Bringing this thread back a little bit, does anyone have the unit costs of these? I've seen some numbers thrown around for NP Z-6's (185,000 ish) the UP CSA-1's (130,000 ish) and the last UP Challengers (225,000 ish) but apart from the Z-6 I dont really have faith in these numbers. Would be interesting to see how costs stack up.
UP 'Small'
RA
1936 December 19
pp.900-903
RME
1937 January
pp.1-7
NP
1937 March 06
pp.389-391
1937 April
pp.160-163
DRGW
1938 July 09
pp.42-44,70
1938 September
pp.323-329
D&H
1940 August 10
pp.207-218
1940 September
pp.337-344
WM
1941 January 25
pp.209-215
1941 February
pp.45-52
UP 'Big'
1942 October 03
pp.516-519
1942 October
pp.413-417
As I think is well-known, both journals are available at the Internet Archive, RME under its later name of ‘Railway Locomotives and Cars’.
https://archive.org/details/pub_railway-age?sort=-date&and%5B%5D=year%3A%221937%22
https://archive.org/details/pub_railway-locomotives-and-cars
II Phrogs How did the relatively poor quality coal used by the Northern Pacific impact their performance, and by extension did the conversion to oil for the SP&S locomotives give any advantage or boost to their performance?
How did the relatively poor quality coal used by the Northern Pacific impact their performance, and by extension did the conversion to oil for the SP&S locomotives give any advantage or boost to their performance?
II Phrogs Pneudyne Just wanted to say thank you, this was both a highly informative and entertaining read and gives a good understanding of. the differencies and similarities between the various Challenger designs. If I am remembering correctly, I believe the D&RGW used a handful of the later Alco designed Challengers which were diverted from a UP order to make up for a shortage in motive power on the D&RGW during the war. To your knowledge, how did these UP Challengers fare in service on a different railroad? From what I've read the D&RGW wasn't particularly enamored with these locomotives. Was this due to any inherent flaw in their design, or was it more that the Challengers were delivered in lieu of the FT diesels that many roads were trying to get their hands on around this time? Is there any data or testimony on how these locomotives stacked up to the Baldwin 4-6-6-4's already in use on the D&RGW?
Pneudyne
Just wanted to say thank you, this was both a highly informative and entertaining read and gives a good understanding of. the differencies and similarities between the various Challenger designs.
If I am remembering correctly, I believe the D&RGW used a handful of the later Alco designed Challengers which were diverted from a UP order to make up for a shortage in motive power on the D&RGW during the war. To your knowledge, how did these UP Challengers fare in service on a different railroad? From what I've read the D&RGW wasn't particularly enamored with these locomotives. Was this due to any inherent flaw in their design, or was it more that the Challengers were delivered in lieu of the FT diesels that many roads were trying to get their hands on around this time? Is there any data or testimony on how these locomotives stacked up to the Baldwin 4-6-6-4's already in use on the D&RGW?
Rio Grande had originally wanted to order some additional Baldwin 4-6-6-4's. The war production board would not do so and diverted some from a UP order. The Alco UP design challengers diverted to the Rio Grande were on lease from the War Production Board. The Rio Grande crews did not like them. From what I remember reading (but I can't remember the source and was trying to find it) the crews found the pullling power lacking along with the ride qualities compared to the Baldwins. I am trying to remember but it seems like they may have had some issues with the centipede tenders. UP and Rio Grande approaced their usage of challengers a bit differently. UP tended to run higher speeds- Rio Grande slower and longer trains. After the war the Alcos were given back to the War Production board and would up beind sold to the Clinchfield.
I have no insight on how they were viewed by the line, but Trains reported at the time that the Rio Grande returned them to the War Assets Administration since they were surplus to their needs with the postwar traffic decline and they didn't want to purchase them.
Well, that ain't good
Conductor_Carl... On a subject change, I feel like I have heard of the Western Maryland Challengers being a cut above. Something to the effect of them being higher horsepower than the others?
On a subject change, I feel like I have heard of the Western Maryland Challengers being a cut above. Something to the effect of them being higher horsepower than the others?
Read in a book about the WM, the operating costs of their Challengers was such that the WM parked them several year BEFORE their equipment trusts expired - thus WM found it to their advantage to pay on the equipment trust without using the equipment that the trust was for.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Comparing the different Challengers may be a bit hard as they are geographically far flung enough that their usage may vary, and what works for the Northern Pacific may not be applicable to the Delaware and Hudson.
I think that there are two ways that you could cut this to be interesting.
