daveklepperThe post mentioning the fact that essentially C&O motive power design was in large measure removed from local control and done by the Van's committee is the real answer. The C&O did continue to use its older 2-8-8-2's up to the end of steam. I think the last revenue steam operation on the C&O was a switcher, but before that if my memory is correct, the old 2-8-8-2's did outlast the more modern 2-6-6-6's. (Remember the PRR's T-1's disapearance long before the last K-4's; and their J's. copies of the C&O 2-10-4, going before the last I-10 2-10-0.) On the other hand, the N&W. UP. SP, CB&Q, and AT&SF (also to be fair, the NKP), ran their modern power to the end of steam. That says a lot.
The post mentioning the fact that essentially C&O motive power design was in large measure removed from local control and done by the Van's committee is the real answer. The C&O did continue to use its older 2-8-8-2's up to the end of steam. I think the last revenue steam operation on the C&O was a switcher, but before that if my memory is correct, the old 2-8-8-2's did outlast the more modern 2-6-6-6's. (Remember the PRR's T-1's disapearance long before the last K-4's; and their J's. copies of the C&O 2-10-4, going before the last I-10 2-10-0.) On the other hand, the N&W. UP. SP, CB&Q, and AT&SF (also to be fair, the NKP), ran their modern power to the end of steam. That says a lot.
Le Massena's greatest sin seems to be that he dared to gore more than a few sacred cows and show that things were not always what they seemed. He admitted early in the article that the whole matter was pretty subjective to begin with. I feel that he was attempting to inject some objectivity into the comparison of different steam locomotive designs, a difficult task at best.
CSSHEGEWISCHhe dared to gore more than a few sacred cows
CSSHEGEWISCH...and show that things were not always what they seemed.
daveklepper C&O did continue to use its older 2-8-8-2's up to the end of steam.
timz CSSHEGEWISCHhe dared to gore more than a few sacred cows Like what?CSSHEGEWISCH...and show that things were not always what they seemed.What wasn't what it seemed?
While I have little interest in steam (it died a long time ago), I have observed that many who have made postings on this forum regarding various steam locomotives get quite passionate beyond rational discussion in support of their favorite, be it the N&W A, the PRR T-1, UP Big Boy, C&O H-8, etc. Le Massena dared to say that the H-8 was not an optimum design for C&O or that NP's Yellowstones would have been better performers if NP supplied them with good coal. He attempted to move the discussion to a rational discourse, unfortunately, he does not seem to have been successful in this regard.
CSSHEGEWISCH Le Massena dared to say that the H-8 was not an optimum design for C&O
CSSHEGEWISCH NP's Yellowstones would have been better performers if NP supplied them with good coal.
Yeah, obviously they could have bought better coal, but quite obviously the transportation costs were too high to make it worthwhile for them.
Why else would they have chosen to design for the lesser grade of coal? No good designer would set out to design for the lesser grade coal unless it was the only practical, available option.
John
UP 4-12-2Yeah, obviously they could have bought better coal, but quite obviously the transportation costs were too high to make it worthwhile for them. Why else would they have chosen to design for the lesser grade of coal? No good designer would set out to design for the lesser grade coal unless it was the only practical, available option.
From a bit after 1880 to the early 1920's, the NP was using Red Lodge coal, but developed the mine at Colstrip when the Red Lodge mines were nearing depletion. There was a lot of coal left in the Bear Creek mines just a few miles east of Red Lodge and transportation costs would have been similar.
The main reason that the NP turned to Colstrip was that a surface mine requires a lot less labor than an underground mine and the NP did mechanize the mine from the start. NP management presumably thought it was cheaper to buy locomotives with bigger fireboxes and burn the lower grade (and much cheaper) coal.
- Erik
Both the J's and the I's were last used in pusher service and the I's outlasted the J's in this service, then a few I's continued on in coal drags, so there is something to say for both your point of view and mine on this matter.
But K4's often double headed to get the longest of the NY&LB commuter trains (over twelve cars) to accelerate fast and make their schedules, and if they had been a real success and not required any more maintenance, the T-1's would have been fine for this job and would have eliminated double heading. They would have shared these duties with the K-4's, which would have handled the trains up to about twelve cars, and lasted to the end of passenger steam. Level territory, long trains, few speed restrictions, good clearances, the NY&LB would have wonderful T-1 territory, swapping with the GG-1's at South Amboy.
