I would claim that the Pennsy K4 is the Queen. Not the beauty queen, perhaps, but queen because I believe K4's hauled twice and many passenger-miles as the nearest possible competitor. May be even three times! Possibly if ALL USRA light Pacifics were considered the competition, all railroads with their individual modifications, that would be the nearest competition, but that obviously involves several classifications, not one. Anyone have access to real data on this, or wish to challange my statement? Also, longevity is pretty great, 1914-1957, 43 years of continuous commercial operation. A challange in that quarter might be the Reading Pacifics, all really similar and built about 1915-1947.
Well, the K4 may have been the most prolific, as in a swarm of bees, but, definately not the top nor a queen.
.
The K4 was hardly an outstanding Pacific, much less an outstanding passenger locomotive. It was a conservative design with no outstanding features and was outperformed by any number of Pacifics, much less Hudsons and Northerns.
Fine name any other Pacfic that one day could pull a crack streamliner overnight to Philly be unhooked then put on commuter service then pull what ever was asked of it. Also name one that was built in a larger quanity over 400 even the URSA was not built in such big quanities. The K4 may not have been the biggest baddest out there but the PRR could not come up with a replacement for them. Even the T1 at times was replaced by the K4 because the K4 was just that reliable. Yes the J3 Hudson FEF3 the Jclass were classer looking but NONE lasted thru 2 World Wars and pulled the trains that the K4's had to. To say the K4 was not the in the top passenger steam engines IS IMPOSSIBLE to do. Remember the PRR used everything they had at the design works in Altoona to devlop the K-4 including the Dynometer works. They got it right and stuck with it. Ao what if they had to Double head alot of trains later on in its career the K4's were paid for the cost of the crews were less than what the new engine payments were going to be on a fleet of 400+ engines. Remeber they were still running E6 Atlantics at the end also so there was another design they had right also.
The only way to determine how good the K4 was would be to have had direct comparisons on the very routes that the K4's were using with every other Pacific made in N. America also using those same routes and in the same circumstances/conditions. That wasn't done, so the question is mooooooot.
I'm sure it was an excellent engine, but so were many others. Saying the one tops all others simply because of the numbers of ton-miles or passenger-miles gives no objective basis of measurement, for one thing, and the numbers of passenger-miles only indicates that the Pennsy did more of it. Would that necessarily make the Pennsy the "best" passenger hauler? Don't think so. Most involved, sure, but not the best.
-Crandell
CSSHEGEWISCHand was outperformed by any number of Pacifics
Several things are undeniable about the K-4. It was a very good engine and well suited to handle passenger trains assignments that ranged from commuter runs to the earlier Broadway. The longevity of the design was a testament to the fact that the K-4 met or exceeded the performance expectations of Pennsy management. It was built in greater numbers than was any other class of steam passenger locomotive on any railroad in the US. If these are the measures that determine the "top passenger steam locomotive" then the K-4 wins.
However if we consider other pertinent measures; tractive effort, top speed, thermal efficiency, esthetics, etc.; the K-4 did not lead the pack in these regards. This doesn't diminish the success of the K-4, rather it underscores the impossibility of determining the best of anything absent agreement upon the attributes that will be considered in making that determination and how they will be measured and weighted.
Mark
While I don't think anyone will dispute that the K4s was one fine Pacific-type passenger locomotive, I have always found it rather strange the PRR stuck with that design for as long as they did. Since their post-WWII steam designs were flops, the K4s lasted until they were replaced by diesels.
Every other major passenger carrier in the country moved on past the Pacific-type, some as early as the 1920's (NYC Hudsons). By the 1930's the major roads were designing or developing high-speed, high-power Northern-type passenger equipment.
The Pennsy really made no effort to design or develop any steam passenger power beyond the K4s Pacific. WHY??? While it was good, it could not hold a candle to a N&W J-class, ATSF 3750-class or UP FEF 800-class (just to name a few). I wonder if the Pennsy simply got LAZY and started to believe too much of their "Standard Railroad of the World" propaganda?