1. Look at the usage of the UP challengers on the Rio Grande and Clinchfield. If they worked essentially just as well on all three roads then that is a lot of geographical distance and perhaps different usage covered by one loco type and would speak to a universal quality.
2. Compare the UP Challengers on the Rio Grande to the Rio Grande Challengers. This compares two the two different Challenger different builders (ALCO and Baldwin) on essentially the same road and conditions.
Great Northern also owned two Z-6 oil-fired Challengers that were bought from subsidiary Spokane, Portland & Seattle that were numbered 4000 and 4001.
Eventually as it dieselized the Great Northern sold them back to SP&S.
But Great Northern is not typically though of as a Challenger owner but it was in the 4-6-6-4 club!
https://www.deviantart.com/avalanch11/art/Great-Northern-4-6-6-4-4000-Steam-Locomotive-996878578
BigJim I would suggest that you try to find and read a copy of Eugene L. Huddleston's book "The World's Greatest Steam locomotives". In this book Mr. Huddleston compares the "Allegheny", the Class A, and the Challenger. Plus, some other tid-bits!
I would suggest that you try to find and read a copy of Eugene L. Huddleston's book "The World's Greatest Steam locomotives". In this book Mr. Huddleston compares the "Allegheny", the Class A, and the Challenger. Plus, some other tid-bits!
Many thanks for the reading suggestion, I am ever on the prowl for a new book to expand my collection/knowledge and will certainly look into acquiring a copy of this one! Additonally thank you and others for the responses regarding the Class A 2-6-6-4's, I do hope I did not come off as disparaging these fantastic locomotives, I wish only to expand my understanding of these fascinating machines.
If I may turn back to my initial question and request your and others knowledge on the subject, I have one standing question in regards to the Z-8 Challengers of the NP and SP&S. As I understand it, the SP&S challengers were converted to burn oil, however kept the gargantuan fireboxes of the original NP design. Would this conversion to oil have any appreciable impact on the performance of the locomotives? What differences might one expect going from burning the incredibly low quality coal used by the NP to burning oil? Any insight into this is greatly appreciated.
II Phrogs May I ask what advantages those might be? The only inherent disadvantage of the 4-6-6-4 when compared to the 2-6-6-4 that comes to mind (though I am not in any way an expert on the subject, hence my curiosity) is the shallow firebox of the Challengers, which extends over the rear drivers. While, at least in the case of the N&W A Class, the 2-6-6-4 seems to produce a fair bit more tractive effort, it also seems to have a surprisingly low adhesive factor, would that not balance things out in the end?
May I ask what advantages those might be? The only inherent disadvantage of the 4-6-6-4 when compared to the 2-6-6-4 that comes to mind (though I am not in any way an expert on the subject, hence my curiosity) is the shallow firebox of the Challengers, which extends over the rear drivers. While, at least in the case of the N&W A Class, the 2-6-6-4 seems to produce a fair bit more tractive effort, it also seems to have a surprisingly low adhesive factor, would that not balance things out in the end?
.
Erik_MagDiesel locomotives can produce close to rated horsepower at any speed from the speed at which maximum continuous tractive effort to somewhere near maximum rated speed. Furthermore, by simply changing the gear ratio, a given locomotive mode can be set up for drag service or high speed service. Finally, diesel locomotives can be M.U.'ed so it is simple to lash up just the required number of units to haul a train. Fuel is pretty much the same for all RR's. Steam locomotives are much less flexible, requiring different designs for flat land running versus mountain hauling, hauling long trains versus short trains, etc. Fuel could be high quality bituminous, lignite or bunker C, each requiring different firebox designs. To be fair, lack of standardization in steam was driven by hard requirements as well as the whims of the various mechanical departments.
Steam locomotives are much less flexible, requiring different designs for flat land running versus mountain hauling, hauling long trains versus short trains, etc. Fuel could be high quality bituminous, lignite or bunker C, each requiring different firebox designs.
To be fair, lack of standardization in steam was driven by hard requirements as well as the whims of the various mechanical departments.
One overlooked area of the differences between steam and diesel. Steam engines, besides containing the air compressors and the brake valve - did not factor into the braking equation for the train it was hauling. Using he Independent brake would bring the brake shoes in contact with tires on the drivers. The tires had been heated to create a shrink fit with the driver wheel when the tire cooled. If too much Independent brake was used the tire(s) could expand from the heat and leave the driving wheel.
Diesel have the use of Dynamic Brakes to retard the movement of the train and thus the locomotives become a bigger factor in the braking of trains, especially in mountainous territory..
