ok, lets here them. whats your opinion. mine would be, in no particular order...
santa fe....probably the 2900s
norfolk and western Js (who would have ever thought that!)
new york central's niagra's
union pacifics last batch
c & o 610-614
rock island's and the southern pacific's should be there i guess (no roller bearings for the sp) not sure about the rock island engines.
SAR 'Red Devil'
N&W J
NYC Niagara
SP GS3-6
ATSF 2900
(UP's FEF-3 missed the cut because of its limited cutoff. Its main bearings can't handle all the power the cylinders can put out.)
Chuck
C&O's Greenbrier class
ATSF's 3751 class
SP's GS4 class
N&W J class
MLW's S3 class
A mighty fine lineup of steam locomotives....
Luke
- Luke
Modeling the Southern Pacific in the 1960's-1980's
In no particular order:
SAR 25 class
SNCF 242 A 1
C&NW H
ATSF 3776 class (2900's were war babies and heavier)
This type of thread can be fun, but I'm afraid it will be inconclusive except to reveal people's preferences in variance. We discussed this question at great length about four years ago in the Classic Trains forum. The problem lies in defining "top", or "best". There are so many factors and variables to take into consideration, not the least of which is the terrain and working requirement set out at the time of design and matching that requirement to how the engines performed in an objective manner. It would be a gargantuan task to work through all the reams of paperwork and records, assuming they were veridical and that the standards of measurement were the same from road to road...which they were not.
So, with what little I know, and I do emphasize little, my choices, especially if I were to be rewarded with even 30 minutes of footplate time on them as a result of my selection, would be:
First, the S1b Niagara
Second, the J Class
Third, the UP's FEF, don't really/can't really say which version...pick one for me...
Fourth, ATSF 3759, the one on display at Kingman, AZ
Fifth, just 'cuz, the CN/GTW U 3/4 class flyers.
-Crandell
i would think all 4 8 4s are good engines. too many to choose from. the J stays with me because it has the most (80,000 lbs TE) and can still run 100 plus mph. seems to be the best of both speed and tractive effort. with that being said, i have tons of books that show a burlington 4-8-4 pulling 155 empty boxcars, and some santa fe engines with 100 plus cars just to name a few with less tractive effort than the J.
Here's my choices:
Reading T-1
C&O J-3a 610-613
RF&P Governors
NC&StL Yellow Jackets & Stripes
Roger Huber
Western Maryland Patomic
C&O J3a
MILW S3
My favorites in order
Reading T1
Lehigh Valley T3
New York Central S1
Pennsylvania R1
Soviet Rails Northern
Looking at the results, seems to provide more than enough evidence that there is no consensus as well as criteria. This seems to indicate why a reproduction in a new locomotive like Tornado will never occur here.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
wallyworldThis seems to indicate why a reproduction in a new locomotive like Tornado will never occur here.
timzwallyworldThis seems to indicate why a reproduction in a new locomotive like Tornado will never occur here.In Britain the consensus is/was that a Peppercorn Pacific was the best?
I can't claim to have any particular knowledge, but due to a quirk of history a lower proportion of ex LNER locomotives survived than say Great Western. I believe that this was due to a lot of western locos (and others) being bought for scrapping by Woodhams in Barry who then left them in long lines until they got around to cutting them up. Many of these were left long enough to be saved and restored. Many ex LNER locos went to scrapyards in the north east who got on with the job of destroying them. Hence what was considered to be an important missing class.
There are various schemes around to build other lost classes, one being to produce a small passenger tank engine that would be of use to a lot of preserved lines as it would be much cheaper to run than a big main line engine. The railway environment in the UK is very different to the US. Locos are generally smaller, there are numerous preserved lines where visitors expect to see steam not diesel and it is possible to run steam on the main line.
"The railway environment in the UK is very different to the US. Locos are generally smaller, there are numerous preserved lines where visitors expect to see steam not diesel and it is possible to run steam on the main line."
That is the second reason I doubt a Tornado type project would work here. There are others as well. Thanks for the insight.
How about the engines that gave the type the name - Northern Pacific's A-class 4-8-4s??
Honourable mention?
PRR's R1 was an electric, only one built, initial competitor with the GG1. However, it could be considered a 4-8-4 (or 2D2) depending on how you want to look at it.