Mike
The PRR did try some things. They built a K5 pacific with a bigger boiler at higher pressure with poppet valves, I think, but when other roads were investing in Hudsons (the PRR would never have called a 4-6-4 a Hudson!) and Northerns, the PRR was investing in wire and P5s and GG1s. The "replacement" for the K4 would have been the T1 which wasn't a total flop - just not as good as E7s on long distance streamlined passenger trains.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I called a buddy of mine that had relatives in the Engineering Deptment of the PRR he found out from calling a few of them for me that IF NOT FOR THE DEPRESSION THE PRR WAS GOING TO ELECTRIFY WHOLE LINE TO CHICAGO therefor no longer needing most mainline steam. That is right the entire Mainline NYC to Chicago was going to be under cantry.
The Duplexes were successes by most objective measures. They were designed for a specific requirement and met that requirement but for minor mechanical defects, such as valve choices. Had they been afforded the appropriate upgrades that many other roads were able to provide for their Northern Classes and earlier types, the T1 would have been a great passenger locomotive. It came late, and was not able to be determined a great engine.
They were not flops. The Triplex was a flop.
Dave,
I suspect your post was to generate so activity over Christmas! The K4 was a good passenger engine, but was underpowered for the Chicago-NYC route in very fast order. Double headed K4's on the Broadway became common. PRR attempted a replacement(M1 Mountain), and when looking at the 4 wheel engine truck competition(like the Hudson/Northerns) of other routes, it was apparent that the M1 would fail to handle the entire Broadway across it's route. PRR procratinted so long that they finally started to design the 'Super' Northern after WWII - the 'Duplex' T1. Even if the T1 was a sucess, it still was behind the eight ball - Diesel power was the new thing.
The K4 was a 'classic' of the steam era, but there were many steam designes of that era that could put in a better performance. At least the K4 was reliable. PRR's follow-on projects were not....
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Jim , I wouldn't say PRR procrastinated. During the thirties the Depression caused them to have more power than they needed. New power just wasn't necessary at that time. It wasn't affordable, either, given that they had spent so much on electrification. And of course, electrification freed a large number of steamers for service elsewhere, so why develop new power when so many K4s were available?
Then came WWII, bringing with it government restrictions on loco development. It wasn't that during the war they didn't want a replacement for the K4, but that they weren't allowed to build one. After the war the T1 came along but suffered primarily from failures of the Caprotti poppet valves. By the time the better Franklin Type B valves were available, the diesel was taking over.
Whether the K4 was the best Pacific is debatable. The Erie K-5 and B&O P-7 were larger and more powerful. Both served their owners with distinction until the end of steam. I wouldn't call the K4 better than either of them and it wouldn't be too hard to expand the list of competitive Pacifics.
Actually in the 1930's the Pennsy recognized the need for a replacement for the K-4's which had to be double headed to handle heavy passenger consists. This resulted in the S-1 which went into service in 1937. The S-1 fell way short of expectations in part because of its 140+ foot long rigid wheel base and no other engines of this class other than the single prototype were built. The failure of the S-1 left the PRR still in need of a modern engine to replace the aging K-4's on it's heavy name trains so they moved on to design the T-1 in the 1938-40 time frame. Two prototype T-1's went into service in 1942 and proved successful after some changes (valving for one) that resulted from experience gained in actual train service. WW2 delayed building other T-1's and it wasn't until the postwar years that 50, IIRC, additional engines were completed and placed in service. The careers of the T-1 were cut short by the Pennsys decision in 1948 to completely dieselize its passenger fleet.
As an objective observer (I grew up in a totally electrified environment) I will concede that the K4 did what it was designed to do, provide power to a preposterous schedule of passenger trains.
That said, how many trains, pulled by doubleheaded K4s, would have been an easy run for a single NYC J? Not to mention the NYC S class - and certainly not to mention the N&W J, which was, IMHO, the best steam locomotive ever designed and built for purely passenger applications.
Criteria for 'the best?' Horsepower, availability, dependability and ease of maintenance. In all categories, the N&W J could give the K4 aces and spades, and still take the hand.
Chuck
However if we consider other pertinent measures; tractive effort, top speed, thermal efficiency, esthetics, etc
Esthetics, or shall I say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the K-4 was certainly iconic -- there is no mistaking the lines of that engine with its Belpaire firebox and chunky trailing truck for anything else.
On the T1's, I suppose one could argue the fine points of the divided drive over good balancing on a Northern such as the NW J-class, and then there were the reports of high-speed slipping, which could be treated by reducing the throttle and increasing the cutoff, but a situation that could be described with colorful language but this is a family Web site. And one could talk about the aerodynamics that slip streamed the exhaust soot into the cab.
But the story I heard is that it was a real roundhouse queen (as in a high-maintenance airplane being a hanger queen) -- not only the exotic valve gear but the difficulty of getting at it. All too bad -- I thought they were rather cool.
In a way, it is kind of too bad that passenger service got Dieselized right after WW-II as that is when the passenger business pretty much collapsed anyway, and maybe if one was going to fail at carrying passengers, one could have failed in style hanging on to the steam and not spending all of that money. There is a large element of "romance of the rails" in the long-distance trains, and if passenger trains were steam-powered, that might add to the experience and help with their ridership.
But then again, retro was not a concept familiar to the forward-looking future-seeking 1950's -- retro was a style that came much later.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I suppose one reason that the PRR T-1's were taken out of service in 1948 was that the PRR decided against installing cab signals on the Ft Wayne division. With a passenger speed limit of 79 MPH, there was no need for the high speed horsepower provided by the T-1. I would hazard a guess that the T-1 could out-pull most passenger diesels above 100 MPH, but agian that capability was useless with the 79 MPH speed limit imposed by the ICC.
The S-2 was even more efficient than the T-1 above 70 MPH...
The T1s were in service until late 1951 or early 1952, not 1948. Many were listed as retired serviceable in March 1952 IIRC, based on a PRR board meeting agenda.
PRR subjected the T1's to deferred maintenance. When the first two (6110, 6111) were under daily observation during over the road tests in 1945, they were dispatched with reportable defects. Some defects were not repaired (e.g., blowing cylinder packing) and eventually led to in-service failures. T1's fault?
True, they were much higher maintenance locos than the dirt-simple K4, but they could easily outperform doubleheaded K4's on large trains. As a result, the productivity per locomotive mile was higher than a K4. What was the T1 operating cost per passenger train mile? Don't know, at least not yet. They cost more per locomotive mile than a K4, but did more work per assignment with only one crew
The highest mileage T1's were turning about 10-11,000 miles a month, about the same as the first E7's, in 1946. This was generally on the western divisions. The fleet of T1's turned in higher monthly mileages than the K4's. Roundhouse queens? This is not opinion, but is supported by monthly reports on T1's and K4's from about 1946-1948. These reports survive at the Hagley library. Have copies here. Like all things T1, it's a mixed bag.
Evaluating the T1 is a tough job. I've been tyring to do that for several years through various articles in RR historical society magazines. They were neither all good nor all bad. As built, they just weren't the right locomotive for PRR, or maybe any other road. There was too much experimentation in one package. Getting rid of the poppet valves, like T1a 5547, would have reduced the level of complexity and inaccessibility. It would have likely helped operations without compromising performance.
I agree with most of the comments. I did not say it was the best Pacific and certainly not the best passenger steam locomotive. I simply said it pulled far more passenger miles than any other and on that basis deserved the title of Queen of Pacifics.
The best passenger locomotive. Many favorites, inlcuding the Niagra, the UP and AT&SF and SP 4-8-4's, butmy favorite would be the N&W J.
The best Pacific. There was an opportunity to compare K4's and Rading Pacifics, an excellent and long-lasting design, even built after WWII, on the PRSL line to Atlantic City. Anyone want to comment on this comarison?
daveklepper I agree with most of the comments. I did not say it was the best Pacific and certainly not the best passenger steam locomotive. I simply said it pulled far more passenger miles than any other and on that basis deserved the title of Queen of Pacifics. The best passenger locomotive. Many favorites, inlcuding the Niagra, the UP and AT&SF and SP 4-8-4's, butmy favorite would be the N&W J. The best Pacific. There was an opportunity to compare K4's and Rading Pacifics, an excellent and long-lasting design, even built after WWII, on the PRSL line to Atlantic City. Anyone want to comment on this comarison?
The K-4 was certainly the best known Pacific. Virtually every road had Pacifics and I hesitate to try to name the best due to my unfamiliarity with so many of them. Of those that I do know about the Southern's PS4 would be my candidate for best.
The fleet of T1's turned in higher monthly mileages than the K4's. Roundhouse queens? This is not opinion, but is supported by monthly reports on T1's and K4's from about 1946-1948.
Roundhouse queen was my expression, and I don't have any first-hand knowledge, but Trains Magazine articles on the T1 and on Pennsy passenger power from the late 50's suggested low availability and difficult maintenance owing to the inaccessible exotic valve gear. Some of the articles were in the "first person" voice of people who worked for the Pennsy, although any single employee may only give an anecdotal rather than a big-picture statistical view of what was going on.
Deferred maintenance perhaps stands to reason -- the decision had been made to go with Diesels, and perhaps the effort was not made to keep the T1 highly available.
As to the high level of experimentation, there were perhaps only two experiments -- the poppet valves and the divided drive. Other than that, the T1 seemed like a high-output rigid-frame four-driver-axled steam locomotive comparable to many others of that time frame.
Or make that one experiment -- the poppet valves. The notion of using paired simple-expansion engines on high-speed passenger locomotives had already been done on the Challenger, only 6 axles articulated instead of 4 axles rigid-frame.
I never really understood the theory behind the Duplexes anyway . Why the T-1 instead of a normal 4-8-4? It would seem to me that the duplication of machinary inherent in four cylinders for a locomotive of approximately the same wieght and horsepower is unnecessary. And most railroads and builders would seem to agree. Is there an optimum size for cylinders and valves and having the cylinder capacity and using four instead of two actually increases efficiency? Aren't four driver axles better coupled together than split into two halves? Undoubtadly there are some good technical papers on this, but a good summary might help a lot.
And did anyone else experience the slight oscillation in forward motion when riding at some particular high speed behind a T-1 that I noticed?
Anyway, the K-4's outlived the T's by six years. Andf were reliable locomotives to the end.
daveklepperI never really understood the theory behind the Duplexes anyway . Why the T-1 instead of a normal 4-8-4? It would seem to me that the duplication of machinary inherent in four cylinders for a locomotive of approximately the same wieght and horsepower is unnecessary. And most railroads and builders would seem to agree. Is there an optimum size for cylinders and valves and having the cylinder capacity and using four instead of two actually increases efficiency? Aren't four driver axles better coupled together than split into two halves? Undoubtadly there are some good technical papers on this, but a good summary might help a lot. And did anyone else experience the slight oscillation in forward motion when riding at some particular high speed behind a T-1 that I noticed? Anyway, the K-4's outlived the T's by six years. Andf were reliable locomotives to the end.
I think the reasoning for the divided drive was partly to reduce hammerblow on the track. Two sets of drivers with four wheels each could have lighter running gear than a locomotive with all four axles coupled together. Also cylinder efficiency could be improved by getting the same power by four smaller cylinders with proportionately larger valves. I remember reading that Baldwins chief engineer at the time the original duplex locomotives were built believed that the 8-coupled, 2 cylinder locomotives of the time were at or near practical limits in terms of steam flow as well. Using four cylinders was a way to get around that. Theoretically such a locomotive would be more powerful and efficient than a conventional two cylinder design.
Keep in mind that steam had been gone from the mainlines in the US for 26 years before I was even born so none of my knowledge is first hand. So I can't answer your question about the oscillating motion you noticed. From what I read they were slippery engines, but only if you didn't know how to drive them. The analogy I would use would be like going from driving a sedan to and from work to jumping in a hot rod. If you drive the hot rod the exact same way you'd drive a little econo-box ford or what have you you won't get good results. Because the T1 had a lot more power than other passenger locomotives on the PRR, if you opened the throttle up as wide and suddenly as you might on a K4, there was a good chance you'd break traction, just like if you hit the gas in a high performance auto as hard as you might on your daily driver.
I'd also like to point out that the K-4 was much older and used much simpler, more proven technology than the T1s did, which is a big plus to reliability. In a railroad that's phasing out steam, that would be a huge factor in a locomotive's life expectancy.
feltonhill Evaluating the T1 is a tough job. I've been tyring to do that for several years through various articles in RR historical society magazines. They were neither all good nor all bad. As built, they just weren't the right locomotive for PRR, or maybe any other road. There was too much experimentation in one package. Getting rid of the poppet valves, like T1a 5547, would have reduced the level of complexity and inaccessibility. It would have likely helped operations without compromising performance.
Hello feltonhill,
please allow me to add that interesting link about the T1, a very extensive article, for the other readers, if it is OK for you.
I do not know much about the K4, but must say with its Belpaire firebox and bullish front arrangement it was a very distinguished, but maybe not in a technical way outstanding machine.
Were the myths about it just hyped, or was it just more or less nothing more than a ubiquitious Pacific?
I read in "Last of the Steam " from Joe Collias that a K4 with 20.000pounds less tractive effort could start a train easier than a T1. I do not believe that, except the engineneer would have been a mule than certified/qualified one. Probably some people at the PRR did not liked them, 'cause the T1 could almost twice the job of a K4 and would give less people work at the railroad.
Especially in the last years, Pacifics played only a role in commuter service. For example, the last Pacifics aquired for the UP was 1920, and by '53 only round about 30 of those rabbit looking engines were left.
That the K4 survied the T1 was obvious: cheap and simple and not complex and expensive.
Happy New Year to everybody!
Lars
Lars - I'm not sure what link you have in mind, but go ahead!
I believe the reference to a K4 being able to start a train easier than a T1 may be based on the observation that passenger trains were rarely heavy enough to tax a locomotive's starting tractive effort, unless the station stops were on grades. A K4 was probably much easier to handle and required less skill to get under way than a T1, sort of turn on the sanders, get up to 5-10 mph then open 'er up and get out of town!
Strangely enough, when the T1's were tested on C&O and N&W under very close scrutiny, there was no mention of any adhesion problems whatsoever. On C&O, there are many surviving memos and reports that specifically state the locomotives did not slip when starting or attempting to start under difficult conditions. On N&W there are several runs on Christiansburg grade where the throttle loss was in the 3-4 psi range, certainly indicating wide open operation with relatively high drawbar pull readings under 10 mph. PRR engineers interviewed for several articles in The Keystone (PRRT&HS magazine) also indicated if you learned how to operate them, they were very capable performers.
For those who may be interested, the off-line tests have been written up in magazines published by C&OHS and N&WHS. PRRT&HS also has an article in process.
Thank you feltonhill,
I had those article of the C&OHS in my mind, puplished here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3943/is_200505/ai_n13642634
You will find many more by browsing this site. Yery interesting to read. Some from Mr. E. Huddleston are available there, also.
Best Regards
This resulted in the S-1 which went into service in 1937. The S-1 fell way short of expectations in part because of its 140+ foot long rigid wheel base and no other engines of this class other than the single prototype were built.
That statement alone should tell you that there was something "rotten in Denmark".
BigJim This resulted in the S-1 which went into service in 1937. The S-1 fell way short of expectations in part because of its 140+ foot long rigid wheel base and no other engines of this class other than the single prototype were built. That statement alone should tell you that there was something "rotten in Denmark".
Just a moment!
140 feet would be the length of the engine and tender, or maybe the total wheelbase. The S-1 had 84" drivers and each pair wouldn't be more than eight feet apart. Even allowing four feet for the cylinders the pairs wouldn't be more than twelve feet apart, so about twenty eight feet rigid at the outside. Two streamlined passenger cars would have a (non rigid) wheelbase of about 140 feet and the S-1 wasn't that big. It was about the same size as a Big Boy.
As far as adhesion was concerned, the loco with four driving axles and six carrying axles suggested that it wasn't using its weight efficiently.
It was literally too big for clearances East of Crestline so it stayed at the West end of the system.
M636C
I'm not so sure the S wasn't anything more than a glorified test bed. I believe it was gussied up and put on display at the 1939 NY World's Fair. The real production locomotives were the T's and Q's.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.