Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4's?

[AltonFan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

At the risk of being drawn and quartered by a mob of steam enthusiasts, I will venture this little tidbit: There were less 4-8-4's built for service in North America than SD45's, it was a relatively uncommon wheel arrangement. That being said, I would agree with feltonhill, any 4-8-4 was a first-rate steam locomotive, I find it surprising that more roads didn't own them.

The answer to this is relatively simple: 4-8-4s were HUGE! Some railroads considered them, but when they found a suitable design would have required rebuilding roundhouses, turntables, shop facilities, and occasionally passenger terminals, something smaller was considered. I seem to remember one of the Louisville-named lines acquired Berkshires for just this reason. C&NW's H and H-1s were restricted to the mainlines between Chicago and Omaha, and couldn't enter the passenger terminal in Chicago until the trainshed was modified. And a 4-8-4 was not likely to be downgraded to local service, either. These really were specialized engines.

The 4-8-4 appeared on the eve of the Depression, so a number of railroads were in no position to buy equipment. When WWII came, the government limited designs available, and the railroads were seriously considering diesels.

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dtpowell

Definately N&W at Roanoke! Take a look at UP's 800's. I understand they used the J as their point of reference.

HUH? How could that be? The first UP 800's (FEF-1's) predated the first J by about 4 years. UP 800-819 were outshopped by ALCO in 1937. The next batch, FEF-2's #'s 820-834 were outshopped in 1939. N&W #600, the first J, didn't come out of Roanoke until 1941.

Andre

[wallyworld]

S1 Niagara...hands down for a flat lands runner..N&W J for mountain climbing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous]

I was told Lima had the "Cadiliac of Steam". My votes however for all around is the A-3/4 of the NP.

[jlampke]

How about the 4-8-4's that are South of the U.S.? Who built them? What is type QR-1?
Has anyone seen any of them? I heard one is operational. Does it see much use?

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH
There were less 4-8-4's built for service in North America than SD45's, it was a relatively uncommon wheel arrangement. ... any 4-8-4 was a first-rate steam locomotive, I find it surprising that more roads didn't own them.

I think they came too late. An example: While Santa Fe really liked the 2900 class once they got them in 1943, if I understand / remember correctly, they really wanted FTs. The War Production Board dictated the purchase. I also seem to recall that, as produced, the 2900s were much heavier than originally planned because the war effort took all the modern light weight building materials for aircraft.

[Gunns]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher
I also seem to recall that, as produced, the 2900s were much heavier than originally planned because the war effort took all the modern light weight building materials for aircraft.

Yes Our boiler is made of mild steel, giving the 2900s (ours is 2926) a loaded weight just shy of a million pounds. On the other hand the extra weight gives us a lot more traction, and mild steel is simpler to maintain too.

Side refrence the link I put up only refered to opperating or near opperating in the country.
Gunns

[jlampke]

Gunns.... I've wondered about this, and I think you just answered the question. Correct me if I'm wrong here. The reason 4460 has a lower rated boiler pressure than 4449 is due to the metal available and used to make the boiler during the war. If that's the case, and 4460's boiler is made from lower quality metals, how would that impact the life expectancy of the boiler? [?]

[Gunns]

I'm not really shure, I know that the 3751 runs at 230 lbs-Sq inch, but she is a 1927 design. Our boiler is .75 inch plate in the shell and .5 inch at the backhead, where it is extensively stayed.
Here is a photo of the 2903s MWP plate, (courtesy of barndad from the IRM) showing the test and working pressures of the 2900s.
http://www.railimages.com/gallery/kevinevans/aaw
the link allow you to "Zoom in" to reat the plate.
We ran at 300 psi and the mild steel shell is much easier to maintain than a high alloy steel, just heavy....
Gunns

[txhighballer]

The reason why the shell is so heavy is because no alloy steel was available for construction. Otherwise the ATSF would have essentially gotten 3776 class locomotives. The heavier steel is was alo made them the heaviest Northerns ever built, and the best suited for freight service,which they did quite well.

