favorite steam locomotives

2693 views
45 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January, 2001
  • From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
  • 1,932 posts
Posted by rrnut282 on Wednesday, July 17, 2019 3:07 PM

I'll take a stab at this:

NKP Berkshires  2-8-4

PRR T-1            4-4-4-4

N&W A              2-6-6-4

N&W Y6            2-8-8-2

N&W Y               4-8-4

NKP Mike           2-8-2

C&O/PRR           2-10-4

C&O H8            2-6-6-6

That's enough for now. 

Mike (2-8-2)
  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: Parma Heights Ohio
  • 2,869 posts
Posted by Penny Trains on Wednesday, July 17, 2019 7:02 PM

Great list!  Thumbs Up

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

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 16,653 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, July 20, 2019 3:50 PM

Was thumbing through my 'Pictorial History of Motive Power on the B&O' published in 1952 by Lawrence Sagle.

The one thing that sort of shouts out about steam was the absolute lack of standardization in virtually any aspect of the locomotives - especially over time.  Virtually no two kinds of locomotives even shared the same cylinder diameters.  Go into a individual class of locomotives and find that they were equpped with different fire boxes and boiler types, had different types of valve gear, feedwater heaters and the lack thereof.

In many cases a 'rebuild' was jacking up the Road Number and creating a whole new engine going from a fabricated frame to a cast frame, going from plain bearings to roller bearings and on and on.

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Saturday, July 20, 2019 4:21 PM

"Balt, you've got to remember (and you probably do) that back in the steam era every railroad had it's own ideas about what a steam locomotive should be, and what kind of requirements their own particular situation called for.

Builders like Baldwin and the individual companys that later merged and became ALCO did have basic "catalog" types, but always had an attitude like Burger King...

"Special orders don't upset us!"

Standardization only came about when it was forced, either by the USRA during the First World War, and the 'roads went right back to their old ways once the war was over, or by EMD/GM when the "Diesel Revolution" came out. 

EMD/GM would bend a little, but their attitude for the most part was "Take it or leave it! If you don't want there's plenty of others who do!"  And it wasn't a case of arrogance, they were hungry for the business after all, but it was the philosophy of standardization and efficiency.  As it was their product line was so good and in such demand they didn't get too many arguments.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 16,653 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, July 21, 2019 7:07 PM

Flintlock76
"Balt, you've got to remember (and you probably do) that back in the steam era every railroad had it's own ideas about what a steam locomotive should be, and what kind of requirements their own particular situation called for.

Builders like Baldwin and the individual companys that later merged and became ALCO did have basic "catalog" types, but always had an attitude like Burger King...

"Special orders don't upset us!"

Standardization only came about when it was forced, either by the USRA during the First World War, and the 'roads went right back to their old ways once the war was over, or by EMD/GM when the "Diesel Revolution" came out. 

EMD/GM would bend a little, but their attitude for the most part was "Take it or leave it! If you don't want there's plenty of others who do!"  And it wasn't a case of arrogance, they were hungry for the business after all, but it was the philosophy of standardization and efficiency.  As it was their product line was so good and in such demand they didn't get too many arguments.

The real answer is - No Bean Counters.  Operations ran the show - more, better, bigger, faster and what ever ideas popped up to promote any one or more of operations desires.

Bean Counters and the first generation of diesels arrive at the same time.  The initial bean counters costed out what steam cost vs. what diesels cost.  Diesels won.  Next the Bean Counters started costing the various manufacturers diesels against each other.  EMD won.  The the world headed into the Penn Central debacle and Red Ink won.

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • From: Las Vegas, Nevada
  • 232 posts
Posted by JOHN C TARANTO on Sunday, July 28, 2019 12:57 PM


NYC J-3a Hudson. Non-streamlined, Boxpok drivers and PT tender

NYC L-2a Mohawk.


NYC S-1b Niagara.

 


AT&SF 5010 Class 2-10-4

 

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Sunday, July 28, 2019 3:23 PM

"The world headed into the Penn Central debacle and Red Ink won!"

I LOVE it!  Laugh

And Mr. Taranto, you've got fine taste in locomotives!  Impressive machines all! 

