rrinkerDon't forget 1251, the Reading shop switcher. Claimed to be the last steam loco in ICC service on a Class 1 railroad when retired in 1964.
Not least because it only took one man, not an 'engineer and fireman', to run it in service...
The Erie was all-diesel by the mid- '50s and I never had the opportunity to see Erie steam. In 1954, the last steam loco remaining was K1 Pacific class #2530 on the Spring Valley, NY to Jersey City, NJ commuter run and it was scrapped.
Russ
Modeling the early '50s Erie in Paterson, NJ. Here's the link to my railroad postcard collection: https://railroadpostcards.blogspot.com/
PRR8259 It nevertheless was a sad waste of steam power. Many engines had way too much life remaining in them, not just on N&W...
It nevertheless was a sad waste of steam power. Many engines had way too much life remaining in them, not just on N&W...
Unfortunately, the diesels made them obsolete, even with all the service life they had left in them. It would be as if you bought the top of the line IBM electric typewriter in the early 1980s only to have have PCs become commonplace and giving everyone word processing capabilities. I know a lot of people continued to use their typewriters for many years, even the old mechanical ones, but word processing was so much more efficient because of the ease of correcting mistakes.
Not noted in any of the replies, was the fact that the engines that fed the mainline steam usage were all well past retirement. So the locals were all dieselized first as there were no Consolidations or Mikados left to handle the local traffic. It soon became redundant to keep much of the railroad dieselized while having a few mainline steam engines so as they began to hit major shopping times in the late 50's they were retired instead.
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
Don't forget 1251, the Reading shop switcher. Claims to be the last steam loco in ICC service on a Clas 1 railroad when retired in 1964. By that time, she had spent plenty of time moving her diesel replacements around the shops in Reading. An interesting oddity, as well - built in 1918 by those same shops, from an even older Consolidation and tuened in to an 0-6-0T.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I've seen photos of N&W Y6Bs being used on local freights in Norfolk & Western Diesel's Last Conquest.William E.Warden TLC Publishing-out of print. One of the must have books for N&W modelers.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
John-NYBW I've read that the reason N&W was the last of the major railroads to dieselize was because hauling coal was one of their major sources of revenue and they wanted to please the coal companies who were their biggest customers. I believe they ran steam until 1960. I'm too lazy to look it up.
I've read that the reason N&W was the last of the major railroads to dieselize was because hauling coal was one of their major sources of revenue and they wanted to please the coal companies who were their biggest customers. I believe they ran steam until 1960. I'm too lazy to look it up.
That was one of a list of reasons.
Many eastern roads were invested in coal mine ownership as well, making the use of coal good for business all way around.
BUT, operating costs are operating costs, and diesels are cheaper to operate.
The N&W did raise steam to its highest level of both performance and efficiency understanding that well cared for machines are cheaper to own in the long run.
They had a big investement in large indoor service facilities for their steam, so by keeping steam as long as they did, they were not just keeping their customers happy, they were amortizing that investement in locos like the Y, J, and A Classes, as well as the service facilities.
A peek at their books might suggest that by 1960, those locos were about to face major maintenance cycles, so it was the perfect time for them, just like the early 50's was the perfect time for most other roads.
Sheldon
Not sure if this has been said, but there are several cases of steam holdouts also involved branchlines with light rail. Newer diesels spread their weight over fewer axles, and thus you found a old, worn out steam locomotive in service well after newer locomotives were scrapped. The whole premise behind the BL2 or GP7 was it was supposed to be ugly and thus put on branchlines hidden from view...except the opposite happened. N&W as a coal hauler had quite a few branches that were built with heavier rail, and therefore big steam lasted longer.
dehusmanThe last passenger steamers were the RDG's G3 Pacifics built in 1948, pulled out of service by the mid 50's and scrapped by 1957
For arguements sake: N&W 611, built May 1950 (happy birthday!), was not pulled from service until 1958/1959. N&W 612 and 613 were also built in 1950. Such was N&W's commitment to steam power.
N&W also built the last steam locomotive constructed in the United States, a USRA 0-8-0 copy if memory serves in December of 1953.
John-NYBW Don't forget the UP's 844 Northern which has never been retired and was a working locomotive right up until the end of the steam era. It was used on passenger trains and fast freights. After that it was relegated to excusion service but has been on UP's active roster since 1944. It was the last steam loco the UP purchased. I got to see it run last year when it was doubleheaded behing the Big Boy. Seeing the 844 was as big a thrill for me as was seeing a Big Boy under steam for the first time since 1960. I have a Rivarossi model of the 844 with its temporarily assigned number of 8444. It's not an accurate model as it has the centipede coal tender rather than the oil tender. I'm not positive but I think the 844 was oil fired from the beginning. It also has the oversized flanges Rivarossi used to put on their steam locos. Doesn't run well on code 83 track.
Don't forget the UP's 844 Northern which has never been retired and was a working locomotive right up until the end of the steam era. It was used on passenger trains and fast freights. After that it was relegated to excusion service but has been on UP's active roster since 1944. It was the last steam loco the UP purchased. I got to see it run last year when it was doubleheaded behing the Big Boy. Seeing the 844 was as big a thrill for me as was seeing a Big Boy under steam for the first time since 1960.
I have a Rivarossi model of the 844 with its temporarily assigned number of 8444. It's not an accurate model as it has the centipede coal tender rather than the oil tender. I'm not positive but I think the 844 was oil fired from the beginning. It also has the oversized flanges Rivarossi used to put on their steam locos. Doesn't run well on code 83 track.
I know next to nothing about the UP or 844, but a little quick research comfirmed that all the FEF's were originally coal fired with centipede tenders but the FEF-3's were converted to oil very early, 1946.
I am not so sure that the newest engines were "most expensive" to maintain. Not sure where that is coming from. On roads that actually documented costs, the newest steamers were actually the cheapest on a per mile basis to maintain.
They had steam servicing down to a science on UP, N&W and Nickel Plate Road. On those roads, certain terminals could turn the big modern engines around fully lubed, coaled, watered, checked out, in two hours or less, ready for the next run. They had built state of the art servicing facilities to turn them around fast.
In Hirsimaki's Nickel Plate Road book, he does mention that the labor costs associated with steam literally doubled between 1950 and 1957. That was what killed steam on the Nickel Plate. It wasn't that the engines didn't do a fantastic job. The Berkshires were amazing in their performance, accelerating mile long trains of reefers to 60 mph in very little time. It's just that in the 1950's, Americans wanted and demanded better pay, and by that time, the unions, etc. had power to get those wages for them. When the railroads saw the labor cost savings, it was game over.
On some big western roads, like NP, they saw that diesels' low speed tractive effort performance was better than the big articulateds, and that also was the beginning of the end.
On the Northern Pacific, lots of big engines went to scrap that had been recently rebuilt, even had brand new welded boilers on some of them (due to steam leaks from old boilers). Some of those newly rebuilt engines never turned a revenue mile again. These were magnificent big articulateds and 4-8-4's.
John
Nobody has taken up passenger service. Most of the places you might expect superannuated or light power to be running would have lost passenger service long before; even in the early Fifties some railroads had an embarrassment of riches with so many suddenly-surplus passenger units they would try to run them on freight ... let alone keep them on passenger. But there were notable exceptions. PRR on the Long Branch with K4s was one; perhaps the most notable was Grand Trunk in Detroit which ran capable 4-8-4s fast right up until the end. CNJ made a point of trying shiny new diesels on its crack commuter trains ... just as PRR tested 2400hp six-motor units early in comparable service ... but wound up with 774 and others running out the miles; there wasn't enough return from four-hour-a-day service to pay the 24-hour running charge on the cost of new equipment. (By the time the age of government free money for social railroading started to become available in the latter half of the '60s, steam had been gone over half a decade.)
