I would like nomimate ywo locomotives from the AT&F the 3800's 2-10-2, and their Prarrie Mallets. Thanks for time.
Have you seen the thread much closer to the bottom of the titles page with the same title?
Crandell
The AT&SF people would tell you their 2-10-4's were a vast improvement over their 2-10-2's.
On a previous "best freight locomotive" discussion I said I was trying to look at the "big picture" and not be parochial living in Virginia, but NOW I'm going to say it! The best freight locomotives were produced by the genius homebuilders at the Norfolk and Western ! Yes sir, the Class "A"s and the Class "Y"s. There, I said it and I'm glad!
We haven't formalized the criteria for selecting the 'best' freight engine, so it will come down to favourites for many of us with no real regard to efficiency and performance.
Few would argue that one of the later 2-10-4 Texas types would be solid candidates. The H-8 Allegheny was, according to some observers/critics, misused much of the time. It was a Challenger on steroids.
The lowly Mikado, light or heavy? They were used everywhere and in large numbers. The railroads must have liked them for a reason?
Considering large freight locomotives, the 2-8-8-4 Yellowstone type was the ultimate (the Big Boy was a Yellowstone with an extra lead axle). They had high factors of adhesion, boilers the size of the fabled Allegheny (The EM1, M3/M4 and BB all had firebox areas equal to the H8), power at speed that a 2-10-4 could only dream about. They all could move at passenger speeds (the EM1 was often used on 70 mph express trains), and were much easier on the track than a rigid frame locomotive. Plus, they were all very reliable, and lasted into the early 1960's with minimal maintenance.
The 2-10-4s, while powerful, were extremely hard on track at speed. The 4-6-6-4s and 2-6-6-4 Class A were great machines on level track, but slippery on a hard pull. The Y Class was a great slow speed puller, but not the best choice for higher speed general merchandise trains, and forget about using them on express runs.
For smaller freight locomotives, the lowly 2-8-2 is a good pick. Cheap to build, cheap to maintain, got the work done on time. Like Selector said, there was a reason why there were so many of them, and many of the 2-8-2s lasted right to the end of steam.
Best freight locomotive, again the AT&SF 2-10-4 for non-articulateds, and they were used where the track structure could support them. Note that in direct comparison on the Sandusky line, enginemen did prefer, in general, the AT&SF over the PRR J. If we include articulateds, then of course any number of them are even better, depending on the territory and traffic. Yellowstones, of course, but the N&W didn't build any and the N&W locos were in my opinion the best designed around, so I would vote for the Y-6 and the A-1 as a pair. depending on the grades and the traffic. And I still think the N&W J is the best 4-8-4, among some very good ones, inlcuding the Niagras, the UP's, the Daylights, and AT&SF's.
Sure, the Mikados lasted until the end. But with certain exceptions, the Birkshires were still a generally better locomotive for the same traffic. Saying the Mikados were better than the Birkshires is like saying the K4 was a better engine than the NYC J-3a for passenger work. And yes there was still a fleet of K4's running on the NY&LB and PRSC and on the PRR Valpo jobs of Chicago long after the last NYC Hudson was scrapped.
I would have to say the ex-GTW 2-8-2 4070 as being the best . She needs a lot of work though...
though my personal favorite freight locomotive is... um... well... all of them
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Just remember that the most common wheel arrangement was a Consolidation (2-8-0). There were more of those built than any other.
Are we talking road freight or any loco that moved freight? Are we talking tonnage per train or over a lifetime? Drag freight or fast freight? There really can not be a best. They all were replaced by the internal combustion and electrically operated.
My vote would go to the often overlooked 0-6-0 for best freight mover. It was getting the job done when most of the other reciprocating fire breathing monsters were being cut up for toyotas and pintos that were years younger.
