What if Southern Pacific buy the Berkshires of their own based on say C&O or NKP designs rather than buying Boston and Maine Berks. SP would have a fleet of C&O style or NKP style Berks
Overmod said:
But it should also be recalled that one of the early 'bouncing driver' augment movies came from one of these engines, which might incriminate the rod design or the snubbing (or relative lack of same) especially at resonance frequencies in the suspension.
I was unaware of that...
The Swiss book I am using as a reference reproduces the GA drawings to the same scale on adjacent (but not facing) pages. One thing that is clear is that the cylinders are further forward relative to the driving axle on the F-7 compared to the E-4. This can be seen in the greater distance between the leading driver and the trailing axle of the lead truck on the F-7. I wondered if this was enough to increase the angularity of the main rods and cause greater vertical forces at the driving axle. Certainly, that isn't something you can change with a cast bed.
Of course, the E-4 never ran in competition with the F-7 since it was too heavy for some bridges on the "400" route and was used on Omaha trains. As such any technical failings at high speed were less critical. The arrival of EMD E-3s around 1940 meant that high speed duties went to the diesels anyway.
I mentioned these two classes in reference to standardisation in the Steam and Preservation thread. The big problem with standardisation is that you might standardise on an E-4 rather than an F-7 at the design stage, an never know what went wrong...
Peter
MiningmanPerhaps all those minor differences all add up to a certain optimum.
In my opinion that would not explain it. Angus Sinclair addressed the question in his discussion of the Falcon in 'Development of the Locomotive Engine'; the problem there was not the detail construction but a ghastly mistake in erection. Conversely had there been remedial boo-boos during construction (as Farrington reported for the 3460 class) they would have been fixed. The inexplicable thing is that C&NW, which not once but twice did extensive rebuilding of the H engines, never seemed to go after the problems with the E-4s. This might have come about because the road had no need for high speed out of Hudsons (or perhaps any steam power by the postwar era) or could get all the speed they needed, just as ATSF did, out of their 4-8-4s with less potential slipperiness and so forth.
Personally, I would suspect the problem to be either in the valve arrangements or the front end, which is the definitive identified cause of the low speed of the 3460s. But it should also be recalled that one of the early 'bouncing driver' augment movies came from one of these engines, which might incriminate the rod design or the snubbing (or relative lack of same) especially at resonance frequencies in the suspension. I would find it difficult to see Alco in 1938 not fully aware of the issues with the ACL R1s, so overbalance misassessment shouldn't be a true cause, and I would expect both inertial and thrust yaw augment to be very similar at around 40% cutoff at high rotational speed for the F7 and E-4.
Perhaps all those minor differences all add up to a certain optimum.
Also we know steam locomotive construction was dependent on craftsman, a very certain bias to a way of doing something. A specific way of doing things would have applied somewhat differently through these seperate orders.
Perhaps coal grade and water management played a role as well.
Meanwhile consider the vast difference between the Milwaukee F7, a proven and effective high-speed locomotive, and the nominally similar C&NW E-4 that could not even get to 100mph with the AAR test train.
I mentioned these two in my post on Standardisation in Argentina.
How did this happen?
They were built by Alco in the same year to the same general specification.
It is like someone bought a Chevrolet painted cream and orange, and found that it ran better than his neighbour's Chevrolet built at the same time but painted dark green...
The F-7 had cylinders 597 x 762, the E-4 had cylinders 643 x 757
The F-7 had two thermic siphons in line, the E-4 had one large one.
The F-7's boiler was marginally shorter between tubeplates (less than 2 inches)
I don't have the tube pattern for the F-7 but the E-4 had 196 flues and eight tubes.
There is no apparent reason, looking at the drawings, for one to be a sucess and the other a failure.
To me, this suggests that design was still "hit or miss" as late as 1938.
Ah, Herr Doktor Hugo Eckener and his wonderful "Graf Zeppelin!"
How'd you all like to go for a ride with the "Old Man" and his amazing airship?
OK, here 'ya go...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG_wnJeH0fk
Eckener made the around-the-world flight the year these were introduced. Then came the Century of Progress exhibition and the famous stamps. This came from there:
I suppose they got the name "Zeppelins" when the old "Graf" was making its world-renowned flights and long before the "Hindenburg" disaster.
Oh great, as if I don't feel enough like yesterdays man!
The C&NW Zeppelins, after the brilliant and outstanding rebuild post WWII are definitely in my top 5. They are underrated and somewhat overlooked. Their appearance went downhill a few years after that may have been a contributing factor, and they had a short time in the big show really after the rebuild, but then so did most everything else.
A beautiful and outstanding locomotive.
Firelock76 There was less time between the end of the Civil War and the first Northerns than there is between our time and the end of World War Two! Scary.
There's a much scarier way to put it: less time between the end of the Civil War and the first high-speed Northerns than from the time most of the Eastern high-speed steam was scrapped to now.
I am still not quite sure why the rebuilt H-class C&NW Zeppelins aren't far more famous than they are. THAT was a large dual-service engine with acquired grace.
