Cannonball 2004 - The Return of the 'Cannonball Badge'

[Paul]

I thought that it had more to do with axle loading then total engine weight. How ever I must be wrong. The G-5s had a driving axle weight of 59.333 pounds per driver axle compared to the K-4's weight of 67,266 ppda. Total combined engine weight for a G-5 with the 110P85 tender is 449,723#. Total weight for the K-4 (with same tender capicity) is 521,621# or a differance of +71,898# for the K-4. Now, what messed up my theory is that the E-6 has 68,000# pda.
So, it must be total engine weight the LIRR was concerned about. Even though two G-5s may have been doubleheaded prior to the bridge upgrade, would both G-5s ocupy the bridge span together. If so, then the total engine weight theory also goes out the door. If only one will fit then it must have been total engine weight as the deciding factor.

[belpaire]

From this Steve Hoskins photo, it looks like two G5's would fit with room to spare. Even if the first coach was 65' then two 72'-10-1/2" G5's would definately be on the span at the same time.

[JoeLIRR]

Two G5's would be an amasing photo shoot today. but if 2 G5's can cleary fit the span, how would the engine weight be the deciding factor. did one pull the other push from the rear.

[Paul]

OOPS! It was a PRR G-5, not a K-4 assigned in 1928. As Emily Lattela would say..."Never mind". Any way, was the old Shinnecock span the same length as the new one? The mystery coninues.

[belpaire]

Paul,
I had wondered that myself. While I don't have any numbers, this picture from Steel Rails sure makes it look like they are fairly close in length.

[N340SG]

Folks,
Sorry to again stray from the topic, but to answer Phil's question:

they were flying F-18s over Jones Beach the other day. My first thought was WHY THE HECK weren't they flying Tomcats?!?! It's LI...Grumman...Duh. Am I the only one who notices those 'anytime, baby' Tomcat stickers on cars all over the place here? )

The Navy Blue Angels fly F/A-18 "Hornets". They were in town for a Memorial Day show. The Air Force Thunderbirds fly F-16c "Fighting Falcons".

[Dave Keller]

Here is some data concerning the K4's concentrated weight from a friend of mine. It may explain the issue.

Dave Keller

"If we look at the downward tension of an individual vertical bridge member there is a specific tension load prior to failure. The tension on that vertical member is creating compression on the upper arch which is transmitted to the bridge pier supports. Thus the issue with the Shinnecock bridge (I believe) is as follows: Multiple engines spread the tension through several vertical members (NOT just one member as with a heavier engine) The overall bridge load is rated for far more than just 2 engines, etc.

"So it is the weight specific to the vertical load members....that's why the two engines don't bring it down...."

[RRChef]

I have come across some interesting information concerning the LIRR bridge and the Shinnecock Canal. The link below is to a chapter from a book written in 1906 about canals in New York State. As anyone who has ever been to the canal knows, the water moves through the canal at a very fast rate. Because of this fast tidal movement, the abuttments of the orignal bridge were severely damaged causing the bridge to be condemned. Between 1892 and 1902 the bridge was condemned and rebuilt 3 times. The 1902 bridge lasted up to the point that the present bridge replaced it. However, it's abuttments, while set back to ease the effect of the tides, were still located in the canal. As we can see from the above posted picture with the C-420, the current bridge's abuttments are on dry land and are not subject to tidal effects. I am not an engineer nor do I have information to support this, but it seems likely that the LIRR's decision on which engines to run over the bridge could have been partially influenced by the situation there with the tides. Another thing to consider is that in the early part of the 20th Century weather forcasting was non-existant. An unexpected Nor' Easter would pile up water against the abuttments causing a dangerous situation for a passing train.Again, this is just speculation but it does make some sense if you combine it with other information posted above about weights. Here's the link:
http://www.history.rochester.edu/canal/ ... pter12.htm

[Dave Keller]

RR Chef:

Very interesting point about the concrete abutments!

I have a 1915 shot of the bridge taken from what I think may have been the Montauk Highway bridge.

I'll have to check out the abutment locations if they're visible.

Dave Keller