Thanks for that. I guess I should put BGBD on my wish list for next Christmas. It's time I got a decent RR book anyway.
-Crandell
Again it's Hirsimaki to the rescue. And the answer is that in practice a single steamer did not equal several diesels. Indeed, it was just the opposite. In 1947 PRR put three ABBA sets of F3s to work on trains between Chicago and Enola, e/b Train CG-8 via Columbus and w/b LCL-1 via Crestline. The diesels ran straight through without change, needing 2 steam helpers w/b from Altoona to Gallitzin. To completely dieselize this run they needed one more diesel set, so it was often still a steam operation. With steam they used five locos, relay style, from division to division, plus six helpers, in ones and twos at various points along the way. Around Horseshoe, the steamers needed three helpers. In short, a single set of diesels did the work of nine steam locomotives.
"The three F3 sets made 33 eastbound and 32 westbound trips by September 23. Each took about 48 hours. This is a reduction of 586 steam engine handlings during this period and provided a good example of the hidden economies of dieselization," to quote Eric Hirsimaki.
By June 1948, 18 diesel locomotives (generally 3 or 4-unit sets) were doing the work of 90 M1s, J1s or Q2s because they could run straight through without change.
A memo from PRR President James Symes of May 9, 1949 titled "Five Year Diesel-Electric Acquisition Plan, 1950 -1954," speaks to your question about costs of acquisition. The bottom line shows a planned investment in 749 units totalling just over 1 million HP. The projected cost was $124.3 million. Operating savings, before depreciation, were $33.2 million per year. That is a return on investment of 26.7%. Again, that is before depreciation. Not bad.
I don't know whether this answers your questions, but it is a good indication of the logic of the time as seen by at least one railroad.
Finally let me recommend the "Black Gold - Black Diamonds" volumes by Eric Hirsimaki. They are excellent reading, filled with tables and quotes. He really did his homework. Equally thorough and informative is his work "The Nickel Plate Years." I'm going to read them again, for the third time.
Thanks for your informative reply. Interesting figures, to say the least.
You can doubtlessly see my quandary; if a single steamer could perform at the same level as the two, three, or four diesels it would have taken in that era to match the steamer's performance, instead of an even match with the diesel having to be given a major, third line, overhaul at 14 years, or replaced outright, there really would be, on a mile-for-mile basis, the need to replace two, three, or four such platforms. Would their costs have been fully amortized to that point, or would GMAC have rescued them yet again with newer engines? What was the cost of a life-cycle replacement of up to eight diesels, or fewer of their more potent replacements, while the lone steamer was merely in need of yet another washout and piston rod packing? I ask this not knowing the answers, and don't mean to give the impression that I am leading you and onlookers to a Grand Slam...but the questions pertain, I think.? A whole bunch of diesels, with the costs of two initial purchases, were needed to replace a single steamer, with no changes of crewing numbers between the them, which still had more than half of its useful life ahead of it.
As the King of Siam was fond of saying, "Is puzzlement!"
The cited memo accounts for costs of fuel,water, lubricants, other supplies, enginehouse expenses and repairs. There is no mention of initial acquisition cost.
Another memo, dated October 21, 1947, compares T1, Q2, GG1 and 6000 HP diesel locos. There is a line titled Relative First Cost per Locomotive. T1 is the baseline at 100, the GG1 is 114 and the diesel is 220. On the freight side of the table, Q2 is 100, GG1 is 140 and diesel is 267. Apparently the Q2 was cheaper than the T1.
At the bottom of the table is a line :"Fixed Charges." This may be where acquisition cost comes in, but I'm not sure of that. Anyhow, that line shows fixed charges of .2984 per mile for the T1 and .3120 for the diesel. Total costs per mile: T1 = $1.6657; diesel $1.2960. It may have been much better had the T1 been a better runner. Its annual mileage was only 79200 vs. 228760 for the diesel. Incidentally, the GG1 managed a respectable 141240 miles per year costing $ .9736 per mile. This, too, is from the Hirsimaki book.
