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

[jlampke]

Looking at the site "Steamlocomotive.com" it looks like Baldwin and Alco supplied more 4-8-4's to American railroads than Lima. Why was that? Who built the highest quality 4-8-4's? What makes them the best?

Of the 57 or so 4-8-4's still surviving in North America (38 in the US, 11 in Mexico, 8 in Canada), which ones would be considered the best, taking into consideration their current material condition and future prospects?

Which 4-8-4 is your favorite? Which 4-8-4's have you seen? What condition did it appear to be in? 

Links with pictures of the various 4-8-4's would be appreciated!!

For what it's worth, I'm a fan of GS-4 4449.

[Anonymous]

I think the main reason was because Baldwin and Alco had a much bigger works than Lima and so could toss engines out quicker, also baldwins and alcos are SO rugged! they would go for years without a (proper) overhaul and were just a bit more powerful. Lima also did a lot of overseas work and that would have put a load on the works to get those engines finished, they exported to south america and various plantations. however it probably just boils down to cost, i don't know for sure but i suspect that Lima engines were a bit expensive!

[passengerfan]

Without doubt the highest quality 4-8-4's were those built by the N&W in their own shops.

[Gunns]

I like the Baldwin 2900s, but I'm Biased.........
Gunns

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Unlike diesel locomotives and their standardized models and designs, steam locomotives, with few exceptions such as the USRA designs, were designed by the various railroad engineering staffs. High quality in a steam locomotive involves more than workmanship on the shop floor, design by the engineering staff also counts for a lot.

[Mark300]

First on my list would by the WM's 1400 class (J1's) 'Potomac' engines. They had 69 inch drivers and according to a 2004 Trains Magazine article on 'Supersteam' were best suited for the job & geography of all of the 4-8-4's. There were 12 built by Baldwin.

Needless to say, being ordered in 1947 and scrapped in 1954, none survived.

Second on my list would be the Reading's 'T-1's.' They were rebuilt from 2-8-0s in the Reading's shops and there were 25 of them; with several being preserved. You will recall the 2102 being used for the Freedom Train as well as the Chessie Special.

I agree with 'csshegewisch' that workmanship, design and the unique operating conditions resulted in highly specialized designs that are kind of hard to make comparisons.

That any 4-8-4 would have made a good all purpose engine didn't dawn on many operating departments until well after the switch over to diesel....and the realization from their specs of what they really had.

My [2c]

Happy Railroading.

Mark

[jlampke]

By the way Gunns.... Good luck to you and the rest of your crew with that new "girlfriend"!! [tup] [tup]

[Anonymous]

Definately N&W at Roanoke! Take a look at UP's 800's. I understand they used the J as their point of reference.

[Dr Leonard]

Pound for pound, no 4-8-4 equaled the New York Central's S1 Niagaras for horsepower, efficiency and mileage between servicing. With 79" drivers they were definitely a passenger locomotive for level terrain. But, with all due respect to the N&W J and the Reading T-1 (not to mention the SP GS-4 and many others), the Niagaras still get my vote.

[selector]

Please suggest some criteria so that we can all have a look at the data and come to some agreement on which gets the better total score.

For example, tons of coal used/tonnnage/distance. Or, costs of maintenance/hrs run. Or, outright purchase costs/hrs of useful life-standardized to 100's. Or, running costs/tonnage hauled. Or, rail maintenance costs/hours of actual loco use..(not sure that last one can ever be measured). We need to have some standardized system to compare the locos objectively, not just subjective impression about how neat they looked or sounded. Horsepower would only be one indicator, but purchase price, maintenance over time, and other indicators would have great weight.

[Mark300]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rlsteam

Pound for pound, no 4-8-4 equaled the New York Central's S1 Niagaras for horsepower, efficiency and mileage between servicing. With 79" drivers they were definitely a passenger locomotive for level terrain. But, with all due respect to the N&W J and the Reading T-1 (not to mention the SP GS-4 and many others), the Niagaras still get my vote.

