NYC Hudsons Were Nothing But Trouble - Trains Magazine

Farrington was an unusual bird: a true amateur in locomotive technology.  For him to disparage a design would not have been from engineering or thermodynamics: he would have heard it from the crews or seen the issues firsthand.

Yes, it would have been interesting for him to have described the problems in detail.  But as a proper East Coast gentleman given the privilege of riding NYC cabs, I'm not surprised he went no further than he did.

The bent-rod issue was, if I recall correctly, on one of the J3as (which I don't like as much as the J1s -- they should have been built either as fast Mohawks or (although the magic wasn't there when the RFC 'stimulus' funding was provided) 4-8-4s.  If I remember the story, the test was to 290psi which was to be the design pressure for the S1s... and what I suspect was that the rods were bent less from piston thrust than for fairly wild slip spinning a little too quickly arrested, if you take my drift...

One of the J3as -- I think I learned the road number, but have forgotten it -- was the famous engine that was spun up to over 161 "mph" cyclic as recounted in the 1947 survey of motive power.  Among other things this established was that track flexibility, not lighter rail per se or "excessive" overbalance, was the primary exciter of damaging augment.  (Keep in mind that the wretched C&NW E4bs, with 84" drivers and careful Alco attention to detail, were bouncing their drivers on movie film below 100mph in the 1938 AAR testing... )