As the great Dave Barry would say, " 'Manunka is an old Indian word meaning 'Manunka'!"
To get back on track: The Best Freight Locomotive. Nowhere is a mention of the 4-4-0 (American) Type. Admittedly they had peaked in the early part of the 20th Century, but they were virtually everywhere in the American Railroad environment. They were wood burners, they were coal fired and they were also oil burning.
They pulled freight and passenger trains. they were on mainlines; branchlines. all over the U.S.A., and Canada, as well. They were made by all the locomotive builders at one time or another. they appeared in a wide array of sizes and weights. They were ugly, and they were beautiful, a show of pride by their crews.
Here is a DL&W American about to go into the bore of the Manunka Chunk Tunnel in 1900.
Linked @: http://www.shorpy.com/node/8149#comment-91259 (you can increase the size of the picture details at the site linked)
[Warren County, New Jersey, circa 1900. "Manunka Chunk, east end of tunnel." 8x10 inch dry plate glass negative, Detroit Publishing Company. ]
Admittedly, this is a little far afield, but kind of interesting.
This is a link to photos showing this same location in recent pictures of the twin bore tunnels on the former DL&W that was baypassed when the 'Lackawanna Cutoff was completed]
http://www.shorpy.com/node/8149#comment-91223
Note: from the SHORPY web site referencing the term " CHUNK"
"...Only other "Chunk" name I've ever heard of that has been implanted on the landscape anywhere is the place in Pennsylvania once called Mauch Chunk. I wonder what "Chunk" in these instances means? Is it a land feature? (And hasn't the former Mauch Chunk been renamed "Jim Thorpe"?)
[According to the Interwebs, "chunk" is the Lenape Indian word for bear. Mauch Chunk = "sleeping bear" (after the shape of a nearby mountain). Can't find the meaning of "manunka." - Dave]..."
Juniatha,Thank you very much for editing your print. I really appreciate you taking the time to make your post so much easier to read. I hope others do to.
.
OK, NOW I get it. The print color and the font. Still can't stand Hendrix. Or Jim Morrison for that matter. How about this: "When the deep purple falls, over sleepy garden walls...."
Think about it a little deeper. Purple haze really fits the bill.
The only thing "Purple Haze" makes me think of is where I put that bottle of Tylenol! I couldn't stand Hendrix 40 years ago and can't stand him now! Nuthin' but noise!
A Juniatha post calls for a fine wine, a cheese spread, and some classical music in the background, say Wagners "Overture to Tannhauser."
With that combination, I think Jimi Hendrick's "Purple Haze" would be a better song.
Hey, Big Jim! A Juniatha post isn't something you can breeze through. You've got to slow down and savor it. A Juniatha post calls for a fine wine, a cheese spread, and some classical music in the background, say Wagners "Overture to Tannhauser." Something about that piece of music makes me think of a steam engine, Norfolk and Western's Class J for example. Don't know why, it just does. Yes, I'd like her print to be a bit bigger for those of us who's eyes aren't what they used to be. Or never were, for that matter!
Juniatha,Must you write in that small print that is harder to read than the default size?
Quite frankly, I pass right on by all of your posts because, why waste my time trying to read something the poster obviously doesn't want to be read in the first place.
And, why is your post to "Steam Olympics" here under the "Best Freight Locomotive" thread?
Erh – can we beef them up with best suitable coal specification? Will we be allowed to tune them up ever so slightly before the events?
Would it be considered doping to install high efficiency draughting Giesl – Kylchap – Lempor style?
What about if on my favourite last series cast steel unit frame UP-Nine 4-12-2 triple barrel stormer I were to throw out that grizzly Gresley derived valve gear and mount my home designed customized needle bearings Baker long lap valve gear of three independent sets, bore up just a little that cylinder in the middle to get more even torque (had shorter stroke), install Wardale type cooled valve liners and piston valves, re-surface all cylinders inner steam passages, then revamp the firebox design with shorter, deeper grate, doing away with Gaines wall, replace it by equivalent length of regular combustion chamber, revamp tubes arrangement for high superheating by A type superheater of SNCF 5P4 design, add two-stage preheater - or, preferably, have my new all-welded boiler design installed …
Ok, just dreaming …
Regards
= J =
The only piston valved T-1 Straight running board & trimmed and rounded tender tank lower edge, lateral water pockets disposed with Virtual changes by = J =
Add.:
Re-edited in Arial.
This was an answer to the comment steam Olympics quoted below. It was meant as a contemplation on a transcription to classic steam of rebuilding / up-grading / customizing the way some owners of classic American muscle cars indulge these iconic automobiles with, or subject them to – depending on point of view and quality of work performed.
selector
Posts :17,213
Joined: 02-07-2005
Vancouver Island, BC
RE:Best Freight Locomotive
selector replied on Sat, Nov 20 2010 11:06 AM
Reply
We need a Steam Olympics. How about in Olympia, WA?
daveklepper
Posts :4,778
Joined: 06-18-2002
daveklepper replied on Sun, Nov 21 2010 10:08 AM
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.
