Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4's?

[superheat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the N&W the last builder of 4-8-4's? A lot of people state that the N&W J class was the ultimate 4-8-4. To what degree was that a result of the fact that their 4-8-4's were built some 10 (or thereabouts) years later than most of the other railroad's 4-8-4's, and so were able to benefit from advances in steam locomotive design and engineering? If Lima had built 4-8-4's into the 50's, utilizing advances available by then, I wonder how they would've compared? 

[timz]

superheat

A lot of people state that the N&W J class was the ultimate 4-8-4.

Could be, for all anybody knows.

superheat

...and so were able to benefit from advances in steam locomotive design and engineering?

Advances before 1941, you mean? Or advances between the first and last N&W 4-8-4s?

Anybody know how N&W's last 4-8-4s differed from their first?

[feltonhill]

As near as I can determine, there  were no significant differences between the any of  the Class J's as finally turned out.  The wartime J1's were converted to Js in 1944 just prior to 610's tests on PRR in December that year.  They were highly advanced in 1941 and matched the final technology in 4-8-4's in the early and late postwar period, which is to say the NYC Niaragas and C&O J3a's through 1948. 

The only differences I know of are slightly different tender design.  Nothing on the locomotive until the siderods were changed on about 4-5 J's from tandem to single.  I'm on the road now so I don't know the exact number (s).

 The final group of J's (1950) were the last 4-8-4's for a domestic RR in the US.

[GP40-2]

Likewise, after examining the design/engineering of the N&W J class, I don't see any difference in the last locomotives produced vs. the earlier ones. Seems the N&W used the same plans with minor modifications over the years. The C&O J class did however change from the original J3 of 1935, and the J3a of 1948. Lima kept many of the dimensions the same, however, the J3a had an advanced boiler design that incorporated ideas such as a longer combustion chamber and larger diameter firetubes. Both the N&W and Lima designs were excellent, extremely powerful 4-8-4s.

[grand trunk western 4444 u4c]

I would have to agree with cooslimited on sp's gs5  I personally love their design work. The 4449 ts a gs4 but at train festeval2009 I studyed it nonstop.

Another choice of mine is Grand Trunk western's u3b or c class northerns whigh ever GTW 6325 is.

I personally like coal fired engines But that's just my opinion.

[Jones1945]

Anonymous

QUOTE: Originally posted by jlampke

QUOTE: Originally posted by rockymidlandrr

Alco and Lima built the best. The UP super 800s and the SP Gs-4 should be plenty of evidence of who built the best. The 844 and the 4449 are the best examples of the respective classes. The 844 has never been retired, now that is craftmanship!

There's no doubt they are great 4-8-4's.The fact is I first posted the question hoping for reinforcement of my bias towards 4449. It has been said in this discussion that all 4-8-4's were great, and I like to think that is the case. Regarding 844 staying in service all these years, I think a huge amount of the credit for that is due to the efforts of Steve Lee and his fine crew. The UP should get some credit for that too.... They could've done like the SP and so many other railroads and just tossed everything to scrap. Thank God the city of Portland asked for a GS locomotive. We wouldn't have 4449 today.

I read that the boys in Southern CA did a first-class job of restoring 3751, and am looking forward to seeing 2926 on the road again. Pretty sure the Baldwin fans would have a thing or two to say about who made the best 4-8-4's!!!!

All 4-8-4's are great locomotives. I just hope they are all receiving some degree of care and preservation. Has anyone seen the others lately?

When 4449 was put on display in Oaks Park in 1958, I'll bet nobody really believed she would one day be put back into service. Who knows what the future holds for the remaining 4-8-4's on display and in storage in North America?

I'll admit though that I am partial to SP's Lima-built GS locomotives.....

A recent PBS show on the Daylights claimed some portions of the run were upgraded for 120mph speeds. The 80" drivered GS3's went into service pretty quickly after the 73" drivered GS2's and the show mentioned that SP swapped locos rather than stop for water and fuel. So I'm guessing they used the older GS2's on the tougher parts of the run or for double heading, while running the GS3's at Acela-like speeds. Was that the case or were the GS2's assigned to other trains?

