NAME AT LEAST FOUR OF YOUR FAVORITE STEAM LOCOMOTIVES.
We've done this before, but here goes.
1. Rutland 4-8-2' s
2. N&W 4-8-0' s
3. CP 4-4-4 Jubilees
4. N&W last 0-8-0' s
In a Harry Turtledove-style alternate history of the Rutland, I would put numbers 2 and 3 on the roster. Of course, I would add electrics as well
I could add D&H had the handsomest 4-6-6-4' s.
Some "new" candidates added on my list recently:
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
1- Pennsylvania Railroad T1 (unmodified front end version)
2- Milwaukee Road A class 4-4-2 atlantic
3- N&W Y6 class
4- Pennsylvania Railroad Q2 class
As an exile from New England. I'll take the B&M 4-8-2. Atlantics sound good, too. The Strasburg used to operate one.
Rutland's 4-6-2's were nice looking. I'm partial to SP's P class pacifics. CV's 700-class Texas types, though small by Texas type standards, looked mighty tough...
I like the design of B&M's smoke deflector on their 4-6-2s and 4-8-2s. I think the Central Vermont 2-10-4 T-3a was good looking too, the Elesco bundle type feedwater heater and the headlight which was installed slightly above the middle of the smokebox door looked attractive. I also like the design of the trailing truck of them and the metal cover (edit: the loco frame) between the firebox and the trailing truck!
Jones1945the metal cover between the firebox and the trailing truck!
You do realize that (unless I am badly mistaken) that is not a 'metal cover'; that is the actual locomotive frame. (See the surviving CN Hudsons for another view of the same thing.) IIRC the initial C&NW H engines were built this way, and I believe famously rebuilt not to have the relatively weak perimeter frame when they received cast beds later.
This is another example of the sort of 'clever thinking' in the '20s that brought us three-cylinder simple power and very high operating pressures.
I know D&H had some high pressure 2-8-0' s and one 4-8-0. I believe this happened under the famous Loree. I like the D&H because it was a hometown road of my late wife in PA. She wasn't a railfan, but her dad mined the anthracite that powered the steamers. D&H tapped into Western Vermont; the line leading into Rutland now brings Amtrak to that city.
Wouldn't most of you experts agree that the high pressure experiments and 3 cylinder power were noble ideas that at best had mixed results? Kind of like the turbines in the 50' s?
Overmod You do realize that (unless I am badly mistaken) that is not a 'metal cover'; that is the actual locomotive frame. (See the surviving CN Hudsons for another view of the same thing.) IIRC the initial C&NW H engines were built this way, and I believe famously rebuilt not to have the relatively weak perimeter frame when they received cast beds later. This is another example of the sort of 'clever thinking' in the '20s that brought us three-cylinder simple power and very high operating pressures.
I only heard about them just a few hours ago when I saw rcdrye's post, Mr. Overmod. I saw some pics of them from brass train dot com and found them really good looking. I thought it was some sort of safety measure. But thank you for telling me that it is actually the loco frame. No wonder it is supported by the centering rockers and such a unique design made them even more interesting to me.
Purely for aesthetic reasons.
N&W V1:
M1:
Y6b:
U.P. 4-6-6-4:
and the mighty hudson:
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
OK, in no particular order of importance, or whether alive or extinct.
1) Norfolk & Western Class J, my "Mighty 611"
2) Central of New Jersey Pacific Class G-3s #831, "The Blue Comet"
3) Erie K1 Pacific, any number in the class.
4) David Kloke's "Leviathan." I love those 19th Century 4-4-0's, like pieces of fine art!
Fr.Al I know D&H had some high pressure 2-8-0' s and one 4-8-0.
I know D&H had some high pressure 2-8-0' s and one 4-8-0.
D&H had 4 high pressure experimentals, 1400 a two cylinder compound 2-8-0 with 350 psi, 1401 a two cylinder compound 2-8-0 with 400 psi, 1402 a two cylinder compound 2-8-0 with 500 psi and the 1403 a four cylinder triple expansion compound 4-8-0 with 500 psi. The 1400 and 1401 were spectacularly ugly engines, the 1402 and 1403 looked like big bruisers.
