UP 4-12-2 Also--UP's 4-12-2's were never modernized with roller bearings (other than on the Gresley gear of some) becaue Otto Jabelman decided he absolutely hated them, and spent much of his career trying to get rid of them or replace them--even basically ignored potential U.S. government war-era funding for roller bearings which would have dramatically upgraded their performance and especially their durability.
Also--UP's 4-12-2's were never modernized with roller bearings (other than on the Gresley gear of some) becaue Otto Jabelman decided he absolutely hated them, and spent much of his career trying to get rid of them or replace them--even basically ignored potential U.S. government war-era funding for roller bearings which would have dramatically upgraded their performance and especially their durability.
I never read Jabelman was against roller-bearings, huh? Something mixed here with tales from Southern Pacific?
UP 4-12-2 Because they never received some "modern" improvements, we'll never know what the real potential of those engines might have been. As engine 9000 was tested in 1926, peak horsepower was 4917 indicated at the cylinders at 37 mph (reported in UP Type, Vol. I) and later improved versions most certainly did better--but there's no data regarding how much better the later versions performed. What a shame. John
Because they never received some "modern" improvements, we'll never know what the real potential of those engines might have been. As engine 9000 was tested in 1926, peak horsepower was 4917 indicated at the cylinders at 37 mph (reported in UP Type, Vol. I) and later improved versions most certainly did better--but there's no data regarding how much better the later versions performed. What a shame.
John
A real improvement was the T1-Texas. One Cyl. less, but a good 1000hp more than the 9000-class,
The UP got finally rid of all this 3-cyl.-maintance-horror by designing the Chally.
Cheers
lars
Lars--
Jabelman decided he hated the 9000's, not roller bearings. The U.S. government was willing to pay, prior to WWII, for the upgrading of ANY steam locomotives that needed it, knowing that a big increase in rail traffic was coming. The 88 4-12-2's at that time were still the largest fleet of mainline motive power on the railroad, and had actually slashed operating costs (and dramatically increased average train speeds) because they steamed so much better than anything that came before them. The government was willing to pay for roller bearings on all axles and other improvements that would have fixed the principal maintenance issues of the 4-12-2's, but Jabelman only wanted brand new power and would not hear of upgrading older power.
I just received the book by Willian Kratville and John Bush, The Union Pacific Type, Volume 2. They did extensive, meticulously detailed interviews with actual Union Pacific employees in both the engineering and operations sections of the railroad, over a 30 year period of time, while some of the men involved in the original design and operations of the 4-12-2 were still living. These loyal Union Pacific employees made it crystal clear that Jabelman was not in favor of upgrading ANY older locomotives--but that he always believed in total replacement as being, in his opinion, more justifiable. So whenever UP management requested estimates to do this or that to improve older power, he made absolutely certain the estimates were inflated--because he wanted to build or buy new power instead.
The UP engineering department actually prepared a sketch plan to rebuild the 4-12-2's into 4-6-6-2 simple articulateds while retaining the boiler--and an estimate outside the UP engineering department was prepared. Based on that estimate, the UP management actually accepted the idea and said--"let's build the 4-6-6-2" before Jabelman stepped in and argued his case to build brand new simple articulateds instead. The sketch plan is included in the Kratville/Bush book. Ultimately, UP chose to build the Big Boys to get over 6000 horsepower instead of 4900+/- out of a 4-6-6-2.
Authors Kratville and Bush contend that if it were not for Jabelman, and the easily foreseen in 1939 coming diesel revolution, it is highly likely the 4-12-2's would have received roller bearings on all axles and some other easily doable improvements that would have upgraded them into truly first class high speed freight engines while reducing the main operational headaches. Even as it was, the UP was operating them at sustained speeds of 60 mph and above--which was hard on the frames for the ones not originally built with one-piece cast frames.
I agree the C&O 2-10-4 was a great engine, but so was the 4-12-2, and the C&O 2-10-4 did not produce 5900 horsepower--that's big simple articulated territory. So far as I'm aware the highest horsepower out of a 2-10-4 is about 5600 peak horsepower in the case of the Santa Fe 5001/5011 classes.