Since this is a 13-year-old thread, I cannot ask the author for more details regarding the 120mph-claim by someone, maybe the Southern Pacific (probably not) in the PBS show. I really want to know what was the fastest operating speed of the Daylight engines (GS-2/3/4/5) and the sections of the route where they reached such speed.

I haven't finished the "Southern Pacific Daylight Train 98-99" by Richard K Wright yet, and my order of a copy of the "1986 1st Edition Southern Pacific Railroad Passenger Trains Volume 1 Night Trains of The Coast Route by Dennis Ryan & Joseph Shine" is on its way. I could probably get the answer from the "Southern Pacific Daylight Locomotives" by Robert J. Church, but lack of space on my bookshelf is a problem for me.

If the GS-4/5 could really develop 5500 idhp ihp or hp, it should be possible for them to exceed their design top speed (110mph) when hauling 1000 tons or less, base on the AAR road test result. Though I can't find any source to back up the 120mph claim. I have the impression that Southern Pacific never emphasis the speed but the outstanding service of the Daylight train. The schedule of Daylight train was very well arranged and maintained, the Daylight engines were designed to keep the train on schedule but not to break any speed record. 

 

Your input would be greatly appreciated! 

Home movie footage from about 1937-1938 including scenes of couples traveling on the "Coast Daylight" train of the Southern Pacific Railroad with footage of scenery: 

https://archive.org/details/HomeMovieOfSanFranciscoAndOfMadisonWisconsin

[Overmod]

What is idhp?  Indicated horsepower (or ihp) is a calculated figure derived from measurements at the cylinders; think of it as a measurement of the mass flow physically available to make horsepower rather than something that produces the 'drawbar pull at speed' curves that are useful in determining practical consists for locomotives in particular services to pull.  A more useful index is wheelrim torque, as measured on a locomotive test plant, which includes some of the machine and fluid-mechanical losses, and if carefully analyzed may provide interesting design information, but is still (in my opinion) not as useful as dbhp, 'drawbar horsepower', which is what a dynamometer car measures and is the "thing" against which train resistance (as for example calculated via the Davis formula) can be compared.  In my experience comparative data are not often plotted as 'horsepower'; they are presented as a Cartesian plot of drawbar pull (on the y axis) vs. speed (on the x axis) which for railroad purposes is more useful than, say, knowing where the "peak" of the nominal horsepower curve is supposed to lie.

You cannot predict "maximum speed" from the usual numbers quoted in power calculations, and there are some whopper examples (the C&NW E-4 and the ATSF 3460 class) where very 'high-speed' designs turned out to be incapable of actually reaching more than a few mph over 100 with a meaningful consist in tow, while on the other hand some designs of eight-drivered power could reach substantial speeds with proper valve gear, port-and-passage design, and good steam-generation capacity matched with proper 'front end' proportioning and tuning.

I think there were relatively few opportunities for the GS-3s or -4s to run at very high speed (at least for any meaningful railroad purpose, either fast scheduling or 'making up time') and I have no idea whether their valves and passages would support even the speeds that, say, an ATSF 2900 class were reported to reach.  My opinion is that the locomotives, with the possible exception of the two that were equipped with lightweight roller-bearing rods, were nowhere near capable of reaching, far less sustaining, a speed of "120mph", although it is quite possible their balance was calculated for that speed.

It would be interesting to hear some of the stories (some 'not for attribution', I suspect!) about the actual high speeds that might have been achieved with 4449.  My understanding is that Ross is one of the 'likelier subjects' to have tried this and he might care to 'hint' a bit about what a GS-4 with freshly refurbished but fully-broken-in running gear might have produced.  To my knowledge this locomotive has one of the most sophisticated burners applied to a conventional locomotive boiler, and that might facilitate 'forcing' to a greater extent that a regular type of burner (e.g. von Boden-Ingles or Thomas) might be able to produce effectively.

[timz]

Jones1945

what was the fastest operating speed of the Daylight engines (GS-2/3/4/5)

Timetable limit was 75. No one knows what they actually did.

