I couldnt stand it anymore. The Erie had purpose built fast freight pacifics with 69" drivers. Some were later rebuilt with taller drivers for passenger use. The Erie used 2700 series pacifics for local and branch freight right up till the diesels came in the 50's.
I forget if it was the Atlantic Coast Line or the Seaboard ordered fast freight pasifics.
The N & W had a few Pennsy K 2's that were used seasonally in local freight and passenger.
So----freight pacifics were built.
orsonroy wrote:Odd, but I'm leaning on Staufer's work as well. In my case, I'm using "Steam Power of the New York Central System, Volume I: Modern Power 1915-1955". In this book , Mr Staufer does refer to the K-11 class engines as "Dual Purpose", but that's the ONLY reference he makes to any NYCS Pacific as a freight engine (besides a couple of photos of them hauling milk trains in the 1930s).
Odd, but I'm leaning on Staufer's work as well. In my case, I'm using "Steam Power of the New York Central System, Volume I: Modern Power 1915-1955". In this book , Mr Staufer does refer to the K-11 class engines as "Dual Purpose", but that's the ONLY reference he makes to any NYCS Pacific as a freight engine (besides a couple of photos of them hauling milk trains in the 1930s).
Volume 1 Modern power is an older publication, 1961 I believe.
Early Power (1967) and Later Power (1982) were Staufer's final and most detailed works on the subject. Staufer specifically states the K-10 class and K-11 classes were built specifically as fast freight locomotives, not dual purpose. Obviously when the L1 Mohawks rolled out they (the K-11's) were put into other services and equipped accordingly.
orsonroy wrote:Technically, all Mohawks built for the NYCS were DP engines as well, but only the L-3s and L-4s were ever used much in a passenger role after the J's came along in 1927.
Technically, all Mohawks built for the NYCS were DP engines as well, but only the L-3s and L-4s were ever used much in a passenger role after the J's came along in 1927.
It's funny that you mention Mohawks, I'm glad you did, I picked up "Later Power" and on the very first page of the Mohawk chapter Staufer explicitely states that the L1a Mohawk was the successor design meant to replace the K-11's as the railroads primary fast freight motive power.
L1 and L2 Mohawks were not designed as dual purpose loco's.(two L2d's were converted as an experiment for passenger service loco's 2995, and 2998).
L2's (and mikes) were the backbone of the freight fleet from 1925 until WW2 when the L3 and L4 classes arrived on the scene 1940, and 1943 respectively. L3a was a DP design, L3b were fast freight, and the L4s, both a & b, were dual purpose locomotives.
orsonroy wrote:And I'm not sure why the NYC would bother with using the K-11s in "fast freight service" anyway. The early 1900s (pre-WWI) was the drag freight era, and railroads were attempting to build larger and larger engines with the express purpose of hauling long trains at a consistant speed (average national freight car speed: 12 MPH). The entire concept of "fast freights" didn't have much if any industry appeal. With that thinking, why bother using Pacifics that ONLY had 38,980 pounds of tractive effort, when the NYCS had plenty of G-4, G-6, and G-46 Consolidations that had between 6670 and 8350 more pounds of TE? By 1917 (six years after the K-11s were built) there would be no real need to use them in any freight capacity, since the NYC had added 453 H-5, 10 H-7, 40 H-8, and 30 L-1a's to their freight fleet, all of which had at least 10,000 more pounds of TE.
And I'm not sure why the NYC would bother with using the K-11s in "fast freight service" anyway. The early 1900s (pre-WWI) was the drag freight era, and railroads were attempting to build larger and larger engines with the express purpose of hauling long trains at a consistant speed (average national freight car speed: 12 MPH). The entire concept of "fast freights" didn't have much if any industry appeal. With that thinking, why bother using Pacifics that ONLY had 38,980 pounds of tractive effort, when the NYCS had plenty of G-4, G-6, and G-46 Consolidations that had between 6670 and 8350 more pounds of TE? By 1917 (six years after the K-11s were built) there would be no real need to use them in any freight capacity, since the NYC had added 453 H-5, 10 H-7, 40 H-8, and 30 L-1a's to their freight fleet, all of which had at least 10,000 more pounds of TE.