True.....As a kid riding in the back seat as my Father and his Father (My Grandfather) would chase NYC reefer unit trains or mixed freights bound for Weehawkin along the West Shore thru Bergan County NJ in the early 50's; West Norwood, Harrington Park, Haworth, Teaneck NJ. Many of those trains were headed by Niagaras.

They really did wheel long fast freights! And those spinning white rimmed wheels.......!

They were sharp looking engines on fairly flat terrain. Definitely Alco's best.

Thanks.....for reminding me/us about NYC's Niagara's.

Happy Railroading.

Mark

[jlampke]

Selector.... That's a tall order. I'll have to admit that a lot of my opinions are, as you say, subjective, and not usually based on any extensive amount of knowledge. From this site and others I'm learning quite a bit. I lived in CA and OR as a kid, so I saw a lot of the SP. I have heard some of the crew down at the roundhouse make the comment that "Lima really knew how to build 'em", and I like to think that 4449 and 4460 are well built and could be around for a long, long time to come. My involvement and knowledge doesn't even come close to what I'm reading from some of you gents. I joined the Navy in '76 and have been on ships ever since. Don't see many trains out on the high seas. I'm in Guam aboard the USNS Kiska (T-AE 35) right now. When I finally retire I'll volunteer my time and help with 4449. Steam propulsion is my specialty. Well.... how about versatility, reliability, the ability to accelerate a heavy train, and say, one that could run at speed without tearing itself and the road apart. Fuel mileage and the ability to run with a minimum of black smoke might be good qualifiers. Or how about this: In this day and age, which 4-8-4's that still exist in North America could be restored (or already are) and used to pull excursions, specials, etc., with a minimum of logistics and maintenance headaches? [?]

John

[selector]

jlampke, thanks for your response. I'll adress your latter question: the ease with which a given 4-8-4 could be restored is entirely dependant on the state in which it was encountered by the restoration crew. If the thing was a piece of rusted parts, well... On the other hand, if it had been stored under an awning in the desert for the past 40 years, I'm sure that case speaks for itself. So, the manufacturer is almost of no consequence compared to the state of the loco at the commencement of restoration.

Wouldn't you agree?

[espeefoamer]

The highest quality 4-8-4s built were the Lima GS4s built for the SP Daylight trains[:D]!Of course I'm not biased on the subject[;)].

[Gunns]

Well as for Hard numbers I have this,

Some evidence of how the 4-8-4's were helping to win the war is gleaned from locomotive mileage and repair costs for September 1944. The 30 2900's averaged 9056 miles per engine and cost 15.08 cents per mile to maintain. This was very good mileage for predominately freight service at a time of slow schedules and maximum tonnage. The 14 3751's assigned between Kansas City and Los Angeles, via Amarillo, averaged 15,033 miles and cost 28 cents a mile to maintain. Eleven 3765's in the K.C.-L.A. passenger pool, two of which were assigned via Amarillo, averaged 17,652 miles and had a repair cost of 29.43 cents per mile, and the 10 3776's assigned between La Junta and Los Angeles, but frequently operating to Kansas City, ran an average of 14,185 miles at a cost of 33.12 cents per mile.

this is from an Trains Mag piece, you can see the whole thing here,
http://www.wheelsmuseum.org/stagner.html

Gunns

[selector]

Those are interesting figures. I wonder how we would use them to compare the locos on a basis of tonnage hauled, and even what grades they had to pull that tonnage over. Even though the locos are different (apparently? I'm not too clear on this.) the only way they can be compared is in a standardized test. That can't be done any more, but if we can find what they hauled over what conditions, and then use those operating costs to derive some sort of efficiency rating, I think we could be justified in announcing the eventual "winner."

[jimrice4449]

It is always chancy to make absolute statements about esthetics because it's so subjective, but anybody trying to argue me out of my position the the N&W J is the best looking 4-8-4 ever is going to have his work cut out for him (and I saw and rode behind SP GS-4s and admire them greatly). Add to the appearance the fact that they had more tractive effort than any other 4-8-4 and ran a test train 17 cars at a steady 112MPH on the Pennsy and you've got a combination of features that is hard to beat

[markn]

Just based on sheer beauty and the inherent pride that you were building it for your RR, the N&W J would get my vote

[Gunns]

Any one ever see this link??
http://www.sbrhs.org/484com.html
Gunns

[Mark300]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Gunns

Any one ever see this link??
http://www.sbrhs.org/484com.html
Gunns

Interesting.......They did not include the Western Maryland's J-1 'Potomac' class 1400 engines.

