What were the most popular steam locos that pulled passenger service...

[Wdlgln005]

"Most Popular" by railfans may be the 4-8-4 Northerns, or Dixies (Yellowjackets) for us in the South. All that power to pull the longest train in the tough grades. They may have pulled most of the premier trains on the line.

"Pacifics" or "Mikados" would fit the 1920's era. With the USRA design, both seem to be good steamers. Pacifics with their larger drivers could give you more speed than the Mikados. However, the Mikados were the all-purpose steamer. The 60' drivers could keep a passenger on time with efficient station stops. They may have been bumped by Northerns into lesser class trains. Branch lines get still smaller power.

I'm not surprised that a Big Boy could be pressed into Troop Train duty. AFAIK most troopers were run as extras with freight crews & extra caboose on the end. Since there are no station stops, you run the train to the next water/fuel stop.  

[Don Gibson]

"Most popular steam" pulling Passerger in 20th Century?

Depended on the Road, Era, No. of cars pulled, and terrain.

Engines designed for Passenger had 'high wheels vs small drivers for freight (mechanical advatage = more feet travelled per revolution).

4-4-2's gave way to 4-6-2's which became 4-6-4's toward the end of steam. 4-8-2 'Mountain's likewise became 4-8-4's. There were some exceptions such as U.P.'S 4-6-6-4, but you asked for 'most popular' - By whom - the public? the crews? the front office?

If yougo by the number of engines owned, I would guess the 4-6-2 Pacific - which eventially gave way to Mountains and Northerns as terrain and weight from cars increased.

 Transcontinental roads would mix different engines for different needs on the same routes. Santa Fe used 11 different engines on their record setting 'Death Valley Scotty' run. Later, the ATSF used one type of engine Chicago to KC, and bigger power from there west, doule heading over higher grades.

If you were modeling Santa Fe, an Atlantic or Pacific could be pulling one train, and a Mountain or Northern another.

[Texas Zepher]

I remembered a photograph ... which showed a Rio Grande 4-6-2 and a 2-8-2 doubleheading a passenger train deep in the confines of the Front Range on the Moffat Route.  Beebe refers to the lead engine as a '4-6-4'.  ... his texts could be GLORIOUSLY inaccurate--

I think that was probably just his "News Paper Man" mentality.  When one makes an error in a newspaper, a correction or retraction can be printed the next day - no big deal.   That style just doesn't roll forward well into books.   Of course I don't know how many people read these sorts of books anyway, I think most just "read" the pictures.

[twhite]

Can you tell me what the reason was that Great Northern disliked the Challenger so much ?

No, I can only guess.   Some people speculate they just didn't fit the GNs style of requiring a locomotive to be able to operate over the entire system.  Later they had the same issues with the E7s.  I've always thought that if this was true it was interesting since the GN used to have the electrified section that required very different power from the rest of the system.

It could be because they were built by Alco while most of the GN locomotives were Baldwin or home built.  Perhaps the maintenance department made them out to be worse than they were??!??

It could also be that they were so used to operating their heavy power slugging along with really long trains, that when they got a fast locomotive it couldn't perform even close to its optimum in that environment.  I haven't really researched it, but I have never come across anything that would indicate they even tried to use them on passenger trains.  

 

Tracklayer:  Actually, except for UP, I don't think many roads that had Challengers used them very extensively in passenger service.  I know that NP used them primarily as freight haulers and relied on their 4-8-4's for mainline passenger power.  Though the Rio Grande assigned one of their big L-105's temporarily to passenger service between Salt Lake and Grand Junction, it was a very temporary arrangement, and except for some troop trains during WWII, the big Baldwin 4-6-6-4 3700's were primarily fast freight movers on the eastern end (Utah) of the Rio Grande.  I think the design was meant primarily as a fast freight loco, rather than an articulated passenger loco. 

UP regularly assigned a 4-6-6-4 on their "Pony Express" between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles during the steam era, but most of the photos I've seen of the UP Challengers are of freight haulers.

And to my knowledge, the five Alco WP Challengers were strictly freight haulers between Salt Lake and Winnemucca. 

Tom  

[twhite]

If we check the steam locomotive rosters for each RR, for time period that Tracklayer was questioning, I think it will be obvious that the Pacific was the most popular for Passenger service. Other locomotives were used in passenger service for a variety of reasons, but the most used by numbers was the Pacific.

Grayfox:  I think I'd tend to agree with you if watching steam power in the California Central Valley was any indication, back when I was a boy.  Both SP and Santa Fe had large rosters of 4-6-2's, and they were very active at least on the local passenger power I remember seeing.  I remember SP favoring their MT-series 4-8-2's more for fast freight service between Oakland and Roseville, and even up the valley on their primary north freight line the 'Chico Cutoff' between Roseville and Redding. 

Also, SP used Pacifics quite extensively in their San Francisco-San Jose commuter service.  Really handsome locos, and they could get up and TRAVEL!

Tom

[Texas Zepher]

Can you tell me what the reason was that Great Northern disliked the Challenger so much ?

No, I can only guess.   Some people speculate they just didn't fit the GNs style of requiring a locomotive to be able to operate over the entire system.  Later they had the same issues with the E7s.  I've always thought that if this was true it was interesting since the GN used to have the electrified section that required very different power from the rest of the system.

It could be because they were built by Alco while most of the GN locomotives were Baldwin or home built.  Perhaps the maintenance department made them out to be worse than they were??!??

It could also be that they were so used to operating their heavy power slugging along with really long trains, that when they got a fast locomotive it couldn't perform even close to its optimum in that environment.  I haven't really researched it, but I have never come across anything that would indicate they even tried to use them on passenger trains.  

 

[twhite]

Thanks for the information.  I knew that the GN didn't keep that wheel arrangement around very long.

Funny thing, when you mentioned the Beebe texts in an earlier post, I remembered a photograph from RIO GRANDE, MAINLINE OF THE ROCKIES, which showed a Rio Grande 4-6-2 and a 2-8-2 doubleheading a passenger train deep in the confines of the Front Range on the Moffat Route, right after the opening of the Dotsero Cutoff.  Beebe refers to the lead engine as a '4-6-4'.  Can you picture a Hudson in the Rockies?  You're right, his texts could be GLORIOUSLY inaccurate--but oboy, those photos! 

Tom  

[Texas Zepher]

Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the GN only had one Challenger, #5000, an Alco NP copy, and they sold it rather quickly to the SP&S,

Close enough, they only had two.  They were on the roster from 1942 until 1950.   The funny part of the story is that while the GN never figured out how to use them, the SP&S loved them so much that they (SP&S) went to Alco to purchase almost all their power from that point forward.

[grayfox1119]

If we check the steam locomotive rosters for each RR, for time period that Tracklayer was questioning, I think it will be obvious that the Pacific was the most popular for Passenger service. Other locomotives were used in passenger service for a variety of reasons, but the most used by numbers was the Pacific.

[twhite]

Tracklayer--

From what I have read, the GN favored articulateds that had more weight on the drivers, such as their 2-6-8-0, 2-8-8-0 and 2-8-8-2's.   Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the GN only had one Challenger, #5000, an Alco NP copy, and they sold it rather quickly to the SP&S, whose water level route along the Columbia river was much more amenable to that particular wheel arrangement.  GN always looked at tractive power more than speed for their articulateds (though their R-1 and R-2 2-8-8-2's could really 'rip' when they wanted to, I understand).  Out west, NP, UP and Rio Grande had the best success with the 4-6-6-4 wheel arrangement, but GN preferred their S-2 4-8-4 for high-speed mainline passenger power.  

Rio Grande's Mountains were originally designed for passenger power, but their rather low drivers (63" for the 1500 Alcos and 67" for the 3-Cylinder Baldwins) and their 'freight' gearing--main axle on 3rd instead of 2nd drivers--pounded the track pretty unmercifully at high speed.  Most of the Rio Grande Mountains were relegated to freight power by the time the 1700 series Northerns appeared in the late '20's, though the 1500 series 4-8-2's were used as passenger helpers over Tennessee Pass.   By the late 'thirties, the 14 1700's and the 5 big 1800 4-8-4's were the primary passenger power on the Rio Grande until the advent of diesels right after WWII, when Alco PA's and EMD F-3's started replacing them on the Rio Grande's 'name' trains. 