Well, it's not a question of "why they would bother using them as fast freight loco's", that was the intended purpose of the design. Staufer is pretty clear on this. Tractive Effort isn't the only # that's important here. All TE predominantly indicates is how heavy of a train a loco can start. Horsepower becomes important if you need speed. With a relatively grade free line it's quite easy to see how a fast-freight Pacific appealed to the NYC. Especially considering their fondness for 4-6-0's used earlier in the same type of service. NYC probably developed the ten-wheeler to it's ultimate form. Yes by 1917 the K-11's were not in fast freight service anymore. That doesn't preclude the design intent of the K-10 and 11's. they most certainly were fast freight Pacifics.
orsonroy wrote:the NYC did sometimes us Pacifics to haul freight, but they did not have any engines of that wheel arrangement specifically designed (built or rebuilt) specifically for that role.
the NYC did sometimes us Pacifics to haul freight, but they did not have any engines of that wheel arrangement specifically designed (built or rebuilt) specifically for that role.
That's incorrect. I'd be willing to bet that NYC was the only railroad to order a class of Pacific's for freight use.
Their motive power department was brilliant and unconventional. I suggest you get your self a copy of Staufer's "Later Power". It's quite clearly and succinctly laid out. As for era...NYC was wheeling around plenty of freight behind Pacifics in local service on the B&A.
Hudson wrote: orsonroy wrote: Hudson wrote: orsonroy wrote: paulsafety wrote: From steamlocomotive.com:However, for another example of the pervasiveness of the Pacific locomotive type, consider this: as of January 1, 1946, in the New York Central diagram book, the number of J class 4-6-4 passenger locomotives was 274; the number of K class 4-6-2s was 368, although, in all fairness, 102 of the Pacifics were class K11, built as fast freight locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent.http://www.steamlocomotive.com/pacific/This pasage is wrong, and should read "...built as fast PASSENGER locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent." In the United States, there has never been a 4-6-2 engine of any major class specifically built as a freight engine. You're incorrect, NYC built multiple series of K classes with 69" drivers for the very purpose of hauling freight.Not to start a geek fight here, but I'm not wrong. The K-11s, the ONLY Pacifics on the NYC with 69" drivers, were designed as commuter and milk train engines. They didn't need the speed produced by the 75" and 79" drivers for mainline cross-country Pacifics, so the NYC didn't give them larger drivers. No fight intended........but, you're wrong... NYC ordered 50 K-10a Pacifics from Brooks in 1910 specifically as fast freight engines. This order was accompanied by another order of 10 K-11a's. Both classes of loco's had 69" drivers. The K-11a's had superheaters as well. The NYC ordered these locos to replace the F-2 4-6-0's which had been handling fast freight service. The K-10's were all equipped with superheaters in 1912 and re-classified as K-11a. NYC quickly made further orders of this class of engine and by 1913 their were 200, #'s 3000-3199, in all. The K-11's were replaced by the L-1 Mohawks as the railroad's prime fast freight movers in 1916. The K-11's were then mostly utilized in commuter service on the Harlem and River Divisions and as the primary power on the Adirondack Division. 15 K-11's were converted to K-14's, (72") wheels, and transferred to the B&A in 1920 to handle the Hot Shot passenger trains until they were replaced by the K-6 class.10 K-11's were converted for milk train service in the 20's, the exact total of milk trains scheduled daily into New York City. They ended up on commuter service as well. My source material is Alvin Staufer & Ed LeMay's book NYC System "Later Power". ISBN O-944513-02-6.........The best resource on all things NYC power........