Look, I wasn't "there", so all I know is what the books tell me. As far as the Berkshire type, some lasted right up to the end of steam, 1958-1959. A thirty year run for a locomotive type is pretty impressive any way you look at it. The "Big Boys", the record speaks for itself. You have to look at excellence of design, longevity, and the ability of the machine to do anything that was asked of it. Living in Virginia I could be parochial and say the best of them all were the Norfolk and Western A's and Y's, but I'm trying to look at the big picture. Some old timers I've met told me they used to chase the A's along Route 460 from Petersburg to Norfolk and the A's would run away from them, doing 70 mph+. A good way to get speeding tickets in those small "speed trap" towns! Of course, we could say the best freight locomotives were the humble 2-8-0's and 2-8-2-'s that lasted up to the end of mainline steam and beyond that no-one paid much attention to. We all have our favorites though, and that's a fact. Keep on chuggin'!
feltonhill ...In order to release the same amount of heat, the small grate area must operate with a faster burn rate in lbs/SF/hr. All other things being equal (which they never are), the NKP 2-8-4 would have a probable advantage by burning its coal at a slower unit rate.
That's only true if the quality of the coal was the same. Did the NKP have access to the same high quality steam coal the B&O did? The B&O (also C&O and N&W) used Pittsburgh coal (from various veins) that has a high volatile organic component that was gasified as the coal "cooked" on the grate. The gasified volatiles didn't burn on the grate, but ignited into a white hot flame up in the firebox and combustion chamber where most of the steam was produced.
Of course, if one does not have this type of coal, a larger grate area would be needed to produce the same heat output. What is interesting is that the T4 Mountain has more direct heating surface to absorb the released energy than the NKP 2-8-4.
I believe the key difference between a large 4-8-2 like the B&O T4 (ex B&M) and the NKP 2-8-4 is the grate area. Although the direct heating surface is similar (474 vs 461??) which also indicates that irebox volume may also be similar, the 4-8-2's grate area is 12% smaller (79 SF vs 90.3sf). In order to release the same amount of heat, the small grate area must operate with a faster burn rate in lbs/SF/hr. All other things being equal (which they never are), the NKP 2-8-4 would have a probable advantage by burning its coal at a slower unit rate.
uphogger l Actually, builder statistics would show more Consolidations built than Mikados.
l
Actually, builder statistics would show more Consolidations built than Mikados.
Perhaps so, but in terms of their overall utility (ton-miles), the Mikes would surely be the greater haulers by quite a margin. Just a small sampling shows their TE to be in the order of 5-10K pounds more than a sampling of Consolidations. They would have moved more tonnage at a faster pace as a class, depending on routing and loading. If they are second only to the Consolidation in numbers, then, when you think about it, it puts them at an advantage in determining overall utility, and thus places them ahead of the more numerous Consolidation Class.
Crandell
daveklepper ... East of the Mississippi? The C&O-NKP-PM-Erie 2-8-4...
... East of the Mississippi? The C&O-NKP-PM-Erie 2-8-4...
The 2-8-4 is one locomotive that I never understood why it was built. If you look at the boiler on the typical 2-8-4, specifically the direct heating surface area, and compare it to one of the larger 4-8-2 Mountain types, there isn't much difference in steam production capacity. In other words, for the size of its firebox/combustion chamber area, the 2-8-4 really didn't need the 4 axle trailing truck. Tractive effort was similar between them too.
Take the C&O 2-8-4, compare it to a big B&O T4 or ICG Mountain, and you would not see much difference in boiler capacity. The biggest Eastern 4-8-4s, such as the N&W Class J, and C&O J3a had a much larger direct heating area than any of the 2-8-4s or Mountains, and certainly needed the 4 axle trailing truck to support it.
selector Well, I think if you go by sheer numbers, it would have to be the 2-8-2. But the six-coupled and eight-coupled were not really intended, nor purchased, as 'freight' engines. Yes, they switched in freight yards, and some were used on industrial spurs as 'road engines', but few of them. A Mikado could do the same job, but it was a much better handling, and safer, engine at track speeds. Crandell
Well, I think if you go by sheer numbers, it would have to be the 2-8-2. But the six-coupled and eight-coupled were not really intended, nor purchased, as 'freight' engines. Yes, they switched in freight yards, and some were used on industrial spurs as 'road engines', but few of them. A Mikado could do the same job, but it was a much better handling, and safer, engine at track speeds.
I think you guys are missing the question. Best freight locomotive? This has got to be the lowly 0-6-0 switcher. They outlasted the more glamorous road engines and probably throughout their life moved more freight then a given class of road engine. They could also go places where the others feared to tread. Some were in service for more then fifty years. I am sure if the diesels could be held to road service there would be some 0-6-0s working the yards today.
As for glamor? That would have to be the C&O /PRR 2-10-4. Functionality would go to the PRR I1sa 2-10-0. For the size it had 90,000 lbs of tractive effort at start up. It could be pushed to 50 mph. The all around bread and butter loco would be the 2-8-0. Thousands of these could not be wrong.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
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.
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 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.
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.
daveklepper But what about the very best non-articulated freight locomotive? I would elect the AT&SF Texas Type. Comments will be interesting.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.