Especially that Santa Fe 2-10-4!  That thing looks like it could pull everything tied to its tail up to and including Los Angeles.

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 846 posts
Posted by PRR8259 on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:08 PM

1. The most beautiful 4-6-6-4 ever built toiled in relative anonymity in the desert west of Salt Lake City and east of the Feather River Canyon--the Western Pacific 4-6-6-4.  It was rarely photographed at all.

2. The Rio Grande class L-107 2-8-8-2.

3. The Bessemer and Lake Erie 2-10-4.

4. The Texas and Pacific 4-8-2 with Worthington fwh and "Russian Iron" green boiler.

  • Member since
    June, 2018
  • 31 posts
Posted by Mjorstad on Friday, August 09, 2019 3:37 PM

There‘s so many good options to choose from that it’s hard to pick a favorite!  Off the top of my head though, here’s some that stand out for me:

 

-New York Central L2/3/4 Mohawk

-New York Central J3 Hudson (w/ Worthington FWH & PT Tender)

-CNJ 4-6-0 Camelback

-L&N M1 “Big Emma” 2-8-4

-MP 6600-class 4-6-2

-B&O P7 4-6-2

-SLSF 1500-class 4-8-2

 

That last one is special to me because it was the first (and so far the only) steam locomotive I’ve ever seen run in person; I saw Frisco 1522’s last run as a kid.  What an experience!

  • Member since
    October, 2018
  • 21 posts
Posted by ShroomZed on Sunday, August 11, 2019 7:40 PM

JOHN C TARANTO


NYC J-3a Hudson. Non-streamlined, Boxpok drivers and PT tender

NYC L-2a Mohawk.


NYC S-1b Niagara.

 


AT&SF 5010 Class 2-10-4

 

 

 

Glad to see another Mohawk fan! Also the 5011 class are great, definitely something to not be trifled with. 

  • Member since
    June, 2012
  • 177 posts
Posted by Fr.Al on Sunday, August 18, 2019 3:19 PM

I'm a Mohawk fan. Of course, I'm biased in favour of the four Rutland 4-8-2' s which were built in 1946 and retired far too soon. None survive, but I keep hoping that someone will clean out Grandpa's attic and find some forgotten films of those beautiful machines in action!

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,082 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, August 19, 2019 11:31 AM

Fr.Al
I'm a Mohawk fan. Of course, I'm biased in favour of the four Rutland 4-8-2' s which were built in 1946 and retired far too soon.

The thing I still can't figure out is why he posts the L2a, and not 3001 in Elkhart, the great restoration priority once 5550 is funding-assured.  Not only is that the closest thing to a Hudson we have (and, from many angles, need to have!) but it's nearly close to a Niagara; in fact, I plan to discuss whether fitting it with the lightweight Timken gear (now almost a commodity thanks to the 5550 development) makes it a better low-augment touring engine ... of course it could be readily reverted to its historical rods and gear within a few days at most if desired.

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Monday, August 19, 2019 11:47 AM

It may be sacriledge to say so, and may get me burned at the stake for heresy, but you know what?  I've always preferred the look of the Mohawk to the Hudson, the Dreyfuss Hudson's excepted.

Why?  I don't know why.  I just do. 

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: Parma Heights Ohio
  • 2,869 posts
Posted by Penny Trains on Monday, August 19, 2019 7:43 PM

No argument from me.  I've always loved the "feedwater heater on the door look", but they look pretty nice without it too:

Job well done by the folks in Saint Louis!  Bow

Every bit as pretty as the Hudsons and probably better pullers if one ever enters excursion service.

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

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 8:46 AM

Fantastic!  I'd love to see one in excursion service myself, and I'm sure we're not alone, but I'm not holding my breath.

Still, a "Big Boy" did  come back, so you never know, do you?

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,082 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:30 AM

Flintlock76
Fantastic!  I'd love to see one in excursion service myself, and I'm sure we're not alone, but I'm not holding my breath.

I am convinced that the same methods, and the same organization, that got 576 under restoration would work in Elkhart.  I'd be pushing it now if I were there, and I suspect so would Dr. D once he understood the politics of getting to yes.  3001 might even be an easier restoration.

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