I have the stats from the WM's Office of the Cheif M.E. (WMRRyHS Pub.) so let's add this engine into the mix;

Drivers; 69 inches (Really the Smallest!)
Engine Weight; 506,500 lbs.(Working)
Engine & Tender Weight; 928,00 lbs (Working)
Tractive Effort; 70,600 lbs @ 85% M.E.P. ....(that would be 83,051 lbs on rollers)
Cylinder Dia; 26-1/2 X 32 inches.
Boiler Pressure; 255 lbs (working).
Length; 110'-2" (engine & tender).

So....a couple of things could be said;
1. This engine actually had the lowest driver at 69 inches (Commensurate with the Decs' and Challengers the WM also used when they mixed traction).
2. The tractive effort would be commensurate with the ATSF's 2926 and more than the other engines at the rated 85% MEP.
3. The Cylinder to stroke ratio is among the largest produced.
4. The other stats from above compares favorably if not better with those similar 4-8-4's listed on the web site.

Too Bad the Web Crafters didn't do all of their research.

What is missing is the ruling grade and max grade the engines operated on. The WM had a 1.75% ruling (I believe).

What is also missing is the average revenue tonnage hauled as well as maximum speed. The Potomacs could operate to 70 MPH between Hagerstown & Lurgan PA. They could roll 144 cars of freight - level.

Those large drivered beasts mentioned on the web site sure slipped alot and is the subject of Trains Mag's article last year (2004) on Supersteam.

The Potomacs on the other hand, worked both fast freight and as helpers moving large consist's between Shippensburg PA & Hagerstown MD thru to Connellsville over the Allegheny's. The Potomacs contributed to the WM's reputation of moving more tonnage per mile of any Class 1 during the 40's & 50's. I believe those records were not matched until the early 90's by the BN & predecessor ATSF.

All in All; it looks like what Baldwin first started with in the ATSF's 3572 in 1927 was perfected with the WM's Potomacs built in 1947. [:)]

Baldwin did a bang up job and it's a shame none survived. [:(]

HTH; My [2c]

Happy Railroading.

Mark

PS.....They didn't include NYC's S1 Niagaras either!

[PBenham]

QUOTE: Originally posted by passengerfan

Without doubt the highest quality 4-8-4's were those built by the N&W in their own shops.

And I,for one, couldn't agree more! Granted 611 is one of only a handful of 4-8-4s i've seen.All were in excursion work,or in transit- Except for a CN 6100 series I saw as a kid back in 1957 on the Dunnville Sub mixed. Why it was assigned to that light job? Need I say? P Benham

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jimrice4449

It is always chancy to make absolute statements about esthetics because it's so subjective, but anybody trying to argue me out of my position the the N&W J is the best looking 4-8-4 ever is going to have his work cut out for him (and I saw and rode behind SP GS-4s and admire them greatly). Add to the appearance the fact that they had more tractive effort than any other 4-8-4 and ran a test train 17 cars at a steady 112MPH on the Pennsy and you've got a combination of features that is hard to beat

Whaaaa..?! I'd crack the throttle on a Niagara before I'd step into a J.....unless, of course, the Big Guy let it be known that it was the J or nothing on this side of the veil. [:D]

[Gunns]

<Grin>
the List wasn' t all incusive, Just what is left running or close to running....
I think we are on the list by coutesy, as we are still 5 to 6 years from compleation. <progress reports on the museum thread this fourm>
Gunns
ps. the 2900s ran from Argentine KS to Belen NM over Raton Pass <if I read the article right> thats a 3.5% grade......

