Who can briefly compare and contrast NYC's Mohawks with their Hudsons? Which was the better locomotive? Why? What were the relative strengths of both? Any weaknesses? Why did the railroad use, or need, both types?
Extra credit: Compare one of the above with the Niagara.
(it's the former teacher in me that likes to structure a question as I just did!)
NKP guy Who can briefly compare and contrast NYC's Mohawks with their Hudsons? Which was the better locomotive? Why? What were the relative strengths of both? Any weaknesses? Why did the railroad use, or need, both types?Extra credit: Compare one of the above with the Niagara. (it's the former teacher in me that likes to structure a question as I just did!)
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Thanks for putting me wise. I feel like saying just what Homer Simpson does when he goofs up. You're entirely right and I'll be posting my question there at another time.
For now, let me thank you for your gracious reply and withdraw my question from this forum.
They were intended for different purposes at the outset. The Hudson was designed for fast passenger service along its namesake river routes and elsewhere. It had substantially less tractive effort than the Mohawk due mainly to the size of its drivers. The J3 had more boiler pressure than any Mohawk, but still couldn't match any Mohawk model for TE.
Bottom line, Mohawk was a Mountain that could do both passenger and freight, with the former limited generally to 70 mph. The J's were good to 79 mph, but could not pull the same tonnages as easily in an attempt to maintain those track speeds.
The Hudsons were not what I would call large engines, but they were by no means small. I often wonder what they would have become in terms of capability had they built a fourth generation of them with true super-steam characteristics and design. The Mohawks were more in the same league as the much more powerful Niagara S1 series 4-8-4's.
-Crandell
All three (Hudsons, Mohawks, Niagaras) had limitations caused by NYC clearance issues, so all had very low stacks and domes for example. In the west, railroads could just keep making engines bigger and bigger but NYC and some other eastern roads had to keep the same maximum height and width and make more power in other ways - more drivers, bigger firebox etc.
NYC Mohawks were generally used as freight engines while the Hudsons were passenger engines, so it's a little hard to compare directly...kinda like comparing a sports car with a pickup truck.
Niagaras were late steam (1945) passenger engines. They were of course bigger than the Hudsons, and being almost 20 years newer would have benefited from technological advances during that time. However in retrospect the wisdom of ordering new passenger steam after you've already ordered (or received??) new E-7 passenger diesels might be questioned.
I'd like to thank both of you gentlemen for answering my question so well, so succinctly, and in such an agreeable way. I learned a lot from what you wrote and especially enjoyed the analogy of a sports car and pick up truck!
It's men like you who make these forums both enlightening and fun.
Didn't the NYC use Mohawks (or was that Berkshires?) for passenger power on heavier trains on the Boston & Albany? That wasn't a "Water Level Route"! B&A did have a bunch of Hudsons, but no Niagaras -- the "ultimate" steam engine, and they didn't have to be painted gray or orange to be totally impressive! Anyhoo, back to the reference material....
Hays
Orginally the NYC J1 Hudsons were designed for fast passenger service pulling a dozen or more heavyweight passenger cars...Looking at my 1932 NYC schedule the 20th Centry went from Syracuse NY to Buffalo a distance of 142 miles in 144 minutes.. The J2's & J3's were all improvements over the orginal J1's. The J3's were the Dryfess Inspired engines designed for the 20th Centry Limited & other first class passenger trains. I believe the J3's all had roller bearings & the larger tenders. The NYC had I believe 225 Hudsons, which was more than any other RR. They were fast and could pull a heavy train without the need to double head with another engine. I neleive I am correct in saying that all but 2 Hudsons surived until the end of steam. One was lost due to a wreck & the other blew up
In 1932 the NYC had 37 passenger trains passing through Syracuse NY in each direction every day.
The first class of Mohawks (L1's) were designed strictly for pulling freight. The L2's & 3's were improvements to the orginal design giving the engines better TE power & speed. Finally the L4's were designed to be a dual purpose engine. A high speed freight engine as well as a passenger engine capable of meeting NYC's demanding passenger schedule. The later Mohawks had smoke deflectors or Elephant ears on them.
The NYC's Niagra's were the ultimate in modern steam rngine engineering. Again they were dual service engines that rivaled the diesel engines of the late 1940's in terms to speed, TE, reliability & miles of service per month. They wer capable of pulling a train from NY to Chicago with out changing engines. Unfortunately, steam was more labor intensive than diesels and the working lives of the Niagra's were short lived.
By the 1940's the Hudsons & Mohawks working on the water level route all had large tenders, equiped for scooping water at high speed (70+ mph). The tenders only held about 18,000 gal of H2O but the numerous tack pans allowed the trains to pick up water on the fly saving time. The coal load was enormous & an engine only had to make on coal stop at Wayneport NY.
The Hudson's on the 20th Centry Limited could make the NY to Chicago run in about 16 hrs. Which Amtraks "Late" Shore Limited 60 yrs later can't even come close to matching.
Do I get an A ????
Rob
robscaboose ...The NYC's Niagra's were the ultimate in modern steam engine engineering...
...The NYC's Niagra's were the ultimate in modern steam engine engineering...
GP40-2robscaboose ...The NYC's Niagra's were the ultimate in modern steam engine engineering... That's a bold statement. Can you back it up from a mechanical engineering prospective? There were many great steam locomotives produced in that period, so what made the Niagra the "ultimate design" in your opinion?
While the NYC Niagra was a great example of a 4-8-4, and most modern 4-8-4's represented all the advancements available to steam designers, it is more likely that the N&W Class J was the "ultimate in modern steam engine engineering".
The N&W J was about the same size and weight of a Niagra, but was significantly more powerful in tractive effort, and just as fast, if not faster. The Niagra did have more boiler HP than any 4-8-4, but using that HP is limited by available TE.
Niagra TE = 61,500 lbs. max hp at 85 mph = 6,680 - this suggests that top speed with heaviest load would be no more than the Class J.
Class J - TE = 80,000 lbs. sustained top speed under load - 90 mph, (110 mph in tests by PRR). The J's HP was 6,000, not that much less than the Niagra's.
Both locos are superior examples, both could run at speed with any train they could start. The higher TE of the J suggests it like would start, and therefor pull, a heavier train - and, having been used in both freight and passenger service, this is likely the case.
Also in the running are the UP FEF, SP GS4 and ATSF 2900 class - all excelent examples of steams final advancements.
Sheldon
robscabooseThe Hudson's on the 20th Centry Limited could make the NY to Chicago run in about 16 hrs. Which Amtraks "Late" Shore Limited 60 yrs later can't even come close to matching.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ATLANTIC CENTRAL...it is more likely that the N&W Class J was the "ultimate in modern steam engine engineering". The N&W J was about the same size and weight of a Niagra, but was significantly more powerful in tractive effort, and just as fast, if not faster. The Niagra did have more boiler HP than any 4-8-4, but using that HP is limited by available TE. Also in the running are the UP FEF, SP GS4 and ATSF 2900 class - all excelent examples of steams final advancements. Sheldon
...it is more likely that the N&W Class J was the "ultimate in modern steam engine engineering".
That's also a very bold statement without any engineering data. The reason the N&W J produced 80,000 lbs TE had nothing to do with its boiler design, but the fact that the N&W bumped its operating pressure up to 300 psi, had relatively small drivers, and a long piston stroke. By doing so, the negative was that the J had a very low (3.5-3.6) factor of adhesion and high machinery speeds when traveling fast. In comparison, the C&O J3a of 1948 produced 84,000 lbs TE with a much higher 4.3 factor of adhesion. All N&W Js, regardless of year built, used the same 1941 design, so there were a number of 4-8-4s out there with more modern engineering. While the N&W J was a very good design, I would hardly call it the most "advanced" or "ultimate design".
I don't know where I would place the FEF and GS4 in the mix. They were modern designs, but there were a number of 4-8-4s out there with more horsepower under the hood. The 2900 class had impressively big boilers, but were limited in design advancement due to WW2 restrictions. They were also overweight. The Niagara of 1945, and the C&O J3a of 1948 were much more advanced designs in the boiler department than any of those 3 mentioned. Another modern 4-8-4 that everyone forgets about was the Western Maryland Potomac Class of 1947. They were an impressive design than produced more power above 40 mph than the WM's big 4-6-6-4 Challengers.
My point here is there were a number a very good 4-8-4s out there, and I don't think any one of them was the "ultimate" design. They all had positives and negatives associated with them. It is impossible to compare HP output between them because railroads tested them in different ways. Some tested to find out the absolute max output, while others tested them at economical "everyday use" outputs. With many of them, no official data survived.
This is true. Had each of the RR's Northern types been tested by the same outfit with the same criteria and the same calibrated dyno cars, we would have a much stronger basis for all the hype and claims of 'best'. Even so, all of us, years later, would have to agree on which criteria 'best' should be assigned. I'd wish us a ton o' luck on that one.
GP40-2My point here is there were a number a very good 4-8-4s out there, and I don't think any one of them was the "ultimate" design. They all had positives and negatives associated with them. It is impossible to compare HP output between them because railroads tested them in different ways. Some tested to find out the absolute max output, while others tested them at economical "everyday use" outputs. With many of them, no official data survived.
I agree completely - with your whole post actually, not just what I quoted.
All steam locomotive design represents trade offs, these highly refined 4-8-4's where no different.
Best has more to do with what you needed it to do rather than raw specs in my mind. I think the J likely wins in the versatility department - but we will never really know for sure.
As sometimes happens, this forum sort of got off track as the respondants began matching statistics on various 4-8-4s trying to determine which one was the "ultimate" developmentof that type. Just for fun, let's think about which Hudson type was the ultimate development of that wheel arrangement. A table on P. 225 of Brasher's Santa Fe Locomotive Development indicates that the Santa Fe's 3460 class engines comfortably exceeded the weight and tractive effort of a NYC 4-6-4 and the Chicago and Northwestern's E-4 class engines were the most powerful. Originally designed to handle the lightweight Chief between Chicago and La Junta, the 3460's proved to be so powerful that their assignment was shifted to heavyweight trains so as not to waste their capabilities. Now thats a Hudson!
e-4 class
GP40-2How about the C&O L2a of 1948? Besides being the largest 4-6-4 ever made at 840,000 lbs, they had the most TE at nearly 67,000 lbs. The were equipped with poppet valves, and along with their large boilers (nearly as large as a UP FEF3!), I believe that no other Hudson type would be able to touch their HP output at high speed.
A few fact checks on the L2a, one of my favorite Hudson also. It weighed 443,000 lb. total engine.
The TF is listed as 52,100 plus the booster is 14,200. Weight on drivers = 219,000 lb .
All specifications from Steam's Finest Hour.
Nice engine but hardly as large as the FEF-3 boiler size. The L2a boiler was about the size of the NKP Berkshire or the C&O Kanawha. By the way, the weight of the C&O 2-6-6-6 is listed as 724,500 lb. Some have said it was much more than that but only weighing the 1601 or 1604 could confirm any other number.
CZ
Just to prove to you I am a fan of the C&O, this is one of my pictures, but I did not get to see the L2a run.
JimValleOriginally designed to handle the lightweight Chief between Chicago and La Junta, the 3460's proved to be so powerful that their assignment was shifted to heavyweight trains so as not to waste their capabilities. Now thats a Hudson!
True, the 3460 class was a great Hudson also, but they were bumped off of the Chief by diesels, not for any other reason. They did perform well at high speed since the 84" drives allowed them to run like the wind.
Their total engine weight was 412,380 lb and TE was 49,300. They were a little slippery on start up. You can view one preserved at Topeka KS.
Do you mean to tell me that other railroads had better steam engines than the New York Central????? Thats like telling me that someone else's "mother" made better cookies than mine. (Just kidding)
When I made that statement, It never dawned on me that one would think I was comparing one railroads steam engines with another. What I was trying to say is that when the Niagra's were built they encorporated the most advanced engineering design theory & appliances of their time. To the NYC they were the ultimate in modern steam engine engineering. They were a duel service engine that had the power to pull a heavy freight and the speed to meet the NYC's demanding passenger schedules. All while working within the physical limitations of the Central's low clearance tunnels between Albany & NYC.
What makes a particular railroads engine great? The answer is - does it sucessfully perform it's intended role within the confines of that particular RR. The Niagra was a supberb engine running from NY to Chicago. The relatively flat grade, 4 track mainline & use of water pans allowed the Niagra's to meet & exceed their designers & railroads expictations.