Dave - Something you may not have considered in comparing K4's and T1's is that most of the NY&LB service requires fast acceleration and rapid braking on a repetitive basis. There was a reason the K4 survived so long. In addition to being simple and easy to keep going in the last days of steam, they were capable of accelerating relatively rapidly from one station stop to a maximum of 60 or so and hard braking back down to the next stop. Two K4's on a 13 + car train would be an even more potent combination.
The T1's were designed to run at sustained high speeds, and were not good at rapid acceleration in the low speed ranges. Consider the idea that a T1 was best operated at a moderate throttle setting up to about 25 mph then gradually bringing its power into play as speed increased. This would get a first class limited stop passenger train up to speed fast enough. However, in the NY&LB service brute acceleration was absolutely necessary. Based on a comparison of drawbar pull curves, two K4's would accelerate faster than a T1 up to about 40 mph. The 2K4/1T1 combination would be about equal at 50 mph and the single T1 would pull away above 50 mph. So although a T1 may have eliminated double-heading on longer trains, they probably would have been hard pressed to make the schedules because there would not be enough time spent in the 60-80 mph (or higher) speed ranges where they could start to shine.
Much as I like the T1 as a case study (spent over 18 years digging up info so far) , it was unfortunately a specialized design, too much so IMO. When their initial assignments vanished into the wave of dieselization, there was not much left that they could do very well, and they could not tolerate the deferred maintenance a K4 could..
Jim Boyd in The Steam Locomotive, page 136, clearly states that Lima designed the C&O 2-6-6-6 to outperform the N&W A rather than to meet C&O's true traffic needs. This seems to be at odds with the contention that the Advisory Mechanical Committee designed the 2-6-6-6.
Is Jim merely repeating what others before him have stated?
How involved was the Advisory Mechanical Committee after the Berkshires? Other sources I've read gave me the impression they really weren't involved much after the Berkshires...so why would they have been involved with a design that seems pretty much unique to/for C&O (and of course, Virginian)?
Which is closer to the truth?
UP 4-12-2 ...Is Jim merely repeating what others before him have stated?
...Is Jim merely repeating what others before him have stated?
The 4 easy steps to write railfan book: 1) State your opinion as fact. Better yet, just make it up -- most railfans don't know the inner workings of a railroad well enough to notice the difference anyway. 2) Hope somebody else will write something using your opinion as a reference. This helps validate the "facts" you so carefully made up. 3) Somehow work the idea into your book that the C&O was run by idiots. Never mind the fact that they financially thrived and single handily formed one of the 4 remaining large U.S. railroads (CSX). 4) Repeat as needed.
LOL
I don't see any comflict between Jim Boyd's statement and my statement that the C&O's own people did not have much to do with the 2-6-6-6 design. If it wasn't the Allied Lines' committee, then it was pure Lima.
And I accept Feltonhill's comment on the NY&LB. But isn't that, in itself, a real criticism of the T-1 design? That it was too specialized? In the late 40's could not the PRR have used a good 4-8-4, like the N&W J, systemwide on passenger service? Instead of the T-1? Remember the the SP Daylight 4-8-4's ended up giving excellent service in the San Jose commuter service, a service very similar to that of the NY&LB, after loosing their streamliner duties to diesels.
daveklepperI don't see any comflict between Jim Boyd's statement and my statement that the C&O's own people did not have much to do with the 2-6-6-6 design. If it wasn't the Allied Lines' committee, then it was pure Lima. And I accept Feltonhill's comment on the NY&LB. But isn't that, in itself, a real criticism of the T-1 design? That it was too specialized? In the late 40's could not the PRR have used a good 4-8-4, like the N&W J, systemwide on passenger service? Instead of the T-1? Remember the the SP Daylight 4-8-4's ended up giving excellent service in the San Jose commuter service, a service very similar to that of the NY&LB, after loosing their streamliner duties to diesels.