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 best freight locomotive for doing what? Modern steam locomotives on American railroads were designed to do specific jobs for individual lines. NKP Berkshires could move fast freight across a flat profile. AT&SF 2-10-4s could pull a long freight of 4000+ tons up the Abo Canyon grade without a helper. PRR M1a 4-8-2s could run like a deer along the well engineered four track main between Harrisburg and Altoona. Western Maryland Decapods could lug heavy coal drags up and down the sawtooth profile West of Cumberland. Norfolk and Western Y6s could......... Get the point? In late steam days some designs were good enough all around to be shared among several railroads. UPs Challengers were duplicated for the Rio Grande, Clinchfield, and Delaware and Hudson. Several roads shared a basic 4-8-4 based on a Rio Grande formula. My personal favorite is the SPs Cab Forwards. They were powerful, versatile, had wide route availability and could lug a heavy freight or wheel a fast mail train, whatever was needed.
Very good point. And the same could be said for passenger power. The Hiawatha Atalntics and CP Jubalees were for a different task the a J3a or a Daylight or N&W J or Niagra.
But I will stick my neck out and say that despite my great fondness for GG-1's, and I did have a cab-ride once, NH-NY, the NYNH&H EF3a was still an all-around better electcric locomotive.
Firelock76~~ 10-4 on your view of N&W s A -s & Y series. With the Y6bs being the ultimate. They were designed for a specific job and they did it well . That was an event when I saw a doubleheader climbing up from Portsmouth Ohio with a string of coal hoppers.
Cannonball Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Oh, so nice to be appreciated! Even better to be agreed with!
I agree. All three of the N&W greats were the greatest of their type. No one could do a better job of designing and constructing a steam locomotive than the N&W. The Merecedes of the insdustry.. The AT&SF Ripley designs (including and possibly especially the 2-10-40, the Niagra, the Daylight, the cab forwards, and the Challengers are certainly great locomotives, without doubt.
daveklepper I agree. All three of the N&W greats were the greatest of their type. No one could do a better job of designing and constructing a steam locomotive than the N&W.
I agree. All three of the N&W greats were the greatest of their type. No one could do a better job of designing and constructing a steam locomotive than the N&W.
The N&W Y was the best compound freight designed without a doubt.
The A and J, from an engineering point of view, weren't even the most advanced of their type.
The A was a very good, even great 1930's design. The J wasn't and "end of steam" design either.
If you think I am wrong prove it.
And saying "I read it in a railfan book" isn't proving it.
I want hard engineering data. Not opinions based on what some biased railfan writer once said.
I believe the protestant goes first, so some further information would help the rest of us with crafting some kind of response.
Why wasn't the A the most advanced of its type? What was?
What 2-6-6-4 was more advanced than the N&W A, particularly the last group built in 1950?
What 4-8-4 was more advanced than the N&W Class J? Several were close technologically.
The last "end of steam" commercial design in the US was the C&O 2-6-6-2 of 1949 IIRC. Good locos for the type of service they were designed for, but not very advanced.
The last road locomotives built in the US were the N&W Y6b's of 1952. A specialized loco to be sure, but very advanced by most any comparison I can think of.
I don't think you're necessarily wrong, I just don't understand your decision criteria.
Some clarification would help. It would also probably avoid a pointless flame war.
feltonhill I believe the protestant goes first, so some further information would help the rest of us with crafting some kind of response. Why wasn't the A the most advanced of its type? What was? What 2-6-6-4 was more advanced than the N&W A, particularly the last group built in 1950? What 4-8-4 was more advanced than the N&W Class J? Several were close technologically. The last "end of steam" commercial design in the US was the C&O 2-6-6-2 of 1949 IIRC. Good locos for the type of service they were designed for, but not very advanced. The last road locomotives built in the US were the N&W Y6b's of 1952. A specialized loco to be sure, but very advanced by most any comparison I can think of. I don't think you're necessarily wrong, I just don't understand your decision criteria. Some clarification would help. It would also probably avoid a pointless flame war.
No Flame War intended.
Back to the quote that started this:
"I agree. All three of the N&W greats were the greatest of their type. No one could do a better job of designing and constructing a steam locomotive than the N&W. "
As an Engineer, it just drives me nuts when people make absolute statements. Especially when I know they don't have enough accurate comparison data between individual classes of steam locomotives, not to mention the variations of those classes between the multiple builders to even think such a statement.
