There are probably not a whole lot of "close but no cigar" examples like the Y7. The only one I can think of off the top of my head was the proposed Great Northern 73"-drivered 4-6-6-4.
Of course we can't rewrite history, but if the FT had come along 10 years later, we would have probably seen a few of those considered-but-never-built actually happen along with upgraded variations of existing series of locomotives such as the NYC Niagara, UP Challenger, T&P Texas, etc.
In particular it would have been interesting to see what the Southern would have done.
We will never know - history is what it is and time marches on.
No problem. It's essentially been public information since the NWHS Williamson convention
Feltonhill! Where've you been buddy? It's been too long since we've heard from you!
To ad a bit to what kgb said, the Jersey Central was considering buying articulated steamers, I think 4-6-6-4's, after World War Two, they hadn't bought any new locomotives since 1930, but then the F3's came along and that was the end of that. Too bad, imagine Challenger types roaring across New Jersey in the post-war years, what a sight THAT would have been!
Firelock76- Yes that 40,000 number sounds right...thinking 100,000 was something I read years ago about total number of steam locos at the height during the '20's.
There were considerably less diesels replacing steam...certainly not one for one. Considering the savings in labour, maintainence, roundhouses, water and so forth it did not save them at all..especially in the East then the Central. Everything went to hell in a handbasket, not the diesels fault, all the positives wiped out pretty quickly.
Must have been quite the shock to see steam replaced so quickly and thoughouly as on the Erie, CNJ, New Haven, Lackawanna, Rock Island, Milwaukee, and so on.
Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Berkshires went into the blast furnaces 1953. The smaller roads up here dieselized real quick. CNR and CPR had an large uptick in business all through the fifities. Essentially being a "Union Pacific" and a "Santa Fe" with long transcon runs, CNR and CPR delayed a lot of scrapping becuase buisness was so good they were needed, not because diesels were not arriving on the property. In any case that gave me 7 or 8 more years of bliss. That all ended essentially in '59.
Dear kgbw49!
Do you happen to have these line drawings you mentioned for the GN's designed 2-6-6-4 and 4-6-6-4 (or meybe that 2-8-8-4)?
I would love to have more info on that.
Also anybody have a list of designed/contemplated but never-built articulated steam locomotives other than the N&W Y7 and the above mentioned GN ones?
I've read in the Northern Pacific SuperSteam Era by Frey&Schrenk that the NP considered 2-8-8-4s to follow up the Z-5 class, possibly havily based on the DM&IR's M3 and M4 classes. THey'Ve also considered cab forwards, just as the Santa Fe did.
Any additional ones would be welcome!
When was that train-length case decided by the SCOTUS?
I believe it was Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (325 US 761) in 1945.
That was the application of the negative commerce clause to 'any' state law that had the effect of restricting interstate commerce, as the Arizona Train Limit Law of 1912 did. Arizona had claimed it passed the law (limiting passenger trains to 14 cars and freight trains to 70) was for 'legitimate health and safety' reasons, but this ignored accidents that might '[result] from the larger number of trains'.
This of course cut the feet out from any other State which might be considering comparable 'safety' legislation by mandatorily imposing train-length limits. Whether it simultaneously established a constitutionality test for an act of Congress (probably a draft of a Public Law that if implemented would appear somewhere around 21000 of CFR 49) which used the same rationale and methodology as the Arizona legislation, or would act to preclude any regulatory-agency enforcement of such a law, is an interesting topic for discussion. I do recall, dimly, that there was agitation in the late Thirties for such a thing, but don't know enough to find it in Congressional or scholarly records.
