Santa Fe's heartburn with their ex-N&W Mallets was their lack of speed running downgrade. Claimed they tied up too much track space getting back to the bottom of the hill(s).
Why did the Santa Fe rush to diesels? Bad water. Almost every water tank had to have a miniature water treatment plant to convert local well water to something fit for a locomotive boiler. Plus the fact that an oil-burning steamer needs a larger volume of fuel than does a diesel of equivalent horsepower - even if it does burn sludge. Transportation and storage of X-thousand gallons of petroleum is almost the same whether the petroleum is #2 diesel or #6 bunker fuel. (Actually, the Bunker C has an additional expense, since it has to be heated to flow freely.)
Chuck
daveklepper I am inspired by the truly great Rose painting "Walking across Texas." But why two beautiful Ripley 4-8-4's? Granted the early AT&SF experiments with huge Mallets with bending (jointed) boilers weren't successful, but could they not benefit from approximating their neighbors' Challengers, Yellowstones, and Articulated Consolidations? Why was their Texas-type their largest modern freight power? Or was the kind of scene dipicted in the picture a rare phenomenon?
I am inspired by the truly great Rose painting "Walking across Texas." But why two beautiful Ripley 4-8-4's?
Granted the early AT&SF experiments with huge Mallets with bending (jointed) boilers weren't successful, but could they not benefit from approximating their neighbors' Challengers, Yellowstones, and Articulated Consolidations? Why was their Texas-type their largest modern freight power?
Or was the kind of scene dipicted in the picture a rare phenomenon?
The Santa Fe's 2-10-4s were the equal of just about every Challenger ever built as far as Speed,Tractive effort and Horsepower. I would bet that the savings on maintenance was a big factor in why ATSF did not look at Challengers or 2-6-6-4's(not a popular type out west anyway).
"Larger freight Power" would mean something like a Big Boy or Allegheny (or maybe a duplex drive Q2 type or Lima's proposed 4-10-6) and I doubt ATSF had any territory where that would make sense.
The other two types of Articulated locomotive you mention are primarily drag freight engines so that is apples and oranges.
There were a number of railroads besides Santa Fe who found experimental articulated designs did not work well for them and stuck with rigid frame designs therafter;the Erie is an example in the East....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Y'all can talk til the cows come home but I sure wish* Santa Fe had strung wire over Raton Pass. I can sure picture box cab electrics painted solid black and lettered A.T.&SF. hauling SFRD reefer blocks in the Rockies.
Live Better Electrically!
*Texas Talk: If peanuts were wishes I'd be a goober patch!
Also, I do not recall the Sante Fe having any 4-8-2s. Did they?
daveklepper Also, I do not recall the Sante Fe having any 4-8-2s. Did they?
.
BigJimLook for their 37XX Class of 4-8-2's.
And if I am not mistaken, equipped with Wagner bypass valves for better drifting at speed... was this the initial ATSF class fitted with these, and how long after the engines were built were they added?
daveklepper Thanks, I stand corrected. In a somewhat weak defense, I can point out that I had gone to the trouble some time ago, here or on the steam and preservation TRAINS forum, of posting the idea that the Sante Fe Ripley Texas types were the very best non-articulated steam freight locomotive built. I was challanged by some who claimed the C&O and PRR's were as good or better, but I think I did defend my point of view pretty well. I can thank you for confirming that idea. I apologize for having been brainwashed too much by UP 9000 fans.
Thanks, I stand corrected. In a somewhat weak defense, I can point out that I had gone to the trouble some time ago, here or on the steam and preservation TRAINS forum, of posting the idea that the Sante Fe Ripley Texas types were the very best non-articulated steam freight locomotive built. I was challanged by some who claimed the C&O and PRR's were as good or better, but I think I did defend my point of view pretty well. I can thank you for confirming that idea. I apologize for having been brainwashed too much by UP 9000 fans.
Dave--
Actually there are issues with claiming the Santa Fe 2-10-4 as the best:
First of all, it was posted above, I do not think by you, that the Santa Fe mainline was "relatively flat". Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Arizona desert is far from flat, with many sustained up and down grades and, during the Santa Fe steam era, lots of horizontal curvature. It was the longest steam helper district in the U.S., at more than 120 miles. The 2-10-4's did not do well there because they were too slippery. Also, the horizontal curvature effectively adds to the gradient, making it one tough operating division.
Most Santa Fe steam fans prefer the 3800 class 2-10-2's over the 2-10-4's. In actual operating practice, the 3800's are said to have performed "better" both on Cajon, and Raton, and in the Arizona desert. They got lots of power to the rail without being too slippery.
The 2-10-4's, though they did operate briefly on Cajon and other parts of the railroad, were effectively banished to the "straighter" parts of the railroad: New Mexico, Oklahoma, and west Texas, where they could really run (but in desolate regions away from good photographer access were relatively out of sight and out of mind).
Yet some Santa Fe modelers and historians consider the 2-10-4's as a bit of a failure when compared to the 3800-class 2-10-2's, which could do everything everywhere. Also, the Santa Fe 4-8-4's are remembered more fondly by most Santa Fe fans than the 2-10-4's, because they seemingly, too, could do everything, just like the 3800's.
I'm a fan of the big rigid frame engines, and a former member of the SFRHMS. Most of the Santa Fe fans I've ever talked to just don't think all that much of the 2-10-4's, other than they were big, fast, and neat looking. As reported by S. Kip Farrington in The Santa Fe's Big Three, they did have a remarkable horsepower curve indeed but perhaps at the expense of slipperiness in actual service.
When the PRR needed steam during 1956, Santa Fe was perfectly happy to ship off a bunch of 2-10-4's. According to the PRR people, their J-1 could start more train, but the Santa Fe engines could roll that train faster. Perhaps the Baldwin built Santa Fe engines might have been a better long term fit on the western part of the PRR than the Pennsy's own J-1's.
Respectfully submitted--
John
I think, in steam locomotive history, the Santa Fe 2-10-4's were indeed relatively under-appreciated engines, partly because they did toil in some desolate, rural regions for the latter part of their lives.
Even more so, the Western Pacific 4-6-6-4's were remarkable machines, toiling in the Nevada desert, close cousins of the UP 4-6-6-4, but better looking than any UP Challenger to my eyes. However, any photos of WP 4-6-6-4's are rather rare. Railfans just didn't go out to the Nevada desert much, and they toiled between Salt Lake City and the western part of Nevada, in very bleak terrain. They may be among the most under-appreciated steam engines of all time, certainly under-photographed.
Agree with both previous comments, and don't forget the D&RGW's own 4-6-6-4's. And 4-8-4s
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter