Other examples of progression from larger to more technically advanced smaller locos include the PRR K2 to E6, The Milwaukee's A's and, in diesels, the Rock's EMD T1s.
My point is that the railroad had a pot of money to spend. They could spend the whole pot of money on 20 Berkshires, or they could spend a third of it on five 2-10-4's and the other two thirds on infrastructure. Of course I'm pulling numbers out of thin air here for the sake of illustration. Management made decisions based on practical realities. I repeat, bigger isn't always better.
I guess the system won't let me edit.
Just wanted to add that PRR's 52 T1 4-4-4-4's came along after the larger S1 6-4-4-6. Not to suggest that a T1 was a small engine, of course.
The up and down sizing is only important if you think bigger is always better.
Yes, the NYC H-10 2-8-2 led to the A-1 2-8-4, which led to the Erie 2-8-4, which led to the C&O 2-10-4, which led to the C&O 2-6-6-6 and AMC 2-8-4. When NKP, W&LE, PM, C&O, etc. needed new locomotives for specific routes and types of service, they ordered locos of appropriate size, power, and speed capability to perform the job. The C&O 2-10-4 was not that engine. Why buy an engine that's too heavy for your bridges? Why buy an engine that pulls longer trains than your longest passing track or your longest anticipated trains? Why buy an engine that won't fit through your tunnels and won't fit on your turntables? The plan was to buy new engines; but buying bigger would have meant spending precious money to reengineer and rebuild the railroad.
After buying 207 K4s 4-6-2's by the end of 1922, PRR bought a flock of 90 G5s 4-6-0's in 1923-5 because that's what they believed they needed for branch and commuter service. And they added 218 more K4s' by the end of 1927. The G5s' were smaller than the K4s', but they fit Management's plans.
UP bought quite a few Challengers after the advent of the Big Boys because that's the engine they believed they needed.
When the Advisory Mechanical Committee came up with the classic Van Sweringen Berkshire, it was the product of a logical progression.. Many factors were more important than size.
So no, bigger ain't always better.
Tom
It's hardly ironic, more like a reasonable progression from several different predecessors.
rcdryeThe most eastern Texas types, Central Vermont's 700 class, were smaller than many Berkshires. CV had to keep them north of Brattleboro VT.
The most eastern Texas types, Central Vermont's 700 class, were smaller than many Berkshires. CV had to keep them north of Brattleboro VT.
Further comments about L&N. L&N purchased E6's for existing passenger trains (not new streamliners) since it needed power that could haul the trains and operate on the light bridges along the Gulf coast. A 4-8-4 might have been able to do the job but it would have been to heavy to run through from Cincinnati to New Orleans. L&N backed into freight dieselization, it acquired five F3's (2 cabs, 3 boosters) for helper service in eastern Kentucky. They really showed their stuff during a coal strike.
good amalysis and i agree
could note that acl's 4-8-4's allowed them to run their top heavywight trains behind steam even after buyinng e-units for the new champion all-coach streamliner, while seabord bought diesels for all its top trainis, not only the all-coach silver meteor, but also its heavyweight all-pullman orange blossom special. and these diesels were often run through to washington, at least during wwii. the florida special on the acl was still behind steam
diesels for freight came a bit later on both railroads
When I think of Southeastern roads, I don't include the N&W, C&O nor VGN. I think David Morgan's regional breakdown in Steam's Finest Hour is more sensible. It puts these roads in its own section which he calls the Pocahontas Region. Since these three roads were so intimately connected to coal production, it seems logical that they would take advantage of every possible advance in steam technology, as a nod to their coal-producing customers, for as long as possible. So the only "Southeastern" 2-10-4, the C&O's T-1, was actually not a Southeastern engine at all. After all, they were frequently operated into Toledo, Ohio!
Southern Railway's steam development ended when the Great Depression started. Same for ACL, with the exception of a very small contingent of 4-8-4's. Same for SAL, except for a small contingent of 2-6-6-4's. Except for some more 4-8-4's on the RF&P, NC&StL, and C of G, those 2-6-6-4's and Clinchfield's 4-6-6-4's were the only truly modern big steam engines in the South. A 2-10-4 would have probably been too much engine for the traffic on most routes in the South, and it would probably have been too big for most turntables. Remember, the C of G had small tenders on their 4-8-4's because of turntable length limitations.
L&N bought 2-8-4's because of a feeling of commitment to the coal industry. Their facilities wouldn't handle anything bigger. In actual practice, F3's probably would have been a wiser investment for them.
As soon as WWII was over, the roads of the Southeast flocked to the diesel. Further steam development was moot.
CSSHEGEWISCH Southern never went for modern steam designs and consequently was a relatively early convert to diesels. L&N's largest power was the M-1 2-8-4's in coal country, restricted to that area by their size. Clinchfield had some Challengers, not sure about 2-10-4's.