I remember that thread. There is a certain former poster whose name has not been seen since then. It was quite entertaining.
tpatrick By comparison the cost of 6000 diesel horsepower was $1.1450. And most trains didn't need 6000 horsepower. My source for this info is Eric Hirsimaki's "Black Gold - Black Diamonds," volume 2.
By comparison the cost of 6000 diesel horsepower was $1.1450. And most trains didn't need 6000 horsepower.
My source for this info is Eric Hirsimaki's "Black Gold - Black Diamonds," volume 2.
I'm afraid this raises some questions for me. In a thread, a heated exchange, about two years or more ago, it was stated that diesels were found to have a replacement life cycle at just under 14 years. No one knew this when they came on board. That wasn't the case with steam, not by a long shot. Also, I wonder if financing costs were included in the operating costs for the diesels since GMAC made their initial acquisition more palatable to CEO's and CFO's at the time.
feltonhillTrue, they were much higher maintenance locos than the dirt-simple K4, but they could easily outperform doubleheaded K4's on large trains. As a result, the productivity per locomotive mile was higher than a K4. What was the T1 operating cost per passenger train mile? Don't know, at least not yet. They cost more per locomotive mile than a K4, but did more work per assignment with only one crew
A PRR memo dated April 3, 1951 almost answers your question about cost per passenger mile. I say almost because the memo gives cost per loco mile, regardless of the number of passengers. It says the T1 cost $1.5816 per mile. The K4 cost $1.1554 per mile. So, clearly you are exactly right - one T1 was cheaper than doubleheaded K4s. By comparison the cost of 6000 diesel horsepower was $1.1450. And most trains didn't need 6000 horsepower.
A standard K4s under test produced 3,520 IHP (at the cylinders) at about 60 mph, rated evaporation 70,000 lbs steam/hr. Locomotive drawbar HP (on the test plant) was less than that and drawbar HP at the rear of the tender was even less, about 2,720 at 40 mph. The first poppet valve K4, 5399, produced about 4,180 IHP at 80 mph, also rated at 70,000 lbs of steam/hr. Other 4-6-2's may have done better, but the K4 has been analyzed microscopically by comparison to any other of that wheel arrangement. Does that make it the best or highest HP? No, just the highest measured under certain test conditions.
The K4's were always superheated if they had the designation K4s, the "s" signifiying superheater-equipped. No. 1737 may have been built saturated, but I doubt it. All other were built that way, not rebuilt. They were built handfired, not doubt about that, and stokers helped immensely!
Unless someone is privy to more test data than I have here, no 4-8-4 ever tested at 5,500 dbhp. Most of the argument revolves around two top contenders, 5,050 dbhp (NYC S1b) and 5,250 dbhp (N&W J), and even these figures aren't comparable. The N&W J and ATSF 2900's may have been capable of 5,500 dbhp or more, but no such reading was ever recorded, AFAIK. Neither was pushed to that point by their respective owners. I've run this idea into the ground on other threads here.
For a 1914 design, the K4 did very well for itself over something like 40+ years of service. On the NY&LB, it took two diesels to equal the performance of one K4 in 1956-57.
A lot of the improvements incorporated into the K5 (higher boiler pressure, feedwater heater, larger boiler barrel) were not incorporated into the K4's. The K4 was a much better balanced design because of the K5's drafting and steaming problems. They never lived up to their potential.
3550 HP at the Drawbar IIRC the dyno at Altoona was compensated to show Drawbar HP. So getting that from at the time of the testing more than likely a NON SUPERHEATED HAND FIRED Pacific Type Locomotive. Remember that the Best 4-8-4 got maybe 5000-5500 HP at the Drawbar and remember this at the time the K-4 wer built they used regular bearings no rollers on anything that right there cost them 10% or so. When they were rebuilt with Superheaters and stokers and Roller Bearins which some were they might have reached 4000 HP. I know I read someplace that alot of the improvements from the K5 prototypes were later retrofitted onto the K4's
PRR's Altoona test plant reported a peak of 3550 horsepower for the K4. Experimental improvements to K4 5399 included poppet valves, front end throttle and an improved superheater, which yielded a peak of 4200 HP. Both numbers would of course be reduced at the rear of the tender. Neither seems especially remarkable for a passenger locomotive.
It was literally too big for clearances East of Crestline so it stayed at the West end of the system.
.
I'm not so sure the S wasn't anything more than a glorified test bed. I believe it was gussied up and put on display at the 1939 NY World's Fair. The real production locomotives were the T's and Q's.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BigJim This resulted in the S-1 which went into service in 1937. The S-1 fell way short of expectations in part because of its 140+ foot long rigid wheel base and no other engines of this class other than the single prototype were built. That statement alone should tell you that there was something "rotten in Denmark".
This resulted in the S-1 which went into service in 1937. The S-1 fell way short of expectations in part because of its 140+ foot long rigid wheel base and no other engines of this class other than the single prototype were built.
That statement alone should tell you that there was something "rotten in Denmark".
Just a moment!
140 feet would be the length of the engine and tender, or maybe the total wheelbase. The S-1 had 84" drivers and each pair wouldn't be more than eight feet apart. Even allowing four feet for the cylinders the pairs wouldn't be more than twelve feet apart, so about twenty eight feet rigid at the outside. Two streamlined passenger cars would have a (non rigid) wheelbase of about 140 feet and the S-1 wasn't that big. It was about the same size as a Big Boy.
As far as adhesion was concerned, the loco with four driving axles and six carrying axles suggested that it wasn't using its weight efficiently.
M636C
Thank you feltonhill,
I had those article of the C&OHS in my mind, puplished here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3943/is_200505/ai_n13642634
You will find many more by browsing this site. Yery interesting to read. Some from Mr. E. Huddleston are available there, also.
Best Regards
Lars
Lars - I'm not sure what link you have in mind, but go ahead!
I believe the reference to a K4 being able to start a train easier than a T1 may be based on the observation that passenger trains were rarely heavy enough to tax a locomotive's starting tractive effort, unless the station stops were on grades. A K4 was probably much easier to handle and required less skill to get under way than a T1, sort of turn on the sanders, get up to 5-10 mph then open 'er up and get out of town!
Strangely enough, when the T1's were tested on C&O and N&W under very close scrutiny, there was no mention of any adhesion problems whatsoever. On C&O, there are many surviving memos and reports that specifically state the locomotives did not slip when starting or attempting to start under difficult conditions. On N&W there are several runs on Christiansburg grade where the throttle loss was in the 3-4 psi range, certainly indicating wide open operation with relatively high drawbar pull readings under 10 mph. PRR engineers interviewed for several articles in The Keystone (PRRT&HS magazine) also indicated if you learned how to operate them, they were very capable performers.
For those who may be interested, the off-line tests have been written up in magazines published by C&OHS and N&WHS. PRRT&HS also has an article in process.
feltonhill Evaluating the T1 is a tough job. I've been tyring to do that for several years through various articles in RR historical society magazines. They were neither all good nor all bad. As built, they just weren't the right locomotive for PRR, or maybe any other road. There was too much experimentation in one package. Getting rid of the poppet valves, like T1a 5547, would have reduced the level of complexity and inaccessibility. It would have likely helped operations without compromising performance.
Evaluating the T1 is a tough job. I've been tyring to do that for several years through various articles in RR historical society magazines. They were neither all good nor all bad. As built, they just weren't the right locomotive for PRR, or maybe any other road. There was too much experimentation in one package. Getting rid of the poppet valves, like T1a 5547, would have reduced the level of complexity and inaccessibility. It would have likely helped operations without compromising performance.
Hello feltonhill,
please allow me to add that interesting link about the T1, a very extensive article, for the other readers, if it is OK for you.
I do not know much about the K4, but must say with its Belpaire firebox and bullish front arrangement it was a very distinguished, but maybe not in a technical way outstanding machine.
Were the myths about it just hyped, or was it just more or less nothing more than a ubiquitious Pacific?