I have decided that I am very likely going to backdate my layout to the mid to late 1950's or possibly even the first years of the 1960s with a bit of cheating on the last days of steam on my layout. My layout has evolved into a beltline/terminal railroad with mostly PRR equipment. I haven't decided if it should be PRR or a subsidy or a freelance and give it its own logos. I named the town Orion so I can call it the "Orion's Belt Line" for now. I tend to prefer the older diesels and will use them most often, but it does give me the option of steam not being out of place. The question was as to how plausible they would be in real life. So a K4 coming on from staging and leaving seems to be acceptable. And I am thinking the S4s and RS3s will be appropriate for local service. I do have a section of street running, but I guess my local ordinances will not prohibit the use of steam in that section of town.
There are of course all sorts of odd stories about the last years of steam - such as the Pennsylvania RR so enthusiastically scrapping their big steam that a sudden onrush of traffic caused them to acquire retired AT&SF 2-10-4s. Or the inept management of the Chicago & North Western acquiring diesels but being so nervous about their reliability that they kept some unused in reserve even as steam was still used -- new management took over and discovered they could completely dieselize the railroad without buying a new diesel -- BUT had to live with decisions that prior management made about making a newly redesigned Proviso Yard "steam friendly" in ways that wasted valuable space.
And then there was Nortwestern Steel & Wire in Sterling IL which in part made its living by converting steam locomotives into razor blades (actually, into good quality nails, among other things). With steam so plentiful on the property they would select a class of locomotive and use it for their huge industrial complex. Originally I think it was a whole batch of CB&Q 2-6-2s. Eventually it was a large number of Grand Trunk 0-8-0s. The owner of the plant liked steam and even into the 1980s you could go to Northwestern Steel & Wire and see 7 or 8 steam locomotives on the property. Sign a release in the office and you could take all the photos you wanted. The day I was there 4 engines were in steam, blowing their whistles for every change of direction, chuffing loudly, and it was glorious. Steam in surround sound! In 1980! A uniformed chauffeur driven limo drove by and an elderly gent in the back seat saluted us and we saluted him right back. It was the owner.
I think they dieselized the week after the old man died.
Dave Nelson
Kevin covered this pretty well.
I will add some specific examples.
Switchers - switchers were where diesels were perfected and first used going back to the 30's. So they almost don't count in this conversation.
The B&O dieselized the eastern part of their line first and they dieselized passenger service first in most cases. As they did that they moved the best steam west assuming it applied to the task as Kevein explained.
BUT, the B&O has tough grades over the Appalachian Mountains, where helpers were always required. They actually figured out that the diesels made better helpers so they assigned ABBA sets of diesels as helpers to replace large articulated locos while leaving the large steam in use as the primary power on those trains.
Diesel helpers assisted steam powered trains over those mountains all thru the 50's until more diesels were purchased.
More later,
restoratorIn the waning years of steam, the mid to late 1950s depending on the road, what were steam locos most often still used for?
Razor blades.
Most railroads dieselized in the mid 1950's, 1952-1956. There were a few last hold outs, the UP, N&W, shortlines that couldn't afford anything else.
restoratorWere they mostly used for long or short haul freight? More on mainline or branchline service? Local switchers? Yard service? Were many still in passenger service?
"Long haul freight" is a relative term. Steam engine runs were probably only 500 miles or less at the most.
At the end steam engines did a little of everything. On many railroads switchers were the first engines to dieselize because of smoke abatement orders in cities. In most cases steam engines were confined to one division or maintenance base. Basically at the end they were using steam engines until they could afford, or the builders could deliver, diesels.
They used the engines that were the newest or had the most time on their boilers. The railroads didn't want to spend thousands of dollars redoing a boiler when they knew it was going to be scrapped. Passenger engines had the double whammy of obsolete engines and declining traffic base. The last passenger steamers were the RDG's G3 Pacifics built in 1948, pulled out of service by the mid 50's and scrapped by 1957, short of a decade of service.
Many railroads kept some steamers as reserve power, so they were on the roster, but not in use. The RDG kept T-1 Northerns on the roster until the 1960's, but the only trains they pulled were some excursions, the "Reading Rambles". the last RDG steamers in freight service were the T-1's but not on the RDG. The RDG leased a few to the PRR to use in upstate PA until the PRR could take delivery of deisels. The RDG engines had time on their boilers, the PRR engines didn't so it was cheaper for the PRR to lease engines for several months or a year than rebuild their own engines.