Tom  

   

[Tracklayer]

As to verification for you, might I reccommend two books:  RIO GRANDE, MAINLINE OF THE ROCKIES by Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg.

That and also "The Trains We Road" are excellent books, eventhough I don't consider the text as the final word on the subject.

Texas: 

The text might not be the final word on the subject, but the photographs are.  End of argument, okay?

Tom

I've got "The Trains We Rode"... It's really helped a lot in my research over the years.

Tracklayer

[CMSTPP]

Don't forget the Milwaukee Road's "Hiawatha Hudsons".  Regularly run at 100+ mph speeds!

(I would love to see an old video clip showing of these trains whipping by at those speeds!)

I am with you all the way. I would love to see one of those locomotives roaring away. Unfortunately I don't think anyone got any video if the locomotives in action. If someone did, it probably isn't on any tape. If someone knows a movie out there with these locomotives, please e-mail me or tell me. I would love to know.

Happy railroading

James

[twhite]

As to verification for you, might I reccommend two books:  RIO GRANDE, MAINLINE OF THE ROCKIES by Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg.

That and also "The Trains We Road" are excellent books, eventhough I don't consider the text as the final word on the subject.

Texas: 

The text might not be the final word on the subject, but the photographs are.  End of argument, okay?

Tom

[Tracklayer]

So, popularity aside, the type of steam locomotive that logged the most miles in passenger service from 1900 on is what we are after.  Now, who can answer the question posed that way?

That is how I interpreted the question to begin with and how I've been discussing it through the whole thread.

Actually, various time periods seem to have had their favorite locos... I wish I had thought of that fact before starting the topic. Oh well. Live and learn. Anyways, it looks as if the 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler was the "it" loco from about 1900 to about 1920, then came the Pacific from about 1920 to the early 1940s followed by the Northern class from the early 1940s until dieselization in the mid to late 1950s.

Interesting observation, but I think it discounts the impact of the Mountain Class.  A specific example is that many of Santa Fe's Northerns were rebuilds from Mountains.  To be rebuilt means it had to have been out there in service enough to get worn out.  Off the top of my head it seems that while the D&RGW had Northern's they favored the Mountain.   I think this might actually be another argument favoring the Pacific as the most popular, because when the railroads migrated from it they went different directions.   While everyone favored Pacifics for in their time, not everyone favored a specific successor.  I know the GN hated their Challengers, while the NP and UP loved them.   NYC, Milwalkee, CB&Q, and even the Santa Fe really favored the Hudsons.  So generally speaking, from the Pacific it branched to Hudsons, Mountains, Challengers, and finally Northerns.  This dilutes  the relative milage accumulated by each successor.

The final argument is that the Challengers and Northerns never got to fulfull their potential for total passenger miles hauled because of the advent of the Diesel.  Many passenger steam locomotives were relegated to fast freight sooner than they would have normaly.  Many modern steam locomotives went to scrap long before they were even close to being worn out.  I think had their been no diesels the Northerns would have dominated until Amtrak and that would have given them the most milage record.

Hello Texas Zepher. Can you tell me what the reason was that Great Northern disliked the Challenger so much ?. Thanks.

Tracklayer

[Texas Zepher]

So, popularity aside, the type of steam locomotive that logged the most miles in passenger service from 1900 on is what we are after.  Now, who can answer the question posed that way?

That is how I interpreted the question to begin with and how I've been discussing it through the whole thread.

Actually, various time periods seem to have had their favorite locos... I wish I had thought of that fact before starting the topic. Oh well. Live and learn. Anyways, it looks as if the 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler was the "it" loco from about 1900 to about 1920, then came the Pacific from about 1920 to the early 1940s followed by the Northern class from the early 1940s until dieselization in the mid to late 1950s.