Jones1945

If the GS-4/5 could really develop 5500 idhp ihp or hp, it should be possible for them to exceed their design top speed (110mph) when hauling 1000 tons or less

Maybe, if it could do 5500 hp at 110 mph, which it couldn't.

[Jones1945]

Overmod

...You cannot predict "maximum speed" from the usual numbers quoted in power calculations, and there are some whopper examples (the C&NW E-4 and the ATSF 3460 class) where very 'high-speed' designs turned out to be incapable of actually reaching more than a few mph over 100 with a meaningful consist in tow, while on the other hand some designs of eight-drivered power could reach substantial speeds with proper valve gear, port-and-passage design, and good steam-generation capacity matched with proper 'front end' proportioning and tuning...

Thanks for catching that, Mr. Overmod. What I should have said is Indicated horsepower, that was what a forumer from previous pages mentioned about the figure provided by Lima, which didn't indicate what kind of hp it represents. I just reviewed this thread for the formula Alco used to calculate and *estimate horsepower of steam engine. As you stated in this and previous posts that it is impossible to predict the top speed of a steam locomotive by power calculation, which I totally understand, the following figures and calculations are just for my curiosity: 

Saturated Steam HP = 0.0212 X P X A

Superheated HP = 0.0229 X P X A

HP = Horsepower

P = Boiler Pressure (in Pounds per Square Inch)

A = Area of One Cylinder (in Square Inches)

Saturated Steam HP of a GS-2 = 0.0212 X 250 X 810 = 4293

Superheated HP  of a GS-2 = 0.0229 X 250 X  810 = 4637.25

Saturated Steam HP of a GS-3 = 0.0212 X 280 X 832 = 4938.75

Superheated HP  of a GS-3 = 0.0229 X 280 X  832 = 5334.784

Saturated Steam HP of a GS-4 and GS-5 = 0.0212 X 300 X 816 = 5189.76

Superheated HP  of a GS-4 and GS-5 = 0.0229 X 300 X  816 = 5605.92

Saturated Steam HP of a GS-6 = 0.0212 X 260 X 816 = 4497.79

Superheated HP  of a GS-6 =  0.0229 X 260 X 816 = 4858.46

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

More calculation just for fun:

Saturated Steam HP of the PRR S1 = 0.0212 X 310 X 572 X 2 (Duplex) = 7518.37 (-5% = 7142.45)

Saturated Steam HP of the PRR T1 = 0.0212 X 310 X 513.5 X 2 (Duplex) = 6749.44 (-5% = 6411.97)

Saturated Steam HP of the PRR Q1 = 0.0212 X 310 X 1151 (Duplex) = 7564.37  (-5% = 7186)

Saturated Steam HP of the PRR Q2 = 0.0212 X 310 X 1227 (Duplex) = 8063.84 (-5% = 7660)

Saturated Steam HP of a NYC Niagara = 0.0212 X 275 X 816 = 4757.28

Saturated Steam HP of the ATSF Class 2900 = 0.0212 X 300 X 896 = 5698.56

Saturated Steam HP of a PRR K4s = 0.0212 X 205 X 702 = 3050.89

Saturated Steam HP of the ATSF Class 3460 = 0.0212 X 300 X 693 = 4407.48

Saturated Steam HP of the NYC Dreyfuss Hudson = 0.0212 X 265 X 653 = 3668.55

Saturated Steam HP of the MILW F7 Hudson = 0.0212 X 300 X 705 = 4483.8

 

Overmod

...I think there were relatively few opportunities for the GS-3s or -4s to run at very high speed (at least for any meaningful railroad purpose, either fast scheduling or 'making up time') and I have no idea whether their valves and passages would support even the speeds that, say, an ATSF 2900 class were reported to reach.  My opinion is that the locomotives, with the possible exception of the two that were equipped with lightweight roller-bearing rods, were nowhere near capable of reaching, far less sustaining, a speed of "120mph", although it is quite possible their balance was calculated for that speed...

So, I guess the spring pad lubricator invented by the SP was overshadowed by the roller bearing on the GS-5, the last two Daylight engines designed to be capable of reaching 110mph but probably seldom or never hit their highest design speed. Though it doesn't mean the design of the spring pad lubricator wasn't great, I guess.

