I called a buddy of mine that had relatives in the Engineering Deptment of the PRR he found out from calling a few of them for me that IF NOT FOR THE DEPRESSION THE PRR WAS GOING TO ELECTRIFY WHOLE LINE TO CHICAGO therefor no longer needing most mainline steam. That is right the entire Mainline NYC to Chicago was going to be under cantry.
The PRR did try some things. They built a K5 pacific with a bigger boiler at higher pressure with poppet valves, I think, but when other roads were investing in Hudsons (the PRR would never have called a 4-6-4 a Hudson!) and Northerns, the PRR was investing in wire and P5s and GG1s. The "replacement" for the K4 would have been the T1 which wasn't a total flop - just not as good as E7s on long distance streamlined passenger trains.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
While I don't think anyone will dispute that the K4s was one fine Pacific-type passenger locomotive, I have always found it rather strange the PRR stuck with that design for as long as they did. Since their post-WWII steam designs were flops, the K4s lasted until they were replaced by diesels.
Every other major passenger carrier in the country moved on past the Pacific-type, some as early as the 1920's (NYC Hudsons). By the 1930's the major roads were designing or developing high-speed, high-power Northern-type passenger equipment.
The Pennsy really made no effort to design or develop any steam passenger power beyond the K4s Pacific. WHY??? While it was good, it could not hold a candle to a N&W J-class, ATSF 3750-class or UP FEF 800-class (just to name a few). I wonder if the Pennsy simply got LAZY and started to believe too much of their "Standard Railroad of the World" propaganda?
Mike
Several things are undeniable about the K-4. It was a very good engine and well suited to handle passenger trains assignments that ranged from commuter runs to the earlier Broadway. The longevity of the design was a testament to the fact that the K-4 met or exceeded the performance expectations of Pennsy management. It was built in greater numbers than was any other class of steam passenger locomotive on any railroad in the US. If these are the measures that determine the "top passenger steam locomotive" then the K-4 wins.
However if we consider other pertinent measures; tractive effort, top speed, thermal efficiency, esthetics, etc.; the K-4 did not lead the pack in these regards. This doesn't diminish the success of the K-4, rather it underscores the impossibility of determining the best of anything absent agreement upon the attributes that will be considered in making that determination and how they will be measured and weighted.
Mark
CSSHEGEWISCHand was outperformed by any number of Pacifics
The only way to determine how good the K4 was would be to have had direct comparisons on the very routes that the K4's were using with every other Pacific made in N. America also using those same routes and in the same circumstances/conditions. That wasn't done, so the question is mooooooot.
I'm sure it was an excellent engine, but so were many others. Saying the one tops all others simply because of the numbers of ton-miles or passenger-miles gives no objective basis of measurement, for one thing, and the numbers of passenger-miles only indicates that the Pennsy did more of it. Would that necessarily make the Pennsy the "best" passenger hauler? Don't think so. Most involved, sure, but not the best.
-Crandell
Fine name any other Pacfic that one day could pull a crack streamliner overnight to Philly be unhooked then put on commuter service then pull what ever was asked of it. Also name one that was built in a larger quanity over 400 even the URSA was not built in such big quanities. The K4 may not have been the biggest baddest out there but the PRR could not come up with a replacement for them. Even the T1 at times was replaced by the K4 because the K4 was just that reliable. Yes the J3 Hudson FEF3 the Jclass were classer looking but NONE lasted thru 2 World Wars and pulled the trains that the K4's had to. To say the K4 was not the in the top passenger steam engines IS IMPOSSIBLE to do. Remember the PRR used everything they had at the design works in Altoona to devlop the K-4 including the Dynometer works. They got it right and stuck with it. Ao what if they had to Double head alot of trains later on in its career the K4's were paid for the cost of the crews were less than what the new engine payments were going to be on a fleet of 400+ engines. Remeber they were still running E6 Atlantics at the end also so there was another design they had right also.
The K4 was hardly an outstanding Pacific, much less an outstanding passenger locomotive. It was a conservative design with no outstanding features and was outperformed by any number of Pacifics, much less Hudsons and Northerns.
Well, the K4 may have been the most prolific, as in a swarm of bees, but, definately not the top nor a queen.
.
I would claim that the Pennsy K4 is the Queen. Not the beauty queen, perhaps, but queen because I believe K4's hauled twice and many passenger-miles as the nearest possible competitor. May be even three times! Possibly if ALL USRA light Pacifics were considered the competition, all railroads with their individual modifications, that would be the nearest competition, but that obviously involves several classifications, not one. Anyone have access to real data on this, or wish to challange my statement? Also, longevity is pretty great, 1914-1957, 43 years of continuous commercial operation. A challange in that quarter might be the Reading Pacifics, all really similar and built about 1915-1947.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.