I read in "Last of the Steam " from Joe Collias that a K4 with 20.000pounds less tractive effort could start a train easier than a T1. I do not believe that, except the engineneer would have been a mule than certified/qualified one. Probably some people at the PRR did not liked them, 'cause the T1 could almost twice the job of a K4 and would give less people work at the railroad.
Especially in the last years, Pacifics played only a role in commuter service. For example, the last Pacifics aquired for the UP was 1920, and by '53 only round about 30 of those rabbit looking engines were left.
That the K4 survied the T1 was obvious: cheap and simple and not complex and expensive.
Happy New Year to everybody!
daveklepperI never really understood the theory behind the Duplexes anyway . Why the T-1 instead of a normal 4-8-4? It would seem to me that the duplication of machinary inherent in four cylinders for a locomotive of approximately the same wieght and horsepower is unnecessary. And most railroads and builders would seem to agree. Is there an optimum size for cylinders and valves and having the cylinder capacity and using four instead of two actually increases efficiency? Aren't four driver axles better coupled together than split into two halves? Undoubtadly there are some good technical papers on this, but a good summary might help a lot. And did anyone else experience the slight oscillation in forward motion when riding at some particular high speed behind a T-1 that I noticed? Anyway, the K-4's outlived the T's by six years. Andf were reliable locomotives to the end.
I never really understood the theory behind the Duplexes anyway . Why the T-1 instead of a normal 4-8-4? It would seem to me that the duplication of machinary inherent in four cylinders for a locomotive of approximately the same wieght and horsepower is unnecessary. And most railroads and builders would seem to agree. Is there an optimum size for cylinders and valves and having the cylinder capacity and using four instead of two actually increases efficiency? Aren't four driver axles better coupled together than split into two halves? Undoubtadly there are some good technical papers on this, but a good summary might help a lot.
And did anyone else experience the slight oscillation in forward motion when riding at some particular high speed behind a T-1 that I noticed?
Anyway, the K-4's outlived the T's by six years. Andf were reliable locomotives to the end.
I think the reasoning for the divided drive was partly to reduce hammerblow on the track. Two sets of drivers with four wheels each could have lighter running gear than a locomotive with all four axles coupled together. Also cylinder efficiency could be improved by getting the same power by four smaller cylinders with proportionately larger valves. I remember reading that Baldwins chief engineer at the time the original duplex locomotives were built believed that the 8-coupled, 2 cylinder locomotives of the time were at or near practical limits in terms of steam flow as well. Using four cylinders was a way to get around that. Theoretically such a locomotive would be more powerful and efficient than a conventional two cylinder design.
Keep in mind that steam had been gone from the mainlines in the US for 26 years before I was even born so none of my knowledge is first hand. So I can't answer your question about the oscillating motion you noticed. From what I read they were slippery engines, but only if you didn't know how to drive them. The analogy I would use would be like going from driving a sedan to and from work to jumping in a hot rod. If you drive the hot rod the exact same way you'd drive a little econo-box ford or what have you you won't get good results. Because the T1 had a lot more power than other passenger locomotives on the PRR, if you opened the throttle up as wide and suddenly as you might on a K4, there was a good chance you'd break traction, just like if you hit the gas in a high performance auto as hard as you might on your daily driver.
I'd also like to point out that the K-4 was much older and used much simpler, more proven technology than the T1s did, which is a big plus to reliability. In a railroad that's phasing out steam, that would be a huge factor in a locomotive's life expectancy.
The fleet of T1's turned in higher monthly mileages than the K4's. Roundhouse queens? This is not opinion, but is supported by monthly reports on T1's and K4's from about 1946-1948.
Roundhouse queen was my expression, and I don't have any first-hand knowledge, but Trains Magazine articles on the T1 and on Pennsy passenger power from the late 50's suggested low availability and difficult maintenance owing to the inaccessible exotic valve gear. Some of the articles were in the "first person" voice of people who worked for the Pennsy, although any single employee may only give an anecdotal rather than a big-picture statistical view of what was going on.