orsonroy wrote: Hudson wrote: orsonroy wrote: paulsafety wrote: From steamlocomotive.com:However, for another example of the pervasiveness of the Pacific locomotive type, consider this: as of January 1, 1946, in the New York Central diagram book, the number of J class 4-6-4 passenger locomotives was 274; the number of K class 4-6-2s was 368, although, in all fairness, 102 of the Pacifics were class K11, built as fast freight locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent.http://www.steamlocomotive.com/pacific/This pasage is wrong, and should read "...built as fast PASSENGER locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent." In the United States, there has never been a 4-6-2 engine of any major class specifically built as a freight engine. You're incorrect, NYC built multiple series of K classes with 69" drivers for the very purpose of hauling freight.Not to start a geek fight here, but I'm not wrong. The K-11s, the ONLY Pacifics on the NYC with 69" drivers, were designed as commuter and milk train engines. They didn't need the speed produced by the 75" and 79" drivers for mainline cross-country Pacifics, so the NYC didn't give them larger drivers.
Hudson wrote: orsonroy wrote: paulsafety wrote: From steamlocomotive.com:However, for another example of the pervasiveness of the Pacific locomotive type, consider this: as of January 1, 1946, in the New York Central diagram book, the number of J class 4-6-4 passenger locomotives was 274; the number of K class 4-6-2s was 368, although, in all fairness, 102 of the Pacifics were class K11, built as fast freight locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent.http://www.steamlocomotive.com/pacific/This pasage is wrong, and should read "...built as fast PASSENGER locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent." In the United States, there has never been a 4-6-2 engine of any major class specifically built as a freight engine. You're incorrect, NYC built multiple series of K classes with 69" drivers for the very purpose of hauling freight.
orsonroy wrote: paulsafety wrote: From steamlocomotive.com:However, for another example of the pervasiveness of the Pacific locomotive type, consider this: as of January 1, 1946, in the New York Central diagram book, the number of J class 4-6-4 passenger locomotives was 274; the number of K class 4-6-2s was 368, although, in all fairness, 102 of the Pacifics were class K11, built as fast freight locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent.http://www.steamlocomotive.com/pacific/This pasage is wrong, and should read "...built as fast PASSENGER locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent." In the United States, there has never been a 4-6-2 engine of any major class specifically built as a freight engine.
paulsafety wrote: From steamlocomotive.com:However, for another example of the pervasiveness of the Pacific locomotive type, consider this: as of January 1, 1946, in the New York Central diagram book, the number of J class 4-6-4 passenger locomotives was 274; the number of K class 4-6-2s was 368, although, in all fairness, 102 of the Pacifics were class K11, built as fast freight locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent.http://www.steamlocomotive.com/pacific/
From steamlocomotive.com:
However, for another example of the pervasiveness of the Pacific locomotive type, consider this: as of January 1, 1946, in the New York Central diagram book, the number of J class 4-6-4 passenger locomotives was 274; the number of K class 4-6-2s was 368, although, in all fairness, 102 of the Pacifics were class K11, built as fast freight locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent.
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/pacific/
This pasage is wrong, and should read "...built as fast PASSENGER locomotives, and used for local freight to a certain extent." In the United States, there has never been a 4-6-2 engine of any major class specifically built as a freight engine.
You're incorrect, NYC built multiple series of K classes with 69" drivers for the very purpose of hauling freight.
Not to start a geek fight here, but I'm not wrong. The K-11s, the ONLY Pacifics on the NYC with 69" drivers, were designed as commuter and milk train engines. They didn't need the speed produced by the 75" and 79" drivers for mainline cross-country Pacifics, so the NYC didn't give them larger drivers.
No fight intended........but, you're wrong...
NYC ordered 50 K-10a Pacifics from Brooks in 1910 specifically as fast freight engines. This order was accompanied by another order of 10 K-11a's. Both classes of loco's had 69" drivers. The K-11a's had superheaters as well. The NYC ordered these locos to replace the F-2 4-6-0's which had been handling fast freight service. The K-10's were all equipped with superheaters in 1912 and re-classified as K-11a.
NYC quickly made further orders of this class of engine and by 1913 their were 200, #'s 3000-3199, in all. The K-11's were replaced by the L-1 Mohawks as the railroad's prime fast freight movers in 1916. The K-11's were then mostly utilized in commuter service on the Harlem and River Divisions and as the primary power on the Adirondack Division. 15 K-11's were converted to K-14's, (72") wheels, and transferred to the B&A in 1920 to handle the Hot Shot passenger trains until they were replaced by the K-6 class.
10 K-11's were converted for milk train service in the 20's, the exact total of milk trains scheduled daily into New York City. They ended up on commuter service as well.
My source material is Alvin Staufer & Ed LeMay's book NYC System "Later Power". ISBN O-944513-02-6.........The best resource on all things NYC power........
Looking through my stack of NYCS engine diagram books (1902, 1908, 1917, 1920, 1926, 1930, 1946), all of the Pacifics listed have steam & signal lines installed, inferring that they're passenger engines. Unfortunately, only the switchers are explicitly referred to as to "type" of service. The K-11s could have been built as dual purpose engines, but that doesn't mean that they were used in that capacity very often. Technically, all Mohawks built for the NYCS were DP engines as well, but only the L-3s and L-4s were ever used much in a passenger role after the J's came along in 1927.
But we're splitting hairs here: the original question was about Pacifics being used to haul freight in the END of the steam era, not during the Golden Age (and certainly not before the advent of Superpower steam!). To answer that question: yes, the NYC did sometimes us Pacifics to haul freight, but they did not have any engines of that wheel arrangement specifically designed (built or rebuilt) specifically for that role. (just as E-units DID haul freight in the 1960s and 1970s, but that wasn't what they were designed to do).
Ray Breyer
Modeling the NKP's Peoria Division, circa 1943
ndbprr wrote:I don' think it was ever common - read large numbers of engines.
Is 70 engines a large enough number of engines to be common?
IC 2030-2099: 70 Harriman-type Pacifics rebuilt for branchline service between 1941 and 1943. The original 75.5" drivers were removed and 61" drivers were added, along with new tenders and larger sand domes (the steam & signal lines wre also removed). These engines were assigned to light branchlines all across the IC, mostly serving in ones and threes as a branches' primary freight power.
The IC bought or obtained 180 Pacifics during its steam years. By 1943 17 had been scrapped and 70 rebuilt to freight Pacifics, leaving 93 in more or less original condition. By 1952 those numbers were sliding fast, but there were still 40 75"-drivered Pacifics on the roster pulling passengers, and 47 61"-drivered engines pulling freight. The last of each type pf engine wasn't retired until 1960, well after all other passenger steam had been retired in the USA (well, besides a couple of the N&W's J's)
And how's this for an oddity: freight Atlantics. Always "frugal" (or cheap), the IC had 25 out of work 4-4-2s sitting around in 1940. When the Japanese dragged us into WWII, American railroads needed every steamer they could lay their hands on. The IC converted the 11 best of these antique Atlantic into branchline freight engines (numbers 2000-2010), which released 11 2-8-0s for mainline secondary use (and freeing up 11 2-8-2s for mainline through freights). These engines received 63.5" drivers, replacing their 79" originals, and served throughout central Illinois and Louisiana. Built in 1903 and 1904, these engines were tired by the end of WWII, and were all scrapped by 1948. But they WERE freight engines, they WERE common (for the lines they served on for six years), and they did make a difference.
tomikawaTT wrote: IC #1 was a 73.5" drivered 4-6-4 rebuild of a drag engine, purpose-built for fast freight service. It was never duplicated.
IC #1 was a 73.5" drivered 4-6-4 rebuild of a drag engine, purpose-built for fast freight service. It was never duplicated.
Well...mostly all true. IC 1 (later 2499) was a rebuild of an IC 2-8-4, themselves the first Lima Berkshires (and not altogether a good engine, especially as compared to the "other" Berks in the IC's territory...the NKP's excellent AMC 2-8-4s. However, they weren't "drag" engines!). The IC was never really happy with their 2-8-4s, which is why they eventually went back to the drawing board to create "superpower" 4-8-2s.
