1. Backstop gave the correct answer with the B&M' Berks with the unusual front vecause of the Coffin heater.
2. The AMC Birks surely were based on the Erie's.
3. I've understood the P&LE's to be a sop to Alco, as well as Keifer.
4. Before Backstop asks the next question, or with it, can someone do the legwork and post data?
'
It's actually Overmod's turn.
Mr. Klepper said you were up, Backshop...
... while you're thinking of a good one, here's a quickie: sticking again with 2-8-4s, what class has the most of their tenders remaining in preservation?
He thought that I answered the question about the B&M Berkshires, but it was you, Overmod. You're up!
Tenders!
L&N Big Emmas.
Please, please, someone post thec2-8-4 data!
rcdryeL&N Big Emmas.
4-8-4s for a railroad with turntables just a smidge too short.
And were those tenders snazzy!
Overmod rcdrye L&N Big Emmas. Ding! 4-8-4s for a railroad with turntables just a smidge too short. And were those tenders snazzy!
rcdrye L&N Big Emmas.
Ding!
I'll post something else later today or early tomorrow.
Still hoping some reader will post the 2-8-4s data. At least the B&A's.B&M's and AMC (Nickle Plater, C&O, PM), but adding tyhe P&LE and Erie if possible, and also the L&N.
Maybe I'll have better luck asking for the on the TRAINS Steam & Preservation Forum?
Here's the data that I could glean from Farrell's Berkshire And Texas Types. If there are multiple orders, I just am giving it for the original order. It will be in class/cylinders/driver/boiler pressure/engine weight order.
B&A A-1a 28x30 63" 240# 389,000#
Erie S-1 28.5x32 70" 225# 443,000#
B&M T-1a 28x30 63" 240# 393,000#
NKP S 25x34 69" 245# 428,900#
PM N 26x34 69" 245# 436,500#
L&N M-1 25x32 69" 265# 447,200#
C&O K-4 26x34 69" 245# 460,000#
P&LE A-2a 26x32 63" 230# 426,000#
DT&I n/a 25x30 63" 260# 411,500#
If you want any more railroads, just let me know.
THANKS I suspect the Erie's had the most change, first-to-lsst, and the data for the last would be very important.
Erie S-4 70" 28.5x32 250# 468,800#
Norfolk Southern (probably the epitome of the light eight-coupled in the United States, built for maximum horsepower on 25T axle load). Baldwin 1940.
23.5x32, 63", 250#, 49,300TE, 335,400 engine weight.
ATSF 4101 class. Built 1927, toward the end of the 'drag era' tendency for 2-8-4 design. Described as "basically good 1922 engines with a 1927 wheel arrangement"; they might be thought of as the same logical extension of a Mike as the original 3751 class was as a 'Heavy Mountain' or the original conception of a 2-10-4 from a Santa Fe type. Interestingly, these never received the 'beauty treatment' locomotives like T&P 610 got in the Thirties, nor were extensively rebuilt like the 3751 class.
27x32, 63", 220#, 69,200 TE, 396,500 engine weight.
The boilers were designed for 250#, and one example (4115) was 'optimized' for this pressure: 78,685TE -- these were 15" piston valves with 9.5" travel!
Illinois Central 7000 class (Lima 1926)
28x30, 63", 240# 76,160TE, 388,000 engine weight.
As you would expect these were track-wreckers even at 40mph, with a nasty habit of suddenly going into full gear at high mass flow. Apparently engineers could get broken arms from this...
The IC's original 'beauty treatment' for this class was to rebuild them into freight-only Hudsons -- some of the existing diagrams note all the engines so converted (with 'new' driver diameter 73.5", likely the largest size that would 'fit" the existing dimensions. This plan was stillborn for a number of reasons, and likely the Depression restricted rebuilding of the 2-8-4s in kind until the very late Thirties. What they were given was a pressure increase to 265#, a change from type E to type A superheater (with a reduction in heat-transfer surface!), a 1" reduction in piston diameter (from 28x30 to 27x30) and some experimentation with different arrangements of circulators and syphons. The result was a slight increase in nominal TE to 78,194# but with engine weight ballooning to nearly match ATSF at 393,500#.
These engines worked until the end of steam on the IC, but they sure went fast when they went, perhaps the only other thing they did 'fast' aside from winding out the gear...
International Great Northern and then Missouri Pacific (BK-63, 1928 and 1930).
28x30, 63", 240#, 76,160TE, 404,000 (1928) 412000 (1930) engine weight.
These were some of the late 'original' type, and were probably among the best-looking of them. Notable was that the grate area dropped dramatically (100.30 to 87.90), and the firebox direct heating surface shrank from 415' to 357' (383' by 1936 per diagram), yet the engine weight ballooned by several tons, and the combined heating surface went from 7239' to 7744' only about 300' of which reflected longer tubes and none of which involved a combustion chamber.
MoPac sensibly rebuilt these into 4-8-4s (with 75" drivers) in the early war years. These had cast engine beds with roller bearings, and "practically complete new boilers", and of course corresponding modern driver centers and rods. These produced better than 2 and a half times the road mileage per month of the original type.
C&NW J-4 (1927)
28x30, 63", 240#, 76,160TE, 397,000 engine weight
I think these were one of the 'inspirations' for the MoPac engines (which were also by Alco) -- in turn, these were supposedly inspired by the later B&M 'sports model' engines. Here again are the 14" valves with limited cutoff that are part of the 'SuperPower' formula. As far as I know, they ran primarily coal trains during their slow lifetimes, and weren't heavily modified. We don't need to look far at C&NW power to understand why this was so: the answer is a simple letter. H. The money put into either of the extensive rebuildings the 4-8-4s were given easily outweighs anything short of full rebuilding that the 2-8-4s could provide -- the 1948 rebuilding in particular may rate as the best-evolved of all the big full dual-service 4-8-4 designs.
Great job in providing all this information, and do please ask the next question, thanks.
Overmod, we are waiting!
I keep finding fun questions, like who ran steel double-unit diners, only to find there are scores of answers all over the first page of a Google search. Even assuming everyone doesn't know about them already...
Just make sure whatever you find doesn't come from the Classic Trains Forum...
rcdryeJust make sure whatever you find doesn't come from the Classic Trains Forum...
I remember someone commenting on making a considerable 'income' from sending jokes to Playboy Magazine... having gotten them from old back issues of Playboy and but lightly updating them if needed. There is no reason to suspect anyone here of such behavior.
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