Why no Berkshires in the West?

[PM Railfan]

rcdrye

The most eastern Texas types, Central Vermont's 700 class, were smaller than many Berkshires.  CV had to keep them north of Brattleboro VT.

Ironically, did you know the AMC Berkshires of the east were scaled down versions of a Texas type? Actually.... the C&O T1 to be specific. Which was also an AMC design. Even more ironic was that the T1 was designed after an Erie Berkshire! Again, AMC designed. The 'original' Berkshire design came from adapting an NYC Mikado. Hows that for lineage! This info isn't new, but always struck me as 'ironically' interesting.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It's hardly ironic, more like a reasonable progression from several different predecessors.

[PM Railfan]

I meant the up down up down of the sizing of locos. The progression is NOT reasonable. More aptly, think of how well the slide rule got used! Locomotive design up to this point had been a progression of wheel arrangement. Being designs already existed for each type, yes, its very ironic these locos came about the way they did.

[ACY Tom]

The up and down sizing is only important if you think bigger is always better.

Yes, the NYC H-10 2-8-2 led to the A-1 2-8-4, which led to the Erie 2-8-4, which led to the C&O 2-10-4, which led to the C&O 2-6-6-6 and AMC 2-8-4.   When NKP, W&LE, PM, C&O, etc. needed new locomotives for specific routes and types of service, they ordered locos of appropriate size, power, and speed capability to perform the job.  The C&O 2-10-4 was not that engine.  Why buy an engine that's too heavy for your bridges?  Why buy an engine that pulls longer trains than your longest passing track or your longest anticipated trains?  Why buy an engine that won't fit through your tunnels and won't fit on your turntables?  The plan was to buy new engines; but buying bigger would have meant spending precious money to reengineer and rebuild the railroad.

After buying 207 K4s 4-6-2's by the end of 1922, PRR bought a flock of 90 G5s 4-6-0's in 1923-5 because that's what they believed they needed for branch and commuter service.  And they added 218 more K4s' by the end of 1927.  The G5s' were smaller than the K4s', but they fit Management's plans.

UP bought quite a few Challengers after the advent of the Big Boys because that's the engine they believed they needed.

When the Advisory Mechanical Committee came up with the classic Van Sweringen Berkshire, it was the product of a  logical progression..   Many factors were more important than size.

So no, bigger ain't always better.

Tom

Tom

[ACY Tom]

I guess the system won't let me edit.

Just wanted to add that PRR's 52 T1 4-4-4-4's came along after the larger S1 6-4-4-6.  Not to suggest that a T1 was a small engine, of course.

[PM Railfan]

I don't know about editing, but I do notice that the MR pagination is all over the place again.... page -1 ???? Anywho, no, I wasn't implying bigger is better either. Just simply, I find it ironic, after all the years of going from 0-4-0 to 2-4-0 to 4-4-0 to 4-6-2 etc etc (natural progression of the 'passenger' loco as example) that these locos were designed and built in an up and down manner. Just seemed strange to take a Berkshire, design it into a Texas, only to come back as a Berkshire. To "me", that's irony. If we follow what you said about a natural progression, then I would think going from Berkshire straight to Berkshire would be 'normal', with no Texas design in between. Im sure there are many cases of this elsewhere, but this is a post about Berkshires. I was trying to remain on that type of loco. Concerning buying locos that wont fit your railroad, the C&O for instance DID invest millions to redo parts of the railroad that the H8 wouldn't run on unless they did. Not uncommon for railroads, and that did happen. Turntables were replaced to fit longer locos. Sidings were lengthened as trains got longer due to the loco becoming more powerful (hauling longer trains). Heck they still do this today. We just had a line put in here which in effect, lengthened a siding here in town by extending it. The whole railroad wasn't rebuilt, but a lot of railroads most certainly rebuilt areas for new locos. Consider roundhouses the most when thinking of steam. A railroad would almost HAVE to build longer stalls to hold an H8 or even a T1 (C&O) if in the area they were to run, didn't have any to fit. Im using C&O for example here, all railroads did this that needed to for a new coming loco. I agree, the PRR T1 and S1 are very large locos indeed. PS this sentence is an edit, so I think it is working now.

[ACY Tom]

My point is that the railroad had a pot of money to spend.  They could spend the whole pot of money on 20 Berkshires, or they could spend a third of it on five 2-10-4's and the other two thirds on infrastructure.  Of course I'm pulling numbers out of thin air here for the sake of illustration.  Management made decisions based on practical realities.  I repeat, bigger isn't always better.

[daveklepper]

Other examples of progression from larger to more technically advanced smaller locos include the PRR K2 to E6, The Milwaukee's A's and, in diesels, the Rock's EMD T1s.