Agree with both previous comments, and don't forget the D&RGW's own 4-6-6-4's. And 4-8-4s
I think, in steam locomotive history, the Santa Fe 2-10-4's were indeed relatively under-appreciated engines, partly because they did toil in some desolate, rural regions for the latter part of their lives.
Even more so, the Western Pacific 4-6-6-4's were remarkable machines, toiling in the Nevada desert, close cousins of the UP 4-6-6-4, but better looking than any UP Challenger to my eyes. However, any photos of WP 4-6-6-4's are rather rare. Railfans just didn't go out to the Nevada desert much, and they toiled between Salt Lake City and the western part of Nevada, in very bleak terrain. They may be among the most under-appreciated steam engines of all time, certainly under-photographed.
John
daveklepper 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.
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.
Dave--
Actually there are issues with claiming the Santa Fe 2-10-4 as the best:
First of all, it was posted above, I do not think by you, that the Santa Fe mainline was "relatively flat". Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Arizona desert is far from flat, with many sustained up and down grades and, during the Santa Fe steam era, lots of horizontal curvature. It was the longest steam helper district in the U.S., at more than 120 miles. The 2-10-4's did not do well there because they were too slippery. Also, the horizontal curvature effectively adds to the gradient, making it one tough operating division.
Most Santa Fe steam fans prefer the 3800 class 2-10-2's over the 2-10-4's. In actual operating practice, the 3800's are said to have performed "better" both on Cajon, and Raton, and in the Arizona desert. They got lots of power to the rail without being too slippery.
The 2-10-4's, though they did operate briefly on Cajon and other parts of the railroad, were effectively banished to the "straighter" parts of the railroad: New Mexico, Oklahoma, and west Texas, where they could really run (but in desolate regions away from good photographer access were relatively out of sight and out of mind).
Yet some Santa Fe modelers and historians consider the 2-10-4's as a bit of a failure when compared to the 3800-class 2-10-2's, which could do everything everywhere. Also, the Santa Fe 4-8-4's are remembered more fondly by most Santa Fe fans than the 2-10-4's, because they seemingly, too, could do everything, just like the 3800's.
I'm a fan of the big rigid frame engines, and a former member of the SFRHMS. Most of the Santa Fe fans I've ever talked to just don't think all that much of the 2-10-4's, other than they were big, fast, and neat looking. As reported by S. Kip Farrington in The Santa Fe's Big Three, they did have a remarkable horsepower curve indeed but perhaps at the expense of slipperiness in actual service.
When the PRR needed steam during 1956, Santa Fe was perfectly happy to ship off a bunch of 2-10-4's. According to the PRR people, their J-1 could start more train, but the Santa Fe engines could roll that train faster. Perhaps the Baldwin built Santa Fe engines might have been a better long term fit on the western part of the PRR than the Pennsy's own J-1's.
Respectfully submitted--
BigJimLook for their 37XX Class of 4-8-2's.
And if I am not mistaken, equipped with Wagner bypass valves for better drifting at speed... was this the initial ATSF class fitted with these, and how long after the engines were built were they added?
daveklepper Also, I do not recall the Sante Fe having any 4-8-2s. Did they?
Also, I do not recall the Sante Fe having any 4-8-2s. Did they?
.
Y'all can talk til the cows come home but I sure wish* Santa Fe had strung wire over Raton Pass. I can sure picture box cab electrics painted solid black and lettered A.T.&SF. hauling SFRD reefer blocks in the Rockies.
Live Better Electrically!
*Texas Talk: If peanuts were wishes I'd be a goober patch!
daveklepper 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?
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?
The Santa Fe's 2-10-4s were the equal of just about every Challenger ever built as far as Speed,Tractive effort and Horsepower. I would bet that the savings on maintenance was a big factor in why ATSF did not look at Challengers or 2-6-6-4's(not a popular type out west anyway).
"Larger freight Power" would mean something like a Big Boy or Allegheny (or maybe a duplex drive Q2 type or Lima's proposed 4-10-6) and I doubt ATSF had any territory where that would make sense.
The other two types of Articulated locomotive you mention are primarily drag freight engines so that is apples and oranges.
There were a number of railroads besides Santa Fe who found experimental articulated designs did not work well for them and stuck with rigid frame designs therafter;the Erie is an example in the East....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Santa Fe's heartburn with their ex-N&W Mallets was their lack of speed running downgrade. Claimed they tied up too much track space getting back to the bottom of the hill(s).
Why did the Santa Fe rush to diesels? Bad water. Almost every water tank had to have a miniature water treatment plant to convert local well water to something fit for a locomotive boiler. Plus the fact that an oil-burning steamer needs a larger volume of fuel than does a diesel of equivalent horsepower - even if it does burn sludge. Transportation and storage of X-thousand gallons of petroleum is almost the same whether the petroleum is #2 diesel or #6 bunker fuel. (Actually, the Bunker C has an additional expense, since it has to be heated to flow freely.)
Chuck
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.
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
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!
carnej1many fine books
carnej1plenty of other resources
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?
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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?
The Virginian was more than happy to pick up the ex-Santa Fe, ex-N&W mallets.
Hey Dave, the UP 9000's may not have been the ne plus ultra of steam locomotives, but they sure were cool!
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.
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
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
Santa Fe did use ex-N&W Y-class mallets as helpers on Raton and Glorieta during WWII.
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.
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.
daveklepper How many and how long did they last?
How many and how long did they last?
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