[Anonymous]

They are far from my favorite 4-8-4 but I have to vote for the NYC Niagara. Any locomotive that can deliver nearly 1000 miles a day, every day, for years on end has to be top notch.

[daveklepper]

I still vote for the N&W J. It was a better mountain climber than the Niagra, but its excellent counterblancing and lighweight rods and general care in design meant it could also run as fast as Niagra, as proved on tests on the Pennsy. But track and grade and curve conditions on the N&W didn't give it much opportunity. The A's were pretty fast to for a 2-6-6-4! They would hall coal trains at 70mph and were also used in passenger service.

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

Here somthing to marvel about - especially for GP40-2 (although he announced to disappear form the place) and feltonhill:

I wonder that none has mentioned Andre Chapelon's 242 A 1. I agree that NYC Niagara and N&W class J are the really best - but only second to the late french Chapelon-rebuilds - especially his 242 A 1 French's only 4-8-4! Consider that this engine weighed only about 70% of the heaviest US 4-8-4s but put out 6000HP - more than the majority of US 4-8-4s! And it was only a REbuild! With only little money grown during WW2 from a very unsuccessful 4-8-2! It had a boiler with only about half the heating and superheater surfaces and less than half of grate area than large US 4-8-4s - but it was able to evaporate nearly 70000pounds of water per hour due to Chapelon's own developed powerful draft arrangement! No other of the steam engine designers ever achieved a power/weight ratio like Chapelon. Nearly needless to say that his engines were also the most efficient steamers anywhere by any standard. This man said if the Niagara (and this is valid also for others) had been built with his standards in basic boiler design it would have been able to produce not less than 7500DBHP! And this is a hard "if" because remember that Chapelon rebuilt his first engine as soon as 1929 with efficiency and power results never equalled by any other designer anywhere - ALSO AFTER 1929 (except his rare "pupils" - but after the general end of the steam age and with very few engines)! Ok - many of you will say that for these light non-US trains it's much easier to construct a reliable crank axle - all of Chapelon's engines were compounds - but consider that his most powerful one - the 242 A 1 - was a THREE-cylinder-compound engine - that means the crank axle had only one single crank exactly at its centre which of course is much more reliable than a crank axle for a 4cylinder engine. There probably were lots of possibilities to construct a similar one for the US 4-8-4s which then would have been equal in power output to the Chapelon's. And as David Wardale says - not weight but intelligent detail-design is determining for a reliable part. Chapelon planned to combine the Northamerican robustness and reliability - that means the mechanical standards used there - with his own unequalled thermodynamics. One of his first new engines would have been a 2-10-4 of about 140 short tons with no less than 7000IHP. This one would have been able to do the same work like a near double size US 2-10-4. Some engines were started being built but this has ended because the french government unfortunately decided to electrify. So the 242 A 1 remains beeing the best steamer and the best 4-8-4 ever produced anywhere. This engine proved most impressive that the old steam locomotive with Stephenson's design is far away from any highlight. Sadly it has been scrapped in 1961.

[feltonhill]

Re: Chapelon's 242A1

I assumed the thread was limited to US 4-8-4's and left it at that. French subjects seem a bit controversial these days. But since you mentioned it, I'm familiar with this 242/4-8-4 although the only decent source I have is Chapelon's book and maybe one other. Judging by your comments about his 2-10-4 and others, you may be referring to that source, too. I don't recall he lists any evaporation figures, but it's been a while since I read it (and my memory isn't improving with age). I also have some info on his 231E conversions. Something like 3,700 HP (have to check what kind, could be IHP or DBHP) out of a loco slightly smaller than a USRA light 4-6-2. Anyway, I need to sort out just what the 242A evaporation figures were, e.g., water input from tender, total input including feedwater heater (ACFI??), or equivalent evap. Makes quite a difference when trying to compare with anything else. I do know that the 4,100 figure is DBHP for the 242A1.