The J was designed in 1941, correct? I know the later ones built had some slight modifications, but the basic design was from 1941. So let's turn the question around. Show me hard engineering data that proves all the 4-8-4s designed after 1941 didn't use more advanced designs. Are you suggesting that all 4-8-4 engineering somehow regressed after 1941?
On to the Class A. If we are only talking about 2-6-6-4s, which very few railroads used, then you may have a point. But if we are talking about every simple articulated steam locomotive ever built, that is another story. All the Class A used the same design from what, 1935- 1936? Like I said, a very good design for that time period, but it certainly did not have more advanced engineering than simple articulated locomotives that were designed from a clean sheet after it. Unless one magically believes that the field of Mechanical Engineering regressed into the future. Again, if you can show me hard data that proves that simple articulated locomotives designed after the Class A somehow used less advanced engineering, I'd love to see it.
I've observed these discussions over the "Best Steam Locomotive" with bemusement because the comparisons are so subjective, despite the reams of engineering data that are brought out to support a particular point of view. Most of the examples that are brought out; N&W's trio, the ATSF Big 3, Van Sweringen 2-8-4's, etc. tended to designed with a particular task in mind and were not all-purpose locomotives. The "Best Steam Locomotive", I would opine that no such beast actually existed.
I would opine that each carrier that ordered successive orders of any particular locomotive design on their roster felt that they had achieved the best locomotive for the task. Steam locomotives were not 'off the shelf' products, like diesels basically are. Each carrier had it's own particular operating obstacles and purchased power that best solved their operating realities. Each carrier thought they had the best for their particular circumstance.
CSSHEGEWISCH The "Best Steam Locomotive", I would opine that no such beast actually existed.
The "Best Steam Locomotive", I would opine that no such beast actually existed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I'll dissent in part from the idea that North American mainline steam locomotives designed and built after 1941 were necessarily better than those designed before them (your example of the latter was the N & W A class 2-6-6-4). It may be true that this or that design was tweaked with more firebox appliances and a few more axles' worth of roller bearings, but most of the steam purchased after 1941 was bought under duress. After the EMD FTs made the rounds of most of the major roads, many of them lined up for diesel freighters only to be told that the engines were needed for more combative applications (e.g. submarines and destroyer escorts).
Remember that the Santa Fe 2900s were a superb dual-use 4-8-4, but essentially repeats of the just-prewar 3776s with some of the alloy steel replaced with heavier, but less resource-demanding steel. The excellent B & O EM-1 2-8-8-4s stand right up with the best of heavy freight engines, but the railroad accepted them only because they couldn't get diesels.
The few railroads that still felt a strong commitment to steam after 1941 delivered mixed results in steam design. On the negative side, the Pennsy's explorations into duplex steam power, while endearing and personal favorites of mine, cannot be described as successes. On the other hand, the New York Central's Niagaras were possibly the greatest 4-8-4s ever.
Finally, those posters who commented that a given railroad tended to buy what suited their requirements best have the best of the argument. Remember too that a locomotive one has already paid for or can get second-hand may have seemed more valuable than any shiny new not-diesel design
A fun thread
I won't denigrate NYC's Niagara's since they appear to be an excellent design. That being said, most of what I've read about them suggests that they were too big for the service in which they were used. Kiefer's comparison between 2-unit and 3-unit E7 lash-ups on one hand and the Niagara on the other hand implies as much. Why design and build a 4-8-4 with a potential of 6000 HP when only 4000 HP is actually needed?
This is a very easy argument when equipped with 60 years of 20/20 hindsight. The decisions the carriers were making 'in the day' were clouded by the fog of unknowable foresight. They 'thought' they knew what they wanted and they 'thought' they knew what it would take to achieve that end, but the era of true data collection and processing had yet to occur...they made the best educated guesses that the underlying knowledge of the time would permit.