The 4-12-2's are recalled by those who operated them to have steamed as well or better than most engines UP ever owned, and that is why they lasted until very nearly the end of steam. Although there were maintenance issues with valve gear, they had remarkably few issues with the boilers. Even as late as 1952, after Jabelman was gone, the UP had a plan that called for keeping the last 25 4-12-2's through 1965, along with the 3900's and 4000's.
Ooops,
UP4-12-2,
my bad, I did not read your mail carefully enough.
I understand Jabelman did not like roller-bearings. That he did not favor the 9000 is plausible, and valid, in my humble opinion, proved by the latter designs.
The boiler and firebox of the 3900's in fact does not diifer so much from the 9000's, though the shape became different.
They were big improvements over the elderly "Moose's" , however. Otherwise, it was up to Lima und C&O to prove, 2 cyl. and 2 rods are up to such kind of piston forces, making the third cyl. somewhat obsolete.
I meant of course 6000 indicated HP for the T1 (or 5400DBHP, if this is acceptable).
Cheers,
-edit-
BTW,
If you can think "Popular Mechanics" is a reliable source, I read there modern UP-engines had an expected life-time cycle of 3million miles or 30 years.
and had actually slashed operating costs (and dramatically increased average train speeds) because they steamed so much better than anything that came before them.
What does this mean that a locomotive "steamed well" or "steamed better" or was "free steaming" than some other locomotive. I have seem this term in accounts of operating and firing locomotives, but the term seems rather subjective.
Does it mean that the locomotive had high combustion efficiency, that a small amount of coal raised a lot of steam? Or does it mean that a locomotive had an effective draft system, that you could stoke the fire with a large quantity of coal to produce a lot of steam without clinkering up or choking the fire?
Was there any systematic study of designs and why a locomotive was "free steaming" and why another one wasn't?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul--
UP's studies did indicate that "freer" steaming locomotives did perform better--ie more horsepower at higher speed. They did indeed have a better draft--but that isn't all. So many of their engines were fitted with larger diameter smokestacks--or even dual stacks. Jabelman was nearly obsessed with free steaming engines and reduced backpressure. The emphasis in the west was on speed--and Santa Fe had the edge with a shorter route and higher speeds. Trains magazine, or Classic Trains, had an article about the UP 800's within the last year or two that discussed the concept of "free steaming" engines in excellent detail--better than I can.
Some boilers--like the 4-12-2's--were designed to produce copious amounts of steam--because they knew they needed it to move heavier tonnage trains faster. So they did have a reputation as very easy steaming engines--easier to get going than other types--easier to produce plenty of steam and heat. There are stories about just how easy it was to get them moving...When used in passenger service, the 4-12-2's did not have the top speed of some passenger power but they were easily able to accelerate trains rapidly out of the station stops--faster than the passenger power--and therefore were actually able to maintain passenger train schedules when called upon to do so. They were capable of speeds above 65 mph when needed.
I hope this helps some.
Respectfully submitted--
John, Paul, et. al.,
I wonder how much of the "free steaming" ability of the 4-12-2 was due to it not being an articulated? Instead of running through long pipes with flexible joints, the supply steam would only eed s short run from the superheater output to the cylinders and conversely the exhaust steam would have had a short path from the cylinders to the nozzles underneath the stack.
With a single axle trailing truck, the UP type would have not had the firebox geometry possible with the Texas type.
Actually, the UP 4-12-2 had a rather large, long boiler and a rather large firebox. So long, in fact, they had to use a "Gaines Wall" (a low wall toward the front of the firebox) to help direct the heat where they wanted it and to have the exposed heating surface they needed (I don't fully understand the theory). It also had rather long boiler tubes. In fact--the 4-12-2 boiler is actually longer and larger than the boiler used for many articulateds (not the last designs, but many others.) The boiler was designed to stay within clearance limitations on the Union Pacific in 1926--and to stay at or near 59000 pounds axle loading--which was the UP limit at that time. A 10-drivered engine--even a larger three cylinder 4-10-2--was rejected because it could not produce the power and speed they wanted. (Note: they already had 3-cylinder 4-10-2's that did not produce enough power and speed). I think Kratville and Bush state they even considered but rejected a 4-10-4.
