Trains.com

Why there are no Hudson 4-6-4 types in the West

3433 views
8 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,442 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:29 PM

SLSF also had Hudsons.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:16 PM

Actually, one PA was less powerful than a NKP Hudson.   But lightweight equipment was introduced about the same time.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:41 PM

NKP purchased the PA's to dieselize since their Hudson type steam locos were twenty years old.  Their passenger trains were never large.

RR

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:42 AM

I'm not so sure the NKP passenger trains ever became too big for the Hudsons, at least not on a regular basis.  But if that happened, the road had 80 very capable Berkshires that could come to the rescue.  These were supplemented by 32 more very similar Berkshires acquired with the W&LE.

Tom 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:20 AM

ACY

 NKP never needed anything bigger than a 4-6-4. 

When the passenger trains became too big for the Hudsons, NKP bought 11 PA1's.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 163 posts
Posted by agentatascadero on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:30 PM

Why?  Hudsons were simply too small for the job out west...with big trains,  lots of grades.  The Hudsons the western roads did have were assigned to the flatlands of the midwest.  AA

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:23 PM

CB&Q, MILW, and CNW all had 4-6-4s.

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:06 PM

Pretty much the same as the Berkshire question.  Size and clearances.  When 4-wheel trailing trucks were developed, Western roads for the most part jumped from 4-6-2's and 4-8-2's to 4-8-4's because they had the clearances to do it.  Their premiere trains tended to be fast runs over long distances, which is the perfect milieu for a 4-8-4.  When the Northerns came along, those Western roads had enough displaced Pacifics and Mountains to take care of secondary schedules, so they didn't need a Hudson to handle the lighter trains.

In the East, NYC's 275 Hudsons fit within that road's clearances, and did the job pretty well.  The Passenger Mohawks weren't much bigger.  When they finally bought the Niagaras, it was pretty obvious that the design was painfully squeezed into a clearance profile that shouldn't logically have allowed for such a big engine.  NKP never needed anything bigger than a 4-6-4.  C&O used their Hudsons on relatively flatter terrain to pull the same trains that Greenbriers were pulling over the mountains.

 

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 306 posts
Why there are no Hudson 4-6-4 types in the West
Posted by SPer on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:10 PM
The Santa Fe is the only Western railroad to buy Hudson type locomotives in the 3450 and 3460 classes it seems to me that the 4-6-4 type were ignored by other Western railroads. Why the Hudson 4-6-4 type were unpopular in the West.

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter