Interesting Finds from the Baldwin and Lima Archives

[L-105]

Searching through the archives yields some interesting finds, particularly regarding proposed designs that were never built. 

Drawing Cards from what appear to be enquiries for potential locomotives from Baldwin:

https://digitalcollections.smu.edu/digital/collection/rwy/search/searchterm/Box%2040!Box%2041!Series%207%3A%20Data%20books/field/boxfol!boxfol!all/mode/all!all!all/conn/or!and!and

Here are a few examples: 

The Monon 4-10-4 1928:

https://digitalcollections.smu.edu/digital/collection/rwy/id/2791/rec/203

 

CB&Q 3 Cylinder 4-8-4 1928

https://digitalcollections.smu.edu/digital/collection/rwy/id/2734/rec/189

 

Lehigh & New England 2-8-8-2 design with particularly wide firebox (144" x 120.25") 1917:

https://digitalcollections.smu.edu/digital/collection/rwy/id/2980/rec/195

 

Baldwin's answer to an enquiry for "self repairing locomotives":

https://digitalcollections.smu.edu/digital/collection/rwy/id/3294/rec/161

Most the cards here are from the 1910s or 1920s. Would have really liked to have seen the cards from the 1930s or 1940s, except I suspect they were likely destroyed along with most of the other Baldwin records in 1954.

 

From whats left of the Lima Locomotive Works archives (held in the California State Railroad Museum) there are also some interesting surviving documents (although these are not freely accessible unlike what's left of the Baldwin records)

https://csrm.andornot.com/

Some examples that stood out are descriptions of what appear to be preliminary design drawings for a "2-8-8-6" dated Jan 7 1935, a "4-4-6-6" dated Jan 7 1947 and a "2-10-6" dated Dec 21 1941. There are many more than this, although there doesn't appear be any records of the various 4-10-6 types that Lima proposed for the Texas & Pacific.

 

 

[timz]

There's a math problem -- given the dimensions of the 3-cyl 4-8-4, what was the minimum center-to-center distance between the inside rod and the lead axle, assuming the axle was straight?

(Actually. not enough info, since the drawing doesn't give the rod length or the cylinder's inclination. Have to scale them off the diagram.)

[pennytrains]

8000 pounds WITHOUT trunks!  

[IA and eastern]

I looked at several locomotives and found a Erie 4-8-4 and a C&NW 2-10-4 locomotives. Thank you for this site. Gary

[IA and eastern]

What is the TE of the Lima 2-8-8-6 and the Lima 2-10-6 locomotives? Gary

[BEAUSABRE]

Probably no more than 2-8-8-4's and 2-10-4's. The purpose of the 6 wheel trailing truck was to carry a huge firebox to produce steam at speed - in otherwords, horsepower, not tractive effort. They are examples of of falling in love with your own product. Lima trumpeted about how its new steam designs would outperform diesels on freight trains at speeds of fitty, sixty, seventy miles per hour. This at a time when the average US freight train was operated at about 20 miles per hour and totally ignoring whether solid bearing trucks, cast iron feright car wheels, etc could be safely operated at such speeds for extended periods of time. (The number of roller bearing equipped freight cars could be counted on the fingers of two hands in Forties "Timken commissioned the construction of a demonstration boxcar in 1943 that was first displayed at the 1948 Chicago Rail Fair. It was a rolling advertisement for a new way of reducing friction - roller bearings (made by the Timken Roller Bearing Company). The car's trucks lacked the then common axle journal boxes, with the bearings mounted on the ends of the axles outside the wheels."). So Lima was too little, too late in the diesel market, having stuck too long with reciprocating steam

 

[kgbw49]

Excellent points, BEAUSABRE!

One wonders if an adaptation of the Lima-built SP 3800 2-8-8-4 class to Appalachian coal would have made more sense than the 2-6-6-6 on a railroad where "fast freight" was more the exception than the rule. Granted, the firebox was not as deep but it was large, and they gave good account of themselves as originally-designed coal-fired engines burning soft New Mexico coal.

According to steamlocomotive.com, the 3800s were designed for 75 mph top speed, probably to ensure they could handle PFE reefer trains when necessary. (Of course, 75-mph operation was not likely ever needed.) They had 123,364 lbs of tractive effort, an axle load of 66,400 lbs, and a factor of adhesion of 4.31, rolling on 63-1/2 inch drivers with a total wheelbase of engine and tender of 113 feet.

https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/sp3800.htm

The 2-6-6-6 also had an overall wheelbase of 113 feet. It developed 110,211 lbs of tractive effort and had a factor of adhesion of 4.57. It rolled on twelve 67-inch drivers and of course had the famous axle loading, supposedly at 87,600 lbs.

https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/co1600.htm

The Missabe M-3 and M-4 2-8-8-4 classes gave great account of themselves as coal-burners, hauling high-tonnage ore trains for a good many years. While not Lima-built, they showed what a 2-8-8-4 could do with tonnages exceeding 10,000 tons per train.

https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/dmir235.htm

 

[BEAUSABRE]

I agree that the C&O would have been better served by adopting a 2-8-8-4 with lower horsepower but higher tractive effort. From Locobase "The Allegheny" may have been the ultimate freight locomotive. They were able to achieve a very impressive record even though they were used in a manner that didn't fit perfectly with their design. The Allegheny boilers were capable of delivering up to 8000 HP! This was far greater than any other reciprocating steam locomotive could develop. However, the C&O used the H-8s in "coal drag" service where they were unable to realize their full potential as high speed locomotives. The C&O Alleghenies were designed to haul 5,000 tons at 45mph, but unfortunately were used to haul trains of 10,000 or more tons at 15mph. C&O's 2-6-6-6s were very impressive locomotives. However, they were never used to their full potential."

[Overmod]

timz

There's a math problem -- given the dimensions of the 3-cyl 4-8-4, what was the minimum center-to-center distance between the inside rod and the lead axle, assuming the axle was straight?

Why assume the axle was straight?  You can clearly see the cranked axle in the diagram.

[Overmod]

BEAUSABRE

The Allegheny boilers were capable of delivering up to 8000 HP! This was far greater than any other reciprocating steam locomotive could develop.

Not so.   The Q2, even with its issues like weird steel and overconstraint at the rear cylinder saddle, made over 7600dbhp on test, and the little-modified boiler was nominally rated at 8000hp on the V1 turbine (likely because of greater nominal expander efficiency).

I'd have been interested to see what a double-Belpaire on 69" or 70" drivers might have produced, perhaps with appropriately beefed-up roller-bearing rodwork to avoid the need for duplexing (or articulation) at high power. 

I think the 'correct' answer for C&O would have been to dust off and finish the design exercise for the N&W Y7, instead of bankrolling Lima's high-speed A killer (you have probably read the accounts of the engineers gloating gleefully when the dyno results came back higher than the original A test!).  That would have given a high-speed chassis with adequate boiler, with much less length and certainly no surplus inconvenient weight issues.

But of course there was little 'sizzle' in adopting something from That Other Railroad, with a WWI-era configuration and relatively shallow firebox...which is indeed a pity, as the big 2-8-8-2 would have been a logical step up from the C&O T class.   

[Overmod]

IA and eastern

What is the TE of the Lima 2-8-8-6 and the Lima 2-10-6 locomotives?

Lima pointed out at some length that a double eight-coupled locomotive with a full double-Belpaire deep firebox would be too long.  It would be relatively streightforward to extend the design of something like an Allegheny with lower drivers -- something that was becoming practical to balance, as a couple of Trains articles in the early 2000s took pains to point out -- to have a comparable FA (of about 4.57) at little additional overall length and shorter rigid wheelbase.  (Remember that the nearly-8000hp Q2 had a shorter rigid wheelbase than an ATSF 2-10-4...).  For most practical railroad speeds (as Beausabre has pointed out) this would be perfectly adequate for quite a range of prospective services, and capable of taking considerable 'locomotive abuse' into the bargain.

The numbers for the "2-10-6" are those for the Central Machinery Support locomotive described in 1928 (and referenced in a couple of threads here).  If memory serves, the estimated TE was about 130,000lb, with much of the thrust problem supposedly addressed with the central-machinery cylinder arrangement.  This was perhaps the finest flower of 'drag-era' thinking; he'd have to go to internal cranked main-driver balance masses a la CB&Q to get much more cylinder power...

The Monom 4-10-4 shows 477 ton weight (305K lb. on 63" drivers) with three 25x30 cylinders and 230lb pressure.  Their calculated TE is 84.600lb, but at an extremely conservative FA of 5.6, presumably misunderstanding the effect of three-cylinder drive.

The engine is rated for a somewhat astoundingly conservative 50mph, too.  I believe that's comparable to the 'design speed' for the Nine 4-12-2s which, in the Twenties up to that point, was thought to require a 4-wheel lead truck for enough stability.  So what you have is like the back end of a Berk or Texas, with a Mountain's or 4-8-4's front end.  It might be interesting for you to compare this with the AMC 2-10-4 designed just one year later (and built in quantity first as the C&O T1, and later as the PRR class J1 and J1a)...

Col. Townsend and Lima would like you to compare it with their 'evolved' 4-10-6, with at least 70lb higher pressure out of a much more capable boiler, and modern suspension and lateral motion.  

[timz]

Overmod

Why assume the [4-8-4] axle was straight?  You can clearly see the cranked axle in the diagram.

Not "clearly", of course -- something's pencilled in, and maybe it's a bent axle. Question is, does the axle need to be bent? The center-to-center distance between the inside rod and lead axle on a 4-12-2 was less than 12 inches, and people say that axle was straight.

[Overmod]

Cranked axles aren't uncommon in Europe.  The reason I say it's obvious the axle is cranked is that, geometrically, it has to be as the arrangement is drawn, so I knew what to look for.

The Nines have higher rod angularity on the inside drive, but my understanding is that they get around cranking the axle or bending/dividing the rod by the combination of center-cylinder inclination, slightly shorter stroke, and larger spacing of the front driver pair (which otherwise seems almost suicidal on a locomotive that already has a 12-coupled wheelbase!)  One of the contributors to steamlocomotive.com actually went under engine 9000 and found no cranking in the lead driver axle as preserved.