Deferred maintenance perhaps stands to reason -- the decision had been made to go with Diesels, and perhaps the effort was not made to keep the T1 highly available.
As to the high level of experimentation, there were perhaps only two experiments -- the poppet valves and the divided drive. Other than that, the T1 seemed like a high-output rigid-frame four-driver-axled steam locomotive comparable to many others of that time frame.
Or make that one experiment -- the poppet valves. The notion of using paired simple-expansion engines on high-speed passenger locomotives had already been done on the Challenger, only 6 axles articulated instead of 4 axles rigid-frame.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
daveklepper I agree with most of the comments. I did not say it was the best Pacific and certainly not the best passenger steam locomotive. I simply said it pulled far more passenger miles than any other and on that basis deserved the title of Queen of Pacifics. The best passenger locomotive. Many favorites, inlcuding the Niagra, the UP and AT&SF and SP 4-8-4's, butmy favorite would be the N&W J. The best Pacific. There was an opportunity to compare K4's and Rading Pacifics, an excellent and long-lasting design, even built after WWII, on the PRSL line to Atlantic City. Anyone want to comment on this comarison?
I agree with most of the comments. I did not say it was the best Pacific and certainly not the best passenger steam locomotive. I simply said it pulled far more passenger miles than any other and on that basis deserved the title of Queen of Pacifics.
The best passenger locomotive. Many favorites, inlcuding the Niagra, the UP and AT&SF and SP 4-8-4's, butmy favorite would be the N&W J.
The best Pacific. There was an opportunity to compare K4's and Rading Pacifics, an excellent and long-lasting design, even built after WWII, on the PRSL line to Atlantic City. Anyone want to comment on this comarison?
The K-4 was certainly the best known Pacific. Virtually every road had Pacifics and I hesitate to try to name the best due to my unfamiliarity with so many of them. Of those that I do know about the Southern's PS4 would be my candidate for best.
Mark
The T1s were in service until late 1951 or early 1952, not 1948. Many were listed as retired serviceable in March 1952 IIRC, based on a PRR board meeting agenda.
PRR subjected the T1's to deferred maintenance. When the first two (6110, 6111) were under daily observation during over the road tests in 1945, they were dispatched with reportable defects. Some defects were not repaired (e.g., blowing cylinder packing) and eventually led to in-service failures. T1's fault?
True, they were much higher maintenance locos than the dirt-simple K4, but they could easily outperform doubleheaded K4's on large trains. As a result, the productivity per locomotive mile was higher than a K4. What was the T1 operating cost per passenger train mile? Don't know, at least not yet. They cost more per locomotive mile than a K4, but did more work per assignment with only one crew
The highest mileage T1's were turning about 10-11,000 miles a month, about the same as the first E7's, in 1946. This was generally on the western divisions. The fleet of T1's turned in higher monthly mileages than the K4's. Roundhouse queens? This is not opinion, but is supported by monthly reports on T1's and K4's from about 1946-1948. These reports survive at the Hagley library. Have copies here. Like all things T1, it's a mixed bag.
I suppose one reason that the PRR T-1's were taken out of service in 1948 was that the PRR decided against installing cab signals on the Ft Wayne division. With a passenger speed limit of 79 MPH, there was no need for the high speed horsepower provided by the T-1. I would hazard a guess that the T-1 could out-pull most passenger diesels above 100 MPH, but agian that capability was useless with the 79 MPH speed limit imposed by the ICC.
The S-2 was even more efficient than the T-1 above 70 MPH...
However if we consider other pertinent measures; tractive effort, top speed, thermal efficiency, esthetics, etc
Esthetics, or shall I say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the K-4 was certainly iconic -- there is no mistaking the lines of that engine with its Belpaire firebox and chunky trailing truck for anything else.
On the T1's, I suppose one could argue the fine points of the divided drive over good balancing on a Northern such as the NW J-class, and then there were the reports of high-speed slipping, which could be treated by reducing the throttle and increasing the cutoff, but a situation that could be described with colorful language but this is a family Web site. And one could talk about the aerodynamics that slip streamed the exhaust soot into the cab.