The conversion of IC #1 was an attempt to turn the basic Lima Berk into something more useful for the road, which mostly had a flat profile (the Lima engines were designed for the B&A, which was "just a bit" hillier than the average IC mainline). To the IC, SPEED was more important than tractive effort, so they decided to build a new frame for the 2-8-4s and add 73.5" drivers under the boiler, to see what would happen, the hope being that it would be useful for short (under 40 cars) freights on 100 MPH schedules (the IC's passenger runs south out of Chicago did this daily). The engine was a complete flop, as it was far too slippery for regular freight use. The engine was built in 1945, and scrapped in early 1951. The IC's remaining 50 2-8-4s were all scrapped in 1955, five years before mainline steam was dropped on the railroad.
wjstix wrote:Ya that came up a while back - were Hudsons ever used on freights? - and I mentioned that I'd read quotes from some NYC crews saying that did very well in freight service.
Stix,
The NYC's Hudsons were used on freights all the time, and before the 1950s. The NYC liked to break in newly-shopped engines by giving them an assignment close to home, usually meaning a freight transfer run or short-distance local. There are lots of photos of NYC Hudsons pulling freights around.
In later years, the NYC's "Lines West" were the last to dieselize (the old CCC&StL lines, mostly), and they became a haven for any and all steam that still had flue time on them. By the mid-1950s, it wasn't unusual to see a NYC Hudson-powered freight being passed by a NYC Hudson-powered passenger run to Kankakee (and to Chicago, but usually behind an IC 4-8-2).
The NKP also used their Hudsons on freights a lot, especially after 1949 when they received their PA-1s. The Hudsons still pulled the occasional passenger run, but were usually used to lug fast, short freights on the Chicago Division. By 1957, they were seen pulling locals and interchange freights. However...they were ALWAYS clean!
dknelson wrote: Stories are told that at various times the Chicago Burlington & Quincy would press all sorts of strange and inappropriate power for the branch line that went from Galesburg IL down to Peoria. Sometimes the roundhouse was devoid of anything usable, again because it is likely the diesels were all at work. Jim Boyd wrote of a time when an old doodlebug was fired up and used to pull the local. A BN engineer told me of a time when they literally had nothing they could spare and actually used the 4960, an excursion steam locomotive 2-8-2 (Now at the Grand Canyon RR) and used it for the Peoria local, and this was in the 1960s. It would not be shocking to imagine some time in the 1950s when a 4-6-2 in Galesburg might have been pressed into similar service but I cannot say there was an actual example of this.
Hi Dave,
You want odd on the Q's Peoria division? That line's usual power for the mixed local, before it was changed to a doodlebug around 1954, was an ATLANTIC. Imagine an 1895-built 4-4-2 pulling a wood combine and a string of boxcars and gons. I believe that it was the last regular use of Atlantics on long haul passenger trains, outside of Long Island.
K-11's are absolute little beauties! I'll post a picture of mine when I get a chance. great lines.
wjstix wrote: Hudson wrote: wjstix wrote: IIRC Boston and Albany had some Pacifics that were specifically built as freight engines. Yup, NYC had a whole class of dual-purpose Pacific's with 69" drivers. The designation escapes me at the moment..........At times they would even roll freight up and down the Hudson with....Hudson's!!! Double headed at times......... Ya that came up a while back - were Hudsons ever used on freights? - and I mentioned that I'd read quotes from some NYC crews saying that did very well in freight service.
Hudson wrote: wjstix wrote: IIRC Boston and Albany had some Pacifics that were specifically built as freight engines. Yup, NYC had a whole class of dual-purpose Pacific's with 69" drivers. The designation escapes me at the moment..........At times they would even roll freight up and down the Hudson with....Hudson's!!! Double headed at times.........
wjstix wrote: IIRC Boston and Albany had some Pacifics that were specifically built as freight engines.
IIRC Boston and Albany had some Pacifics that were specifically built as freight engines.
