I have to pick SP GS-4 as my top fave.(for this pole)Others include SP's AC-9 and AC-10 - 12s. Too bad a WP GS-6 with its smoke deflectors or a 2-8-8-2 wasn't saved, as they were nice too.The SP 5000s were designed a year too soon for this pole.Why hasn't anyone picked a logging loco yet? The Pacific Coast Shay was designed and built in 1927 after the Willamette locomotive (a very much improved version of the earlier Shay) was built in '22.
Chicago Great Western Lima Class T-1 2-10-4
I'm stuck with a 3 way tie as to my favorite steam. Western Maryland J-1 4-8-4, Reading T-1 4-8-4 and the N&W J 4-8-4.
Roger
My favorite is the C&O H8 2-6-6-6.
For me, hands down, it's the fabulous Missabe Road M3/4 2-8-8-4 Yellowstones.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
29,000 MILES PER MONTH?
WOW!
CHUCK
For me the 4-8-2 Bullet Nosed Betty's of CNR are a fav as are the streamlined Northern 4-8-4's, for CPR the 4-6-4 Hudson's specially the Royal Hudson's, like 2860, and the 2816 H1-b.
STEVEC
I Find 29,000 miles per month hard to believe.
NYC Niagra
Paul - D&MR
29,000 miles a month for a Niagara is not at all difficult to believe. They were put on trains at Harmon NY just outside New York City and pulled those trains all the way to Chicago nearly 1000 miles and less than one day away. They received a quick service and were put on the next available train back to New York City, where again they received a quick service and were returned to Chicago. The Niagaras only stopped for the required inspections and service. Since they were new the maintenance demands on them and therefore the shop time was relatively low.
There was an interesting article many years ago in Trains that was a series of notices posted in one of the New York Central's roundhouses. It was obvious from the notices that the service time of each locomotive was tracked and excessive shop time without good reason was inexcusable. So unless the Niagara needed repair, it would have its ashpan dumped, coal and water refilled, lubrication replenished and it would be ready to go. You can be sure that at Harmon and Chicago this was done rapidly.
Wake Up and smell the smoke.
My vote is for the Biggest, Strongest and Sharpest American Built Steam Engine.
U.P.'s 4-8-8-4 Big Boy.
Stand track side and Feel the Power
speed restrictions,crew changes,servicing, layovers for return runs will blow any averages out of the water. 40 mph 24/7 would be very hard to keep.
Chuck
Many factors must be considered when pondering the ultimate modern steam locomotive--power in its respective wheel arrangement (TE and horsepower), factor of adhesion, various appliances and options, service record, and versatility, just to name a few.
Many worthy competitors are mentioned on these pages, but not the one locomtive which I think worthy of the title king of modern steam. That would go to the C&O class K-4 2-8-4, one of the most successful yet underrated and forgotten locomotives in railroad history, which is kind of shocking when one considers how many of them are still in existense--12 saved from the torch out of a total of 90 locomotives, but I know a couple of them have been scrapped since due to vandalism and neglect while sitting in various city parks. None are currently operable.
The K-4's were built over a period of four years by two different builders--Alco built 70 of them; Lima 20. They were the second largest berk fleet in the nation (only Erie had more, at 105). Base TE for all units was 69,350, roughly 5,000lbs more than the NKP's Berkshires. With added booster power on all units the starting TE rose to a whopping 83,350. Factor of adhesion was between 4.21 and 4.23--not a slippery engine by any means.
Among the largest of berks, the K-4's still saw service on nearly every line in the C&O system, with the exception of the Chicago Division, where they exceeded bridge weight limits. It was common to see these engines on tiny coal branches in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, wheeling big 140 car strings of loaded hoppers out of branch terminals in the hills, and bringing the empties back in up lines so burdened with curvature that they were deemed to be "uphill in either direction", eg. Coal River Subdivision, Cabin Creek Subdivision, and various branches off the Big Sandy Sub which really went into the backwoods. Meanwhile this same engine could move lengthy manifest freights at high speed over the mainline, and was frequently a passenger and fast mail hauler as well--many of the K-4's were equipped with steam heat lines and used exclusively to supplement and/or doublehead name trains with the J Class 4-8-4's on the Mountain and Allegheny Subdivions. Versatility personified.