In steam days the Retainer Valves had to be manipulated by the crew to 'reatin' brake applications for a period of time while the trainline was being recharged after a brake application was released. Setting the Retainers up or down was a manual fuction performed by the brakemen on a train.
Diesel locomotives can produce close to rated horsepower at any speed from the speed at which maximum continuous tractive effort to somewhere near maximum rated speed. Furthermore, by simply changing the gear ratio, a given locomotive mode can be set up for drag service or high speed service. Finally, diesel locomotives can be M.U.'ed so it is simple to lash up just the required number of units to haul a train. Fuel is pretty much the same for all RR's.
More proof of the lack of standardization in steam.
timzHow wanting? PRR tested the A, but none of us has any idea what tonnage it pulled on what PRR grades, or failed to pull. PRR decided not to bite, but none of us knows why.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I have no way of proving this but I suspect the PRR (with Baldwin looking over their shoulder) after testing an N&W Class A ( and Class J for that matter) didn't want to admit those "hillbillies" down in Roanoke were better at steam locomotive design than they were!
Corporate ego may not have played a role here but I wouldn't discount it entirely. The PRR didn't call itself "The Standard Railroad Of The World" for nothing!
Just a "might have been" to think about. Post-WW2 and flush with money and not having bought any new steam locomotives since 1930 the Jersey Central was considering buying Challengers for their coal drags but not for long. In the end they bought F3 diesels.
Here is a picture of Challenger 3935 on Train 717 The Los Angeles Challenger in 1940.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/850086/
II PhrogsWhat of testing done on the Class A by other railroads when tested (I believe it was the PRR, but feel free to correct me), where it was found quite wanting on grades in excess of 1%?
No need for other RR's. Just listen to any of the actual recordings of the Class A's on the Blue Ridge grade, which by the way is in excess of 1%, and you will find that they are quite surefooted! Then, go find out what kind of tonnage they hauled on the way out of Williamson, WVa or Crewe, Va. I am sure that you will find that you need to do tons more researching before you go jumping to conclusions!
II Phrogs[N&W's 2-6+6-4] was found quite wanting on grades in excess of 1%?
It'll a bit annoying but it goes away as soon as the moderators realize you're the real deal
Same me, different spelling!
BigJim You only need to look at the performance of the Class A's hauling coal west and east to see that the factor of adhesion was not a problem.
You only need to look at the performance of the Class A's hauling coal west and east to see that the factor of adhesion was not a problem.
What of testing done on the Class A by other railroads when tested (I believe it was the PRR, but feel free to correct me), where it was found quite wanting on grades in excess of 1%?
This is the exact reason I have always been a big fan of the Challengers (and why I wanted to know more about their differences across the various roads which used them!). They have always struck me as incredibly well balanced locomotives, being relatively fast and powerful, but not at the expense of adhesion to the rails. They were used by quite a number of railroads and as a result encountered a variety of running environments/conditions. On top of all this, they did it all using some of the poorest quality coal out there, unlike some locomotives which required a more pampered diet of only "top shelf" coal.
(unrelated, but I hope I included the quote correctly. I'm still getting used to using the forums and due to the wait time between submitting my reply and having it approved it's taking me some time to figure out the details.)
II PhrogsWhile, at least in the case of the N&W A Class, the 2-6-6-4 seems to produce a fair bit more tractive effort, it also seems to have a surprisingly low adhesive factor, would that not balance things out in the end?
1. The same driving axle load (67 500 lb)
2. Lateral railhead forces (during curving and arising from restraint of yaw oscillation) no higher at any speed, recalculating the 4-6-6-4 for any lateral control improvements developed for the 2-6-6-4 case that could also be applied to the 4-6-6-4.
3. No perceptible difference in whole locomotive and front engine unit stability at any speed,
4. The same factor of adhesion.
II Phrogsin the case of the N&W A Class, the 2-6-6-4 seems to produce a fair bit more tractive effort, it also seems to have a surprisingly low adhesive factor
Saying "surprisingly low adhesive factor" is exactly the same as saying "surprisingly high calculated tractive effort". N&W thought they could get away with largish cylinders; maybe they assumed their engineers were good at coping with slipping. Maybe they were right -- none of us fans knows.
Incidentally, N&W's calculated tractive effort for the A might have been conservative. The A had limited cutoff (75% or so) so in its TE calculation N&W only assumed 77% mean effective pressure.
timzYou're probably being too generous when you say there was something in that article to disagree with.
Not that I dislike Challengers, mind you. The D&H engines in particular changed the whole game for D&H operations.
You're probably being too generous when you say there was something in that article to disagree with.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.