Many railroads kept a few steamers on hand to serve as back up steam boilers for industries. T-1's were used for those too. In fact the RDG took a baggage car and installed 3 steam generators from passenger RS-3's that were converted back to freight only to be used as an emergency steam generator to lease to companies.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
restoratorIn the waning years of steam, the mid to late 1950s depending on the road, what were steam locos most often still used for? Were they mostly used for long or short haul freight? More on mainline or branchline service? Local switchers? Yard service? Were many still in passenger service?
I will give you some seriously generalized answers because you asked a very generalized question. As was mentioned, each railroad was different in the way they dieselized during the 1950s.
When steam locomotives were displaced by diesels, it was not the oldest locomotives that were retired first as people seem to assume. Many of the newest steam locomotives were only suitable for a particular service, like high speed passenger, and these were oflten dieselized first. These state of the art steamers were not suitable for other work, and were scrapped.
Many newer steamers also required more maintanence due to more complicated features. These could also be scrapped sooner to reduce costs while an older simpler steamers stayed in service well into the 1950s.
Availability of water on certain routes caused some modern steamers to be scrapped early. As these lines were dieselized, water concerns were reduced, and if these modern mainline engines had no other use, they were scrapped.
So, generally speaking, the steamers that would remain in service the longest were simple, reliable, and versatile designs. Large, complicated, and maintanence heavy steamers would not find new assigments easily.
Of course, there were exceptions. I have seen pictures of N&W 4-8-4 Js in freight service and SOUTHERN Heavy Pacifics in freight helper service.
Some railroads preferred the ease of operation of diesel switchers, so these assignments were diselized first.
Other railroads wanted flashy modern diesel cab units on high profile trains, so these were dieselized early.
Which categories were transitioned to diesel first was entirely an individual management decision of each railroad, and it could go in any order.
On my railroad, the STRATTON AND GILLETTE, set in 1954, I have mostly USRA steam locomotives still in operation. Their reliability, simple designs, and ease of maintenance has kept them in service, or on hand as back-up power. I also have a 2-8-0, and plan to add a 4-6-0 if it ever comes up at a reasonable price. I do have one 2-8-8-4, but really just because I love the model so much.
So... to your question... in the waning days of steam, you could still find steam locomotives in almost any service, depending on the railroad, and what diesel locomotives they were able to purchase.
If you are modelling a prototype railroad in a specific time frame, this will require you to do some research.
If you model a freelanced line, like I do, you have options. I use my steamers all as "back-up" power. All trains have a diesel assigned, but I have over a dozen steamers I can take out of the roundhouse when I want to run them. I would stay away from flashy, heavy, modern steamers. However, like my 2-8-8-4, sometimes that is hard to do.
I hope this helped.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
i thought early diesel locomotives (e.g. boxcab) were used as switchers and only later were diesels used for mainline trains.
The Reading pulled their Northerns out of retirement to help with mainline traffic due to a shortage of diesels.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Until around 1960 a PRR 0-6-0 was used by a contractor to move loaded and empty gons to where they was needed.. You see this contractor was cutting up PRR steam locomotives. By the end of 1960 this 0-6-0 was scrapped. This 0-6-0 was crewed by PRR.
I'm told for several years after that scrap operation you could find parts of steam locomotives laying on the ground. I was also told the keystone number plates could be bought for $50.00 including the cost of removal.
I don´t think there is a general answer to your question. It certainly differed from railroad to railroad. As an example, the N&W employed their big haulers right to the end of the steam service to haul their heavy coal drags. For other roads, it is most likely safe to assume that steam engines were slowly being pushed off the mainlines into branchline and secondary services. The types of engines in services until the last fire was bunked also varied - from pre-1900 Tenwheelers and 1920s Mikados to big 1940s articulateds.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
In the waning years of steam, the mid to late 1950s depending on the road, what were steam locos most often still used for?
Were they mostly used for long or short haul freight? More on mainline or branchline service? Local switchers? Yard service? Were many still in passenger service?