The T1 was not too specialized in the context that it did exactly what it was designed to do. The N&W J was all wrong for that type of service. Not enough high speed horsepower, and too high machinery speeds. Besides, why would the PRR invest millions in late steam 4-8-4 technology for no name trains/commuter service, when a pair of simple, reliable, payed-off K4s can out performed any 4-8-4 made? That would be plain stupid.
CNJ's Train Masters performed quite well in the stop-start suburban service of the NY&LB, similar to what SP's Train Masters did on the Peninsula commute. They also did quite nicely in mine run and drag freight service on VGN/N&W.
GP40-2...Besides, why would the PRR invest millions in late steam 4-8-4 technology for no name trains/commuter service, when a pair of simple, reliable, payed-off K4s can out performed any 4-8-4 made? That would be plain stupid.
...Besides, why would the PRR invest millions in late steam 4-8-4 technology for no name trains/commuter service, when a pair of simple, reliable, payed-off K4s can out performed any 4-8-4 made? That would be plain stupid.
You're ignoring the elephant in the room that the double-headed K4s took 2 engine crews. I would have gone with the T-1 if clearances and axle loads were acceptable. Running 2 shorter trains out of Penn Station would cost track capacity. Splitting the long trains to be manageable for a K4 would cost at least another conductor but allow faster express service to the outer terminal.
CSSHEGEWISCHCNJ's Train Masters performed quite well in the stop-start suburban service of the NY&LB, similar to what SP's Train Masters did on the Peninsula commute. They also did quite nicely in mine run and drag freight service on VGN/N&W.
What were the time lines for the K4 and Train Master on the NY&LB? 12 cars could be a stretch for a TM from comparable experience as a commuter on the C&NW.
I missed riding behind the Baby TMs on the C&NW before they were withdrawn from commuter service and assigned mostly to ore service in Upper Michigan. A comparable SD9 had better pickup for shorter train; and I don't know what was used on 11-car Harvard and Williams Bay trains before hard-pressed E-7s and eventually push-pull E-8s; or if 11-car trains with a single locomotive were even practical before then with the grades on the Wisconsin Div.
It seems to me, and this is purely my opinion, and not "fact" to eventually be published in a book, that PRR reached a certain point with their design studies of steam power--and then conceded the inevitable.
At some point they obviously decided that further steam locomotive design would not be worthwhile and/or would shortly be eclipsed by diesels.
So while perhaps a few modern locomotive designs that didn't offer the heavily experimental features of the S and Q classes might have been beneficial to PRR, it seems they somehow realized those efforts would offer only short-term results--and let the diesel take over.
My 2c.
UP 4-12-2Jim Boyd in The Steam Locomotive, page 136, clearly states that Lima designed the C&O 2-6-6-6 to outperform the N&W A rather than to meet C&O's true traffic needs.
HarveyK400You're ignoring the elephant in the room that the double-headed K4s took 2 engine crews.
You're ignoring the elephant in the room that the double-headed K4s took 2 engine crews.
Am I? It would be much more economical to pay 2 crews to run 2 paid-off K4s in this type of service that they excel at, rather than invest millions in a modern end-of-steam design. Especially when it was literally the end of steam.
HarveyK400I would have gone with the T-1 if clearances and axle loads were acceptable.
HarveyK400GP40-2HarveyK400You're ignoring the elephant in the room that the double-headed K4s took 2 engine crews. Am I? It would be much more economical to pay 2 crews to run 2 paid-off K4s in this type of service that they excel at, rather than invest millions in a modern end-of-steam design. Especially when it was literally the end of steam. HarveyK400I would have gone with the T-1 if clearances and axle loads were acceptable. Why? As feltonhill pointed out, the T1's were all wrong for this service. I just don't understand from a railroad point of view why you expect to use a locomotive designed for sustained 80-100 mph service, in stop-and-go operation.
GP40-2HarveyK400You're ignoring the elephant in the room that the double-headed K4s took 2 engine crews. Am I? It would be much more economical to pay 2 crews to run 2 paid-off K4s in this type of service that they excel at, rather than invest millions in a modern end-of-steam design. Especially when it was literally the end of steam. HarveyK400I would have gone with the T-1 if clearances and axle loads were acceptable. Why? As feltonhill pointed out, the T1's were all wrong for this service. I just don't understand from a railroad point of view why you expect to use a locomotive designed for sustained 80-100 mph service, in stop-and-go operation.