I'm a dumb civil engineer who designs things that don't move, but I seriously doubt that being "free steaming" had anything to do with whether an engine was articulated or not--but much more to do with the design of the boiler, firebox, superheater tubes--and yes--the smokebox--where they knew that proper installation of the deflectors had an impact on how free steaming an engine would be.
Also--the UP 4-12-2 was considered for rebuilding into a 4-6-6-2 simple articulated--which would have been built in very early 1940--but ultimately, they decided to build a 4-8-8-4 instead.
According to Kratville and Bush, installation of roller bearings on all axles would have made the 4-12-2 the "near equal" of the first group of UP challengers in actual performance. As it was, tonnage ratings on the railroad between the two classes were very similar.
I suspect that being "free steaming" had more to due with the amount of available heating surface, the length of the boiler tubes, the draft, and the relative open-ness or backpressure of the exhaust. The challengers and big boys were considered to be very "free steaming" engines.
UP 4-12-2 I suspect that being "free steaming" had more to due with the amount of available heating surface, the length of the boiler tubes, the draft, and the relative open-ness or backpressure of the exhaust. John
I suspect that being "free steaming" had more to due with the amount of available heating surface, the length of the boiler tubes, the draft, and the relative open-ness or backpressure of the exhaust.
It had a lot to do with the direct heating surface available, more so than the total heating surface. A common "end of steam" design was to use shorter, larger diameter fire tubes and lengthen the combustion chamber. In addition, larger arch tubes and multiple thermic syphons would often be employed to increase the direct heating surface.
Using shorter, larger diameter fire tubes would actually lower the total heating surface available, but had great benefits. The larger diameter fire tubes would allow a free flowing exhaust, and the shorter length allowed a longer combustion chamber design. The result was a boiler that on paper looked "smaller" than an older design with a higher number of longer, smaller fire tubes, but was more powerful.
Examples of this design included the 4-8-4 NYC Niagara and C&O J3a. The 2-8-8-4 B&O EM1 of 1945 was a very good example of a big engine using this design. The EM1 had very short, large diameter fire tubes, but had a large firebox and combustion chamber, large arch tubes, and 5 thermic syphons which gave it the same direct heating surface as the H8 Allegheny.
Those 3 engines mentioned were considered very "free steaming" and had the ability to produce high horsepower at high speeds.
Big Boy boiler was considered free steaming according to Kratville, and had the ability to raise large amounts of steam quickly...tested on Alco's plant, they raised the boiler from cold start to 300psi within 45min. In hurry seasons turnarounds were performed within 2 hours, blown down 40 min., 40 min washing, 40 min for steam and fire up.
When treated this way, I think it must be almost visible to see how the boiler grow in length while becoming hot :-)
Excellent explanation here of boiler design. Does Le Massena's "formula" takes concern of that?
I had always read that NKP turned their Berkshires quickly, as did N&W their big steam power--in both cases routinely under 2 hours.
However, Kratville and Bush in the UP Type Vol. 2 book indicate that during hurry periods Union Pacific actually turned engines in as little as 25 minutes (obviously without the washdown but with a quick inspection over the drop pit). Since this included turning 4-12-2's in 25 minutes, it is quite obvious that the middle cylinder would not always have received the maintenance it needed.
Lars Loco Using shorter, larger diameter fire tubes would actually lower the total heating surface available, but had great benefits. The larger diameter fire tubes would allow a free flowing exhaust, and the shorter length allowed a longer combustion chamber design. The result was a boiler that on paper looked "smaller" than an older design with a higher number of longer, smaller fire tubes, but was more powerful. Excellent explanation here of boiler design. Does Le Massena's "formula" takes concern of that?
here is an example, of how boiler and smokeboxes grew. Though the angle of the photo is twisted, the back of the caps is in one line - Bullmoose, Y3a, 9000, Heavy. Chall., BB:
Actually, the early 3900class is missing here, the boiler and firebox-length of the late3900 class Challenger grew in length a portion in comp. with a 9000, the Y3a has a longer boiler and bigger firebox than the Bull Moose, but has shorter smoke box
-hope, you enjoy!
GP40-2It had a lot to do with the direct heating surface available, more so than the total heating surface. A common "end of steam" design was to use shorter, larger diameter fire tubes and lengthen the combustion chamber. In addition, larger arch tubes and multiple thermic syphons would often be employed to increase the direct heating surface.
One of the things that struck me in the article on the D&H high pressure experimentals (June 1967 Trains) was the discussion of how much more effective heating area was in the firebox as opposed to the flues. The D&H high pressure locomotives traded off a lot of flue area in favor of heating surface in the firebox - somewhat easy to do with watertube boilers. Took me thirty to realize the difference was radiant (direct) heat transfer in the firebox versus convective heat transfer in the flues.
- Erik
P.S. There's a nice picture of the boiler for D&H 1400 on Doug Self's "Loco Locomotives" website.
erikemGP40-2It had a lot to do with the direct heating surface available, more so than the total heating surface. A common "end of steam" design was to use shorter, larger diameter fire tubes and lengthen the combustion chamber. In addition, larger arch tubes and multiple thermic syphons would often be employed to increase the direct heating surface. One of the things that struck me in the article on the D&H high pressure experimentals (June 1967 Trains) was the discussion of how much more effective heating area was in the firebox as opposed to the flues. The D&H high pressure locomotives traded off a lot of flue area in favor of heating surface in the firebox - somewhat easy to do with watertube boilers. Took me thirty to realize the difference was radiant (direct) heat transfer in the firebox versus convective heat transfer in the flues.- ErikP.S. There's a nice picture of the boiler for D&H 1400 on Doug Self's "Loco Locomotives" website.
Firebox (or direct) heating surface was one of the considerations that went into the formulas I described in my December 24 reply. (You can see a concise explanation at Wes Barris's steamlocomotive.com.) Here are the components of the formula:
(Direct heating surface+ (superheating surface*1.5)+((tube+flue heating surface)/6)*driver diameter)/HP cylinder volume). I multiply HP cylinder volume by 100 just to keep the final number in bounds). Both the 1.5 multiplier for the SHS and the division by 6 of the tube & flue is based on railroad practice.
Key point - this formula is an attempt to present available steam at speed and does NOT take into account tractive power. Multiplying the total heating surface area (direct, superheater, and tube&flue) by the driver diameter takes into account the number of times per mile the cylinders will be refilled. You could substitute RPM and achieve the same comparative result.
Notice that with compounds, I'm only taking the live steam after starting.
Just as a sample of the interesting results, go to Steamlocomotive.com, find the Lima-built H-10 2-8-2 that set the tone for superpower on the New York Central (Locobase 9696) and a Missouri Pacific Mike that was rebuilt with thermic syphons in the firebox (Locobase 24 - MP 1426-1570). Both come from the same era, had the same driver diameter and boiler pressure. The H-10 had a bigger grate, not quite 10% more firebox area, and more superheater area. Its SPR (the "SuperPower Rating") is 21,661 compared to the MP's 15,053 (a 43% difference).
I'd love to see any comments on this reasoning.
Also (and this may start another, much smaller thread), I'm looking for information on when and where the Central of Georgia's two 2-6-4Ts ran. Did they perform similar duties to those of the Tennessee Coal Iron & Railroad's 4-6-4 30.9.3s, which delivered miners to coal mines? (Locobase 7310)?
GP40-2The B&O also did a lot of experimenting with water tube boiler locomotives. While it is possible to have a large direct heating area and run higher pressure than a fire tube boiler, the B&O mechanical engineers found that water tube boilers where just too fragile in the railroad world. What everybody realized by the mid 1940's was that the fire tubes simply did not add as much to steam production as originally expected. Boiler design changed to emphasize direct heating area, while the shorter fire tubes pretty much served as "exhaust pipes" to get the spent gasses out to the stack as quickly as possible.