Caught me at a bad time to comment. Taking a couple of days off right now to pursue another interest - live chamber music at a venue back in the mountains of VA - and a lot of the route there runs right alongside C&O's Mountain Sub. Back Sunday.

[jlampke]

Actually, my original question was in regards to the 38 or so 4-8-4's that still exist in the U.S., and Alco, Baldwin and Lima products in general. Only after reading some of the posts and checking out some of the other members' profiles did I realize that we have a lot of Canadians, Brits and some Aussies participating in these discussions. That's why I asked about the Mexican 4-8-4's. Nobody ever mentions them.

To put it straight, I don't think much of the French myself, but the post regarding the French engine is interesting. One of the many things I've learned about steam locomotives here lately is that they are dismally fuel-inefficient. I like to think that they could've been developed to a much higher level of efficiency if diesels hadn't come along so soon.

To quote someone from another post:

"Ah, but the entertainment efficiency is right up around 99%, at least for me."

(How the heck do you get these little smiley faces, etc., inserted into your post?)

Dale: Thanks! [8D]

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jlampke

(How the heck do you get these little smiley faces, etc., inserted into your post?)

When you are typing your response, over on the left it says "show smile list". Click on that and then click on the smile you would like to add.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

With all due respect to the genius of Andre Chapelon, any comparison between French and North American steam must also consider the fuel/maintenance trade-off. French steam locomotives were rarely used systemwide and spent more time for maintenance between runs than a North American chief mechanical officer would tolerate. North American steam was less fuel-efficient but required less maintenance and spent more time on the road earning money. The late Vernon L Smith of BRC addressed this issue much better in his rebuttal to the superiority of French steam in one of the all-steam issues of TRAINS in the 1960's.

Also note that the last steam locomotives in operation in France were a North American design, the Liberation 2-8-2's of Class 141-R.

[Anonymous]

any shop mechanic will be able to tell you that the baldwins spent more time running, and less time fixing than any of the others.

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VAPEURCHAPELON

Here somthing to marvel about - especially for GP40-2 (although he announced to disappear form the place) and feltonhill:

No, I'm still here. I just said that I was no longer going to post on this subject. I'm a busy person, and I don't have time to enter into protracted discussions with individuals who try to use erroneous and incomplete data to try to make an invalid point.

BTW, this is not directed at you.

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

Hello feltonhill,

„La locomotive a vapeur“ from Chapelon is a good source – there you will find that the 242 A 1 could evaporate 26 tons (here these are long tons of course) of water per hour if fed with COLD water – that means without feedwater heater. But this book has been released 1952 and this was before some important test results were available – especially from his 6cylinder 1-12-0. And I knew Wilhelm Reuter – he was a steamlocomotive designer at Henschel in Germany and for example worked on the South African class 25 4-8-4 (unfortunately he died last year at the age of 83 years). I have visited him and saw his 1000+ book locomotive library (probably one of the largest anywhere) and we talked about Chapelon. He said in one book he found a note that the 242 A 1 on test in Vitry evaporated 31 long tons of water – these are more than 68000 ibs. One more time please let me emphasize that I love all those late US steamers – especially N&W J and NYC Niagara in the case of the 4-8-4s – also Chapelon was largely impressed by their efficiency on mechanical side – cast frames, disk drivers, roller bearings, automatic wedges, self cleaning front ends etc. – and – CSSHEGEWISCH – of course no US designer would have accepted the hours for maintenance required for the Chapelon’s – but – please read again – his locomotives were rebuilds – not new ones! The original engine which Chapelon chose for his first project was so bad that its nickname was “Cholera”. There is not one single sign that on Chapelon’s projects of new engines to be built after the war with all these american devices I have mentioned earlier would have arose a technical problem which couldn’t be solved. And that the majority of French’s last steam in service were two cylinder engines is due to the fact that after the war French’s industry not nearly was able to put out the demanded large number of locomotives and Chapelon itself unfortunately didn’t have had any influence on the 141R design. Remember his own 141P: -this was a bit lighter, a bit faster and much more fuel efficient than the 141R while putting out about 1000 more horsepower – but had about the same running time like 141R. All points together the P was cheaper than the R. The match was that the R outnumbered the P by several hundred %. One can read this in the book “Andre Chapelon – the genius of French steam” written by H. C. B. Rogers published in 1976 or so.

