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

[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

[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!

[Gunns]

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

[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

[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

[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."

[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

[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[;)].

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jlampke]

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

[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

[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.

[Gunns]

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

[passengerfan]

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

[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!

[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.