twhite wrote: Texas Zepher wrote: twhite wrote:As to verification for you, might I reccommend two books: RIO GRANDE, MAINLINE OF THE ROCKIES by Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg. That and also "The Trains We Road" are excellent books, eventhough I don't consider the text as the final word on the subject. Texas: The text might not be the final word on the subject, but the photographs are. End of argument, okay?Tom
Texas Zepher wrote: twhite wrote:As to verification for you, might I reccommend two books: RIO GRANDE, MAINLINE OF THE ROCKIES by Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg. That and also "The Trains We Road" are excellent books, eventhough I don't consider the text as the final word on the subject.
twhite wrote:As to verification for you, might I reccommend two books: RIO GRANDE, MAINLINE OF THE ROCKIES by Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg.
Texas:
The text might not be the final word on the subject, but the photographs are. End of argument, okay?
Tom
I've got "The Trains We Rode"... It's really helped a lot in my research over the years.
Tracklayer
Tracklayer--
From what I have read, the GN favored articulateds that had more weight on the drivers, such as their 2-6-8-0, 2-8-8-0 and 2-8-8-2's. Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the GN only had one Challenger, #5000, an Alco NP copy, and they sold it rather quickly to the SP&S, whose water level route along the Columbia river was much more amenable to that particular wheel arrangement. GN always looked at tractive power more than speed for their articulateds (though their R-1 and R-2 2-8-8-2's could really 'rip' when they wanted to, I understand). Out west, NP, UP and Rio Grande had the best success with the 4-6-6-4 wheel arrangement, but GN preferred their S-2 4-8-4 for high-speed mainline passenger power.
Rio Grande's Mountains were originally designed for passenger power, but their rather low drivers (63" for the 1500 Alcos and 67" for the 3-Cylinder Baldwins) and their 'freight' gearing--main axle on 3rd instead of 2nd drivers--pounded the track pretty unmercifully at high speed. Most of the Rio Grande Mountains were relegated to freight power by the time the 1700 series Northerns appeared in the late '20's, though the 1500 series 4-8-2's were used as passenger helpers over Tennessee Pass. By the late 'thirties, the 14 1700's and the 5 big 1800 4-8-4's were the primary passenger power on the Rio Grande until the advent of diesels right after WWII, when Alco PA's and EMD F-3's started replacing them on the Rio Grande's 'name' trains.
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!
twhite wrote:Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the GN only had one Challenger, #5000, an Alco NP copy, and they sold it rather quickly to the SP&S,
Thanks for the information. I knew that the GN didn't keep that wheel arrangement around very long.
Funny thing, when you mentioned the Beebe texts in an earlier post, I remembered a photograph from RIO GRANDE, MAINLINE OF THE ROCKIES, which showed a Rio Grande 4-6-2 and a 2-8-2 doubleheading a passenger train deep in the confines of the Front Range on the Moffat Route, right after the opening of the Dotsero Cutoff. Beebe refers to the lead engine as a '4-6-4'. Can you picture a Hudson in the Rockies? You're right, his texts could be GLORIOUSLY inaccurate--but oboy, those photos!
Tracklayer wrote:Can you tell me what the reason was that Great Northern disliked the Challenger so much ?
It could be because they were built by Alco while most of the GN locomotives were Baldwin or home built. Perhaps the maintenance department made them out to be worse than they were??!??
It could also be that they were so used to operating their heavy power slugging along with really long trains, that when they got a fast locomotive it couldn't perform even close to its optimum in that environment. I haven't really researched it, but I have never come across anything that would indicate they even tried to use them on passenger trains.
grayfox1119 wrote:If we check the steam locomotive rosters for each RR, for time period that Tracklayer was questioning, I think it will be obvious that the Pacific was the most popular for Passenger service. Other locomotives were used in passenger service for a variety of reasons, but the most used by numbers was the Pacific.
Grayfox: I think I'd tend to agree with you if watching steam power in the California Central Valley was any indication, back when I was a boy. Both SP and Santa Fe had large rosters of 4-6-2's, and they were very active at least on the local passenger power I remember seeing. I remember SP favoring their MT-series 4-8-2's more for fast freight service between Oakland and Roseville, and even up the valley on their primary north freight line the 'Chico Cutoff' between Roseville and Redding.