In service the K-4 was extremely popular with engine crews, known for stout reliability and dogged performance.
But what I think really makes these the finest of modern steam is the final series, #'s 2785-2789 (Alco 1947), all of which had all-welded boilers, technology that was in its infancy at that time--and died in infancy, at least as far as railway locomotives went. As far as I know they were the only steam locomotives in North America to feature this type of boiler. And it worked out well--all five of these engines ran well into the middle 50's before being retired; I'm not aware of any major problems having occurred. They were truly a glimpse of the technology that would have come, had steam evolved further. A pity this fine class of modern steam locomotives isn't better remembered.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
For the service to which the Niagaras were assigned 40 MPH was a severe speed restriction. Averaging 40 would be no problem when you are only stopping at the major cities and generally traveling at 60 to 80 MPH between stops. The turn around for a Niagara at both ends was measured in minutes, not hours. If the turn around took too long someone was on the carpet explaining the problem. At the terminal the Niagara would be coaled, watered, lubricated, and placed on the ready track. It only saw the roundhouse if something was broken or if a mandated inspection was due. Crew changes occurred at the stations, which caused no delays.
New York Central only ran the Niagaras for about 10 years, yet they were retired with multiple millions of miles each. A machine with that much power, that reliability, and packaged into the tight clearances NYC had was a major engineering achievement.
I am not a fan of the NYC, but they certainly had some top notch steam locomotives and knew how to get the most from them.
spikejones52002 wrote:
Yes, Big Boy heads the list, 'cos he's one I literally grew up with {even if he was already in the "retirement home" when I first met him}. And with the first ones off the assembly floor in 1941, doesn't he also qualify as nearly the newest {meaning all-new, as in wheel arrangement} design in the competition? The Allegheny might be newer, but were there any others? N&W's A's were built as early as 1937, although the wheel arrangement wasn't all-new. Same for the J - although the first ones might have been built later than the first batch of Big Boys, they weren't "all-new;" but as an "ultimate refinement" of their breed, they are second to none.
As for my two other favorite modern steamers, they are the Mopac 2101 class 4-8-4's rebuilt from the 1901 class Berkshires, and the L&N's M-1 class "Big Emma" 2-8-4's - a sexier steamer you won't find!!!
spikejones52002 wrote: Wake Up and smell the smoke.My vote is for the Biggest, Strongest and Sharpest American Built Steam Engine.U.P.'s 4-8-8-4 Big Boy.Stand track side and Feel the Power
While not trying to upset anybody...
The Pennsylvania S-1 6-4-4-6 was BIGGER than the UP 4000 class (ie just as wide but LONGER!)
The C&O Allegheny 2-6-6-6 was HEAVIER than the UP 4000 class and some people suggest that it was more powerful.
So what was it that made the UP 4000 so good, and if so, why was it kept in one location for its operating life?
M636C
M636C wrote: spikejones52002 wrote: Wake Up and smell the smoke.My vote is for the Biggest, Strongest and Sharpest American Built Steam Engine.U.P.'s 4-8-8-4 Big Boy.Stand track side and Feel the Power While not trying to upset anybody...The Pennsylvania S-1 6-4-4-6 was BIGGER than the UP 4000 class (ie just as wide but LONGER!)The C&O Allegheny 2-6-6-6 was HEAVIER than the UP 4000 class and some people suggest that it was more powerful.So what was it that made the UP 4000 so good, and if so, why was it kept in one location for its operating life?M636C
The right tool for a very specific job?
How long did any of the other engines you mentioned last on their respective assignments? Were they as spectacularly successful as UP's #4000's? "Bigger" might be of importance to some, but the bottom line was and remains PERFORMANCE - and in this regard, the big Boy has no competition, save perhaps N&W's Y-4/5/6 classes of Mallets, and even they don't really count as a "modern" design. Sure, others might have weighed more or could develop more gross horsepower - but could they have utilized those traits as productively as UP's 4000's did on a daily basis from 1941 until 1959? If so - did they?
