Reading I-10 & D&H E-3a

[Flintlock76]

Backshop

Maybrook Yard in those days must have been incredible.  You had New Haven, L&HR, Erie, O&W and others all meeting there.

 

Railfan heaven.  Railfan photographers like Bob Malinoski, Bob Collins, and quite a few others all made "pilgimages" to Maybrook back in the glory days.

[Overmod]

Backshop

Maybrook Yard in those days must have been incredible

https://nyheritage.org/collections/maybrook-switching-terminal-collection

[Backshop]

Maybrook Yard in those days must have been incredible.  You had New Haven, L&HR, Erie, O&W and others all meeting there.

[kgbw49]

By the way, this web site has an incredible collection of vintage railroad photographs.

https://railphoto-art.org/

Click on the "Collections" pulldown, and a list of photographers will show up.

Click on any photographer and their collections, sorted by railroad, will show up.

Click on any railroad and browse the photos.

 

[Flintlock76]

kgbw49

The Lehigh & Hudson River was a short line with some big power!

And they were very railfan-friendly as well!  Their demise was devastating for Northeast railfans. 

[IA and eastern]

I should have said which locomotive in the 1927 was the better. Gary

[kgbw49]

The Lehigh & Hudson River was a short line with some big power!

Here are a few 4-8-2 Mountain photos - pretty much the spitting image of the Boston & Maine 4-8-2 Mountains.

https://railphoto-art.org/collections/furler/lhr/#!jig%5B1%5D/FL/48672645207

 https://railphoto-art.org/collections/furler/lhr/#!jig%5B1%5D/FL/48672679597

Heck, here is the whole shootin' match - a link to a whole incredible collection of Lehigh & Hudson River steam locomotive photos.

https://railphoto-art.org/collections/furler/lhr/

 

[kgbw49]

The Lehigh & Hudson River was a short line with some big power!

Here are a few heavy 2-8-0 Consolidation photos.

http://archives.anthraciterailroads.org/view_image.php?photoID=190

https://railphoto-art.org/collections/furler/lhr/#!jig%5B1%5D/FL/48672670242

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Overmod's comments about large 2-8-0's at the end of the drag freight era are especially interesting when you consider that C&O ordered 25 (reduced to 10) H-6 2-6-6-2's after WW2, near the end of the steam era.

[selector]

I have to agree, OM, that's an impressive piece of kit right there. 

[Overmod]

Let's look at the two of them first:

https://rrmuseumpa.andornot.com/media/Images/HarrisNeg/HarrisNeg-03500-03999/HarrisNeg-03950-cat.jpg?maxheight=1000&maxwidth=1000

http://www.readingrailroadmuseum.org/gallery/images/steam/rdg_gallery_steam2024.jpg

Either of these is a reasonable example of the 'apogee' of American 2-8-0s -- the absolute maximum weight on eight drivers with a guiding truck, and at the speeds expected in service, the virtual equivalent of any eight-drivered power built.

The catch, of course, being that as soon as the drag-freight era is over, the reasons to have them grow very scanty indeed.  Reading discovered that the first best use of the I-10sa was to rebuild it, with all the tax advantages postwar of course, into a T1.  D&H first tried the cockamamie expedient of thermodynamically-sophisticated compounds hand-fired with dubious coal... then threw out the idea in favor of 4-8-4s and Challengers that are poster children for why fast power made better sense in railroad operations.

So by the late '40s, there was little reason to 'buy' either.  And if you want excursion power today, you might not be well off with a locomotive that has heavy weight on drivers, ludicrous augment at any tolerable road speed, and eye appeal only for hardcore railfans...

If you want a monster 2-8-0 with some actual shred of curb appeal, then I suggest you get one of these:

https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/api/singleitem/image/p16002coll26/78/default.jpg

As I recall, some of these got Bethlehem auxiliary locomotives on the tender, so you'd start any consist you could pull...

[selector]

This is one of those times when one must 'operationalize' the terms.  As others have previously suggested, 'better' means different criteria for different applications, and different roads are as likely as not to have different needs.  That is to say, 'better' for Road A might be a no-go for Road B if axle loadings, radius of curves, available resources and facilities (water, fuel, turning the locomotive, bridge tonnage ratings, gauge loading, etc.) matter.

[Backshop]

IA and eastern

If you going to buy one of these locomotives which one  would you buy? Gary

 

For what conditions and what service?  Bigger isn't always better. Both railroads had similar attributes but chose different solutions.  Maybe each was "best" for that railroad.

[IA and eastern]

If you going to buy one of these locomotives which one  would you buy? Gary

[gregc]

[pennytrains]

Yes.  Better on straight dry rail in the summer sun or better at slogging up a 2.5 % grade in an autumn drizzle on heavy curvature?

[Backshop]

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "better"?

[IA and eastern]

 i should have said D&H E-5a which had te of 71,500. Gary

[kgbw49]

D&H E-3a/E-51 2-8-0 rebuilds in 1924 had 49,698 lbs of tractive effort on 57-inch drivers.

https://steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=2-8-0&railroad=dh

Reading - I-10sa built in 1923 had 70,932 lbs of tractive effort on 61.5-inch drivers.

https://steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=2-8-0&railroad=pr

 

 

[Backshop]

Since the I-10 was newer, bigger and their boilers were reused on the T1  4-8-4, my strictly amateur opinion is that they are better.

[IA and eastern]

Which was the better steam locomotive between the Reading I-10 and the D&H E-3a? Gary