I much more prefer the front end and driving cap design of GS-2, 3, 6 to the enlarged nose (to house the extra mar light) on the GS-4 and 5, that's why I didn't put too much attention on 4449. She is an example of great steam in America.

[Overmod]

Jones1945

So, I guess the spring pad lubricator invented by the SP was overshadowed by the roller bearing on the GS-5s

I'd think quite the opposite: you don't see more than these two purchased, or converted after the war, whereas the 'patent' spring-pad journal and hub-liner lubricators were used on many classes right to the end.  

Note, however, the difference between this design and something like a Hennessy that uses lateral motion of the drivers to actively pump lubricant -- something SP needed a separate apparatus to do.  At least one Forum member will find this article of high interest!

The fact that they got 'one of each' (Timken and SKF) is instructive ... but it also shows a fundamental ignorance of where the distinctive competence of each design was.  In my opinion at least, here are reasons SKF bearings are preferable for drivers, and Timken bearings for lead and trailing trucks, and you can see some of that in the detail pictures above -- but you see only 'bearing chauvinism' on each particular locomotive.

[Jones1945]

Overmod

I'd think quite the opposite: you don't see more than these two purchased, or converted after the war, whereas the 'patent' spring-pad journal and hub-liner lubricators were used on many classes right to the end.  

Note, however, the difference between this design and something like a Hennessy that uses lateral motion of the drivers to actively pump lubricant -- something SP needed a separate apparatus to do.  At least one Forum member will find this article of high interest!

The fact that they got 'one of each' (Timken and SKF) is instructive ... but it also shows a fundamental ignorance of where the distinctive competence of each design was.  In my opinion at least, here are reasons SKF bearings are preferable for drivers, and Timken bearings for lead and trailing trucks, and you can see some of that in the detail pictures above -- but you see only 'bearing chauvinism' on each particular locomotive.

Thank you so much for the link, Mr. Overmod. This is the first time I see a clear pic showing how the oil cellar was "removed" from the journal box on the trailing truck of an SP steam locomotive, also a very clear description of how the spring-pad oil lubricator worked. I am doing some researching about the differences between older SKF and Timken bearings for railroading, a new topic for me to be honest. Reading some posts like this one: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/7522.aspx and other posts from various forums as well. 

[Overmod]

Jones1945

I am doing some researching about the differences between older SKF and Timken bearings for railroading, a new topic for me to be honest.

I am pretty sure your research will divulge the important points, but here are some that might help direct your attention:

Be sure to look carefully at the different systems that were applied to the N&W A class over the years, and the reasons why each was adopted and why some were to be 'preferred' or redesigned.  I think you will find the original type to be of particular interest, and its early point of failure (and correction) a fascinating example of how modern innovations were handled in the real world by intelligent people.

The technical difference between the Timken and SKF 'principle' is important to keep in mind.  A SKF bearing has barrel-shaped rollers and can tolerate a certain amount of 'twist' inherently, whereas Timken rollers are always found in 'pairs' with opposing taper and should be preloaded correctly when installed and given side-to-side structure (such as a cannon box) when used for drivers.  It was remarked on here years ago that driver axles DO flex in service to a nontrivial extent, and this is better tolerated by an SKF box than by Timkens.  Or at least so was the wisdom in the 'late days' of steam maintenance practice -- the guy I learned this from is still the only source who remembers promotional material for centrifugally-cast hollow driver axles.

When you get done looking at the driver axle bearings, look at the technology behind roller rods, which is even more fascinating.  (There is a deduction by Chapelon about the lightweight high-dynamic-steel Timken lightweight rods that you will find highly interesting if it turns out to be true...)

[Miningman]

 

From Mike: 

 

Jones's enthusiasm for certain 4-8-4's caused me to learn the SP president Angus D. McDonald was a Notre Dame man.