The problem with the high pressure experimentals was that "a machine shop had to be sent out with every run". The 1403 was the most efficient steam locomotive made in the US with pistons.
The story on these engines ran in the June 1967 issue of Trains (first issue I bought).
Yes, Erik, I well remember that article about the D&H high pressure locomotives. As you remarked, two of them were not sleek engines--I imagine that Mr. Loree was not interested in an engine beauty contest, but in making the best use of the coal and water.
Johnny
Leonor Loree was a great railroader, but unfortunately for the D&H, and himself, he stayed on the job too long, and became hopelessly conservative, at least as far as motive power was concerned.
When he finally left the D&H in 1938 look what came after. The magnificent Challengers and Northerns that turned the D&H from not only a coal drag outfit but into a very efficient money making bridge line.
Hey, personal experience here. When I saw the company I worked for moving into areas I couldn't understand and just couldn't get my head around I knew it was time to move on before I made a fool of myself.
For classic non-articulated power Virginian's MB Mikes and PA Pacifics were very nice.
The Soo/WC N-20 4-8-2 (all but 4 were WC) looked good on the head of a train of maroon cars.
Thanks, rcdrye! it is interesting to me to learn about these handsome steam engines of Soo Line Railroad. I like their N-20 and O-20 equally.
New York Central L2d
I have a strong liking for the capable UP 4-12-2 "Union Pacific". For an early steamer, compared to many being offered as favourites by others that are clearly modern and 'super-power' examples with the benefit of later learning in steam development, that locomotive was a beast.
I am also keen on the 4-8-4 "Mountain" variants in general, but the S1b Niagara is my all-time favourite. Close behind is the J.
I am fond of the C&O-derivation of their T-1 2-10-4, but the Penny's version of it, the J1a. Those two cylinders produced nearly as much tractive effort, with the smaller engine, as that generated by the UP Challengers with four cylinders and all their weight.
For true super-power, though, my ardour rests with the Q2, followed closely by the C&O's Allegheny H-8. For brutish looks, the nod goes to the Allegheny, but the flag goes to the Q2 for the modern look, raw power, and general capability at speed.
The Allegheny is a good choice. Which brings me to the question, did mountain roads like C&O favor the two wheel leading truck because of the curves on the mountain tracks?
CARMINE PELAIANAME AT LEAST FOUR OF YOUR FAVORITE STEAM LOCOMOTIVES.
Geez, four kinda limits things a bit...thanks for including the "at least" part.
TH&B's Class A-s Berkshires
CNR's N-2-b Consolidations and their DW&P N-2-a cousins
CNR's S-2-a Mikados, with the Vanderbilt tenders (the S-4-b Mikes would have made the list, too, if CN had sprung for a second air pump on the pilot)
Pretty-well any of CNR's H-6 Ten Wheelers
CNR's E-10 Moguls, especially #88, which I saw, as a six year old, laying on its side after a derailment on Ferguson Ave., in Hamilton, Ont.
Michigan Central's (CASO) 1290 and 1291
NYC's (and TH&B's) Hudsons - J-1s, J-2s, and J-3s - the non-streamlined versions.
Pennsy's J1
It's difficult to stop...but I will.
Wayne
Fr.Al The Allegheny is a good choice. Which brings me to the question, did mountain roads like C&O favor the two wheel leading truck because of the curves on the mountain tracks?
I Would think a four wheel truck would track better, wouldn't it? Maybe there was a greater adhesion factor to consider?
Penny and Fr. Al,
Adhesion factor is proably the reason, a good many Consolidations had about half the axle load on the lead truck as they did on the drivers, kind of an upgraded 0-8-0. The tenders for these locomotives would often have a pair of 4 wheel trucksm further minimizing weight not on drivers.
Some new locomotives added on my top-20 list.
MILW Class S-2 #251
https://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr541.htm
Southern Pacific P-14
Penny TrainsI Would think a four wheel truck would track better, wouldn't it?
Therein lies some interesting discussion.