I think there is only one top or best and the best was the last. As an important moot point is that it is my ideal choice for a reconstruction that will never occur.
wallyworld I think there is only one top or best and the best was the last. As an important moot point is that it is my ideal choice for a reconstruction that will never occur.
Over on the General Discussion's "History Quiz" thread, we had a brief discussion this morning of 4-8-4's on the NYC & PRR, which got me to thinking (not always a "safe" activity), and that led to my following two more-or-less random thoughts:
1.) Sadly, no Niagaras were preserved, and I have to agree with wallyworld that none will be reconstructed (unless either Bill Gates or Warren Buffet takes a personal interest, or it becomes a eligible project for the "stimulus plan ?") That said, though, the "elephant ears" smoke deflectors brought to mind UP's 844, and I thought, "Gee, they seem a lot alike - I wonder how similar they really are ?" Well, I fortunately have a set of the 1970s "Locomotives in Profile" series (only 2 volumes ever published, I believe), and on pp. 169 - 192 of Vol. II is an article on "The American 4-8-4" by the series editor and principal author, Brian Reed. Part of that article is a comparison chart on pg. 192 - "TABLE II - GENERAL DIMENSIONS OF A SELECTION OF 4-8-4 LOCOMOTIVES" - here are some excerpts:
Railroad: NYC UP
Class: S1-b FEF
No. in Class 26 25
Builder: Alco Alco
Cylinders: 25-1/2 x 32 25 x 32
Wheel Diam. 79 80
Pressure 275 300
Adhesion Wt. 277,500 270,000
Loco Weight 476,000 483,000
Grate Area 102 100.2
Fuel: Coal Coal
Booster: No No
T.E. Main 61,700 63,800
Coupled Base 20' - 6" 22' - 0"
Tender: 14-wheel centipede type for both
Coal: 46 tons 25 tons
Water: 18,000 gals. 23,500 gals.
E & T Weight: 896,000 889,000
Length of run: 928 miles (pg. 191) 1,026 to 1,394 (pg. 184)
Proposed Conclusion: UP 844 is a pretty good surrogate for the Niagara.
Anybody agree or disagree - and why ?
2) Do you consider the PRR T-1 class - 4-4-4-4 "duplex-drives" in a single rigid frame - to be 4-8-4s by reason of that - or not ?
- Paul North.
Paul, the two engines are indeed comparable, although the S1b was less tall than the FEF. I haven't checked to say how much, but the clearances on the NYC routes were somewhat less, so there are no domes, for example, on the Niagara. But, essentially, I can see why you raised the matter, and I agree that for all practical purposes, they are the same engine. I would guess that, apart from the visual disparities here and there, the FEF must have had a horsepower advantage at a certain speed, and apparantly had a slight tractive effort advantage. The top speeds would have been close, within a few miles per hour, although we would probably quibble.
I don't feel that there can be an equitable comparison between the T1 and the Northern-type engines. The Duplex was a faster engine, and configured and powered differently. Even though it had different weight distribution, it also had two banks of cylinders and different valving. I can't say definitively, but I believe the idea was to put a lot of distance between steam and diesel when they designed the T1...they wanted an engine that could literally run away from any diesel, and they got it. I don't know enough to say what the speed record for the fastest F class diesel or E was at the time, or what they could practicably do, but the T1 routinely ran at speeds above 105 mph, usually to make up time. I believe an unofficial account published in Trains Magazine in the early 90's had the engine doing something close to 120 mph. I suspect it could safely do somewhat faster and for a sustained run...it would run out of track before it got much higher.
This is all my assumption and understanding to this point. I will be very interested to learn more and to read what others think who have a better grounding in the subject, including yourself.
Then again, there is the PRR Q2, which I believe either rightly or wrongly, was more powerful than either one. I think neither this locomotive or the T1 compare directly to a 4-8-4. The Q2 and the T1 as well as the SAR Class 26 all had operating issues in regard to power to weight ratios. Even the Class 26 was a narrow gauge engine on steroids, the issues are similar. I nominated the NYC example as it also qualifys and is my candiadate for reconstruction something that the FEF does not require. One wonders what a little process control would have done for the duplex design...talk about a steampunk technology! I think the tractive effort of a Q2 was around 100,300 lbs with the booster cut in but a DM&IR articulated developed around 140,000 pounds starting tractive effort, slightly more than a SD90AC. I seem to have wandered off topic. What was the question?