The June 1967 article on the D&H high pressure experimentals ended up with a comment that every time one of them went out on the road, the machine shop had to follow it. OTOH, the watertube concept did show up in a lot of locomotive designs in the form of thermic siphons.
I can think of a couple of ways that the extended combustion chamber helped. The first in that the large volume of gas would be radiating heat like crazy (direct heating surface) - radiative heat transfer is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature compared with linear for convection - I would imagine that there were copious amounts of incandescent carbon particles in the combustion chamber. The second is that the combustion chamber would give those carbon particles at least a few more milli-seconds to burn before they're shot up the stack.
More from the article: "Neither company [C&O or DM&IR] seemed to recognize that the high-capacity steam locomotive delivered the most ton-miles per train-hour at speeds close to that corresponding with maximum power output. This may have made little difference to the captive DM&IR, but understanding the C&O's attitude is difficult. DM&IR dragged immense loads of iron ore from the mines to the docks, while the C&O used its massive 2-6-6-6's in coal-drag service well below their maximum abilities." Le Massena clearly thinks C&O was stupid to get a fleet of 2-6+6-6s-- what isn't clear is what he thinks they should have done with them, given that they had saddled themselves with such unsuitable engines. What C&O did was pair them on 11500-ton coal trains up the 0.57% to Alleghany; does Le Massena think they would have saved money by pairing 2-6+6-6s on, say, 8000-ton trains instead? Hard to see why they would-- but apparently that's what he thinks about DM&IR, so maybe he thinks it about C&O too. In any case he thinks the C&O would have been better off with a fleet of 16-driver engines, or maybe 20-driver. (I can't tell whether any design of simple Mallet would have satisfied him-- likely not.) The obvious question: why did they choose fewer drivers, anyway? To us fans it is puzzling, and it's going to remain so. An engine with 150,000 lb nominal TE will pull more cars up a given grade than an engine with 110,000 lb-- we know that for sure, and presumably C&O did too. To get 150,000 lb TE we need 16 drivers or more-- C&O knew that too. I'd say we fans can't come up with any relevant fact that wasn't equally obvious to the C&O-- yet they bought 2-6+6-6s, which makes no sense to us. Far as we can tell from the article Le Massena never gave this puzzle a thought-- a glaring omission, if true. Probably most readers give him the benefit of the doubt, figuring he must have come up with some reasonable explanation that he didn't want to bore them with. Maybe it's even true-- hard to see how he could be that serenely oblivious. But the explanation is hard to reconstruct.
Another fan who seems not to have given the puzzle a thought was William Withuhn in his article in 6/74 Trains: "The railroads' habit of grossly misusing their steam has been mentioned here in TRAINS, but the implications really never have been worked out. Time and again a modern steamer, specifically suited for a speed regime of 30 to 60 mph, was put to use at 10 to 20 mph. The Allegheny type perhaps was the best (or the worst) example of this." The 2-6+6-6 "developed its best drawbar horsepower, and reached proper running efficiency, at 35 to 45 mph. How was this engine used primarily from its first day? In drag coal service, of course-- and by C&O, which should have known better. This sort of situation happened time and again. Using high-speed engines in high-speed service, and designing actual low-speed engines for low-speed service, apparently were concepts too difficult to grasp." Far as I can see, the "difficult concepts" here are the same as before, and quite undifficult: longer trains require more TE, more TE requires more drivers, etc. Can anyone find anything in that article beyond that? (Similar was Bert Pennypacker's article in April 1992 Trains on the WM 4-6+6-4s, where he said the railroad "probably would have been far better off" with a 2-8+8-4.)
I haven't read all of these posts, but this is a fascinating discussion nonetheless.
