I am inspired by the truly great Rose painting "Walking across Texas." But why two beautiful Ripley 4-8-4's?
Granted the early AT&SF experiments with huge Mallets with bending (jointed) boilers weren't successful, but could they not benefit from approximating their neighbors' Challengers, Yellowstones, and Articulated Consolidations? Why was their Texas-type their largest modern freight power?
Or was the kind of scene dipicted in the picture a rare phenomenon?
Not yet haing an answer with someone with direct experience with AT&SF steam operations, your answer seems appropriate.
Except for Raton Pass, Santa Fe had moderate grades on its main lines. The early Mallets were not particularly successful (even the straight boiler versions) due to limited steaming capacity and lack of superheaters. By the time better articulated design came along Santa Fe was reasonably satisfied with its well-designed non-articulated power. Helper districts were also relatively short compared to other western carriers.
rcdrye[SFe] Helper districts were also relatively short compared to other western carriers.
It's a waste of time for us fans to try to guess why one RR chose this kind of engine and another RR chose that kind. Their decisions were based on cost of operation, and we have no idea what those costs were.
Dave asked the same question on the "Trains" Forum and I did my best to asnwer it there, but in a nutshell the Santa Fe's experience with their first articulateds left such a bad taste in the company's mouth they walked away and never looked back.
They didn't like the additional maintanance involved with articulateds either.
Chief operating people of the period all had their own prejudices of what was best and would not let any facts stand in the way of their opinions.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Chief operating people of the period all had their own prejudices of what was best and would not let any facts stand in the way of their opinions.
Just like today brother, and not just in railroading, trust me.
But the Santa Fe purchased some second-hand N&W Y-3's during WWII for Raton Pass didn't it? I suppose it was because they were available at the right price, not because there was other non articulated power out there?
Victor A. Baird
www.erstwhilepublications.com
How many and how long did they last?
daveklepper How many and how long did they last?
.
The Santa Fe indeed had a bitter experience with its first generations of articulateds and this influenced corporate culture for the remainder of the steam era. As to heavy grades, the Santa Fe had several where a modern mallet could have proved useful. There was the Abo Canyon grade in New Mexico, Raton and Glorieta Passes on the Colorado - New Mexico mainline West and the Arizona Divide between Winslow and Topock, a heavy climb in both directions but particularly eastbound. In fact Topock to Seligman was the longest sustained mainline grade in the entire United States! When the Santa Fe developed the 5001 class 2-10-4's in the late 'Thirties they were the largest non articulated freight locomotives ever built by a US railroad and their capabilities rivalled those of most articulated engines then in service. Perhaps the Santa Fe would have gone the articulated route eventually but they were a very early convert to freight diesels, having tested the FT as early as 1941. By the end of WWII they had a considerable fleet and were well on their way to dieselization with all development of steam power halted.
where did the UP and PRR use them?
The largest non-articulated freight locomotives in the USA were the UP 9000's, their 4-12-2's. But I would not be surprised if the Ripley 2-10-4's could easily match their performance.
Santa Fe did use ex-N&W Y-class mallets as helpers on Raton and Glorieta during WWII.
UP employed the Y3's in helper service over Sherman Hill and in coal service to and from the Hanna Mine located at Rock Springs, all were gone by 1948.
Dave
Ouch! Challenged on my facts, eh. OK, here's some statistics. I'll present them and let the readers decide. The UP 4-12-2 weighed 495.000 lbs versus the final batch of AT&SF 2-10-4's at 549,500 lbs. UP's engine length was 64' versus Santa Fe's 66' 3". I could find no reliable height for the Santa Fe but the UP loco stood 16' on 67" drivers. The Santa Fe rode on 74" drivers so she probably was a bit taller than that. To cap it off the Santa Fe 5011 class carried a tremendous tender, 55' long versus 37' 8" for the 4-12-2". Horsepower output for the entire class of Santa Fe engines was never equalled by any other non articulated engine.
JimValle Ouch! Challenged on my facts, eh. OK, here's some statistics. I'll present them and let the readers decide. The UP 4-12-2 weighed 495.000 lbs versus the final batch of AT&SF 2-10-4's at 549,500 lbs. UP's engine length was 64' versus Santa Fe's 66' 3". I could find no reliable height for the Santa Fe but the UP loco stood 16' on 67" drivers. The Santa Fe rode on 74" drivers so she probably was a bit taller than that. To cap it off the Santa Fe 5011 class carried a tremendous tender, 55' long versus 37' 8" for the 4-12-2". Horsepower output for the entire class of Santa Fe engines was never equalled by any other non articulated engine.
The 5011 series Santa Fe locomotives had a much higher HP compared to the 9000 series Union Pacifc locos, which were much older and limited in speed to fifty or sixty mph at best.
If you consider the PRR Q2, which was a rigid frame locomotive developed more HP than the 5011. I would still bet on the 5011 series for being the best overall.
RR
Thanks, I stand corrected. In a somewhat weak defense, I can point out that I had gone to the trouble some time ago, here or on the steam and preservation TRAINS forum, of posting the idea that the Sante Fe Ripley Texas types were the very best non-articulated steam freight locomotive built. I was challanged by some who claimed the C&O and PRR's were as good or better, but I think I did defend my point of view pretty well. I can thank you for confirming that idea. I apologize for having been brainwashed too much by UP 9000 fans.
Hey Dave, the UP 9000's may not have been the ne plus ultra of steam locomotives, but they sure were cool!
The Virginian was more than happy to pick up the ex-Santa Fe, ex-N&W mallets.
I would like to ask Jim Valle to tell us whatever he knows about how much double-heading the AT&SF did.
In the C&)-PRR vs AT&SF 2-10-4 debate, the Q's Colorados seemm left out. How do they compare?
Hi Dave: Everyone has their favorite engine type. It's no disgrace to advocate for the one you love. As far as doubleheading the Santa Fe generally didn't like it but they routinely double and even triple headed trains on the Raton Pass route. See Jared Harper's book entitled Santa Fe's Raton Pass and George Drury's Santa Fe in the Mountains. During WWII Santa Fe needed to increase the normal tonnage carried by it's trains in its flat territory between Chicago and the Rockies so lighter engines were broken out of storage and paired with standard road engines to increase capacity.
With regard to the PRR-C&O Texas types, They had smaller drivers than the SF 5001's and 5011's so they had greater tractive effort but less horsepower output at speed. The PRR Q2's had phenomenal horsepower potential but that was undermined by chronic slipperyness in service. It was a very big engine but may not exactly qualify as non-articulated, the duplex drive being "neither fish nor foul".
Concerning the CB&Q engines, I can't seem to find any dimensional data other than engine weight which comes in at 511,710 lbs which puts them about mid way between the UP 9000's and the Santa Fe 5011's. Meanwhile PRR's J1's weighed in at an astounding 577,975 lbs.
As far as love goes, I've always been fond of the three Ripley designs and considered each the very best in performance in its class. With regard to the PRR, my love for their power is more toward what is distinctly PRR, with Belpair fireboxes, etc, the K4, E6, H10, G5, and D16, not that I think that any were really outstanding performers, but just like olives or anchovies as food. The E6 was, of course, an outstanding performer as an Atlantic, but the K4 was not only bettered in its service by Hudsons, but also by other Pacifics. Now if the K5 had been developed on the basis of the two prorotypes.... Also possibly there was no better American than the D16. I am glad I rode once behind an E6 from Little Silver, NJ, the back gate of Fort Monmouth, to Princeton Junctionl, when in the summer of 1951 an ailing doodlebug caused protection power, a combine, and coach (PB and P54)to be substituted. And I did ride behind the D16 before it was sidelined at Strassburg.
Burlington's locomotives were distinctive in appearance, and in away I'm a bit sorry the Grand Canyon has seen fit to "generalize" their Mike to make it resemble a bit more the AT&SF power of that type. I think if I remember correctly that the Colorados had 69" drivers, which should make them a good condender for second place with the C&O-PRRs after the Ripley Texans.
Is there a Q locomotive operational anywhere that stilll looks genuine? What a picture one of their Pacifics made hauling brand new bilevel Budd coaches in suburban service!
The Colorado's had 64" drivers and weighed 512,110. They were nice looking locos built in the late twenties. I got to see them around Centrailia Illinois in the early fifties. RR
timz rcdrye [SFe] Helper districts were also relatively short compared to other western carriers. They weren't, of course-- but what if they were? Why would that make articulateds unsensible? It's a waste of time for us fans to try to guess why one RR chose this kind of engine and another RR chose that kind. Their decisions were based on cost of operation, and we have no idea what those costs were.
rcdrye [SFe] Helper districts were also relatively short compared to other western carriers.
They weren't, of course-- but what if they were? Why would that make articulateds unsensible?
I disagree that it's a waste of time. there are many fine books about the steam era which offer insights into how and why particular railroads selected and designed steam locomotives for their particular operating conditions and geography.
There are plenty of other resources (Historical societies etc.) that have original material about the topic.
One of the fascinating things about the steam era in North american railroads was the wide variety of locomotive designs compared to the standardization of the diesel era.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1many fine books
carnej1plenty of other resources
My suspicion is that the Mallet or simple articulated would have cost more in coal or oil and maintenance and that the Texas Type would have cost more in track maintenance. With UP 9000's, the latter even more so!
Dave K.:
You mentioned that you'd like to see an operating steam engine of "genuine Burlington" appearance. I presume you don't mean a Hudson or a Northern, of which several exist. As for Pacifics, there is one: Fort Worth & Denver 4-6-2 no. 501 blt. BLW 1910, const. no. 35798, on display at R. Wright Armstrong Park, Childress, Texas. I have no idea what her condition is.
You mentioned Burlington's 2-10-4's. None of them was saved, but the Bessemer & Lake Erie's 2-10-4's were virtual copies. B&LE 643 was saved, and is stored near Pittsburgh with an uncertain future.
Tom
I do remember that there are some Hudsons and Northerns on display right at passenger stations on the main line Chicago - Denver. One at Galesburg and one at Otumwa? I guess what I really mean is one operating.
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