The Q2 was in reference to the T1 vs a 4-8-4, which was also not comparable, so why not a Q2? It was tongue in cheek. The SD90 TE just serves to warn to take references with several grains of salt. Thanks.
GP40-2Crandell, I have to disagree with you that that UP FEF was comparable with the NYC S1b. The main issue is the FEF has a rather small boiler, with only 4300 sq.ft. evaporative heating surface and 1400 sq.ft. superheater surface. The S1b had a larger overall boiler with 4820 sq.ft. evaporative heating surface and 2100 sq.ft. superheater surface. If you want a comparable 4-8-4 to the S1b, you need to look at the C&O J3a class built in 1948 (#610 to #614). The J3a had a very similar overall boiler design to the S1b, with the difference being the J3a boiler was even larger with with 5600 sq.ft. evaporative surface and 2300 sq.ft. superheater surface area. The J3a boiler was longer, larger in diameter, and had a bigger combustion chamber than the earlier S1b. Remember those long 25-26 car trains the 614 pulled in excursion service at 80 mph? Ross Rowland was holding the 614 back most of the time just to keep the speed within FRA limits.
Dear GP-40-2,
I wonder nobody mentioned that both were Alco products, or did somebody? Maybe we can see the FEF as a predecessor of the Niagara? Though I do not know how much influences were directed by their respective Steam-Departments to Alco.
Best Regards
Lars
I notice there was only passing reference to the NP Northerns and they certainly deserve more than that. If one looks at the territory they operated in and the service they performed with the heavyweight North Coast Limited and often heavier Alaskan. And remember they operated on Rosebud coal for the most part that produced very low btu's.
Another that has not been mentioned was the Great Northern S-2 another 80" drivered speedster hauling the likes of the Empire Builder, Oriental Limited and Fast Mail. Yes a little slippery on Mountain grades and getting started but once underway there was no doubting there performance. One only has to take the Empire Builder to Havre and look at the one on display next to the station. And remember those painted in the Glacier paint scheme were magnificent machines indeed.
Al - in - Stockton
Hi, Lars -
Yes, I did mention that that both were built by Alco, in the 4th line of my tabulation above, as follows:
For the same reason that you raise - same builder, about 5 years apart - although so far you're the only one who has specifically commented on that. Surely Alco's institutional knowledge / intellectual property of 4-8-4 steam loco design didn't disappear or dissipate during that time, even with the disruption of the WW II years. So I too suspect that the design of the Niagara was heavily influenced by the 5 years of wartime traffic-level actual experience and performance with the UP's FEF class, as modified by the NYC's specific needs, and influenced by what they learned from their "J" Hudson's performance. Certainly the similarities are more than coincidental.
Lars Loco I wonder nobody mentioned that both were Alco products, or did somebody? Maybe we can see the FEF as a predecessor of the Niagara? Though I do not know how much influences were directed by their respective Steam-Departments to Alco. Best Regards Lars
selector Paul, the two engines are indeed comparable, although the S1b was less tall than the FEF. I haven't checked to say how much, but the clearances on the NYC routes were somewhat less, so there are no domes, for example, on the Niagara. But, essentially, I can see why you raised the matter, and I agree that for all practical purposes, they are the same engine. I would guess that, apart from the visual disparities here and there, the FEF must have had a horsepower advantage at a certain speed, and apparantly had a slight tractive effort advantage. The top speeds would have been close, within a few miles per hour, although we would probably quibble. I don't feel that there can be an equitable comparison between the T1 and the Northern-type engines. The Duplex was a faster engine, and configured and powered differently. Even though it had different weight distribution, it also had two banks of cylinders and different valving. I can't say definitively, but I believe the idea was to put a lot of distance between steam and diesel when they designed the T1...they wanted an engine that could literally run away from any diesel, and they got it. I don't know enough to say what the speed record for the fastest F class diesel or E was at the time, or what they could practicably do, but the T1 routinely ran at speeds above 105 mph, usually to make up time. I believe an unofficial account published in Trains Magazine in the early 90's had the engine doing something close to 120 mph. I suspect it could safely do somewhat faster and for a sustained run...it would run out of track before it got much higher. This is all my assumption and understanding to this point. I will be very interested to learn more and to read what others think who have a better grounding in the subject, including yourself. -Crandell
Hi, Crandell -
OK, thanks for confirming my thoughts (above). Sure, the dimensions and cosmetics would be a little different between the two, but the basics are similar, although GP-40 rightly points out that underneath the S-1b had a lot more muscle. For what it's worth, Reed in the referenced Locomotives in Profile Vol II lists the S-1b as producing from 5,000 to 5,000 draw-bar horsepower, and about 1,000 more indicated at the cylinders.