 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006075587&view=1up&seq=309

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=wFsn4uwPSzwC&pg=PA26&dq=%22angus+d+mcdonald%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7iKvjleHkAhUrZN8KHcJJBJgQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22angus%20d%20mcdonald%22&f=false

 

http://www.irishlegends.com/pages/reflections/reflections35.html

[Jones1945]

Overmod

I am pretty sure your research will divulge the important points, but here are some that might help direct your attention:

Be sure to look carefully at the different systems that were applied to the N&W A class over the years, and the reasons why each was adopted and why some were to be 'preferred' or redesigned.  I think you will find the original type to be of particular interest, and its early point of failure (and correction) a fascinating example of how modern innovations were handled in the real world by intelligent people.

The technical difference between the Timken and SKF 'principle' is important to keep in mind.  A SKF bearing has barrel-shaped rollers and can tolerate a certain amount of 'twist' inherently, whereas Timken rollers are always found in 'pairs' with opposing taper and should be preloaded correctly when installed and given side-to-side structure (such as a cannon box) when used for drivers.  It was remarked on here years ago that driver axles DO flex in service to a nontrivial extent, and this is better tolerated by an SKF box than by Timkens.  Or at least so was the wisdom in the 'late days' of steam maintenance practice -- the guy I learned this from is still the only source who remembers promotional material for centrifugally-cast hollow driver axles.

When you get done looking at the driver axle bearings, look at the technology behind roller rods, which is even more fascinating.  (There is a deduction by Chapelon about the lightweight high-dynamic-steel Timken lightweight rods that you will find highly interesting if it turns out to be true...) 

This is a handy guide for me to focus on crucial things on this topic, much appreciated!

 

Miningman

 

From Mike: 

 

Jones's enthusiasm for certain 4-8-4's caused me to learn the SP president Angus D. McDonald was a Notre Dame man.

 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006075587&view=1up&seq=309

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=wFsn4uwPSzwC&pg=PA26&dq=%22angus+d+mcdonald%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7iKvjleHkAhUrZN8KHcJJBJgQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22angus%20d%20mcdonald%22&f=false

 

http://www.irishlegends.com/pages/reflections/reflections35.html

 

 

Interesting to know Angus D. McDonald was a great team captain of Notre Dame's baseball team. He was a great man, a natural-born leader. 

 

[Miningman]

Mike says:

 

"The Mets did good this year by keeping it interesting deep into September. Wish we had Angus D. McDonald. 

[Flintlock76]

Oh jeez, all this Notre Dame talk is bringin' out the Irish Catholic in me.

Why fight it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn_-JgexeLI  

[Deggesty]

Yes, the Notre Dame football team is an excellent team--but they did not sing the victory march song last night--theDawgs bit them.

[BaltACD]

Jones1945

Miningman

 

From Mike: 

 

Jones's enthusiasm for certain 4-8-4's caused me to learn the SP president Angus D. McDonald was a Notre Dame man.

 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006075587&view=1up&seq=309

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=wFsn4uwPSzwC&pg=PA26&dq=%22angus+d+mcdonald%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7iKvjleHkAhUrZN8KHcJJBJgQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22angus%20d%20mcdonald%22&f=false

 

http://www.irishlegends.com/pages/reflections/reflections35.html

 

 

 

Only reason for the team to be at the IC Station when going to the West Coast would be that they had ridden the South Shore from South Bend to Chicago so they could make connections with the IC train to New Orleans and thence West.  Rather circuitous routing.

[Flintlock76]

Deggesty

Yes, the Notre Dame football team is an excellent team--but they did not sing the victory march song last night--theDawgs bit them.

 

Hmmm, is Georgia still holding that grudge dating from Uncle Billy Sherman's visit?  That would explain a lot.

[Deggesty]

Flintlock76

 

 

Deggesty

Yes, the Notre Dame football team is an excellent team--but they did not sing the victory march song last night--theDawgs bit them.

 

 

 

 

Hmmm, is Georgia still holding that grudge dating from Uncle Billy Sherman's visit?  That would explain a lot.

 

No, I think they just like to play football and win. I doubt if anybody from Florida did any harm to Georgians--but there seems to be no love lost between Athens and Gainesville, Florida.

I don't know how much Georgians think about "Cump" Sherman nowadays. I do know that my then two year old grandfather's home, in Up Country South Carolina was not burned in early 1865 because my grandfather;s oldest sister refused to leave the house when everybody was ordered out. But, that is all gone now.