Regarding the alleged misuse of the 2-6-6-6, I found some of Dr. Huddleston's comments in The World's Greatest Steam Locomotives very interesting:
The C&O had the exact same tonnage rating on some grades for both the H7 2-8-8-2 and the 2-6-6-6.
So for all the engineering and investment in the newer 2-6-6-6, what did C&O really get, in terms of applied real world power on the railroad? What was really gained other than newer, more reliable power?
Some have suggested that more 2-10-4's might have been equally as effective as the 2-6-6-6 in real world service on the railroad. Could this be true?
Huddleston commented that the 2-6-6-6 was designed specifically to beat the Norfolk and Western A Class in power output. Did Lima sell the coal roads (C&O and Virginian) more engine than they really needed just so they could one-up N&W? Could an improved 2-10-4 have been a better choice?
It's also interesting--as Huddleston points out--that UP, also on the exact same sustained grade as some C&O tonnage ratings (1.14%) gave the ex-C&O H7's a higher tonnage rating than C&O did--while at the same time, the Big Boy tonnage ratings were even higher than the H7's. He felt C&O was conservative with tonnage ratings--not wanting to tie up a mainline if something went wrong. Huddleston logically concluded that UP would have given the Big Boys a higher tonnage rating than the Alleghenies (because the Allegheny and the H7 were comparable). From a logic view, that makes sense, but...
While the A2 and H7 were given the same tonnage rating due possibly from higher A2 axle load, could the A2 achieve a higher speed, 25-40 mph, with its greater boiler horsepower?
One element I haven't heard discussed .... while the ruling grades are what the locomotives have to contend with for the pulling power.....the entire route of the trains is not the ruling grade. Once the ruling grade has been conquered there are still many miles of running that the trains have to do before the get to destination. Miles that the 'low speed' engine would have trouble sustaining 40 MPH....miles that those 'mis-used' high speed engines would jog along in the 40-50 MPH speed range with little effort at all.
For a railroad, the efficiency of an engine is measuered from orign to destination...not just on the ruling grade.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Somebody just might want to talk to Bob LeMassena and see what his reaction is.
I'd love to have a chat with him, but am not sure he's even still available, much less how to contact him.
There's lots of questions this 41 year old, who never saw the big guys run, would like to have the chance to ask.
Yes--you are correct--those "misused" high speed simple articulateds did make excellent time over some divisions--which did lower operating costs. However, Huddleston also pointed out that nothing, absolutely nothing, performed as well over the mountainous sections of the Norfolk and Western as the Y-class, compound (slower) 2-8-8-2. For the particular profile N&W had to contend with, the high speed simple articulateds could do no better than the 2-8-8-2's in the mountains--and the 2-8-8-2's could start more train and make adequate enough time with it.
Huddleston elaborated that if N&W had a profile like Virginian, with 0.3% grades to tidewater, they too might very well have opted for a magnificent fleet of 2-8-4's instead of the "mountain mauler" 2-8-8-2's.
Once over Blue Ridge, N&W had a profile that resembled the Virginian. They used Class A 2-6-6-4's east of Roanoke with a Y6 doubleheaded to Crewe and A's solo to Norfolk with up to 200 cars (loaded). A fleet of 2-8-4's would not have been the best choice for N&W; they were at least 1,000 DBHP too small for the job N&W needed to do..
Lima did not design the Allegheny to sell to C&O. The Allegheny specs were set by the Van Swerigen roads' advisory mechanical committee. Lima built what they were told to build.
C&O used the Alleghenies all over the system, not just on the eastbound ruling grade east of Hinton. There were plenty of miles with no significant grades, so they were not completely "misused.". However, since they did not pull any longer trains than the T-1 2-10-4's (about 160 cars max), what good were they? A modernized version of the T-1 would have probably been all C&O needed (IMO).
