The debate as to which was the very best modern all-around useful steam locomotive will rage on for a long time. Most would agree it would be one of the 4-8-4 dual-service loocomotives, such as the UP 844, the preserved SP GS-4 Daylight, and some would question whether looks would enter the picture, with the Daylioght and the N&W J certainly contenders. And the NYC Niagra could be mentioned with its clearance diagram permitting near universal coast-coast use, which would be prohibilited for the wewstern railroad's northerns. The Ripley AT&SF, the Q's 0-4, al great locomotives.
But what about the very best non-articulated freight locomotive? I would elect the AT&SF Texas Type. Comments will be interesting.
Depends on what you mean by "best"...best at hauling a train at speed?? Then something like a 2-10-4 would be a good choice. For sheer brute power at a slower speed, an NP or DMIR Yellowstone would be hard to beat. For overall usefullness in a variety of situations, a Northern (let's take the NP ones, since they named the type) would be a great choice.
daveklepper Most would agree it would be one of the 4-8-4 dual-service loocomotives,
Most would agree it would be one of the 4-8-4 dual-service loocomotives,
Dave, two word answer: C&O J3a.
As built, both more tractive effort and higher factor of adhesion than the N&W J. Same end of steam design as the Niagra, but with a larger boiler. More power than the 844 or GS-4. All that wrapped in Lima's industry leading design and build quality.
Take your pick:
22 Passenger Cars at 80 mph:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhGoR1cpdrM
OR
100 Coal Cars at 50 mph:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9uOswsUgfU
Pennsy Q2 for fast freight, although I wouldn't argue vehemently over someone claiming the A was about as good.
For slow drags, I dunno...I favour the Y series because they hauled major butt even though they were quite a bit smaller than the Allegheny or the Yellowstone variants.
Crandell
Dave, not indended of being nitpicking :-) ,
those Northern-classes were all designed as passenger power from begin,
as far as I know. 844 was the least powerful one, of those you mentioned (guessing 4000DBHP max. - figueres anywhere?). The J3 (some/all?) had also boosters, giving them superior TE to all else 4-8-4s, combined with 72" drivers, they could probably reach 120mph.
Here is what 844 does, enjoy the video and do not forget to add #6936 and one aux. -tender while counting cars... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TpJkj54VVk
Kind Regards
Hi Crandell,
everthing that startes with "Q" puzzles me.
Its like Star Trek, every episode with "Q" looks like an annoying bug, and maybe that's what PRR should have named then: "Bug Rogers".
Even comparing them with an N&W A, looks strange. A fairer competitor could have been the C&O T1 and PRR J 2-10-4s for comparing real output from zero to midrange speeds of about 35-40mph. And this says a lot. What was their real drawbar output? I do not believe it was more then 6000DBHP). Sure, the Q2 had speed advantage, which PRR also failed of using it. All this, and double building price then 2 Class A's had cost approx.?
lars
In dealing with this question three catagories have been suggested, namely best looking, best at hauling at speed and best at sheer power lugging. Why not consider three engines? I'd nominate the Southern Pacific's 3800 class stack ahead Yellowstones ( 2-8-8-4 ) for handsomest. They were very well proportioned for an articulated and even had a daylight type skyline caseing. I'd choose the UP's Big Boy for the best speedy hauler as they could really roll 'em and were very smooth at speed for their size. Lastly I'd select the Norfolk & Western Y-6 for the drag category. Ooops, I've chosen all articulated types! How about that!
The D&H 2-8-0. There were hundreds of big articulated engines.. but there were thousands of the 2-8-0 type.
I think I would have to second the motion on the Texas type. The evolution of ten wheelers lead to the 2-10-4 as a well sized, capable and powerful pure freight locomotive. An interesting note when everyone discusses steam locomotives is how diverse opinions are. A steamer that had great sucess on one road failed when tested by others, or another road took a great idea of one and made it even better. Thats what I find fasinating about threads such as this and everyone's favorite...its hard to dispute the fact that your opinion of a great engine was infact great somewhere.
Oh, another reason I favor the Texas type, I have the keystone number plate off PRR J-1 #6472. Thanks, C&O for letting the PRR make a great one even greater.
Sort of off topic, but does anyone know how to get links and/or embedded video players to work with this forum?
When I preview my above post, I was able to get directly embedded YouTube players to appear in the post and work. When I actually posted the comment, nothing works, not even a simple link.
???
Edit: got the links to work, but still cant get the players to work.
This new forum sure seems clunky!
My question was to address non-articulated specifically freight locomoties only, and comments on articulateds and dual service northerns were side issues. Does anyone believe that the C&O - PRR 2-10-4 was a better freight locomtive than the AT&SF's? I don't. I think the C&O-PRR locomotive was a good one, but the AT&SF's was even better.
The best northern and the best freight articulated have been discussed earlier, without general agreement.
Dave, what makes you feel, they were better? To be fair, it should be onsidered, that the T1 appeared in 1930 and SF Class 5011 in 1938. More STE on one side, more HP and speed for the other one.
Personally, I lfound E.H.'s article about "A T1 Update" very persuading. This was a lot of locomotive.
Cheers
From what I gather, the AT&SF Texas was able to haul rated tonnage at higher speed, rated tonnage being about the same, than the C&O and PRR Texas types.
The PRR Texas types outlasted and were generally better liked than the duplexes.
I look at it this way the PRR and C&O's Texas types were good. However if you had a mile of train in WW2 you needed moved at High Speed 50MPH or more with Steam power and then turn the engine back with a troop train there was only one type that could and DID do it day in day our. The Santa Fes Texas Class were always on Troop Trains at over 70 MPH speeds one way then get to the other end grab a freight train and haul it right back at 50 MPH or more. They also had 1000 mileDistricts that they covered without being pulled for an engine change. C&O and PRR would never have done anything like that. It was nothing for the Texas types on the ATSF to run 20K mies or more a month at high speeds. They may have been young at retirement however they were TIRED internally. For me as an EX team OTR driver I look at the Texas type as what I drove in 1997-1998 combined my father and I that year when him and I got on the truck did over 250K miles in 11 months as a team. One was given to us Brand New with only 72 miles on it. When I quit to go to another carrier due to a problem I was having with that company that truck was at 102K miles 5 months later and I was solo the last month in it.
Looking at both locomotives, the Lima designed C&O had a larger boiler with more direct heating surface than the Baldwin designed Santa Fe. I suspect that the Santa Fe version, being a later design, had a better steam circuit into the cylinders. Even though the boiler made less steam, it was utilized better, resulting in slightly more power at higher speeds. This was a common trend in steam design, and by the mid-1940's locomotive builders where quite good at maximizing performance for a given boiler size.
Which one was more successful? Considering that there was 165 copies of the C&O/PRR version and 35 copies of the Santa Fe 5001/5011 version, I'll let others debate that.
That being said, I would't want either one as a freight locomotive. They were the ultimate track destroyers. For express service, any number of the end of steam 4-8-4 designs would run better at speed, produce similar horsepower, and be more track friendly. For moving tonnage at speed, any of the Class A / Challenger / Yellowstone types would produce far more horsepower with more efficiency, while also being more track friendly.
I don't think this question can answered by any one builder or locomotive. It seems to me that the advent of the four wheel trailing truck to support a larger firebox was the key to the steam engine's ultimate ability to haul freight. Berkshire's, Texas-types, or bigger engines all were great locomotives in their own environment. Today engines from the east coast end up on run-throughs on the west coast. In the days of steam, locomotives stayed in their home territory because that is where they did the work they were designed to do. I vote for any wheel arrangement with four (or more) wheels supporting the firebox in the area they were designed to serve.
GP-40, you vote for the dual-use (passenger and freight) 4-8-4 as being a better freight locomotive than the best 2-10-4's. I can understand your point of view. But still, the 2-10-4's could start a heavier train, and pull it at higher speed up a mountain. The railroads that used them had th etrack structure to use them effectively, and they no more destroyed track than did the PRR duplexes, which had an even longer rigid wheel base, compensating for the advantage of a four-wheeled leading truck. And maintenance was certainly less than any articulated. They did last a long time on both the AT&SF, the PRR, and the C&O.
atsfkid It seems to me that the advent of the four wheel trailing truck to support a larger firebox was the key to the steam engine's ultimate ability to haul freight.
It seems to me that the advent of the four wheel trailing truck to support a larger firebox was the key to the steam engine's ultimate ability to haul freight.
The key was a larger firebox (more direct heating surface), not specifically a 4 wheel training truck. The B&O S1a Class 2-10-2, with 125 built from 1923-1926 by both Baldwin and Lima, had a boiler similar to the later 4-8-4s, but using a 2 wheel trailing truck. The design used the trailing axle and the 5th drive axle to support the larger firbox area. Unlike other 2-10-2s, the S1a produced plenty of steam at speed, and would routinely run at 70+ mph. They lasted on the B&O to nearly 1960, and worked so well the B&O never bothered with a 4 trailing axle frieght engine other than the 2-8-8-4 EM1 of 1944-45.
Considering their numbers, excellent design, and the fact they lasted nearly 40 years in both extreme mountain service and high speed service, the S1a could be included in a list of best frieght steam examples.
daveklepper GP-40, you vote for the dual-use (passenger and freight) 4-8-4 as being a better freight locomotive than the best 2-10-4's. I can understand your point of view. But still, the 2-10-4's could start a heavier train, and pull it at higher speed up a mountain.
GP-40, you vote for the dual-use (passenger and freight) 4-8-4 as being a better freight locomotive than the best 2-10-4's. I can understand your point of view. But still, the 2-10-4's could start a heavier train, and pull it at higher speed up a mountain.
True, a 2-10-4 would have more TE than a 4-8-4, that's why I stated the 4-8-4 would be a better higher speed engine. The 2-10-4 would be a better drag engine, no doubt.
daveklepper The railroads that used them had the track structure to use them effectively, and they no more destroyed track than did the PRR duplexes, which had an even longer rigid wheel base, compensating for the advantage of a four-wheeled leading truck.
The railroads that used them had the track structure to use them effectively, and they no more destroyed track than did the PRR duplexes, which had an even longer rigid wheel base, compensating for the advantage of a four-wheeled leading truck.
The PRR duplexes mangled the track too. The 2-10-4s produced an extremely high dynamic hammer blows to the track. Back in those days, sections gangs where aligning the track daily in the districts where the 2-10-4s ran.
daveklepper And maintenance was certainly less than any articulated. They did last a long time on both the AT&SF, the PRR, and the C&O.
And maintenance was certainly less than any articulated. They did last a long time on both the AT&SF, the PRR, and the C&O.
Do you know for a fact the maintanence was lower? The N&W, as cost conscious as they came, had no issues with relying on articulated freight locomotives almost exclusively. As far as lasting a long time, the C&O scapped all of theirs in the early 1950's. The 2-10-4 was history on the Santa Fe pretty much by 1955. The PRR did pull some out of storage for the coal boom in 56-57, but they were gone almost as fast as they came. In contrast, I remember seeing 2-8-8-4s being stored on the B&O, in operating condition, as late as 1962. The DM&IR used their 2-8-8-4s as late as 1963.
GP40-2 Unlike other 2-10-2s, the S1a produced plenty of steam at speed, and would routinely run at 70+ mph.
Unlike other 2-10-2s, the S1a produced plenty of steam at speed, and would routinely run at 70+ mph.
Interesting, GP-40, were they capable of gaining these speeds by begin of design, or did they get upgrades later, like a casted frame for example?
For example, look at UP 2-10-2, with just one inch smaller wheel diameter, occasionally used as helpers on passenger trains, though, there seems to be no evidence they would have run faster than 50mph. However, first examples occured in 1917 ( those like 5011 stored in Cheyenne).
Comparisons of engines usually favorites later builds. Otherwise, I strongly believe that most steam engines build after 1940, were all quite good and far developed by all manufactures and industry standards.
I don't know when feedwater heaters and pumps were introduced, nor when superheaters were routinely installed in steamers of a certain size/configuration, but it seems to me most of those types of advances came into routine installation quite a bit later than the time the UP first began to use 10-coupled engines. Berkshire development time comes to mind. So, apart from dynamic augmentation problems and other deficiencies not also corrected when they were shopped over the years, the first big freighters were limited to drag freight speeds. I always understood that the later Mountain types were the first super-freighters, those and the Santa Fe variants developed in the 30's.
I had completely forgotton about the B&O 2-10-2, and am glad you brought it to my attention. It certainly is a worthy companion to the two best Texas types and possibly can be rated as superior considering its long life. I apologize for entering the two cyliner vs articulated debate because my first posting was for the best non-articulated freight engine, without considering articiulated types. I am certainly willing to conced that any one of a number of articulated locmotives, certainly the N&W 2-6-6-4 (my favorite), the Challengers (and the UP's may not have been the best of them), or Yellowstones were probably even better freight locomotives overall. And there is always the Big Boy. Regarding track conditions, if we really wanted to make that the all-important issue, we's be reduced to the Pennsy D-16 4-4-0 kept running into the 1950's because it was the only steamer capable of travling over certain of the branches (particularly on the Del-Mar-Va penninisula) with light rail. (The CP had some similar situations.) I was really looking at performance only. Yes, I do think the B&O locomotive is very worthy of consideration. A 2-10-4 that can dependably haul tonnage at 70mph is a great locomotive, and so is any 2-10-2 that can do so.