Big Boy has NO comparison - it's that simple. Certain "bragging rights" might not be his, but his performance as a specific tool for a specific job leaves nothing to apologize for, and the UP itself knew this, when it came time to ursurp steam for good - which is why the turbines came of age {after a fashion}, as the diesels of the day didn't have enough horses from a SINGLE unit, much less two.
MopacBarrettTunnel wrote: M636C wrote: spikejones52002 wrote: Wake Up and smell the smoke.My vote is for the Biggest, Strongest and Sharpest American Built Steam Engine.U.P.'s 4-8-8-4 Big Boy.Stand track side and Feel the Power While not trying to upset anybody...The Pennsylvania S-1 6-4-4-6 was BIGGER than the UP 4000 class (ie just as wide but LONGER!)The C&O Allegheny 2-6-6-6 was HEAVIER than the UP 4000 class and some people suggest that it was more powerful.So what was it that made the UP 4000 so good, and if so, why was it kept in one location for its operating life?M636C The right tool for a very specific job? How long did any of the other engines you mentioned last on their respective assignments? Were they as spectacularly successful as UP's #4000's? "Bigger" might be of importance to some, but the bottom line was and remains PERFORMANCE - and in this regard, the big Boy has no competition, save perhaps N&W's Y-4/5/6 classes of Mallets, and even they don't really count as a "modern" design. Sure, others might have weighed more or could develop more gross horsepower - but could they have utilized those traits as productively as UP's 4000's did on a daily basis from 1941 until 1959? If so - did they?Big Boy has NO comparison - it's that simple. Certain "bragging rights" might not be his, but his performance as a specific tool for a specific job leaves nothing to apologize for, and the UP itself knew this, when it came time to ursurp steam for good - which is why the turbines came of age {after a fashion}, as the diesels of the day didn't have enough horses from a SINGLE unit, much less two.
You raise a good point about the Big Boy and the fact that it was well utilized while in service--basically moving fast freight over a sawtooth profile, which it was very good at doing.
However...I find the C&O Allegheny to be the better design, that, unfortunately, was not utilized properly most of the time. Compared to the Big Boy, the Allegheny developed higher horsepower at speed, had a larger boiler and greater steaming capacity, and had a much higher factor of adhesion (4.61 as opposed to Big Boy's 3.99). That latter figure more than makes up for the Allegheny's lesser tractive effort, which becomes something of a meaningless figure, no matter how great it may be, on a locomotive with a low factor of adhesion.
Having said that, the Allegheny performed quite well moving fast freight over the Allegheny and Northern Subdivisions, as it should have--it was the ultimate locomotive built according the Super Power principles. Notice the Allegheny's firebox is supported only by the six wheel trailing truck--Big Boy and all of the Yellowstones had fireboxes extending over the last two sets of drivers. Doesn't make them any less modern, it just means they weren't an outgrowth of Woodard's Super Power steam design.
The biggest problem with the Allegheny was that it wasn't utilized properly often enough, but instead was used primarily in push/pull coal drag service over the Allegheny Subdivision. No other articulated could have done a better job here, but with 67" drivers these engines weren't meant for such slow-speed tasks where their high horsepower couldn't be truly utilized. On the Northern Subdivision they fared a little better, and were able to move 160 car 13,500 ton coal trains at decent speeds, and were able to bypass pusher service at Limeville Bridge, something the C&O's T-1 2-10-4's could not do.
So in the end, performance wise, Big Boy could be rivaled, and perhaps surpassed. I imagine an Allegheny would have done an equal job if sent to the UP.
Lost World wrote: ...I imagine an Allegheny would have done an equal job if sent to the UP.
...I imagine an Allegheny would have done an equal job if sent to the UP.
No, the Allegheny would do a superior job on the UP than the Big Boy ever could.
Feel the Power
The Allegheny totally rules all other steam.
I don't consider myself an Allegainy fan because of appearance, but I can report that on occasion they acted as substitute power in passenger service and had zero trouble meeting the schedule, of course. It wasn't just a freight locomotive.
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