Ant to close this comment and to return to the originally intended to be discussed magnificent US 4-8-4s I largely support the words of feltonhill concerning C&O J-3a. He seemingly has accurate sources on one side – and on the other – tributes to the work of Ross Rowland – maybe he is a great loco engineer – but not a designer. If an engine is doing a bit more than expected one quickly (and logically) becomes euphoric – but the results of euphoria are not necessarily the truth. I didn’t found any note that Rowland accuratly calculated the power ratings of this engine after the runs – and if I remember the Niagara 6023 which in october 1946 accelerated 22 HW-coaches of more than 1600 tons to its allowed 120mph on test – far beyond the excusion runs with C&O 614! But of course it still is one of the greatest steamers!

(3700hp for Chapelon 4-6-2 is indicated hp – but all other than bad for engine of only about 110 tons – not?)

[GP40-2]

"He seeming has accurate sources on his side"

Actually, he has NO sources on his side concerning the 1948 J3a in terms of total boiler and systemic efficiency. He also dosen't address the issues raised in terms of fluid mechanics for the J3a, but instead tries to rely on data from a generation older J3 from the 1930's. He even admits as such, but still plows ahead with his "estimates" none the less.

Personally, I don't think he even truely understands thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, but has just memerorized a bunch of data, and like a parrot, repeats it when prompted.

[feltonhill]

GP40-2 -

On 9/20/05 you posted:

“ There are several references from Lima and the C&O that indicated the changes to the J3a's boilers (which make them look somewhat smaller on paper) actually optimized the combustion efficiency, and greatly increased the boiler ability to absorb the BTU's from the firebox (whose efficiency was increased from the eariler versions also).”

and

"There is Lima and C&O documentation that the J3a's were much more optimized than the original versions."


On 9/21/05 I made the request:

"Do you recall the source for the steam circuit and exhaust nozzle optimization comments? .....I’d like to read what it said. "

In spite of my imperfect wording a month ago, again I would like to know, what are your sources?

[egmurphy]

QUOTE: jlampke: How about the 4-8-4's that are South of the U.S.? Who built them? What is type QR-1? Has anyone seen any of them? I heard one is operational.

In 1946 NdeM ordered 32 Niagaras, the last steam purchased by the railroad. 16 were built by Alco (#’s 3025-3032 and 3049-3056), and 16 were built by Baldwin (#’s 3033-3048). Because of their size they were pretty much limited to the main line run between Mexico City and the border. They remained in operation into the 60’s.

Of these, 11 are still preserved on display. I’ve seen two, one at the Museum of Technology in Mexico City and one at the National Railroad Museum in Puebla. As far as I know, none of the 11 is currently in operational condition.

QR-1 was just the NdeM class designation for them. GR was the Consolidation class (with sub-class numbers indicating tractive effort), KR’s were Mikados, MR’s were Pacifics, NR’s were Hudsons, PR’s were Mastodons (4-8-0).



Regards

Ed

[feltonhill]

to VAPEURCHAPELON

I would like to know more about the information you have found on the Chapelon 242A1. I have the Chapelon’s book La Locomotive a Vapeur (translated by G. W. Carpenter) which also contains additional material as Addenda to the 1952 Edition starting at pg 565. I have an idea you may have read the original book, something I’ve not been able to lay my hands on up to now, and probably couldn't read very well anyway. Chapelon's version of French is not for amateurs like me! I mention this because the English edition has more information that the original book apparently did, and you may be interested in reading it. It looks like the 2-12-0 was included in the translation from pgs 454 to 461 including several cross sectional views and a cut-away elevation.