But the story I heard is that it was a real roundhouse queen (as in a high-maintenance airplane being a hanger queen) -- not only the exotic valve gear but the difficulty of getting at it. All too bad -- I thought they were rather cool.
In a way, it is kind of too bad that passenger service got Dieselized right after WW-II as that is when the passenger business pretty much collapsed anyway, and maybe if one was going to fail at carrying passengers, one could have failed in style hanging on to the steam and not spending all of that money. There is a large element of "romance of the rails" in the long-distance trains, and if passenger trains were steam-powered, that might add to the experience and help with their ridership.
But then again, retro was not a concept familiar to the forward-looking future-seeking 1950's -- retro was a style that came much later.
As an objective observer (I grew up in a totally electrified environment) I will concede that the K4 did what it was designed to do, provide power to a preposterous schedule of passenger trains.
That said, how many trains, pulled by doubleheaded K4s, would have been an easy run for a single NYC J? Not to mention the NYC S class - and certainly not to mention the N&W J, which was, IMHO, the best steam locomotive ever designed and built for purely passenger applications.
Criteria for 'the best?' Horsepower, availability, dependability and ease of maintenance. In all categories, the N&W J could give the K4 aces and spades, and still take the hand.
Chuck
Actually in the 1930's the Pennsy recognized the need for a replacement for the K-4's which had to be double headed to handle heavy passenger consists. This resulted in the S-1 which went into service in 1937. The S-1 fell way short of expectations in part because of its 140+ foot long rigid wheel base and no other engines of this class other than the single prototype were built. The failure of the S-1 left the PRR still in need of a modern engine to replace the aging K-4's on it's heavy name trains so they moved on to design the T-1 in the 1938-40 time frame. Two prototype T-1's went into service in 1942 and proved successful after some changes (valving for one) that resulted from experience gained in actual train service. WW2 delayed building other T-1's and it wasn't until the postwar years that 50, IIRC, additional engines were completed and placed in service. The careers of the T-1 were cut short by the Pennsys decision in 1948 to completely dieselize its passenger fleet.
Jim , I wouldn't say PRR procrastinated. During the thirties the Depression caused them to have more power than they needed. New power just wasn't necessary at that time. It wasn't affordable, either, given that they had spent so much on electrification. And of course, electrification freed a large number of steamers for service elsewhere, so why develop new power when so many K4s were available?
Then came WWII, bringing with it government restrictions on loco development. It wasn't that during the war they didn't want a replacement for the K4, but that they weren't allowed to build one. After the war the T1 came along but suffered primarily from failures of the Caprotti poppet valves. By the time the better Franklin Type B valves were available, the diesel was taking over.
Whether the K4 was the best Pacific is debatable. The Erie K-5 and B&O P-7 were larger and more powerful. Both served their owners with distinction until the end of steam. I wouldn't call the K4 better than either of them and it wouldn't be too hard to expand the list of competitive Pacifics.
Dave,
I suspect your post was to generate so activity over Christmas! The K4 was a good passenger engine, but was underpowered for the Chicago-NYC route in very fast order. Double headed K4's on the Broadway became common. PRR attempted a replacement(M1 Mountain), and when looking at the 4 wheel engine truck competition(like the Hudson/Northerns) of other routes, it was apparent that the M1 would fail to handle the entire Broadway across it's route. PRR procratinted so long that they finally started to design the 'Super' Northern after WWII - the 'Duplex' T1. Even if the T1 was a sucess, it still was behind the eight ball - Diesel power was the new thing.
The K4 was a 'classic' of the steam era, but there were many steam designes of that era that could put in a better performance. At least the K4 was reliable. PRR's follow-on projects were not....
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
The Duplexes were successes by most objective measures. They were designed for a specific requirement and met that requirement but for minor mechanical defects, such as valve choices. Had they been afforded the appropriate upgrades that many other roads were able to provide for their Northern Classes and earlier types, the T1 would have been a great passenger locomotive. It came late, and was not able to be determined a great engine.
They were not flops. The Triplex was a flop.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.