Interesting observation, but I think it discounts the impact of the Mountain Class.  A specific example is that many of Santa Fe's Northerns were rebuilds from Mountains.  To be rebuilt means it had to have been out there in service enough to get worn out.  Off the top of my head it seems that while the D&RGW had Northern's they favored the Mountain.   I think this might actually be another argument favoring the Pacific as the most popular, because when the railroads migrated from it they went different directions.   While everyone favored Pacifics for in their time, not everyone favored a specific successor.  I know the GN hated their Challengers, while the NP and UP loved them.   NYC, Milwalkee, CB&Q, and even the Santa Fe really favored the Hudsons.  So generally speaking, from the Pacific it branched to Hudsons, Mountains, Challengers, and finally Northerns.  This dilutes  the relative milage accumulated by each successor.

The final argument is that the Challengers and Northerns never got to fulfull their potential for total passenger miles hauled because of the advent of the Diesel.  Many passenger steam locomotives were relegated to fast freight sooner than they would have normaly.  Many modern steam locomotives went to scrap long before they were even close to being worn out.  I think had their been no diesels the Northerns would have dominated until Amtrak and that would have given them the most milage record.

[selector]

"the ones that didnt use Northerns in the 1940's - 50's were still using the ancestral Pacifics, or Hudsons."

And then of course there was Pennsy.

You mean this?

http://prrsteam.mrdek.com/t_6110.html

[Virginian]

"the ones that didnt use Northerns in the 1940's - 50's were still using the ancestral Pacifics, or Hudsons."

And then of course there was Pennsy.

[scottychaos]

Hi selector. So far, it seems that the Pacific was the most popular with most railroads, that is until the Northern came along. Actually, various time periods seem to have had their favorite locos... I wish I had thought of that fact before starting the topic. Oh well. Live and learn. Anyways, it looks as if the 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler was the "it" loco from about 1900 to about 1920, then came the Pacific from about 1920 to the early 1940s followed by the Northern class from the early 1940s until dieselization in the mid to late 1950s. If I'm wrong it won't be the first time...

Tracklayer 

 

I would say thats generally accurate, except not all railroads used Northerns in passenger service..that was the exception rather than the rule.

the ones that didnt use Northerns in the 1940's - 50's were still using the ancestral Pacifics, or Hudsons.

Scot 

 

[selector]

I have no way to disagree with your assessment, Tracklayer.  Works for me.

[Tracklayer]

At this late stage, it might seem like picking fly poop out of the pepper, but the question as it was posed is not what we seem to be discussing.  The originator used the term "popular" which literally means appeals to the masses.  I don't think many folks cared much for what pulled them, as long as it was on time.  So, popularity aside, the type of steam locomotive that logged the most miles in passenger service from 1900 on is what we are after.  Now, who can answer the question posed that way?

Hi selector. So far, it seems that the Pacific was the most popular with most railroads, that is until the Northern came along. Actually, various time periods seem to have had their favorite locos... I wish I had thought of that fact before starting the topic. Oh well. Live and learn. Anyways, it looks as if the 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler was the "it" loco from about 1900 to about 1920, then came the Pacific from about 1920 to the early 1940s followed by the Northern class from the early 1940s until dieselization in the mid to late 1950s. If I'm wrong it won't be the first time...

Tracklayer 

[selector]

At this late stage, it might seem like picking fly poop out of the pepper, but the question as it was posed is not what we seem to be discussing.  The originator used the term "popular" which literally means appeals to the masses.  I don't think many folks cared much for what pulled them, as long as it was on time.  So, popularity aside, the type of steam locomotive that logged the most miles in passenger service from 1900 on is what we are after.  Now, who can answer the question posed that way?

[Texas Zepher]

I feel that an argument might be made that the most popular passenger locomotive in the U.S. in the twentieth century may well lie with the 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 wheel arrangements.  ... heavier power bumped many from mainline service into the commuter pool ... some of these survivors soldiering on even into the fifties on remote branch lines,...