Geometrically, a leading Bissel is dynamically unstable (just as a trailing one, including a Delta-framed one, is not) -- any lateral perturbation tends to make the truck diverge rather then centering. This requires some form of active centering, like that for lateral in a good pin-guided truck, and for high speed a proper location of the pivot and truck length relative to the driver wheelbase, independent of weight distribution on the truck axle.
Remember that when the LS&MS took over from Atlantic City as having the fastest locomotives in the world, what they built instead of Pacifics were engines with good leading Bissels, 2-6-2s. That does not seem to have made them radically unsafe; in fact Wilgus got into some trouble by adopting the principle on electrics intended for much slower running that very promptly got into disasters in the first couple of days of service ... one aftermath of which was Wilgus' resignation on matters of principle. I don't remember exactly when the New York folks took 'local control' of motive-power design out of Ohio hands and mandated conversion of all the Prairies into rather poor Pacifics ... but it might have been after that.
Meanwhile, by the time of the AMC Berkshires and the N&W A, a good two-wheel leading truck with isolated equalization and good springing (in those deep pockets) had been developed, and this was suitable right up to the speeds almost any road required. An additional consideration that has been discussed is the rod optimization possible on these engines, particularly simple articulateds, while keeping the locomotive wheelbase minimized.
With regards o AMC Berkshires, Trains published a picture, taken from a car falling behind, of a C&O Berk hauling a passenger train. The fellow who subimtted the picture said that the car's speedometer was indicating 85MPH and the train was even faster.
One more engine added on my already-too-long list, the UP #815 with skyline casting:
(Brasstrains.com)
This is not my video. I think the skyline casting look legit on the UP FEF-1.
Jones1945I think the skyline casing looks legit on the UP FEF-1.
I don't recall having seen this either in Kratville's book on the Streamliners (where he goes into front-end drafting and streamlining in some detail) or the Mighty 800s.
Obviously a test rig on the Ajin version pictured: see all the seams where the rectangular panels are cobbled together, and the frankly awful louvered 45-degree box at the front with the whistle sticking up awkwardly ... it looks in fact as if the whistle has received a whack to make it sit at that silly angle; I sure hope so for UP's sake!
But what is that weird casting just in front, with the fins? On the blurred historical photograph, this looks like a side view of lit 'train-numberboards' inside a glass enclosure, with what might be a headlight of some kind in the middle; it also appears that the edges of the skyline casing have been curved and ground smooth, at least smoother than in the model.
The pump shroud that works reasonably well on the FEF-3 is misapplied to the older engine; it gives it almost a James Cagney look -- not to say anything against Cagney, but I don't care for the pugilist bent-nose profile.
I predict this came out in 'response' to the smoke-lifting tests done by Gresley et al., and perhaps the NRC study about "increasing lift at the stack" -- which, of course, was an inadequate answer to the wrong question. Be fun to see how they kept the various 'things' under the casing accessible to be worked on.
Overmod But what is that weird casting just in front, with the fins? On the blurred historical photograph, this looks like a side view of lit 'train-numberboards' inside a glass enclosure, with what might be a headlight of some kind in the middle; it also appears that the edges of the skyline casing have been curved and ground smooth, at least smoother than in the model.
The first time I saw this unique odd-duck, or odd-iron-horse of the Union Pacific, I thought the skyline casting was almost identical to Southern Pacific's GSs, MTs, and P14, except the angled number board case and the shutters on that narrow entrance of the skyline casing. Turn out the design of it was more ambitious than those built on SP's steam-streamliner, even though it was a rushed design and a failed experiment. The design on SP's skyline casing and the shape of the smokestack was very straightforward. The skyline on UP 815 looks like an attempt to draft the air current into a pair of the long tunnel inside the casing until the air current hit the end of the tunnel above the driving cab.
You are probably right that the skyline casing was so much smoother than the brass train model, I can't see if there was any rivel on the outside, but since the only pic available on the web is so small, I can only trust Ajin's interpretation.
Overmod The pump shroud that works reasonably well on the FEF-3 is misapplied to the older engine; it gives it almost a James Cagney look -- not to say anything against Cagney, but I don't care for the pugilist bent-nose profile.
Pareidolia! Every steam engine with a single headlight looks like a "One-Eyed Monster" to me, I keep trying to avoid it.
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