Yup, NYC had a whole class of dual-purpose Pacific's with 69" drivers. The designation escapes me at the moment..........At times they would even roll freight up and down the Hudson with....Hudson's!!! Double headed at times.........
Ya that came up a while back - were Hudsons ever used on freights? - and I mentioned that I'd read quotes from some NYC crews saying that did very well in freight service.
They were used on freight more than most people realize. NYC would strap on whatever motive power was idle if it could move the tonnage. You'd see them moving milk trains, perishables, etc....Anything that required speed, nothing too heavy mind you.........
As railroads dieselized their operations, it was generally the bigger stuff to get sidelined first. A classic example was the Wabash Local between Bluffs and Keokuk. That particular train was headed by a pair of elderly 2-6-0's of late 1800 vintage, and the whole affair lasted well into the mid 50's because of a light bridge that could not support the weight of any kind of diesel replacement. To see the photos and read the story, pick up a copy of Kalmbach's "In Search of Steam" 1953-1954. It is a rehash of Morgan's fantastic book, "The Mohawk That Refused To Abdicate, And Other Tales". That is a good read, too.
Southrn Pacific tended to congregate its older power in the San Francisco Bay Area for practical purposes; if the power failed, it was near any one of three shops that could offer up rescue engines. SP's 1921 era Pacifics ran on the Los Gatos Branch commutes well into 1956 before being replaced by diesels. Little fat boilered 2-8-0's were among the last steam locomotives to run on the branch, given the tight radius curve at Vasona Jct. and their incredible lugging ability atop squat 57 inch drivers, although it was a Mikado that made the final regular service steam appearance in Los Gatos.
Burlington set aside massive 2-10-4's in Illinois, while continuing to use their versatile 2-8-2's, both on the main and branches. A Burlington Pacific or two ran out final boiler miles in yard service in such exotic places as Mendota, IL while larger locomotives went to the scrap heap.
Nickel Plate's fabulous 2-8-4's were retired in 1958 and stored for a possible increase in traffic, while several of its 0-8-0's were pulled from storage a year later to serve the Company in Conneaut, OH. There was a madness to each road's methods, mostly relating to load limits or the availability of new locomotives, but they were all as varied as their diesel's color schemes.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Southern Pacific had branches that could and did support heavy motive power, it was not uncommon to dispatch odd engines to branch/local duties after major overhauls. Somewhere in my collection, I have a photo of a MT class working the old line in Daily City after recieving class 3 repairs at nearby Bayshore. When the MT class became suffcient in numbers they bumped the Pacifics primarily to commute duty by 1929, they also drew freight assignments and local work as needed until the retirement of steam operations.
Dave
N&W had been using Mallets as yard and hump power (and on almost every branchline in Pocahontas country) almost from the time they began running Mallets. There are numerous photos of late-model Y's with footboards instead of road pilots.
After Stuart Saunders abruptly dieselized N&W passenger traffic the Js were bumped to freight service. (He later went on to oversee the PRR, then totally bungled the PC merger - which is what happens when you make a lawyer a railroad president.) I doubt that the big bullets would have been particularly useful on most of N&W's branches, but they did haul mainline peddlers.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
g. gage wrote:This may not exactly fit your question concerning end of the steam era, but does fit strange. I lived near the SP Roseville yard. Every weekend a through frieght arrived powered by SDP45's which were asigned to San Francisco - San Jose commuter service. They didn't go to the shops, just routine servicing, ready track, returning on Sunday.In Northen Califronia the SP loved their SD7 and 9's calling them Caddlacs, They were used for everything from road units with SD45T2's etc., helpers, branchlines, snow service, even yard switchers.Rob
This may not exactly fit your question concerning end of the steam era, but does fit strange. I lived near the SP Roseville yard. Every weekend a through frieght arrived powered by SDP45's which were asigned to San Francisco - San Jose commuter service. They didn't go to the shops, just routine servicing, ready track, returning on Sunday.
In Northen Califronia the SP loved their SD7 and 9's calling them Caddlacs, They were used for everything from road units with SD45T2's etc., helpers, branchlines, snow service, even yard switchers.