Why? As feltonhill pointed out, the T1's were all wrong for this service. I just don't understand from a railroad point of view why you expect to use a locomotive designed for sustained 80-100 mph service, in stop-and-go operation.
I don't know the piston stroke or boiler pressure for either the K-4 or T-1; but both had 80" drivers and capable of 100 mph by recorded accounts. Whether only one was designed for sustained high speeds instead of stop-and-go operation seems to be splitting hairs or taking a comment out of context. The ability to produce steam would be crucial in either event, with little time to hook up, run more efficiently on expansion and recover boiler pressure other than while braking and dwelling at a stop. Both types of locomotive were capable of 60 mph or more between stations on the NY&LB; but with different size trains. This would be more than adequate to compete with driving.
timz UP 4-12-2Jim Boyd in The Steam Locomotive, page 136, clearly states that Lima designed the C&O 2-6-6-6 to outperform the N&W A rather than to meet C&O's true traffic needs. What did he actually say? I'm guessing he didn't actually claim to know anything about it-- he just offered a surmise, or quoted somebody else's surmise?
timz-
Well, no bibliography was given. Jim Boyd states in the front that the "hundreds of books" consulted for this project were far too numerous to mention.
After a comment that entire books were written that compare N&W 1218 to the 2-6-6-6, Jim Boyd stated the following on page 136:
"Adding to this rivalry is the fact that Lima built the 2-6-6-6 in 1941 more to "outperform the N&W A" than to meet the C&O's true traffic needs. The consensus seems to be that "Lima's Finest" did, indeed, have the potential to outperform the A--and nearly every other steam locomotive ever built, for that matter--but it was never utilized by the C&O to its full potential. And the Allegheny achieved its size and power at the expense of having the heaviest axle-loading of any steam locomotive ever built, which severely limited it to operating only on the very best constructed main lines. The N&W A, however, worked to its last days doing precisely the job for which it had been so well designed."
Again--no sources were specifically mentioned by name.
And again, if the PRR had bought its own version of the N&W J (possibly slighter higher driver diameter) or the NYC Niagra (The SP G-4 would have not met clearance restrictions), it would have done everything the T-1 did on the Broadway, Spirit of St. Louis, Tralblazer, Jeffersonian, and Red Arrow and still done a fine job in NY&LB commuter service, without any double heading. Incidentally, double-headed K-4's did often substitue for T-1's on the Broadway.
I don't claim to be a motive power expert. But it is clear that the Santa Fe, SP, N&W, NYC, UP, and the NKP, among others, had motive power design teams more in tune with the actual needs of the operating department than either the PRR (steam and diesel) or the C&O. I cannot fault the PRR with regard to electric power however. No one can complain about the GG-1, the B-1 Switcher , or the MP-54 mu car. The early PRR diesel purchases showed their Philadelphia loyalty to Baldwin. OK for switchers, but the road power was a big mistake, particularly since it could not mu with other diesels.
You might object that the Central never did use Niagras in commuter service after they were bumped from premium trains. Hudsons rarely. First, Boston suburban service, the largest suburban NYC user of steam power, was among the first services to be dieselized, as part of total deiselization of the B&A. Even the Highland Branch got diesels before it was turned over to the MTA for light rail. Second, most NYC suburban services that used steam power did use head-end lighting power, like the C&NW, Erie, and CNJ did. The PRR had pretty much stayed with axle-driven generators and large batteries on its P-70's, which were the NY&LB passenger stock, not the P-54's. The Central did not wish to equip Hudsons (a few were equipped and used out of NWP and Harmon) and Niagras with oversized generators. Hudsons, like K-4's on the PRR did occasionally show up on peddler freights, showing the flexiblity of a well-design passenger locomotive. I do not recall any NYC suburban steam trains sufficiently long as to require double heading with Pacifics or Hudsons (or 4-6-0's on the Putnam for that matter!).
If I may draw any conclusion from all the sources I've read, it's that, in general, the flatland or relatively flat areas of the U.S. were dieselized first--resulting in the early elimination of fine "state-of-the-art" steam power on many roads. Where steam survived "late" it seems to have been generally in the mountains, especially in pusher service where speed was not the priority as much as tonnage.