I agree with you on classifying the T-1 as not a 4-8-4, but just wanted to see what others thought on that as well. My recollection is that the T-1 was designed not so much to outperform the diesel, but to provide a modern steam locomotive - the K4 design dated to what, 1910 or so ? - and even at that wasn't all that modern, hence it was pretty much obsolete. Listed below are the several articles on the T-1's from Trains. I recall that Vern Smith's August 1967 article felt that they were under-rated - I beleive he credited them with routinely doing the 120 to 125 MPH runs, and concluding one section by writing something like, "What can you say about an engine where the crews complained that they were dirty [from coal dust from the tender swirling into the cab] at 125 MPH ?" Evidently, that was a legitimate problem, too.
Steam's last chance Trains, March 1977 page 19 Pennsylvania Railroad duplex drive T1 ( 4-4-4-4, FRONTISPIECE, "MORGAN, DAVID P.", PRR, STEAM, T1, ENGINE, LOCOMOTIVE, TRN )
Thanks again for your repsonse.
Sorry Paul,
have overlooked that line, my fault.
BTW, is it true that the S-1 class number "6000" was derived from their expected boiler capacity of IHP? Did they really had so much output in service?
In additon, as you credited the T1 speeds, probably any good 4-8-4 could do more than 120mph under feasible conditions.
Please allow me to citite some corresponding comments I see at TV-Documentories from people they ride them :
Doyle McCormick (SP 4449) : "It was built for a speed of 100mph at its max speed lies in the nerves of the engineer"
Ross Rowland (C&O 614) : "Its top speed was/is 125mph"
Steve Lee (UP 844) : "Nobody knows how fast they really were"
Due to a moving, my "UP History In Cheyenne" is not near by, but there was an insteresting story about a runaway, I think caused by FEF 820. It was a terrible accident, some men lost their lives.
The crew left the engine unattended next to Borie-tower and did not blocked it properly. It run downhill the 1,55% grade into Cheyenne and crashed into a switcher. Later inspections said, the speed of the impact could be as high as 135MPH, not mentioned that this could include the switchers speed but it really shows how free rolling these beasts were.
What interests me, which classes of 4-8-4 were intentedly built for freight service? Can we have a list?
Kind Regards
Not a problem that you overlooked the Alco part - lots of details there to absorb.
About the NYC S-class - I don't know or recall how the class numbers were assigned. I'll see if Locomotives in Profile says anything about that. The same source has about 4 entries of S-1 HP in various circumstances - on the road and on a test stand. As I recall they were all 5,000 - 5,100 DBHP, and around 6,000 IHP. I'll try to remember to pull it off the shelf tonight and post them here.
I had not really heard or read before that the 4-8-4s were generally capable of 120 MPH speeds - that's interesting ! The common 80" driver size would support that, under favorable conditions as you note. But I thought the only US steam locos specifically designed for that were the T-1s and the Milwaukee Road high-speed ones for the 100 MPH Hiawathas - I recall that they were Atlantics, the 4-4-2 wheel arrangement. Let's see what others here have to say.
4-8-4s for freight service - do you mean dual-service, or mainly for freight only ? Many were designed and built with dual-service at least a possible application, but there were some - the Reading Railroad's T-1 class come to mind - that were intended for freight service only. Probably some others, too, but I don't want to speculate on that without a chance to check some references. Again, I'll see what Locomotives in Profile says about that, and let's see if others here can help you compile a list.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.