I would also agree that the Rogers book is a very worthwhile additional source of information on this unique loco. I found a copy at a very reasonable price in a used book store. The only other information I have that you and others may want to see is in The Concise Encyclopedia of World Railway Locomotives by P. Ransome-Wallis (pgs343-344) where the author includes a very short paragraph on the 242A1 as well as comparative specifications between that and the SNCF 241P, 232U, 231E, 141P and 150P.

All of the empirical work I’ve done is with US steam power, and it is not in any way comparable to the French developments, so I don’t have any additional information beyond what you have already posted. Thanks for bringing this up. I look forward to more (at least a little bit more??!!) information on this remarkable 4-8-4.

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by feltonhill

GP40-2 -

On 9/20/05 you posted:

“ There are several references from Lima and the C&O that indicated the changes to the J3a's boilers (which make them look somewhat smaller on paper) actually optimized the combustion efficiency, and greatly increased the boiler ability to absorb the BTU's from the firebox (whose efficiency was increased from the eariler versions also).”

and

"There is Lima and C&O documentation that the J3a's were much more optimized than the original versions."


On 9/21/05 I made the request:

"Do you recall the source for the steam circuit and exhaust nozzle optimization comments? .....I’d like to read what it said. "

In spite of my imperfect wording a month ago, again I would like to know, what are your sources?

The C&O Historical Society has a number of documents on the J3a design...seek and you shall find.

Second, if you had any backround in Mechinacal Engineering, which it is painfully obvious you don't, you could duduce the improvements in the J3a combustion chamber along with the steam circut efficiency from Lima's engineering data alone.

Like I said, you don't understand thermodynamics, and you especially don't understand fluid mechanics, which plays a larger role in steam locomotive power development anyway.

Your not even an a M.E., yet you come on this board professing to be a "locomotive expert". Unbelievable!

[jlampke]

Ed: Thanks for the info. 11 out of 32 preserved.... that's pretty good. Hats off to NdeM!! Wouldn't it have been great if 1/3 of the 1126 or so 4-8-4's that ran on U.S. rails had been saved from the scrap yard? I sure wish SP 4458 and 4459 (equipped with roller bearings) hadn't been tossed out like so much junk.

According to this site: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?4-8-4

The QR-1 3034 at the National Museum of Mexican Railroads is operational. The picture looks like it's in good shape.

Do you happen to know which U.S. 4-8-4's they are most like in appearance and performance? Were the Alcos and the Baldwins to the same specs?

[egmurphy]

QUOTE: According to this site........ The QR-1 3034 at the National Museum of Mexican Railroads is operational.

That's one I've seen up close and personal. I don't believe it is, although it might require relatively minimal work to make operational.

QUOTE: The picture looks like it's in good shape.

It does appear to be. I saw it last two months ago.

QUOTE: Do you happen to know which U.S. 4-8-4's they are most like in appearance and performance?

I'm not familiar enough with general 4-8-4 characteristics to say. But give me a few hours and I'll post a picture and you can decide.

QUOTE: Were the Alcos and the Baldwins to the same specs?

As far as I know they were identical.


Regards

Ed

[feltonhill]

Re: QR-1's

No. 3028 is/was under restoration at the New Hope and Ivyland.

[egmurphy]

QUOTE: No. 3028 is/was under restoration at the New Hope and Ivyland.

Glad to hear that. A number of old steam locos from down here eventually found their way north to tourist railroads. I'm not sure if my fellow railfans down here are aware of that, no one has ever mentioned it. I'll pass that info on. Thanks.

Here are a couple of shots of the two I have seen down here. Sorry that the quality of the pictures isn't that great, I couldn't get to the sunny side of the loco to take a shot.

Here are two views of 3034 at the National Railrod Museum in Puebla.





And one shot of the 3038 in Mexico City.




I'm not much for technical details, but I'm led to believe they had 70" drivers, weighed 370,000 lbs, and had 57,000 lbs of tractive effort. Could be wrong.

Regards

Ed

[nanaimo73]

This is a picture of 3028, not much to look at.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=196674