would win.