I had thought of that argument but discounted it (at least in terms of most popular by passenger mile) because I figured the 4-6-0 in "mixed train daily" service would accumulate 20-100 miles per day on the shortlines, while the Pacifics on the main would get the same 100 miles in a couple hours, and they are often running 24 hour days. When one just considers the Santa Fe's 2267 mile Chicago to LA main that would make a single AT&SF transcon train account for 22 of this type of short line operation.  So it becomes all the major RRs with major cross country trains vs all the shortlines/commuters.  My brain unscientifically chooses the long routes.  Then there is when the Pacifics started getting move to branchline service, kicking the 4-6-0s to scrap. So the Pacifics are still recording miles while the older locos rapidly loose ground.  Does is reasoning mean anything - I don't know.   I do think if your argument stood up to a quantitative analysis it would be for the 4-6-0 and not the 4-4-0.

[R. T. POTEET]

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the most popular passenger (steam) locomotive was the famous 0-5-0 switcher.

On a serious note I would like to make two points on this particular subject.

Point Number 1:

Although there is really no way in which I can prove my point I feel that an argument might be made that the most popular passenger locomotive in the U.S. in the twentieth century may well lie with the 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 wheel arrangements.  Although few were built in the twentieth century proper some were relatively new as the new century dawned; the arrival of newer, heavier power bumped many from mainline service into the commuter pool where Big Brawl Number 2 gave those survivors among them a couple of years of extended life; few, admittedly, survived into the fifties.  The hard economics of the depression spelled doom to hundreds of others; there are records, however, of some of these survivors soldiering on even into the fifties on remote branch lines, in both passenger and freight operations,  because weight restrictions precluded their replacement

Point Number 2:

A number of responses here have dealt with passenger trains, Consolidations, and Mikes;  I do not, at the moment have access to my {i]Guinness Book of Railway Records[/i] but I have seen this mentioned a number of times in various places.

The last regularly scheduled standard gauge passenger trains in the U.S. pulled by steam locomotives were the commuter trains of the Grand Trunk Western operating into and out of Detroit behind Mikados in 1960.

[Tracklayer]

Consolidations and Mikes have pulled as many passenger trains as all the others combined...maybe.

Uh, excuse me!. I got jumped all over last year by several members when I suggested that Consolidations and Mikado's pulled passenger trains... I was told that both of these locos were used for freight service only. But go ahead, I'm listening...

Tracklayer

Tracklayer:  Jump right back at 'em with my permission, LOL!  Out here in California, the Western Pacific used one of their classes of Mikados regularly on passenger trains between Oakland and Portola, up through the Feather River Canyon.  And in Colorado, the Rio Grande used their 1200 Mikes on passenger trains right after they acquired the Denver and Salt Lake, before they could lay heavier rail on the Moffat Route and open the route up to their 1700 and 1800 Northerns.  Not only that, but the Rio Grande 1100 series 2-8-0's were often used as head-end helpers to the 1200 Mikes. 

Don't let 'em snow you, guy--they're talking through their hats!

Tom

Hi Tom. No, really. I had several members tell me that Mikado's and Consolidations NEVER pulled passenger service for any road, and that they were strictly freight locos only!... I wish I could pull that thread up so you could see for yourself exactly which members it was that said that. I now have old books with black and white photos taken by famed railroad photographer Lucius Beebe of said locos pulling passenger trains...

Tom, would you happen to have any info on the WP's passenger pulling Mikado's ?. I'm a "BIG FAN" of the WP, and would greatly appreciate any links, photos, etc that you might know of.

Tracklayer (Mark)

 

 

Mark:  I'd like to know their names, too, LOL!  If they're MY age, then they should REALLY know better, or Senility has set in.   If they're younger, then I'll just be frank and say that they're Interminably Clueless and should read up on railroad history before 1960. 

As to verification for you, might I reccommend two books:  RIO GRANDE, MAINLINE OF THE ROCKIES by Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg.  Published by Howell North--can't give you a publisher's date, but it's sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's.  And if, like me, you're a Lucius Beebe fan (I'm old enough to have met him at a party in Berkeley CA, and let me tell you, he was a real character, one of the last of the Great Edwardian Gentlemen!) , you'll know that the book has wonderful shots of 1200 series Rio Grande Mikados helped by 1100 2-8-0's wheeling both the "Panoramic" and the "Exposition Flyer" up the Front Range of the Rockies, circa mid-to late 1930's, before the rails were relaid to accommodate heavier Rio Grande 1700 and 1800 4-8-4's.  Anyone give you any trouble about this, just refer them to me and I will gladly chew them a new orifice for you, LOL! 

