4-8-2s vs 4-8-4s

[Mr. Bighead]

It's kind of an apples/oranges comparison, for in most cases Northerns were ordered to replace Mountains, as there was about a 15 year gap between the creation of both arrangements, and the Northern had the larger grate area and higher horsepower in nearly every case.

Still, for looks you can't beat some of the 4-8-2s, they were beautifully proportioned in a lot of cases. The C&O Mountain--first of the class--had few peers in looks after the flying pumps went on the front end. SP 4300s, New Haven Mountains with the high-mount Elesco heater, and B&Ms R class are all favorites of mine.

[M636C]

Trinity River Bottoms Boomer

I just gotta mess up the entire subject since Peter brought up the Royal Train and put in my wooden nickel's worth before an angry army of termites destroys it and mention the Canadian Pacific 4-6-4 that also hauled the Royal Family's train over a portion of the run this earning it the grand title Royal Hudson.

You can tar and feather me boys but please don't make me eat crow!

 

I did say:

 

"On CP 2850 was able to work the train almost coast to coast but on CN 6400 only ran East of Toronto."

 

2850 was the Royal Hudson. It appears that the Royal train went West on CP and returned East on CN to cover more of the communities involved.

 

CP track allowed Hudsons to run to Vancouver, but CN track did not allow 4-8-4s to run to Vancouver. I think 4-8-2s 6047 and 6020 were painted blue for the Royal Train.

 

Peter

 

[jeffhergert]

selector

4-8-2 for freight and fast freight, 4-8-4 for passenger and express shipments.  Generally, the latter had the stronger and faster top end.  I don't know of a 4-8-2 that developed 6000+ hp.  In speed controlled trackage, it probably didn't matter...they could all cover the distance about the same time with appropriate trailing tonnages.

 

Being a Rock Island fan, it's the other way around for me.  The Mountains were primarily a passenger engine.  The Northerns a dual service fast freight and passenger engine. 

Jeff

[Trinity River Bottoms Boomer]

I just gotta mess up the entire subject since Peter brought up the Royal Train and put in my wooden nickel's worth before an angry army of termites destroys it and mention the Canadian Pacific 4-6-4 that also hauled the Royal Family's train over a portion of the run this earning it the grand title Royal Hudson.

You can tar and feather me boys but please don't make me eat crow!

[M636C]

SPer

CN 4-8-4s ran in the West, too in addition to the 4-8-2s according to Facebook

 

There was some discussion on this elsewhere...

 

I don't think 4-8-4s ever made it to Vancouver.

 

Where CN handled the 1939 Royal Train, they used only 4-8-2s west of Toronto as far as I can tell. While 6400 was painted up, so were two 4-8-2s. On CP 2850 was able to work the train almost coast to coast but on CN 6400 only ran East of Toronto.

 

I think that CN 4-8-4s may have run as far as Winnipeg but not to the West Coast.

 

But the point I was trying to make was that CN built new 4-8-2s alongside new 4-8-4s, because each type had advantages, and the 4-8-4s were confined to heavier track, which was largely in the East.

 

Peter

[SPer]

CN 4-8-4s ran in the West ,too in addition to the 4-8-2s according to Facebook

[M636C]

You can't talk about 4-8-2s and 4-8-4s without considering Canadian National.

CN continued to build both types over a long period.

The 4-8-4s were for heavier track, almost exclusively in the East.

By default, 4-8-2s ran the heavy traffic in the West.

A study of  the boiler dimensions and characteristics of the two types, from the earliest to the last built can be quite revealing.

Just to confuse things, the one CN class of 4-6-4s shared a lot of features with both types.

[Fr.Al]

4-8-2. But I'm biased in favor of Rutland's last and finest steam.

[selector]

4-8-2 for freight and fast freight, 4-8-4 for passenger and express shipments.  Generally, the latter had the stronger and faster top end.  I don't know of a 4-8-2 that developed 6000+ hp.  In speed controlled trackage, it probably didn't matter...they could all cover the distance about the same time with appropriate trailing tonnages.

[Jones1945]

As a railfan who obsessed with the massive steam engine, I would pick 4-8-4s just for its size. I know there were some smaller 4-8-4s but the wheel arrangement made them looks more powerful than the Mountains. But My favorite wheel arrangement is 6-4-4-6 and 4-4-4-4 for PRR's duplexes. : )

 

[rrnut282]

I'm more enamoured with NKP 2-8-4s than either of those.  Fast and efficient.  

[SPer]

What steam locomotive wheel arrangement do you prefer 4-8-2s or 4-8-4s and why