Southern never went for modern steam designs and consequently was a relatively early convert to diesels. L&N's largest power was the M-1 2-8-4's in coal country, restricted to that area by their size. Clinchfield had some Challengers, not sure about 2-10-4's.
IINM, there wasn't a single U.S railroad that rostered both 2-10-4s and 4-6-6-4s.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
BUT EVEN THEN THERE ARE THE RF&P, C&O, & L&N
OK corrected Southeast
Why no Texas types in theSE
daveklepper in a sense, the answer to the question posed by the thread's title might be answered by another question: Whyso few Texas types in the east?
in a sense, the answer to the question posed by the thread's title might be answered by another question:
Whyso few Texas types in the east?
In addition to PRR and C&O, the B&LE also had a large number of 2-10-4 locos. From Wiki's list, it seems there were as many of the type in the east as the west.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-10-4
Appreciate the correction. And the CV's 2-10-4's were the most powerful steam in New England, but not the most powerful locomotives. That honor goes to the NYNH&H EF-3 and EF-3a, the latter with steam boilders, which were 11,000V ac electrics, without dc capability, handled freights without assitance on the Hell Gate Bridge, as welll as most passenger trains into PennStation, more powerfull than the GG-1, and a lot more pleasant for the engineer. Like the GG-1, EP-3, and EP-4, 4-6-6-4, or 2-C-C-2.
But regarding the PRR numbers, are not you counting just the I-10's and not the earlier classes?
The numbers aren't quite what you suggest, Dave.
The C. V. 2-10-4's were indeed the largest steam in New England, but they were still rather small in comparison with other 2-10-4's. David Morgan, in Steam's Finest Hour says they were more like elongated 2-10-2's.
PRR had 598 Decapods and 125 Texas types, so the ratio was more like 4.8 to 1 ---- not 10 to 1. The PRR's J1/J1a classes comprised the largest 2-10-4 fleet in North America, and possibly in the world.
C&O had 40 T-1 2-10-4's and loved them. The 60 H-8 Allegheny 2-6-6-6 engines were designed by expanding the 2-10-4 in all dimensions. If they hadn't done that, it makes sense to imagine that they would have bought more T-1's. PRR used the same basic design for the J's.
C&O and PRR were among the few Eastern roads whose clearances allowed such engines as the PRR J's, C&O T-1's, and C&O H-8's.
As for C&O's Kanawhas, they were used as big and fast utility engines on the C&O. C&O's 160 (or so) Mikados were placed in classes K-1, K-2, and K-3. The 90 Kanawhas continued in the Mikado tradition and were classed K-4. (Note: there were additional Mikes and Berks acquired with other roads: I'm only including the major native C&O classes here.)
So it still comes down to size and clearances. PRR and C&O were among the few Eastern roads where a big Super Power 2-10-4 would fit.
They were very successful but not that large as far as numbers go. The Central Vermont also had a few, the largest and most powerful steam in New England. The PRR had about tenn times the number of plodding 2-10-0 as 2-10-4's. The C&O also had Berkshires, and about five times the number of 2-8-2's.
Undoubtadly, without diesilization, there would have been more 2-10-4.
So can we say the quick all-purpose answer is size? If you wanted a high-performance 8-drivered steam loco, your first choice was a 4-8-4. That worked in the West and in some areas of the East. But if you were operating an older Eastern railroad with tight clearances and limited turntable length, you would go for a 2-8-4 or 4-8-2.
Lots of specific exceptions, but it's a general rule I can live with.
It may be too much to say the P&LE Berkshires were a failure. But they had small 63" drivers, so they probably didn't move over the road as quickly as many other Berkshires. I think of them as Mikados with more boiler and firebox than they needed. It's questionable whether P&LE or anybody else could have found a suitable service for this particular design.
Dan
MoPac's Berkshires were all converted to 4-8-4's.
Other roads gave some consideration to the 2-8-4 wheel arrangement. B&O is said to have worked on plans for a 2-8-4 that would have essentially been a Q-1 or Q-4 2-8-2 with 64" drivers, a larger firebox, and a four wheel trailing truck. Those low drivers and the smallish boiler would possibly have prevented the design from achieving the success of larger purpose-built Berkshires. \
E.D. Worley's book Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail has photos of AT&SF 2-8-4's 4101 and 4102 as coal burners at Kansas City in 1949 and 1947 respectively. No. 4110 is shown at Slaton, TX as an oil burner in 1953. Worley says all engines in the class had been converted by 1953. Most were retired in 1954, with 4109 and 4110 lasting until February of 1955.
Worley does not mention conversion of any of the ex-B&M 2-8-4's to oil firing. The implication is that they were used on Santa Fe's easternmost lines where coal was the standard fuel. Six of the seven ex-B&M engines were retired in October and November of 1949. The last one, AT&SF number 4197, had been extensively rebuilt at the Topeka Shops in 1947, and lasted until August of 1954.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter