favorite steam locomotives

4004 views
54 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August, 2015
  • 5 posts
favorite steam locomotives
Posted by CARMINE PELAIA on Monday, May 27, 2019 2:01 PM

NAME AT LEAST FOUR OF YOUR FAVORITE STEAM LOCOMOTIVES.

 

  • Member since
    June, 2012
  • 180 posts
Posted by Fr.Al on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 10:32 AM

We've done this before, but here goes.

1. Rutland 4-8-2' s

2. N&W 4-8-0' s

3. CP 4-4-4 Jubilees

4. N&W last 0-8-0' s

     In a Harry Turtledove-style alternate history of the Rutland, I would put numbers 2 and 3 on the roster. Of course, I would add electrics as well

  • Member since
    June, 2012
  • 180 posts
Posted by Fr.Al on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 10:34 AM

Big Smile I could add D&H had the handsomest 4-6-6-4' s.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 1,176 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 5:34 PM

Some "new" candidates added on my list recently:

  • C&NW Class H-1 (4-8-4) 
  • Southern Pacific SP-1 (4-10-2)
  • Southern Pacific GS-6 (4-8-4)
  • Northern Pacific A-4 (4-8-4)
  • B&M Class R (4-8-2) 

Coffee

 

  • Member since
    April, 2019
  • 21 posts
Posted by thatweirdwriterdude on Thursday, May 30, 2019 8:04 AM

1- Pennsylvania Railroad T1 (unmodified front end version)

2- Milwaukee Road A class 4-4-2 atlantic

3- N&W Y6 class

4- Pennsylvania Railroad Q2 class 

  • Member since
    June, 2012
  • 180 posts
Posted by Fr.Al on Thursday, May 30, 2019 8:44 AM

As an exile from New England. I'll take the B&M 4-8-2. Atlantics sound good, too. The Strasburg used to operate one. 

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,762 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Thursday, May 30, 2019 9:17 AM

Rutland's 4-6-2's were nice looking.  I'm partial to SP's P class pacifics.  CV's 700-class Texas types, though small by Texas type standards, looked mighty tough...

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 1,176 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, May 30, 2019 11:17 AM

I like the design of B&M's smoke deflector on their 4-6-2s and 4-8-2s. I think the Central Vermont 2-10-4 T-3a was good looking too, the Elesco bundle type feedwater heater and the headlight which was installed slightly above the middle of the smokebox door looked attractive. I also like the design of the trailing truck of them and the metal cover (edit: the loco frame) between the firebox and the trailing truck! 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,464 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, May 30, 2019 12:36 PM

Jones1945
the metal cover between the firebox and the trailing truck!

You do realize that (unless I am badly mistaken) that is not a 'metal cover'; that is the actual locomotive frame.  (See the surviving CN Hudsons for another view of the same thing.)  IIRC the initial C&NW H engines were built this way, and I believe famously rebuilt not to have the relatively weak perimeter frame when they received cast beds later.

This is another example of the sort of 'clever thinking' in the '20s that brought us three-cylinder simple power and very high operating pressures.

  • Member since
    June, 2012
  • 180 posts
Posted by Fr.Al on Thursday, May 30, 2019 12:54 PM

I know D&H had some high pressure 2-8-0' s and one 4-8-0. I believe this happened under the famous Loree. I like the D&H because it was a hometown road of my late wife in PA. She wasn't a railfan, but her dad mined the anthracite that powered the steamers. D&H tapped into Western Vermont; the line leading into Rutland now brings Amtrak to that city.

     Wouldn't most of you experts agree that the high pressure experiments and 3 cylinder power were noble ideas that at best had mixed results? Kind of like the turbines in the 50' s?

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 1,176 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, May 30, 2019 12:55 PM

Overmod

You do realize that (unless I am badly mistaken) that is not a 'metal cover'; that is the actual locomotive frame.  (See the surviving CN Hudsons for another view of the same thing.)  IIRC the initial C&NW H engines were built this way, and I believe famously rebuilt not to have the relatively weak perimeter frame when they received cast beds later.

This is another example of the sort of 'clever thinking' in the '20s that brought us three-cylinder simple power and very high operating pressures.

I only heard about them just a few hours ago when I saw rcdrye's post, Mr. Overmod. I saw some pics of them from brass train dot com and found them really good looking. I thought it was some sort of safety measure. But thank you for telling me that it is actually the loco frame. No wonder it is supported by the centering rockers and such a unique design made them even more interesting to me. Shy

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: Parma Heights Ohio
  • 2,935 posts
Posted by Penny Trains on Thursday, May 30, 2019 7:09 PM

Purely for aesthetic reasons.

N&W V1:

M1:

Y6b:

U.P. 4-6-6-4:

and the mighty hudson:

Big Smile  I'm Cuckoo For Choo Choo Stuffs!  Big Smile

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 2,059 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, May 30, 2019 8:24 PM

OK, in no particular order of importance, or whether alive or extinct.

1) Norfolk & Western Class J, my "Mighty 611"

2) Central of New Jersey Pacific Class G-3s #831, "The Blue Comet"

3) Erie K1 Pacific, any number in the class.

4) David Kloke's "Leviathan."  I love those 19th Century 4-4-0's, like pieces of fine art!

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • 217 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:36 PM

Fr.Al

I know D&H had some high pressure 2-8-0' s and one 4-8-0.

D&H had 4 high pressure experimentals, 1400 a two cylinder compound 2-8-0 with 350 psi, 1401 a two cylinder compound 2-8-0 with 400 psi, 1402 a two cylinder compound 2-8-0 with 500 psi and the 1403 a four cylinder triple expansion compound 4-8-0 with 500 psi. The 1400 and 1401 were spectacularly ugly engines, the 1402 and 1403 looked like big bruisers.

The problem with the high pressure experimentals was that "a machine shop had to be sent out with every run". The 1403 was the most efficient steam locomotive made in the US with pistons.

The story on these engines ran in the June 1967 issue of Trains (first issue I bought).

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 10,210 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Friday, May 31, 2019 8:00 AM

Yes, Erik, I well remember that article about the D&H high pressure locomotives. As you remarked, two  of them were not sleek engines--I imagine that Mr. Loree was not interested in an engine beauty contest, but in making the best use of the coal and water.

Johnny

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 2,059 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Friday, May 31, 2019 9:14 AM

Leonor Loree was a great railroader, but unfortunately for the D&H, and himself, he stayed on the job too long, and became hopelessly conservative, at least as far as motive power was concerned.

When he finally left the D&H in 1938 look what came after.  The magnificent Challengers and Northerns that turned the D&H from not only a coal drag outfit but into a very efficient money making bridge line.  

Hey, personal experience here.  When I saw the company I worked for moving into areas I couldn't understand and just couldn't get my head around I knew it was time to move on before I made a fool of myself.  

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,762 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, May 31, 2019 9:38 AM

For classic non-articulated power Virginian's MB Mikes and PA Pacifics were very nice.

The Soo/WC N-20 4-8-2 (all but 4 were WC) looked good on the head of a train of maroon cars.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 1,176 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, May 31, 2019 3:14 PM

Thanks, rcdrye! it is interesting to me to learn about these handsome steam engines of Soo Line Railroad. I like their N-20 and O-20 equally. Smile

  • Member since
    October, 2018
  • 22 posts
Posted by ShroomZed on Monday, June 10, 2019 8:39 AM

New York Central L2d 

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 21,792 posts
Posted by selector on Monday, June 10, 2019 11:45 AM

I have a strong liking for the capable UP 4-12-2 "Union Pacific".  For an early steamer, compared to many being offered as favourites by others that are clearly modern and 'super-power' examples with the benefit of later learning in steam development, that locomotive was a beast.

 I am also keen on the 4-8-4 "Mountain" variants in general, but the S1b Niagara is my all-time favourite.  Close behind is the J.

I am fond of the C&O-derivation of their T-1 2-10-4, but the Penny's version of it, the J1a.  Those two cylinders produced nearly as much tractive effort, with the smaller engine, as that generated by the UP Challengers with four cylinders and all their weight.

For true super-power, though, my ardour rests with the Q2, followed closely by the C&O's Allegheny H-8.  For brutish looks, the nod goes to the Allegheny, but the flag goes to the Q2 for the modern look, raw power, and general capability at speed.

 

  • Member since
    June, 2012
  • 180 posts
Posted by Fr.Al on Monday, June 10, 2019 12:14 PM

The Allegheny is a good choice. Which brings me to the question, did mountain roads like C&O favor the two wheel leading truck because of the curves on the mountain tracks?

  • Member since
    January, 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 9,605 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Wednesday, June 26, 2019 10:27 PM

CARMINE PELAIA
NAME AT LEAST FOUR OF YOUR FAVORITE STEAM LOCOMOTIVES.

Geez, four kinda limits things a bit...thanks for including the "at least" part.

TH&B's Class A-s Berkshires

CNR's N-2-b Consolidations and their DW&P N-2-a cousins

CNR's S-2-a Mikados, with the Vanderbilt tenders (the S-4-b Mikes would have made the list, too, if CN had sprung for a second air pump on the pilot)

Pretty-well any of CNR's H-6 Ten Wheelers

CNR's E-10 Moguls, especially #88, which I saw, as a six year old, laying on its side after a derailment on Ferguson Ave., in Hamilton, Ont.

Michigan Central's (CASO) 1290 and 1291

NYC's (and TH&B's) Hudsons - J-1s, J-2s, and J-3s - the non-streamlined versions.

Pennsy's J1

It's difficult to stop...but I will.

Wayne

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: Parma Heights Ohio
  • 2,935 posts
Posted by Penny Trains on Thursday, June 27, 2019 8:02 PM

Fr.Al

The Allegheny is a good choice. Which brings me to the question, did mountain roads like C&O favor the two wheel leading truck because of the curves on the mountain tracks?

 

I Would think a four wheel truck would track better, wouldn't it?  Maybe there was a greater adhesion factor to consider?

Big Smile  I'm Cuckoo For Choo Choo Stuffs!  Big Smile

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • 217 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Thursday, June 27, 2019 8:56 PM

Penny and Fr. Al,

Adhesion factor is proably the reason, a good many Consolidations had about half the axle load on the lead truck as they did on the drivers, kind of an upgraded 0-8-0. The tenders for these locomotives would often have a pair of 4 wheel trucksm further minimizing weight not on drivers.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 1,176 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, June 27, 2019 10:43 PM

Some new locomotives added on my top-20 list. 

MILW Class S-2 #251

https://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr541.htm

Southern Pacific P-14 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,464 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, June 29, 2019 11:52 AM

Penny Trains
I Would think a four wheel truck would track better, wouldn't it?

Therein lies some interesting discussion.

Geometrically, a leading Bissel is dynamically unstable (just as a trailing one, including a Delta-framed one, is not) -- any lateral perturbation tends to make the truck diverge rather then centering.  This requires some form of active centering, like that for lateral in a good pin-guided truck, and for high speed a proper location of the pivot and truck length relative to the driver wheelbase, independent of weight distribution on the truck axle.

Remember that when the LS&MS took over from Atlantic City as having the fastest locomotives in the world, what they built instead of Pacifics were engines with good leading Bissels, 2-6-2s.  That does not seem to have made them radically unsafe; in fact Wilgus got into some trouble by adopting the principle on electrics intended for much slower running that very promptly got into disasters in the first couple of days of service ... one aftermath of which was Wilgus' resignation on matters of principle.  I don't remember exactly when the New York folks took 'local control' of motive-power design out of Ohio hands and mandated conversion of all the Prairies into rather poor Pacifics ... but it might have been after that.

Meanwhile, by the time of the AMC Berkshires and the N&W A, a good two-wheel leading truck with isolated equalization and good springing (in those deep pockets) had been developed, and this was suitable right up to the speeds almost any road required.  An additional consideration that has been discussed is the rod optimization possible on these engines, particularly simple articulateds, while keeping the locomotive wheelbase minimized.

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • 217 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Saturday, June 29, 2019 8:58 PM

With regards o AMC Berkshires, Trains published a picture, taken from a car falling behind, of a C&O Berk hauling a passenger train. The fellow who subimtted the picture said that the car's speedometer was indicating 85MPH and the train was even faster.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 1,176 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, July 07, 2019 3:15 AM

One more engine added on my already-too-long list, the UP #815 with skyline casting:

(Brasstrains.com)

 

This is not my video. I think the skyline casting look legit on the UP FEF-1. 

 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,464 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, July 08, 2019 12:37 PM

Jones1945
I think the skyline casing looks legit on the UP FEF-1. 



I don't recall having seen this either in Kratville's book on the Streamliners (where he goes into front-end drafting and streamlining in some detail) or the Mighty 800s.

Obviously a test rig on the Ajin version pictured: see all the seams where the rectangular panels are cobbled together, and the frankly awful louvered 45-degree box at the front with the whistle sticking up awkwardly ... it looks in fact as if the whistle has received a whack to make it sit at that silly angle; I sure hope so for UP's sake!

But what is that weird casting just in front, with the fins?  On the blurred historical photograph, this looks like a side view of lit 'train-numberboards' inside a glass enclosure, with what might be a headlight of some kind in the middle; it also appears that the edges of the skyline casing have been curved and ground smooth, at least smoother than in the model.

The pump shroud that works reasonably well on the FEF-3 is misapplied to the older engine; it gives it almost a James Cagney look -- not to say anything against Cagney, but I don't care for the pugilist bent-nose profile.

I predict this came out in 'response' to the smoke-lifting tests done by Gresley et al., and perhaps the NRC study about "increasing lift at the stack" -- which, of course, was an inadequate answer to the wrong question.  Be fun to see how they kept the various 'things' under the casing accessible to be worked on.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 1,176 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, July 08, 2019 5:16 PM

Overmod

But what is that weird casting just in front, with the fins?  On the blurred historical photograph, this looks like a side view of lit 'train-numberboards' inside a glass enclosure, with what might be a headlight of some kind in the middle; it also appears that the edges of the skyline casing have been curved and ground smooth, at least smoother than in the model.

The first time I saw this unique odd-duck, or odd-iron-horse of the Union Pacific, I thought the skyline casting was almost identical to Southern Pacific's GSs, MTs, and P14, except the angled number board case and the shutters on that narrow entrance of the skyline casing. Turn out the design of it was more ambitious than those built on SP's steam-streamliner, even though it was a rushed design and a failed experiment. The design on SP's skyline casing and the shape of the smokestack was very straightforward. The skyline on UP 815 looks like an attempt to draft the air current into a pair of the long tunnel inside the casing until the air current hit the end of the tunnel above the driving cab. 

You are probably right that the skyline casing was so much smoother than the brass train model, I can't see if there was any rivel on the outside, but since the only pic available on the web is so small, I can only trust Ajin's interpretation. 

Overmod

The pump shroud that works reasonably well on the FEF-3 is misapplied to the older engine; it gives it almost a James Cagney look -- not to say anything against Cagney, but I don't care for the pugilist bent-nose profile.

Pareidolia! Every steam engine with a single headlight looks like a "One-Eyed Monster" to me, I keep trying to avoid it. CoffeeBig Smile

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