Lars-
You were right to be a bit suspicious regarding the high IHP figure for the 290psi Niagara. However, it's probably close to a possible max figure at that pressure. I'll have to see if I have any confirmation of this, but I believe most of the 290 psi Niagara figures developed by NYC were calculated, not actual. Oh., BTW, NYC did not have a test plant like PRR did at Altoona. That statement is misleading. NYC frequently did stationary testing at Selkirk, which is a perfectly valid testing methodology, but it is not the same as the dynamometer test done by PRR. I'll try to track down how NYC came up with the 290 psi figures. The maximum IHP figure can be found in Paul Kiefer's book, A Practical Evaluation of Railroad Motive Power, pg13. According to a data table, the S1 at 290 psi developed 6900 IHP at 85 mph.
Be careful when using the ASME booklet. The 300 psi DBHP curve for the J is extremely suspect. It was calculated using an unknown method. This was discussed at some length in NRHS Bulletin Vol.57, #5, 1992, which contained an article on 611 by Arthur Bixby. There was also some commentary in Bulletins following the initial article. Because the shape of the curve is different with the only change being the increase in BP, I have serious doubts that it was anywhere near reasonable (as did others far more knowledgeable than I am, when the graph appeared). There was talk at the time that Bixby may have been misled by someone presenting himself as knowledgeable and arguing that the N&W DBHP curve for 300 psi calculated in 1945 was too conservative. IMO, the curve tests out to be similar to a Baldwin IHP curve (not DBHP), which bears no resemblance to actual IHP curves developed either on test stands like Altoona or over-the-road.
As I've written here before, analyzing and comparing steam locomotive performance is a very difficult process, if it's possible at all.
Hello all 4-8-4 enthusiasts!
Feltonhill:
Thank you for the list, looked at steamlocomotive.com with a glance, these are more classes than expected. ( twelve 4-8-4 for freight service? Must be the dirty dozen )
Wallyworld:
the ACE is a nightmare, neither fish nor flesh.
Paul:
Great references you list here.
the statement...
On freight service: Not much - mainly: "A theoretical defect was the small proportion - usually 58 to 62 % - of the adhesion weight to the total loco weight. Thus the 4-8-4 was not effective for drag freight; . . . the extra power at speed permitted substantial accelerations of passenger and freight trains of any weight the locomotive could start;
is really negliable in my point of view. Any x-8-x of same adhesive weight will pull same. Someone may think a 2-8-2 for example is better drag-suited, because its smaller (and more "effective"), therefore?But horsepower pulls the trains, and the 4-8-4 could carry bigger boilers. Anyway, never load a steamlocomotive of any type towards its lower boiler capabilities, as effectiness goes hell. For drag, use diesels or electrics ;-)
On 100+ MPH speeds:
maybe some 4-8-4 were handicapped by their gear or so. I think for most US railroads 100mph was good enough, as I wrote before, they pulled pretty heavy trains over long distances.Have a look at http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5609.pdf : there it is stated, that the N&W J drivers and rods were balanced up to 140mph, and for sure, the SP's UP's, C&O's, ATFS's or Niagaras ones were equally good. Just Imagine what a 4-8-4 could do with a light 5-7 car train and a big coffee pot next to the engineer.
On NYC Niagara's HP: - From "TABLE VIII - OUTPUTS OF N.Y.C. NIAGARA 4-8-4 LOCOS" [ pg. 191, top]:
Class & Road No. Wheel Dia. Pressure Max. i.h.p. Max d.b.h.p. Act. Start T.E.S-1a 6000* 79 290 6800 @ 85* 5290 @ 62* ?S-1b 6023 75 275 6600 @ 77 5100 @ 58 65,800S-1b 6023 79 275 6610 @ 85 5050 @ 62 62,500S-2a 5500 79 275 6625 @ 90 5000 @ 65 62,500
* - On Selkirk test plant [this one only].
Fellows,I get suspicious, a test-plant result again in the first row, but could the Niagara really produce so much IHP? Just think about it, the Big Boy's cylinder horspower was 6680~40mph. Nevertheless, if the dbhp is correct, these engines (in addition the N&W J, have a look at my link above) produced same horsepower as a Class A or Big Boy at speeds ~60mph, to put some perspective here.
