Was there ever a modern 4-8-4

[stocksj]

What about the Chessie Steam expirement done in the mid 1980's? Didn't they test a 4-8-4 on the coal lines to try out a new way of using coal because of the cost of oil? That engine should have been considered modern or at least updated.

[feltonhill]

C&O J3a 614 was tested in freight service as part of the ACE300 project in Jan 1985.  It was a modern 4-8-4 as built, with the possible exception of the exhaust steam injector instead of a feedwater heater.  However, the exhaust steam injector was removed by the time it was tested, so it lost quite a bit in thermal efficiency and coal/water use.  According to an extensive report in David Wardale's book, The Red Devil and other Tales from the Age of Steam, its overall condition was not exactly "like new" either.  Unfortunately, it ended up being more backdated than updated.  From trackside at least, 614 didn't seem to be lacking in the performance department.

[marknewton]

A booster sounds a whole lot like a steam traction motor -- what was to prevent one from designing a locomotive using booster engines to drive motored trucks and dispensing with the conventional steam locomotive drive?

Nothing. Sentinel built locos and railcars with multi-cylinder geared or chain drives, as did a few other British and European builders. At a pinch, Bulleid's "Leader" for the Southern Railway, and his later CIE "turf burner" could also be considered to have that arrangement.

Cheers,

Mark.

[The Dude With The Hair]

C&O J3a 614 was tested in freight service as part of the ACE300 project in Jan 1985.  It was a modern 4-8-4 as built, with the possible exception of the exhaust steam injector instead of a feedwater heater.  However, the exhaust steam injector was removed by the time it was tested, so it lost quite a bit in thermal efficiency and coal/water use.  According to an extensive report in David Wardale's book, The Red Devil and other Tales from the Age of Steam, its overall condition was not exactly "like new" either.  Unfortunately, it ended up being more backdated than updated.  From trackside at least, 614 didn't seem to be lacking in the performance department.

I read about those tests...from what I recall the locomotives thermal efficiency dropped pretty rapidly after testing started due to poor maintenance and too much of a rush to get the locomotive ready for the tests

I've been looking for Wardale's book for several months now..do you know where I can find it?

[marknewton]

Camden Books in the UK would be a good place to look for it.

http://www.camdenmin.co.uk/

Mark.

[The Dude With The Hair]

Thanks, I'll take a look and see if I have any luck there

[ge44tonner]

A booster sounds a whole lot like a steam traction motor -- what was to prevent one from designing a locomotive using booster engines to drive motored trucks and dispensing with the conventional steam locomotive drive?

Nothing. Sentinel built locos and railcars with multi-cylinder geared or chain drives, as did a few other British and European builders. At a pinch, Bulleid's "Leader" for the Southern Railway, and his later CIE "turf burner" could also be considered to have that arrangement.

Cheers,

Mark.

I recall that Henschel in Germany built a rather unusual multicylinder locomotive in the early 1940's, the class v19.1001.  It had a V-2 steam motor on each of four axles.  I would nominate it for inclusion as a "Super 4-8-4", but the wheel arrangement was more properly 1-D-1. At least according to the sparse records I have seen, it operated in Germany during WWII until damaged in an Allied air raid and was set aside.  At the conclusion of the war, it was repaired to service by Henschel, and was shipped to the USA for testing at FT Monroe, VA.   I've never seen any discussion of this locomotives performance, either in Germany or in the US.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/steamotor/steamotor.htm#19

   

[wjstix]

It sounds like the author of that (Trains magazine) article completely re-defined, on a whim, the defination of "Super Power", creating his own defination for the purposes of the article..rather irresponsible IMO...because we all know that Super Power 4-8-4's existed..in fact, probably EVERY 4-8-4 ever built fit the defination...

... 

ALL of the modern 4-8-4's are direct evolutionary decendants of those Berkshires, and are even MORE advanced than those Berkshires, incorporating all the features of those Berkshires, which makes them automatically "super power" by birth

I'm guessing it never occurred to him that any confusion would arise. Lima coined the term "Super Power" to use in their advertising, but after 1930 did any railroaders care which engines were or weren't "Super Power"? I'd say the term appeared in railfan historical publications but was irrelevant to the railroads, which didn't bother with it.

Some would say limited cutoff was a "Super Power" feature, which many? most? 4-8-4s lacked. Ditto tandem main rods.

As I understand it,  the article was talking about a "Super" 4-8-4, not "Super power". Super power generally refers to any engine built with a four (or six) wheel trailing truck to support the very large firebox which greatly increased the engine's ability to create steam and therefore power. It was part of a line of developments - 4-4-0's and 4-6-0's and such had narrow fireboxes to fit between the drivers, so were limited in the power they could generate. A 2 wheel trailing truck allowed for a larger firebox and more power...and a 4 or 6 wheel trailing truck allowed for a huge firebox and greatly increased power.

Of course other things factored into engines usually described as "super power" but that four wheel trailing truck is a dead giveaway.

[Paul Milenkovic]

I recall that Henschel in Germany built a rather unusual multicylinder locomotive in the early 1940's, the class v19.1001.

Well, there you go. That locomotive had four booster engines and no main-rod engines.  The exhaust sound must have been something else when those four engines slipped in and out of phase.