That's partly why the magnificent challengers of Western Pacific and Rio Grande were gone early (also inferior wartime steel boilers in the case of Rio Grande), yet the older 2-8-8-2's slogged it out longer in the mountains.
After reading the above post I was able to find a couple of reference websites that the other posters on this thread might find of meaning within the context of this discussion:
First is: http://crestlineprr.com/duplexexperimentals.html
"Welcome to the Crestline PRR Engine Facility
The Duplex and Experimental Steam Engines of the PRR: The Crestline Connection"
FTA:"...What makes the Crestline Engine Facility such a special place? The reasons are many, among them is its geographical location, and therefore home to experimental and production duplex steam engines. Crestline is the eastern most division point facility between Pittsburgh and Chicago on the Ft. Wayne mainline. To the east are the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. To the west are the flat lands of the midwestern plains..."
Second is this website:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3943/is_200505/ai_n13642634/?tag=content;col1
FTA: "...A quick glance indicates that the C&O J3s and the PRRT1 were fairly similar with respect to engine weight, weight on drivers, grate area and engine tractive effort. A closer look, however, reveals a substantial difference in total tractive effort because the C&O J3s were equipped with boosters.
Description of tests
PRR 5511 was the first T1 loaned to the C&O for the test program, and received its initial assignment at Huntington, W. Va., on September 4, 1946. Before completion of the test runs, PRR recalled the locomotive on September 7, 1946, and replaced it with 5539 on September 11, 1946. T1 No. 5539 left C&O after a final run to Cincinnati on September 14, 1946..."
THis last website's article stretches to about 15 or so pages and is well researched and referenced at the end. It provides an unusually detailed description of the comparison tests of C&ORR operating conditions when tested with the PRR T-1 locomotive. It should prove of interest here.
Thanks for typing out the Boyd quote. As expected, he was just reporting that "The consensus [among railfan writers] seems to be ..." -- which is true enough. Much of Le Massena's article has indeed become the conventional wisdom among railfans.
UP 4-12-2--but it was never utilized by the C&O to its full potential.
I believe the true is, that they did all their jobs with ease while still having reserves. Using a steam locomotive without excessive firing rates is a nice way, saving fuel and keep nice efficiency levels.
UP 4-12-2"Adding to this rivalry is the fact that Lima built the 2-6-6-6 in 1941 more to "outperform the N&W A" than to meet the C&O's true traffic needs.
--why should they use the "A" as a reference, when they built with the T1 2-10-4 a very powerful locomotive 12 years ago already. The Allegheny with its high factor of adhesion was certainly a better engine for the mountains, than the "A", too.
UP 4-12-2And the Allegheny achieved its size and power at the expense of having the heaviest axle-loading of any steam locomotive ever built, which severely limited it to operating only on the very best constructed main lines.
Can somebody enlighten us what went wrong with building process and they were blamed being overweighted?
I think the builder (LIMA) could draw exact theoretical weights matching final weights.
Did someone dictated design rules that were not really necessary, making some parts of the locomotive heavier than they really need to be?
-I mean, before reweighting, did ever somebody noticed their overweight or did running problems occur ? The C&O a had a strong track plant anyway...
Cheers
lars
Lars--
I checked the articulated pages at www.steamlocomotive.com
C&O had a weight limit of 726,000 pounds. Lima and C&O's contract agreement was for an engine weight slightly less than that. During construction, the weight ballooned to allegedly as much as 778,000 pounds, and Lima later paid C&O a monetary penalty for the overweight engines.
The H-8 required 141 pound per yard rail. The N&W A class required 120.4 pound per yard rail--so it could run in many more places than the H-8 would be able to run.
...but why they get heavier during construction? I think LIMA knew how much all parts will weight.
Was LIMA let them built overweighted first and then being blamed later?
Did their weight lead to restrictions on their use at the C&O or Virg.?
John,
Where did you find the minimum rail weight requirement? This is a new one to me. Tie condition and spacing are usually considered more important than rail weight alone. According to track charts, C&O had 131RE and 132RE in general use on its main line in 1963. No 140-lb in sight.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.