Kind regards
lars
hi, good choices but a little correction--two os southern pacific's 4-8-4's...GS5 CLASS..did have full rollerbearing axles--same as GS4 CLASS-- which did not have roller bearings
erikem - That's funny ! I almost deleted the references to the 2 earliest issues that I don't have, but then I thought, "Well, someone might have those issues, or want to get them, so I'll leave those citations in anyway for completeness." Glad I did ! Thanks for filling us in with what it said.
Lars - To follow-up on our posts of yesterday, here's a summary of what Brian Reed wrote in the Locomotives in Profile article on "The American 4-8-4" (Volume Two, published by Doubleday & Company, Inc., New York, 1972, and Profile Publications Limited, Windsor, Berkshire, England, 1972, pp. 169 - 192):
On freight service: Not much - mainly: "A theoretical defect was the small proportion - usually 58 to 62 % - of the adhesion weight to the total loco weight. Thus the 4-8-4 was not effective for drag freight; . . . the extra power at speed permitted substantial accelerations of passenger and freight trains of any weight the locomotive could start; and this outweighed any theoretical disadvantage." [pg. 170, right column, middle] Other than that, he only states generally that they were used in dual service or for fast heavy freight service.
On 100+ MPH speeds: Mainly that: "After the A.A.R. tests of 1938 already mentioned*, the Union Pacific made modifications for its next batch of 4-8-4s, nos. 820-34, which were intended specifically to run up to 100 m.p.h. whenever needed and to meet a design specification of 110 m.p.h. top." [pg. 183, right col.]
* - The "A.A.R. investigations of 1938 to determine what output and layout were needed to accelerate 1000 tons of passenger stock to 100 m.p.h. and keep it at that rate along the level. No locomotive of the handful tried could rise to that performance. Nearest was the U.P. 4-8-4 no. 815, which with a 16-car consist of 1005 tons reached 89 m.p.h. up 0.15% (1 in 660), and a peak of 102.4 m.p.h. down 0.2% (1 in 500). This was a 77-in. wheel engine with 300 lb. boiler pressure that could develop over 4000 d.b.h.p. . . . the A.A.R. trials themselves set the pace for new fast passenger developments which, apart from the Pennsy duplex classes, culminated in the 1940s in such machines as U.P. nos. 820-844, the S.P. classes GS4 to GS6, and the N.Y.C. Niagaras - 4-8-4s that could get up to 6000 i.h.p." [pp. 173, lower right col. - 174, top left col.]
Other than this, he mentions only that one of the N&W J's had touched 110 MPH on a special test, and that "these passenger engines had a higher starting tractive effort than any other 4-8-4; and their peak drawbar output must have been close to that of the N.Y.C. Niagaras". [pp. 188, bottom right col. - 189, top left col.],
He also mentions that one "subsidiary" reason for the duplexes was a concern that a 4-8-4 with 27-in. diam. cylinders could not exhaust steam fast enough through 12-in. piston valves, but he points out that such engines ran up to 85 - 90 m.p.h. with 600 to 1000 ton trains - others had 14-in. valves, and 1 batch on the Santa Fe even had 15-in. valves. [pg. 173, middle left col.]
I also note that the U.P. 800s had Walschaerts valve motions, while the NYC Niagaras used Baker. ["TABLE III, - VALVE MOTIONS OF 4-8-4 LOCOMOTIVES", pg. 177, top]
Class & Road No. Wheel Dia. Pressure Max. i.h.p. Max d.b.h.p. Act. Start T.E.
S-1a 6000* 79 290 6800 @ 85* 5290 @ 62* ?
S-1b 6023 75 275 6600 @ 77 5100 @ 58 65,800
S-1b 6023 79 275 6610 @ 85 5050 @ 62 62,500
S-2a 5500 79 275 6625 @ 90 5000 @ 65 62,500
Hope this is informative.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_JrI 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. Riding the Pennsy T1 Trains, July 1943 page 32 Pittsburgh to Harrisburg ( 4-4-4-4, "DAVIS, RUSS", PRR, STEAM, T1, ENGINE, LOCOMOTIVE, TRN )
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.
My first thought on seeing the July 1943 date was who would have a copy of that issue lying around... then realized I had my father-in-law's first three volumes of Trains (bound) sitting right next to me...