The other book is not as easily found, it's called WESTERN PACIFIC STEAM LOCOMOTIVES AND PASSENGER TRAINS, by Guy Dusmond, and is, from what I can ascertain, self-published in 1980.  I have an autographed copy by the author.  I have no idea whether it can be purchased anymore, or possibly a library near you might have a copy you can peruse.  But to clarify my argument, the Western Pacific Mikados #322-326 were used between Oakland and Portola, CA primarily as passenger locomotives.  They were the first Alco Mikes built for the WP with booster engines, and handled the "Scenic Limited" and "Exposition Flyer" through the Feather River Canyon.  Western Pacific did not have a specific Modern 'passenger' steam locomotive until they bought second-hand 4-8-2's from the Florida East Coast in 1936.  Prior to that , their passenger trains were hauled by either 2-8-0's, 4-6-0's or 2-8-2's.   They DID recieve some 4-8-4's from Lima during WWII as passenger locos (duplicates of SP GS-series), but by the end of the War, WP was already committed to diesel.  In fact, they were the first railroad in this state to completely diesilize by about 1951.  SP--bless them--held out for another six years. 

Tom

Thanks for the info Tom. I really appreciate you taking the time. So you actually got to meet Mr. Beebe. Wow... I'm going to see if I can find the Guy Dusmond book you mentioned. That sounds like the one to have!. I actually wouldn't mind having a WP passenger train, but it looks like I'm going to have to custom assemble it if I do... Every now and then I see WP passenger cars sold on ebay, but about all that's available are post office/combines and observation cars. I might grab a couple of those and make up a couple of coaches from old SF cars. Then if I could lay my hands on a good used Kato version WP Mikado that I could renumber and add what ever I need to I'd have it.

Tracklayer

[Texas Zepher]

As to verification for you, might I reccommend two books:  RIO GRANDE, MAINLINE OF THE ROCKIES by Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg.

That and also "The Trains We Road" are excellent books, eventhough I don't consider the text as the final word on the subject.

[Texas Zepher]

The 4-6-2 Pacific was probably the most common passenger steamer. Just about every railroad used Pacifics for passenger service between 1900 and 1940.

I would guess that if one added up all the passenger miles from 1900 on, the greatest percentage of miles by loco class would be by a Pacific. 

[twhite]

Consolidations and Mikes have pulled as many passenger trains as all the others combined...maybe.

Uh, excuse me!. I got jumped all over last year by several members when I suggested that Consolidations and Mikado's pulled passenger trains... I was told that both of these locos were used for freight service only. But go ahead, I'm listening...

Tracklayer

Tracklayer:  Jump right back at 'em with my permission, LOL!  Out here in California, the Western Pacific used one of their classes of Mikados regularly on passenger trains between Oakland and Portola, up through the Feather River Canyon.  And in Colorado, the Rio Grande used their 1200 Mikes on passenger trains right after they acquired the Denver and Salt Lake, before they could lay heavier rail on the Moffat Route and open the route up to their 1700 and 1800 Northerns.  Not only that, but the Rio Grande 1100 series 2-8-0's were often used as head-end helpers to the 1200 Mikes. 

Don't let 'em snow you, guy--they're talking through their hats!

Tom

Hi Tom. No, really. I had several members tell me that Mikado's and Consolidations NEVER pulled passenger service for any road, and that they were strictly freight locos only!... I wish I could pull that thread up so you could see for yourself exactly which members it was that said that. I now have old books with black and white photos taken by famed railroad photographer Lucius Beebe of said locos pulling passenger trains...

Tom, would you happen to have any info on the WP's passenger pulling Mikado's ?. I'm a "BIG FAN" of the WP, and would greatly appreciate any links, photos, etc that you might know of.