MidlandMikeDid many Hudson's operate west of the Front Range?
A curious artifact of the 'balancing revolution' was the idea that six-coupled (or fewer) drivers were needed to make high speed, hence ATSF using the 3460 class for fast running on the prairies and handing over to 4-8-4a on grades. Hudsons could and did run through -- you may remember an early high-mileage test using one -- but something funny happened in the meantime: ATSF discovered fast 4-8-4s. By the time of the 3776 class ATSF had 4-8-4s that had a measurable speed advantage over the 3460s as well as being more tractable at high speed.
Meanwhile consider the vast difference between the Milwaukee F7, a proven and effective high-speed locomotive, and the nominally similar C&NW E-4 that could not even get to 100mph with the AAR test train. The 3460s had appalling valve tracting and while they could apparently make it up to 102 or so the bottom fell out promptly and about the highest verifiable speed, downgrade with a tailwind, was somewhere around 105. And all this with 84" drivers and supposedly good balancing.
Remember too that the Niagara was an unexpectedly late development out of what as late as 1945 was expected to be little more impressive than a 75"-delivered clone of CRI&p/D&H size locomotive. Very few "Western" engines had the performance of what Alco produced with lightweight motion work and good detail design even with some of the more ridiculous Eastern clearances. No Western engine produced the speed of the N&W J in direct test even with much larger drivers. It would have been highly interesting to see what Kiefer or Glaze might have produced with ATSF clearances ... or for that matter what a slightly less wack oil-fired duplex might have done ... but even as early as the Thirties most of the West belonged to diesels even on roads with the best approaches to big steam express power.
I understood that ATSF changed out hudsons for northerns at LaJunta. Did many hudsons operate west of the front range?
Oh yes, when World War Two began some folks considered the name "Mikado" inappropriate since we were fighting the Japanese, so the name "MacArthur" was subsituted. I don't think it ever really caught on though, however some did call the 2-8-2 types "MacMikes."
Yes, I did not recall the other names for the 4-8-4's
While on the subtopic of alternate names, remember that the Central of Georgia and one other road operated MacArthurs (were they Big Macs?) during WWII.
Back to western roads and their engines.
Johnny
You're not mistaken Johnny, the Northern Pacific was the first to use the "Northern" type, the name and the wheel arrangement found each other and stuck fast.
Of course, you and I know there was no way those proud southern railroads were going to call their 4-8-4's "Northerns", especially with the "Late Unpleasantness" only 60 years in the past! Hence the name "Dixies", "Greenbriers" on the C&O, Class J's on the N&W, "Governors, Generals, and Statesmen" on the RF&P, and there were more than likely others who's names elude me at the moment.
Wow. The thought just hit me. There was less time between the end of the Civil War and the first Northerns than there is between our time and the end of World War Two! Scary.
Wayne
I may be mistaken, but I have the impression that the Northern Pacific used Northerns--and that they were so-called because the NP used them.
Of course, the Dixie Line used Dixies.
SPer Speaking of CN 4-8-4s , Did Canadian National ran the 160 Northerns systemwide, or restricted to only Ontario and Quebec because of their size and weight.
Speaking of CN 4-8-4s , Did Canadian National ran the 160 Northerns systemwide, or restricted to only Ontario and Quebec because of their size and weight.
While the Northerns were more common in the east they would also be found out west, and CN's 2-10-2s and 4-8-2s (commonly found in the western provinces) were nearly as heavy as a 4-8-4.
I do not believe there were weight restrictions on the 4-8-4s, as CN had inherited a number of main routes with lighter-duty track they ordered locomotives that could run on them.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Except for the Santa Fe who didn't have any use for articulateds after a bad experience with some early ones I can't say any railroad anywhere had a prejudice against any particular locomotive wheel arrangement. Remember, these 'roads were run by very practical men, and if a certain locomotive type looked like it would fill a need they'd certainly take a good hard look at it.
SPer I know the railroads of the West only operated Northerns and Mallets but no Berkshires or Hudsons. Eastern locomotives are not welcomed there.
I know the railroads of the West only operated Northerns and Mallets but no Berkshires or Hudsons. Eastern locomotives are not welcomed there.
What do you mean by "West"?
Milwaukee road had 4-6-4s very early, ordered before the appearance of NYC 5200 which they called "Baltics".
Milwaukee and C&NW had very large 4-6-4s, both with 84" drivers.
Santa Fe had the 4100 class 2-8-4s, and they and SP both purchased former B&M 2-8-4s.
Santa Fe had the 3450 and 3460 class 4-6-4s including 3460 itself which was streamlined and painted blue and is pretty well known...
Canadian Pacific operated Hudsons in the West, and Canadian National operated Northerns in the East.
Or is Canada just considered the North?
Santa Fe, Burlington, Milwaukee and Northwestern all had Hudsons, and ATSF & CNW had some Berkshires too, although they were few.
I could go on...
Huh? What?? You better start some searches and reading because you are waaaaaayyyy off!
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