But change the profile of the railroad and now the greatness of the engine is diminished. As diesels took over on the "Water Level Route" the Niagra's were sent to finish out their existance on the "Big Four". The Niagra's with their large coal capacity tenders and water scoops that could easily go from NY to Chicage now had to frequently stop for water, Some districts on the "Big Four" that were designed for smaller & older engines still changed all their engines every 100 miles or so. Making the Niagra's very inefficient. An example of that was an engine pulling a train from Avon yard (Indy) going to St. Louis, (approx 200 miles?) the big Niagras & their tenders were changed out in Mattoon Il, because St. Lousi didn't have a turntable big enough.
CAZEPHYRGP40-2How about the C&O L2a of 1948? Besides being the largest 4-6-4 ever made at 840,000 lbs, they had the most TE at nearly 67,000 lbs. The were equipped with poppet valves, and along with their large boilers (nearly as large as a UP FEF3!), I believe that no other Hudson type would be able to touch their HP output at high speed. A few fact checks on the L2a, one of my favorite Hudson also. It weighed 443,000 lb. total engine. The TF is listed as 52,100 plus the booster is 14,200. Weight on drivers = 219,000 lb . All specifications from Steam's Finest Hour. Nice engine but hardly as large as the FEF-3 boiler size. The L2a boiler was about the size of the NKP Berkshire or the C&O Kanawha. By the way, the weight of the C&O 2-6-6-6 is listed as 724,500 lb. Some have said it was much more than that but only weighing the 1601 or 1604 could confirm any other number. CZ
The weight I quoted for the L2a was the total engine + tender. Regardless, the L2a engine weight was the highest for a 4-6-4 type.
Tractive effort I quoted was total available drivers + booster (52,100 + 14,200 = 66,300)
L2a: Grate: 90 sq. ft.; Heating Surface: 4,200 sq.ft; Superheater: 1800 sq.ft.
FEF3: Grate 100sq.ft. Heating Surface 4,300 sq.ft; Superheater 1400 sq.ft.
So other than the FEF3 having only 10 sq.ft. more grate area, their boilers were similar size, with the L2a being a more modern design (1948 vs. 1944 for the FEF)
How about the C&O L2a of 1948?
Yeah, but could they keep up with a Milwaukee F7? Just asking.
.
GP40-2 The weight I quoted for the L2a was the total engine + tender. Regardless, the L2a engine weight was the highest for a 4-6-4 type. Tractive effort I quoted was total available drivers + booster (52,100 + 14,200 = 66,300)Boiler size: L2a: Grate: 90 sq. ft.; Heating Surface: 4,200 sq.ft; Superheater: 1800 sq.ft. FEF3: Grate 100sq.ft. Heating Surface 4,300 sq.ft; Superheater 1400 sq.ft. So other than the FEF3 having only 10 sq.ft. more grate area, their boilers were similar size, with the L2a being a more modern design (1948 vs. 1944 for the FEF)
I believe the L2a Hudson were free steaming locomotives but I have never read any HP rating for that particular engine. Do you have any data on the HP of the L2a. The reason I called out the weight you quoted is because steam locomotives TE normally were rated by the weight on the drivers divided by 4.2 or so, which is about 25% adhension. They are indeed the heavy weights of the Hudson locomotives and were built in 1948 which incorporated many of the latest designs. It is a shame they only ran about four years in service.
The L2a Hudson had 219,500 weight on the six drivers divided by 52100 TE = a factor of 4.21. This is about normal for a steam locomotive. The booster only worked up to about 10 mph or so and had to be disenaged beyond that speed.
BigJimHow about the C&O L2a of 1948? Yeah, but could they keep up with a Milwaukee F7? Just asking.
You'll have to argue with Larry Brasher on that one. The 3760's were put in service circa 1937 before diesels were that common and there were a lot of heavyweight trains. Probably they went back to the Chiefs during the late 'forties when that train got longer and heavier. Once the Santa Fe could get all the diesels it wanted, all the steamers were bumped off the Chief except as protection power. I'll bet the final chapter of the 3460's lives can be found in Farrington's The Santa Fe's Big Three which I don't have a copy of, unfortunately.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.