CSSHEGEWISCH I won't denigrate NYC's Niagara's since they appear to be an excellent design. That being said, most of what I've read about them suggests that they were too big for the service in which they were used. Kiefer's comparison between 2-unit and 3-unit E7 lash-ups on one hand and the Niagara on the other hand implies as much. Why design and build a 4-8-4 with a potential of 6000 HP when only 4000 HP is actually needed?
locobasede I'll dissent in part from the idea that North American mainline steam locomotives designed and built after 1941 were necessarily better than those designed before them (your example of the latter was the N & W A class 2-6-6-4). It may be true that this or that design was tweaked with more firebox appliances and a few more axles' worth of roller bearings, but most of the steam purchased after 1941 was bought under duress. After the EMD FTs made the rounds of most of the major roads, many of them lined up for diesel freighters only to be told that the engines were needed for more combative applications (e.g. submarines and destroyer escorts).
"Better" is a very subjective term. Everybody thinks their favorite steam locomotive is "better" than the rest, but nobody can back it up with accurate, comprehensive engineering data.
The simple articulated locomotives design after the 1935 Class A were more than just tweaked. They had fundamental engineering changes that included larger firebox areas, less flue area, different superheater design, different smokebox design. What is interesting is that this design change was common across all the builders on many types of locomotives. These changes were not some random anomaly. There were engineering reasons for the changes.
In the early 1940's, the steam builders were very aware of the potential competition from EMD. All the more reason for the steam builders to advance the engineering of steam to make it more competitive. It wasn't until the late 1940's that it was realized to be a lost cause from an engineering viewpoint.
locobasede On the other hand, the New York Central's Niagaras were possibly the greatest 4-8-4s ever.
On the other hand, the New York Central's Niagaras were possibly the greatest 4-8-4s ever.
Why? Based on what? How can that statement be made without accurate, comprehensive data from every single 4-8-4 design produced?
BaltACD This is a very easy argument when equipped with 60 years of 20/20 hindsight. The decisions the carriers were making 'in the day' were clouded by the fog of unknowable foresight. They 'thought' they knew what they wanted and they 'thought' they knew what it would take to achieve that end, but the era of true data collection and processing had yet to occur...they made the best educated guesses that the underlying knowledge of the time would permit.
Very astute point.
I'll take my challenger 1 step higher:
Not only can it not be proven from an engineering viewpoint that the N&W J was the "best" 4-8-4 or the N&W Class A was the "best" simple articulated design, it can't even be said that the Class J or the Class A were the "best" designs for the N&W itself.
Again, if anyone can disprove my statement with accurate, comprehensive engineering data (opinions don't count!) I'd be more than willing to change my stance.
Leaving aside the obvious intent of the word "possibly" in my Niagara comment, which was to offer a nomination based on testimony from the operators of that and other large passenger locomotives, let me challenge your reply by asking you how in the world one can use the "accurate, comprehensive data from every single 4-8-4 design produced" to prove anything? What magic formula will pull together all of the different data points into an integrated number or even group of numbers that "proves" the "bestness" of any design?
Have you ever attempted the exercise? It's a little like saying "I'll believe gravity works on every earthbound object when I've catalogued the movements of every molecule and electron and photon and ...." .
So, lacking this kind of 1:1 mapping of opinion on reality, we can only go with a) what the operators did and b) some gross comparative measures. a) could include repeat orders at later times; long operating careers; even railroad performance over time. b) includes measures I've played with but won't claim any universal applicability for. You can see some of them on Wes Barris's steamlocomotive.com site, where he hosts the Locobase entries I've created over a couple of decades.
Now back to the earlier comment. The period I chose in my post begins in 1941 precisely because it was the beginning of true freight diesel competition and the simultaneous limitation in the numbers of any new locomotives during the war years.
in any case, there really was very little that was new in the use of syphons or circulators, roller bearings, feedwater heaters after 1935 (or even in most cases 1930). The materials certainly improved, but the basic operating North American steam locomotive's last big upgrades were the adoption of the superheater in the late 19zeroes, the substantial increase in firebox volume in the 1920s, and the demonstration and adoption of the roller bearing in the late 1920s. You can toss in the integrally cast steel frame from around the same period.