Looked up the article and it was pretty light on details, with the emphasis on relating what it was like riding in the cab - it was pretty much the most futuristic looking steam locomotive in the US at the time. The top speed on that run was 75 MPH. A couple of design specs were mentioned, the first being able to haul 880 tons of train at 100 MPH, the second in being able to run from Harrisburg to Chicago with one fueling stop.
At the time the article was written, only two T-1's were in existence, 6110 and 6111. 6111 was equipped with a booster, but not 6110.
Lars LocoPaul, right, I forget the T1. The other one I knew was the Western Maryland Potomac. I meant for freight service in first order. Anyway, they were all dual-purpose engines, even the Niagara pulled freight in their last years. Again, stupidy by me, steamlocomotive.com has a fine complete list, do not need another list here. For speeds: The NW J reached 110Mph (with 70" drivers / Sad, never have seen a Brass model of the J unskirted, they looked awsome) under tests with a 11 car consist, I think. I am not aware of recorded speeds of other engines. Generally, the 4-8-4s pulled trains of 1000tons or so, more than the fast Hiawathas. The later ones were also pulled by F7 Hudsons (Alco) with 84"wheels. See GP-40-2 comment, too: 25-26 cars at 80Mph or more? This must be 2000 tons plus somewhat, really impressive. Lars
Paul,
right, I forget the T1. The other one I knew was the Western Maryland Potomac. I meant for freight service in first order. Anyway, they were all dual-purpose engines, even the Niagara pulled freight in their last years.
Again, stupidy by me, steamlocomotive.com has a fine complete list, do not need another list here.
For speeds: The NW J reached 110Mph (with 70" drivers / Sad, never have seen a Brass model of the J unskirted, they looked awsome) under tests with a 11 car consist, I think.
I am not aware of recorded speeds of other engines.
Generally, the 4-8-4s pulled trains of 1000tons or so, more than the fast Hiawathas. The later ones were also pulled by F7 Hudsons (Alco) with 84"wheels. See GP-40-2 comment, too: 25-26 cars at 80Mph or more? This must be 2000 tons plus somewhat, really impressive.
Lars
Reminds me of another what might have been;
"Unfortunately, the Chessie was put off by this shift in ACE's corporate design philosophy, and a sharp drop in the price of diesel fuel greatly reduced their interest in converting to coal fuel, reducing their interest in financing the ACE prototype. While they had already contributed significant funding, (all of which was spent to pay the bills generated from the 614T test runs), Chessie withdrew their support for the project. There were high hopes that the U.S. government, who had set aside millions for projects to produce liquid fuels from coal, would back the ACE project. One of the chief aims of the January 1985 tests was to gain publicity for the project. Unfortunately no federal funds were ever released to ACE."
_Ultimate Steam Page
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Not 'alf shabby 't'all! It makes me wonder what upgrades to the Jubilee class could have accomplished. A Canadian Pacific Jubilee holds the Canadian steam speed record.
At the same time, as a bit of a diversion from the topic (but discussed already), I can't help but wonder what the T1 Duplex would have been able to do if it had been kept and modified/tweaked for another 6-10 years.
Or, the Northern class, for that matter.
-Crandell
N&W 610 reached 109 mph with 13 cars, 110 mph with 15 cars and 111 mph with 11 cars on PRR, Dec 7 & 8 1944. Locomotive was being tested for comparison with the two T1 prototypes. Speeds and consists documented by test report data and both N&W and PRR road foremen reports surviving at Hagley Library and N&WHS archives. Full story in N&WHS mag, The Arrow, Vol.24, #2 and PRRT&HS mag The Keystone Vol 41, #4. Not too bad for 70" drivers.
Freight 4-8-4's:
Western Maryland J-1s (1400's), Baldwin 1947
Rock Island R-67s
Milw S2's and possibly S3's (e.g.261)
Lehigh Valley T classes
Wabash O1
Frisco 4500's
C&NW H
MP 2100's, 2200's
RDG T1
Soo O20
TP&W 80-85
DL&W Q classes, except for Q4
Hi, Lars -
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I did mention that that both were built by Alco, in the 4th line of my tabulation above, as follows:
Railroad: NYC UP
Class: S1-b FEF
No. in Class 26 25
Builder: Alco Alco
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
Best Regards
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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 ?
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.
Honourable mention?
How about the engines that gave the type the name - Northern Pacific's A-class 4-8-4s??
"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.
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.
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?
wallyworldThis seems to indicate why a reproduction in a new locomotive like Tornado will never occur here.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.