OvermodI believe it was Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (325 US 761) in 1945. That was the application of the negative commerce clause to 'any' state law that had the effect of restricting interstate commerce, as the Arizona Train Limit Law of 1912 did. Arizona had claimed it passed the law (limiting passenger trains to 14 cars and freight trains to 70) was for 'legitimate health and safety' reasons, but this ignored accidents that might '[result] from the larger number of trains'. This of course cut the feet out from any other State which might be considering comparable 'safety' legislation by mandatorily imposing train-length limits. Whether it simultaneously established a constitutionality test for an act of Congress (probably a draft of a Public Law that if implemented would appear somewhere around 21000 of CFR 49) which used the same rationale and methodology as the Arizona legislation, or would act to preclude any regulatory-agency enforcement of such a law, is an interesting topic for discussion. I do recall, dimly, that there was agitation in the late Thirties for such a thing, but don't know enough to find it in Congressional or scholarly records.
Despite that SCOTUS ruling - Indiana had a State Law that required a additional Brakeman on freight trains that exceeded 69 cars that operated in the state.
I worked the Operators position at Vincennes, IN - Trains from Washington, IN, greater that 69 cars would have their 3rd Brakeman get off the train at Vincennes and they would lay over until at train from E.St.Louis of greater than 69 cars would require their use back to Washington (crew change point).
On the crew district between Washington and Cincinnati, the 3rd Brakeman would work all the way to Cincinnati, rather than drop off the train at Lawrenceburg (the last manned location in Indiana).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDDespite that SCOTUS ruling - Indiana had a State Law that required a additional Brakeman on freight trains that exceeded 69 cars that operated in the state.
3- and 5-man crew requirements did NOT fail to pass the 'safety' test -- there could be an objective improvement of safety from having 'more' people. It would remain for a later age of safety regulation (starting about 1970) to work through this; I'm not yet familiar with the legislation that reduced these, but there are people on the forum and perhaps following the thread who will be. Many readers of Trains will remember John Kneiling's dislike of even the semblance of 'featherbedding'; it went with his sarcastic line 'I'm on attrition and I want extra if I do any work'.
States often love fuller employment at the expense of railroads; railroads were and are distressingly eager to cut corners on "crew expenses" wherever possible and, often, if not constrained by some higher authority (whether in a State House or in the House of Morgan)
California voted its full-crew law out in 1948 -- didn't lots of states have some sort of full-crew law into the 1950s? So what effect did the 1945 ruling have?
It said very succinctly that you could not restrict the length of trains and pretend that it was for 'safety'.
I suspect that other laws, like prohibiting trains through town on Sunday or requiring engines to 'consume their own smoke' would also be judged as falling outside permissible safety-related spec. The 1945 Court made it very, very clear that just because states didn't like railroads or perceived robber barons, they couldn't impose 'just any' legislation they wanted and cobble up some excuse that it was safety-related somehow.
I believe anything with reducing full-crew state laws would be associated with the spate of laws starting in 1970; there are pretty good histories of that period but it isn't an interest of mine.
So the 1945 ruling had nothing to do with full-crew laws? States could no longer limit train lengths, but they could still require more brakemen on longer trains? Or on shorter ones too?
timzSo the 1945 ruling had nothing to do with full-crew laws? States could no longer limit train lengths, but they could still require more brakemen on longer trains? Or on shorter ones too?
That's the consensus I got from the constitutional-interpretation class discussion lo! these many years ago, and from a couple of discussions available now on the Web.
To the extent that full crews would augment 'safety', the Federal courts would be unlikely to overturn a state law involving that, certainly not up to the point the Supreme Court would grant cert. The issue is that certain aspects of interstate commerce are reserved by the Constitution to Congressional legislation (as we've discussed in different contexts in threads here) and, while states could pass legislation concerning safety of workers, they could not pass laws impeding interstate commerce -- which an absolute limit on train length for merely 'political' reasons most certain does. Part of the discussion as it reached the Court involved the assertion by Arizona that, essentially, anything the state government said involved safety actually had to be taken as safety-related, and this is something the Court majority opinion took some pains to strike down.
The commerce clause of Article I was also the basis of most of the civil rights decisions of the Supreme Court in the late 1950's and early 1960's.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.