The Great Depression and the War Years suspended many promising new avenues of research. The improvements that are clearly seen in the later locomotives are improvements in degree (and valuable in their own right) but not in kind.
locobasede Have you ever attempted the exercise?
Have you ever attempted the exercise?
I wouldn't waste my time trying.
However, it appears that a lot of people without Engineering backgrounds have wasted a lot of time on this.
locobasede So, lacking this kind of 1:1 mapping of opinion on reality, we can only go with a) what the operators did and b) some gross comparative measures. a) could include repeat orders at later times; long operating careers; even railroad performance over time. b) includes measures I've played with but won't claim any universal applicability for. You can see some of them on Wes Barris's steamlocomotive.com site, where he hosts the Locobase entries I've created over a couple of decades.
Those parameters are fine if one likes to crunch numbers for fun that may or may not have any relationship to the actual performance/economy of use for a steam locomotive. But from an engineering viewpoint it really doesn't tell us much about the real power / performance / economy of a particular locomotive. It especially doesn't allow us to compare different locomotives and declare one "better" than another.
To quote BaltACD "Each carrier thought they had the best for their particular circumstance."
I highlighted "thought" because the railroads didn't even know for themselves if they had the best steam locomotive for their particular operations.
Again, my intention is not to flame anybody. It seems to me, however, that over the years a lot of people have spent a lot of time writing books, articles, etc declaring one locomotive "better" than others based on incomplete, inaccurate, or non-existant information.
Your reply could lead to a new thread on a subject that has interested me for years:
"Someone," I've thought, "should write a book on how locomotive engineers (designers of locomotives, that is) and master mechanics and locomotive superintendents tried to measure performance." That someone, so far, hasn't been me.
Google Books has opened up hundreds of volumes of journals, books, textbooks on this topic.
From the earliest days, engineers were trying to evaluate locomotive performance and it seems pretty clear to me that such efforts pushed locomotive design throughout most of the steam era. When I've read a report by a leading locomotive engineer on this or that latest view of the best way to measure performance, the comments section in which master mechanics of various railroads discuss the relevance are often the most useful (and most colorful).
GP40-2 BaltACD: This is a very easy argument when equipped with 60 years of 20/20 hindsight. The decisions the carriers were making 'in the day' were clouded by the fog of unknowable foresight. They 'thought' they knew what they wanted and they 'thought' they knew what it would take to achieve that end, but the era of true data collection and processing had yet to occur...they made the best educated guesses that the underlying knowledge of the time would permit. Very astute point. I'll take my challenger 1 step higher: Not only can it not be proven from an engineering viewpoint that the N&W J was the "best" 4-8-4 or the N&W Class A was the "best" simple articulated design, it can't even be said that the Class J or the Class A were the "best" designs for the N&W itself. Again, if anyone can disprove my statement with accurate, comprehensive engineering data (opinions don't count!) I'd be more than willing to change my stance.
BaltACD: This is a very easy argument when equipped with 60 years of 20/20 hindsight. The decisions the carriers were making 'in the day' were clouded by the fog of unknowable foresight. They 'thought' they knew what they wanted and they 'thought' they knew what it would take to achieve that end, but the era of true data collection and processing had yet to occur...they made the best educated guesses that the underlying knowledge of the time would permit.
Well, if not from "engineering data" per se, but, from performance and fiscal data. The fact that the N&W locos racked up some impressive gross ton miles and utilization statistics along with paid dividends high enough to keep the Pennsy afloat should confirm that what the N&W had was the best for the N&W.
.
J: lighweight rods and excellent counterbalancing allowed a locomotive with smaller dirver (72"?) to still be a 100 mph locomotive but with the TE of smaller drivers.
A: Hauled coal trains at timetable authorized 70mph. Name any iother frieght locomotive that did that.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.