Tracklayer (Mark)

 

 

Mark:  I'd like to know their names, too, LOL!  If they're MY age, then they should REALLY know better, or Senility has set in.   If they're younger, then I'll just be frank and say that they're Interminably Clueless and should read up on railroad history before 1960. 

As to verification for you, might I reccommend two books:  RIO GRANDE, MAINLINE OF THE ROCKIES by Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg.  Published by Howell North--can't give you a publisher's date, but it's sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's.  And if, like me, you're a Lucius Beebe fan (I'm old enough to have met him at a party in Berkeley CA, and let me tell you, he was a real character, one of the last of the Great Edwardian Gentlemen!) , you'll know that the book has wonderful shots of 1200 series Rio Grande Mikados helped by 1100 2-8-0's wheeling both the "Panoramic" and the "Exposition Flyer" up the Front Range of the Rockies, circa mid-to late 1930's, before the rails were relaid to accommodate heavier Rio Grande 1700 and 1800 4-8-4's.  Anyone give you any trouble about this, just refer them to me and I will gladly chew them a new orifice for you, LOL! 

The other book is not as easily found, it's called WESTERN PACIFIC STEAM LOCOMOTIVES AND PASSENGER TRAINS, by Guy Dusmond, and is, from what I can ascertain, self-published in 1980.  I have an autographed copy by the author.  I have no idea whether it can be purchased anymore, or possibly a library near you might have a copy you can peruse.  But to clarify my argument, the Western Pacific Mikados #322-326 were used between Oakland and Portola, CA primarily as passenger locomotives.  They were the first Alco Mikes built for the WP with booster engines, and handled the "Scenic Limited" and "Exposition Flyer" through the Feather River Canyon.  Western Pacific did not have a specific Modern 'passenger' steam locomotive until they bought second-hand 4-8-2's from the Florida East Coast in 1936.  Prior to that , their passenger trains were hauled by either 2-8-0's, 4-6-0's or 2-8-2's.   They DID recieve some 4-8-4's from Lima during WWII as passenger locos (duplicates of SP GS-series), but by the end of the War, WP was already committed to diesel.  In fact, they were the first railroad in this state to completely diesilize by about 1951.  SP--bless them--held out for another six years. 

Tom

[scottychaos]

 

 

Victorian Railways of Australia had an extensive fleet of "Passenger Consolidations"

Australia

The 2-8-0 locomotive saw extensive use throughout the various Australian state operated and private railways. The 2-8-0s appeared on the broad, standard and narrow gauges as a freight locomotive, though often employed in passenger service in Victoria. 

(*snip*)

The next type was the 26 C class engines which saw freight and passenger service. In 1922, a smaller lighter 2-8-0, the K class was introduced for branch line freight (and later, passenger) services. Finally the VR introduced 60 light 2-8-0 J class engines in 1954 and they also operated freight and passenger services.

 

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-8-0

The majority of Lehigh Valley 4-6-2 Pacifics were passenger engines, but they also rostered a sub-set of smaller driver Pacifics that were dedicated to freight-only.

Scot

 

[scottychaos]

Of course there is a distinction to be made between "Freight locos that *occasionally* were pressed into passenger service, on a short-term emergency basis" (which would apply to probably every "freight wheel arrangement")

and

"Freight" wheel arrangements (2-8-0, 2-8-2 etc) that were used in regular, day-to-day service as passenger engines"- which is much rarer, but still happened.

that would apply to the WP Mikados discussed above..

yes, a 2-8-0 consolidation is overwhelmingly a "freight only" engine..but im sure we can find a vintage photo of one hauling a passenger train..(current tourist operations dont count! ;) and some railroad somewhere probably had a small group of 2-8-0's that were dedicated to passenger service.

same thing with "passenger engines" being used in Freight...no one would ever say an Alco PA was a "freight engine"...it was always intended to be "passenger only"..but of course they did haul freight.

Here is a British 2-8-2, designed and built to be a passenger engine, there were six engines in this class:

http://www.lner.info/locos/P/p2.shtml

Scot