Also, SP used Pacifics quite extensively in their San Francisco-San Jose commuter service. Really handsome locos, and they could get up and TRAVEL!
Texas Zepher wrote: Tracklayer wrote:Can you tell me what the reason was that Great Northern disliked the Challenger so much ?No, I can only guess. Some people speculate they just didn't fit the GNs style of requiring a locomotive to be able to operate over the entire system. Later they had the same issues with the E7s. I've always thought that if this was true it was interesting since the GN used to have the electrified section that required very different power from the rest of the system.It could be because they were built by Alco while most of the GN locomotives were Baldwin or home built. Perhaps the maintenance department made them out to be worse than they were??!??It could also be that they were so used to operating their heavy power slugging along with really long trains, that when they got a fast locomotive it couldn't perform even close to its optimum in that environment. I haven't really researched it, but I have never come across anything that would indicate they even tried to use them on passenger trains.
Tracklayer: Actually, except for UP, I don't think many roads that had Challengers used them very extensively in passenger service. I know that NP used them primarily as freight haulers and relied on their 4-8-4's for mainline passenger power. Though the Rio Grande assigned one of their big L-105's temporarily to passenger service between Salt Lake and Grand Junction, it was a very temporary arrangement, and except for some troop trains during WWII, the big Baldwin 4-6-6-4 3700's were primarily fast freight movers on the eastern end (Utah) of the Rio Grande. I think the design was meant primarily as a fast freight loco, rather than an articulated passenger loco.
UP regularly assigned a 4-6-6-4 on their "Pony Express" between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles during the steam era, but most of the photos I've seen of the UP Challengers are of freight haulers.
And to my knowledge, the five Alco WP Challengers were strictly freight haulers between Salt Lake and Winnemucca.
twhite wrote: I remembered a photograph ... which showed a Rio Grande 4-6-2 and a 2-8-2 doubleheading a passenger train deep in the confines of the Front Range on the Moffat Route. Beebe refers to the lead engine as a '4-6-4'. ... his texts could be GLORIOUSLY inaccurate--
"Most popular steam" pulling Passerger in 20th Century?
Depended on the Road, Era, No. of cars pulled, and terrain.
Engines designed for Passenger had 'high wheels vs small drivers for freight (mechanical advatage = more feet travelled per revolution).
4-4-2's gave way to 4-6-2's which became 4-6-4's toward the end of steam. 4-8-2 'Mountain's likewise became 4-8-4's. There were some exceptions such as U.P.'S 4-6-6-4, but you asked for 'most popular' - By whom - the public? the crews? the front office?
If yougo by the number of engines owned, I would guess the 4-6-2 Pacific - which eventially gave way to Mountains and Northerns as terrain and weight from cars increased.
Transcontinental roads would mix different engines for different needs on the same routes. Santa Fe used 11 different engines on their record setting 'Death Valley Scotty' run. Later, the ATSF used one type of engine Chicago to KC, and bigger power from there west, doule heading over higher grades.
If you were modeling Santa Fe, an Atlantic or Pacific could be pulling one train, and a Mountain or Northern another.
"Most Popular" by railfans may be the 4-8-4 Northerns, or Dixies (Yellowjackets) for us in the South. All that power to pull the longest train in the tough grades. They may have pulled most of the premier trains on the line.
"Pacifics" or "Mikados" would fit the 1920's era. With the USRA design, both seem to be good steamers. Pacifics with their larger drivers could give you more speed than the Mikados. However, the Mikados were the all-purpose steamer. The 60' drivers could keep a passenger on time with efficient station stops. They may have been bumped by Northerns into lesser class trains. Branch lines get still smaller power.
I'm not surprised that a Big Boy could be pressed into Troop Train duty. AFAIK most troopers were run as extras with freight crews & extra caboose on the end. Since there are no station stops, you run the train to the next water/fuel stop.