I could swear that I have a picture of the top of a Nine chassis, possibly a constructor's photo, that shows the inside crank and rod arrangement.  (Might be the Nine entry in the Model Railroader Cyclopedia, but I can't get to my copy to check).

[Pneudyne]

The background to the UP 4-12-2 non-cranked leading driving axle may be found in the Kratville and Bush two-volume set, ‘The Union Pacific Type’.

 

From pp.141,2 in the first volume:

 

‘As basic dimensions began to come together fairly early in the preliminary work, the UP decided to make an attempt to improve upon the crank axle arrangement and eliminate any crank or bend in the first driving axle.  There was no question that the cranked axle would be the second driving axle for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the impossible angle this would have required from the center cylinder and the reduction in one of the main three-cylinder selling points, that of smoother drive.

 

‘Calculations revealed that a driving wheel diameter of 67” would accomplish their goals as well as provide side benefits such as improved high speed operation, increased tire mileage and increased machinery mileage.  While the common freight driver of the day was 63” both the builder and the road did not hesitate to embrace the taller driver’.

 

The use of the four-wheel leading truck goes back to the 4-10-2 design.  That was covered on p.19 of the first volume.  UP’s initial idea was for a three-cylinder 2-10-2, but for the parallel SP development, Alco had gone to a 4-10-2 ‘…to support, particularly the increased weight of the larger cylinder castings and Gresley valve gear on the front deck…’  The same was then done for the UP design.  Apparently with the three-cylinder designs to that date, Alco had found that the single-axle pilot truck was barely adequate, and that the four-wheel type allowed taking much better advantage of the three-cylinder possibilities.

 

The same weight considerations applied to the 4-12-2.  In that case though, I imagine that the four-wheel truck was probably also desirable from the viewpoint of keeping the lateral railhead forces during curving at an acceptable level.  Given that at the time the UP was careful – and generally more conservative than other comparable roads - with axle loadings, I imagine that it was likewise careful with lateral railhead forces.

 

 

Cheers,

[BEAUSABRE]

"Lima-Hamilton’s last steam locomotive was Nickel Plate Road No. 779, a 2-8-4 Berkshire" which left the erecting halls in May 1949. That same year Lima promoted a new wheel arrangement, the 4-8-6. This would have allowed an even larger firebox than the 4-8-4. No example of the type was built, however." That Lima could stil convince itself there was a market for steam locomotives - particulary of new design, which would cost a fortune to design and manufacture (all new jigs and fixtures) - as late as 1949 boggles the mind. 

[kgbw49]

Even if it was 20 years earlier, one has wonder what railroads would benefit from a 4-8-6.

SP was a Lima customer for it's GS 4-8-4 locomotives. Would a 4-8-6 still have had enough tractive effort to pull the Coast and San Joaquin Daylights or the Overnight fast freights over Cuesta, Soledad and Beaumont passes without helpers?

If Nickel Plate Road bought them for fast freight, would they have had to enlarge turntables and extend some roundhouse stalls fo accommodate them?

Could a Great Northern use them west of Whitefish, Montana?

In some respects even if the 4-8-6 had shown up 20 years earlier, like the 6,000 horsepower diesels in the 1990s, the 4-8-6 sort of seems like a solution looking for a problem to solve.

[kgbw49]

Even if it was 20 years earlier, one has wonder what railroads would benefit from a 4-8-6.

SP was a Lima customer for it's GS 4-8-4 locomotives. Would a 4-8-6 still have had enough tractive effort to pull the Coast and San Joaquin Daylights or the Overnight fast freights over Cuesta, Soledad and Beaumont passes without helpers?

If Nickel Plate Road bought them for fast freight, would they have had to enlarge turntables and extend some roundhouse stalls fo accommodate them?

Could a Great Northern use them west of Whitefish, Montana?

In some respects even if the 4-8-6 had shown up 20 years earlier, like the 6,000 horsepower diesels in the 1990s, the 4-8-6 sort of seems like a solution looking for a problem to solve.

Look at the 2-6-6-6 for C&O. It was very impressive but its high speed capability was minimally utilized at best.

A version of the Lima-built SP AC-9 2-8-8-4 might have been even better for Chessie.

[BEAUSABRE]

Or a N&W Y6 or Y7 2-8-8-2. If they wanted something for fast freight, the N&W's class A's could do the job. Or even better, a fleet of GP9's/SD9's

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

BEAUSABRE

Or a N&W Y6 or Y7 2-8-8-2. If they wanted something for fast freight, the N&W's class A's could do the job. Or even better, a fleet of GP9's/SD9's

 

C&O did eventually wind up with a fleet of F7's/GP7's/GP9's.

[IA and eastern]

I was looking and an Erie 4-8-4 proposed in 1929 and a N&W 4-8-2 driven off the second axle and many others. The Lima had a 265 ton shay and a diesel shay but there was 4-8-4 proposed in 1923 but also a 4-8-4 and a 4-6-4 in 1948. Gary