But concerning the numbers of locomotives built. I think that is irrelevant as long as there was serial production. You would not claim, for example, that the Pennsy K-4 was a better passenger locomtive than any one of a number of Hudsons, not only the NYC J-3a, but also the Hiawatha 4-6-4's ("Baltics"), the Lackawanna's, the NKP's, the AT&SF's. If all the North American 4-6-4's were totalled, would the quantity exceed the number of K4's?
daveklepper But what about the very best non-articulated freight locomotive? I would elect the AT&SF Texas Type. Comments will be interesting.
Dave,
sorry for asking a question about your question, but what do you fellas would think about building quality of the 3 major locomotive works?
Like tolerances of parts, quality of used alloysm, nuts`n Bolts. Had some builders advantages?
Many times it was written, for example, LIMA builds were Cadillacs, the NW "A" was to be known a Mercedes...but I have never seen a 500t automobile from them ;-) Steam engines and car comparisons just do not work, in my eyes.
In addition, some essential parts (frames) came all from outside contractors, like GSI and...I forgot the other brand :-(
However, I can not determine if an unknown engine is a Baldwin or...
Even more fun, it happened many times a pilot model was built from one builder, the rest of the copies by another one ( NP Yellowstones ). Did just Money win?
I think all three USA builder built very high quality products. The only quality problem I ever heard of from railroaders concerned PRR-built products and the quality of steel the used. I saw this myself in the rusting out of the extremely comfortable post WWII Juniata built 44-seat long-distance coaches for the premier east-west coach streamliners. I heard reports about the same sort of thing in locomotives! (Not the GG-1's) What set N&W apart was not only the quality of the locomotive's construction and the beautiful fit of locomotives to operating requirements, but also the efficiency, regularity, and state-fo-the-art nature of these locomotives' maintenance. The N&W was always a very well run sharp operaton. 70mph coal trains to the Tiedwater? A waste? Not at all, kept the railroad fluid with no delays to the passenger and mercendise trains. burned more coal to reduce crew hours. And in their 2-6-6-4 "A" class, they had the locomotive to do it.
The best freight locomotive? Probably depends on what part of the country you're talking about. East of the Mississippi it would have to be the 2-8-4 Berkshire type, just for it's efficiency and longevity, some operated into the late '50s, West of the Miss. then it's no contest, it would have to be UP's "Big Boy". UP kept some stored serviceable until 1961-62 "just in case". Certainly some other articulateds had more pulling power tha "Big Boy" but none could run as fast.
Firelock76 The best freight locomotive? Probably depends on what part of the country you're talking about. East of the Mississippi it would have to be the 2-8-4 Berkshire type, just for it's efficiency and longevity, some operated into the late '50s...
The best freight locomotive? Probably depends on what part of the country you're talking about. East of the Mississippi it would have to be the 2-8-4 Berkshire type, just for it's efficiency and longevity, some operated into the late '50s...
Do you know for a fact that the 2-8-4 was more efficient than other designs? Besides, other designs were in operation just as long, and often longer than the 2-8-4s.
Firelock76 West of the Miss. then it's no contest, it would have to be UP's "Big Boy". UP kept some stored serviceable until 1961-62 "just in case". Certainly some other articulateds had more pulling power tha "Big Boy" but none could run as fast.
West of the Miss. then it's no contest, it would have to be UP's "Big Boy". UP kept some stored serviceable until 1961-62 "just in case". Certainly some other articulateds had more pulling power tha "Big Boy" but none could run as fast.
Why would it "have" to be the Big Boy? What criteria are you basing this assumption on? It is absolutely false that other articulated locomotives weren't as fast as the Big Boy. The B&O used the EM1 in express freight service for years, the N&W Class A was just as fast as a Big Boy along with the C&O Allegheny. Even the DM&IR M3/M4, while not as stable at speed at the EM1 or Big Boy, could easily maintain passenger speeds if called upon.
The most convincing thing I've read in all these posts is that we all have our own favorites. Since we can't line them up and run head to head tests, why not agree that the engine that pulled the most freight through "...our" part of the world was what "...our" railroads put their faith in and that should be enough for us, it was for them.
We need a Steam Olympics. How about in Olympia, WA?
Great idea. But I will repeat my own favorites. Non-articulated best freighter, the AT&SF 2-10-4. East of the Mississippi? The C&O-NKP-PM-Erie 2-8-4. Articulated? N&W A 2-6-6-4 I certianly can understand others having different favorites.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.