Rob
One, that Mensk did it intentinaly to pour salt on the wound to pro-passenger guys
The other, the head guy at C&S was so desperate for power that he requested them, instead of the Q scrapping them. He'd have used a tricycle if it would move a train.
Didn't N&W convert some of it's newer big steam to work in the coal yards at the end?
Certainly you could see a 4-6-2 hauling freight in the fifties, even on a branchline, but it would be more likely on a mainline train. A 4-6-2 might be too heavy for some branchlines, and would be better pulling a mainline train at speed rather than starting and stopping with a wayfreight.
Just one thing to remember is that the weight and age of the rail and size of the curves on the branch often dictated what could be run on branchline. As the others mentioned, many railroads kept their older, lighter steamers well into the 50's because the branchlines that they ran on couldn't handle anything bigger.
Scott Sonntag
The Mississippi Central used Mikes in passenger service, and it's pacific's on freights. I've seen photographs on Yesteryeardepot.com of the SP using 2-8-0's in passenger service, and pacifics on freights too. If you look long/hard enough you can find a prototype for just about anything.
Jason
Modeling the Fort Worth & Denver of the early 1970's in N scale
I have seen photos of Chicago & North Western 4-6-2s in work train/wreck crane service, and have read stories where even their racey looking 4-4-2s would be used for that service. As mentioned above this was probably a phenomenon of the late days of steam, when the freight steam engines were out of flue time, the passenger steam engines were possibly being kept around as protection power for commuter trains, and all the available diesels were assigned to their duties. The availability of diesels was so high that railroads tended to not have a lot of spares, compared to steam where having spares was virtually a necessity.
If you want to invent a scenario to justify your idea you might follow up on that idea: a branch line that connects to the main near a terminal that services commuter train locomotives.
Stories are told that at various times the Chicago Burlington & Quincy would press all sorts of strange and inappropriate power for the branch line that went from Galesburg IL down to Peoria. Sometimes the roundhouse was devoid of anything usable, again because it is likely the diesels were all at work. Jim Boyd wrote of a time when an old doodlebug was fired up and used to pull the local. A BN engineer told me of a time when they literally had nothing they could spare and actually used the 4960, an excursion steam locomotive 2-8-2 (Now at the Grand Canyon RR) and used it for the Peoria local, and this was in the 1960s. It would not be shocking to imagine some time in the 1950s when a 4-6-2 in Galesburg might have been pressed into similar service but I cannot say there was an actual example of this.
Again all the scenarios involve the strange or unusual situation and in most cases we are all well advised to stick to the normal and usual rather than have a perpetual series of once-in-a-blue-moon events on our layouts.
Dave Nelson
The Pacific locomotive was designed for passenger service, and most were fairly large and had high axle-loading; therefore, it was far from ideal for branchline freight service. Thus, it was not frequently used in such service, but did sometimes.
Railroaders assigned the most effective, available, locomotive capable of its given assignment. Particularly during times of locomotive shortage, locomotives were used under less-than-desirable circumstances. For example, I've seen photographs taken in WWII where a combination of freight and passenger locomotives were quadruple-headed to move a heavy freight train, or where a Pacific locomotive was used on a freight train. Also, after a passenger locomotive was newly-shopped, it would be assigned to light freight service to "break it in."
On some branchlines, such as the Monterey and Los Gatos, CA branches of the SP, Pacifics were normally assigned well into the 1950s for regular passenger runs. Regardless, the locomotive had to be able to traverse the branchline without endangering itself, its train, or the right-of-way. Track and bridges had to be capable. Thus, the lighter Pacifics may be necessary and possibly assigned shorter tenders than usual so to fit on a branch's smaller turntable.
The most modern steam locomotives were not necessarily the last kept running. The SP kept lots of half-century-old locomotives such as 2-6-0s, 2-8-0s, and even a few 4-8-0s until the end on branchlines due to their limitations of track and bridges.
Mark.