FWIW, I last talked with LeMassena about 18 months ago (on another subject, not about this article). It was an interesting 80 minutes. At 93, he was trigger quick, knowledgeable and affable. However, he firmly believes that his simplistic formulations and ratios are absolutely correct and that's that. In his mind, no other approach is necessary. Needless to say, I just as firmly diagree with that idea, and with what I believe to be considerable good reasons. So I left it at that. The discussion was polite and inconclusive. I'm not into browbeating someone whose way more than a generation my senior.
feltonhill FWIW, I last talked with LeMassena about 18 months ago (on another subject, not about this article). It was an interesting 80 minutes. At 93, he was trigger quick, knowledgeable and affable. However, he firmly believes that his simplistic formulations and ratios are absolutely correct and that's that. In his mind, no other approach is necessary. Needless to say, I just as firmly diagree with that idea, and with what I believe to be considerable good reasons. So I left it at that. The discussion was polite and inconclusive. I'm not into browbeating someone whose way more than a generation my senior.
BaltACDOne element I haven't heard discussed .... while the ruling grades are what the locomotives have to contend with for the pulling power.....the entire route of the trains is not the ruling grade. Once the ruling grade has been conquered there are still many miles of running that the trains have to do before the get to destination. Miles that the 'low speed' engine would have trouble sustaining 40 MPH....miles that those 'mis-used' high speed engines would jog along in the 40-50 MPH speed range with little effort at all. For a railroad, the efficiency of an engine is measuered from orign to destination...not just on the ruling grade.
Well, since I'm obviously many years too young, and was not there, all I know about the big steam is what I've read in the various books, or seen in the various videos.
So far as browbeating Mr. LeMassena, that most certainly would never be my intention--I just wish I'd have the opportunity to visit with him and ask him some questions. Those who have are fortunate.
I appreciate his attempt to provide a locomotive power rating system with simplicity, whether or not it may have its flaws.
Lots of Santa Fe fans love their huge high horsepower, high speed 4-6-4's, 4-8-4's and 2-10-4's (which rate highly under LeMassena's system). Yet at the same time, when one really reads about their operational history, for all the marvelous power the 2-10-4's were a little slippery and a bit of a handful when operated over the up and down profile of the Arizona desert--such that Santa Fe tended to prefer their older 2-10-2's in the Arizona desert instead. That's one reason the 2-10-4's ended up in the New Mexico desert, and in helper service. Where I'm going with this is that, yeah, on paper the 5011 class 2-10-4 was a marvelous engine--yet many other authors believe the other roads' steam power like the big simple articulateds were superior in performance. Most Santa Fe fans generally esteem the 4-8-4's to be the best of the Santa Fe steam, generally superior to the more powerful 2-10-4's in actual operations.
The debate will likely last another 50 years...
The post mentioning the fact that essentially C&O motive power design was in large measure removed from local control and done by the Van's committee is the real answer. The C&O did continue to use its older 2-8-8-2's up to the end of steam. I think the last revenue steam operation on the C&O was a switcher, but before that if my memory is correct, the old 2-8-8-2's did outlast the more modern 2-6-6-6's. (Remember the PRR's T-1's disapearance long before the last K-4's; and their J's. copies of the C&O 2-10-4, going before the last I-10 2-10-0.) On the other hand, the N&W. UP. SP, CB&Q, and AT&SF (also to be fair, the NKP), ran their modern power to the end of steam. That says a lot.
UP 4-12-2 I'd love to have a chat with him, but am not sure he's even still available, much less how to contact him. There's lots of questions this 41 year old, who never saw the big guys run, would like to have the chance to ask. Yes--you are correct--those "misused" high speed simple articulateds did make excellent time over some divisions--which did lower operating costs. However, Huddleston also pointed out that nothing, absolutely nothing, performed as well over the mountainous sections of the Norfolk and Western as the Y-class, compound (slower) 2-8-8-2. For the particular profile N&W had to contend with, the high speed simple articulateds could do no better than the 2-8-8-2's in the mountains--and the 2-8-8-2's could start more train and make adequate enough time with it. Huddleston elaborated that if N&W had a profile like Virginian, with 0.3% grades to tidewater, they too might very well have opted for a magnificent fleet of 2-8-4's instead of the "mountain mauler" 2-8-8-2's. John
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.