[feltonhill]

Re: the TE of the ATSF 2900 series 4-8-4's at the link cited above. The type of bearings has nothing to do with tractive effort (TE) as it's calculated in the US. TE is related to the cylinder size (bore and stroke), driver diameter and the mean effective pressure (MEP) in the cylinder. The often-used 0.85 factor is a very conservative estimate of the MEP in the cylinders at starting. Most modern locomotives are around 0.90 or so, considering only 8 to 10% loss in the steam circuit up to the steam chest. The type of bearings will affect the drawbar pull, however. The 1.0 idea I believe comes from a Timken sales pitch which has been repeated a little too often without thinking it through. Getting absolutely 100% full boiler pressure into the cylinders is not very likely. Further, all the resistance adjustments (including bearing type in driving boxes and rods) take place after the TE is either calculated or measured at the cylinders using indicator diagrams. AFAIK, no standard text nor any railroad used a bearing adjustment to estimate TE. Drawbar pull, yes; TE, no.

The rated TE of the ATSF 2900's was computed using an adjustment factor of 0.70 to compensate for the limited cutoff valve timing favored by the road. Over-the-road tests indicated this was too low. The same situation was encountered in the ATSF 2-10-4's. A full description of their capabilities was written by Lloyd Stagner in the Feb 1987 issue of Trains, p25-40. The quality of his technical writing is rarely seen any more.

[MudHen_462]

The list failed to mention the Great Northern's 4-8-4 fleet...

Iron Goat

[Anonymous]

One consideration has to be that many of these locos were built during or for the war. Material restrictions meant compromises and many were pressed into service they weren't designed for. I'd guess that deferred maintainence was common as well.

When an engine was designed and built is also a factor.The first Northern was built by Alco in 1926 for the NP. The UP 800's came in 3 groups - 1937, 1939, and 1944. The last were virtually identical to the second group and a number of other Alco wartime 4-8-4's(RI, EL) used basically the same design. NYC's Niagra wasn't built until 1945 - by that time Alco had been building 4-8-4's for almost 20 years. Baldwin went through a similar evolution, starting in 1927. The home-built J came late, the first one didn't show up until 1941, so what worked and what didn't was fairly well known and the J broke little new ground other than using training wheels for drivers. Even the streamlining was a pretty blatant copy of the 1936 Daylight.

[GP40-2]

Since it was not mentioned, I'll throw the 5000 HP C&O 614 into this discussion. Most of you pups on this forum are too young to remember the 614 in excursion service on the Chessie System when it routinely pulled 25 car excursion trains (made up with a lot of older heavy weight passenger equipment) at 79 MPH (or faster, Ross Rowland was know to have a heavy throttle hand!) on the B&O mains.

These trips included unassisted climbs on the Sand Patch Grade and the nearly 3% grades on the B&O West End mainline through western PA, MD and WVA.


http://www.co614.com/history.htm

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

C&O 614 was probably designed and used (or mis-used) in the same fashion as the Alleghenies, lots of tractive effort for low speed and grades and more high-speed horsepower than was actually used in regular service.

[feltonhill]

C&O's J3a's (610-614) were designed for and used on the Mountain Subdivision. There were numerous stops dead on significant grades (Waynesboro, eastbound) which required plenty of low speed dig to get a train moving. That's why they were equipped with boosters. Speed limit on the line was 70 mph so they were very well sized for the tasks at hand. However, if you mean 5,000 drawbar HP, that's a little exaggerated. Maybe 4,000 DBHP at about 50 mph would be a more reasonable figure. Those aren't shabby figures by any means, just achievable at economical evaporation and firing rates. Their relatively modest boiler pressure of 255 psi worked against high DBHP.

[GP40-2]

Oh really feltonhill, and how do you know so much?

I guess the modest boiler pressure on the H8 Allegheny worked against it producing high DBHP too???

Ross Rowland says the 614 has 5000 DBHP, but what does he know? I mean he's only run the thing hundreds of times in front of passenger equipment, including Amtrak and frieght on CSX.

So why don't you tell us how many times you have run steam???

So you REALLY want us to believe you know more about the 614 than Ross Rowland??

If Mr. Rowland says the 614 has 5000 DBHP, I will tend to believe him over you, UNLESS you can produce some offical dynometer car tests that states otherwise.

And your PAPER knowledge of boiler pressures, etc,etc dosen't count.