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.
John
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.
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.
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I missed riding behind the Baby TMs on the C&NW before they were withdrawn from commuter service and assigned mostly to ore service in Upper Michigan.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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..
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
CSSHEGEWISCHhe dared to gore more than a few sacred cows
CSSHEGEWISCH...and show that things were not always what they 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.
daveklepper C&O did continue to use its older 2-8-8-2's up to the end of steam.
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.
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.
UP 4-12-2 I'd love to have a chat with him, but am not sure he's even still available, much less how to contact him. There's lots of questions this 41 year old, who never saw the big guys run, would like to have the chance to ask. Yes--you are correct--those "misused" high speed simple articulateds did make excellent time over some divisions--which did lower operating costs. However, Huddleston also pointed out that nothing, absolutely nothing, performed as well over the mountainous sections of the Norfolk and Western as the Y-class, compound (slower) 2-8-8-2. For the particular profile N&W had to contend with, the high speed simple articulateds could do no better than the 2-8-8-2's in the mountains--and the 2-8-8-2's could start more train and make adequate enough time with it. Huddleston elaborated that if N&W had a profile like Virginian, with 0.3% grades to tidewater, they too might very well have opted for a magnificent fleet of 2-8-4's instead of the "mountain mauler" 2-8-8-2's. John
I'd love to have a chat with him, but am not sure he's even still available, much less how to contact him.
There's lots of questions this 41 year old, who never saw the big guys run, would like to have the chance to ask.
Yes--you are correct--those "misused" high speed simple articulateds did make excellent time over some divisions--which did lower operating costs. However, Huddleston also pointed out that nothing, absolutely nothing, performed as well over the mountainous sections of the Norfolk and Western as the Y-class, compound (slower) 2-8-8-2. For the particular profile N&W had to contend with, the high speed simple articulateds could do no better than the 2-8-8-2's in the mountains--and the 2-8-8-2's could start more train and make adequate enough time with it.
Huddleston elaborated that if N&W had a profile like Virginian, with 0.3% grades to tidewater, they too might very well have opted for a magnificent fleet of 2-8-4's instead of the "mountain mauler" 2-8-8-2's.
Well, since I'm obviously many years too young, and was not there, all I know about the big steam is what I've read in the various books, or seen in the various videos.
So far as browbeating Mr. LeMassena, that most certainly would never be my intention--I just wish I'd have the opportunity to visit with him and ask him some questions. Those who have are fortunate.
I appreciate his attempt to provide a locomotive power rating system with simplicity, whether or not it may have its flaws.
Lots of Santa Fe fans love their huge high horsepower, high speed 4-6-4's, 4-8-4's and 2-10-4's (which rate highly under LeMassena's system). Yet at the same time, when one really reads about their operational history, for all the marvelous power the 2-10-4's were a little slippery and a bit of a handful when operated over the up and down profile of the Arizona desert--such that Santa Fe tended to prefer their older 2-10-2's in the Arizona desert instead. That's one reason the 2-10-4's ended up in the New Mexico desert, and in helper service. Where I'm going with this is that, yeah, on paper the 5011 class 2-10-4 was a marvelous engine--yet many other authors believe the other roads' steam power like the big simple articulateds were superior in performance. Most Santa Fe fans generally esteem the 4-8-4's to be the best of the Santa Fe steam, generally superior to the more powerful 2-10-4's in actual operations.
The debate will likely last another 50 years...
BaltACDOne element I haven't heard discussed .... while the ruling grades are what the locomotives have to contend with for the pulling power.....the entire route of the trains is not the ruling grade. Once the ruling grade has been conquered there are still many miles of running that the trains have to do before the get to destination. Miles that the 'low speed' engine would have trouble sustaining 40 MPH....miles that those 'mis-used' high speed engines would jog along in the 40-50 MPH speed range with little effort at all. For a railroad, the efficiency of an engine is measuered from orign to destination...not just on the ruling grade.
One element I haven't heard discussed .... while the ruling grades are what the locomotives have to contend with for the pulling power.....the entire route of the trains is not the ruling grade. Once the ruling grade has been conquered there are still many miles of running that the trains have to do before the get to destination. Miles that the 'low speed' engine would have trouble sustaining 40 MPH....miles that those 'mis-used' high speed engines would jog along in the 40-50 MPH speed range with little effort at all.
For a railroad, the efficiency of an engine is measuered from orign to destination...not just on the ruling grade.
feltonhill FWIW, I last talked with LeMassena about 18 months ago (on another subject, not about this article). It was an interesting 80 minutes. At 93, he was trigger quick, knowledgeable and affable. However, he firmly believes that his simplistic formulations and ratios are absolutely correct and that's that. In his mind, no other approach is necessary. Needless to say, I just as firmly diagree with that idea, and with what I believe to be considerable good reasons. So I left it at that. The discussion was polite and inconclusive. I'm not into browbeating someone whose way more than a generation my senior.
FWIW, I last talked with LeMassena about 18 months ago (on another subject, not about this article). It was an interesting 80 minutes. At 93, he was trigger quick, knowledgeable and affable. However, he firmly believes that his simplistic formulations and ratios are absolutely correct and that's that. In his mind, no other approach is necessary. Needless to say, I just as firmly diagree with that idea, and with what I believe to be considerable good reasons. So I left it at that. The discussion was polite and inconclusive. I'm not into browbeating someone whose way more than a generation my senior.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Once over Blue Ridge, N&W had a profile that resembled the Virginian. They used Class A 2-6-6-4's east of Roanoke with a Y6 doubleheaded to Crewe and A's solo to Norfolk with up to 200 cars (loaded). A fleet of 2-8-4's would not have been the best choice for N&W; they were at least 1,000 DBHP too small for the job N&W needed to do..
Lima did not design the Allegheny to sell to C&O. The Allegheny specs were set by the Van Swerigen roads' advisory mechanical committee. Lima built what they were told to build.
C&O used the Alleghenies all over the system, not just on the eastbound ruling grade east of Hinton. There were plenty of miles with no significant grades, so they were not completely "misused.". However, since they did not pull any longer trains than the T-1 2-10-4's (about 160 cars max), what good were they? A modernized version of the T-1 would have probably been all C&O needed (IMO).
Somebody just might want to talk to Bob LeMassena and see what his reaction is.
While the A2 and H7 were given the same tonnage rating due possibly from higher A2 axle load, could the A2 achieve a higher speed, 25-40 mph, with its greater boiler horsepower?
I haven't read all of these posts, but this is a fascinating discussion nonetheless.
Regarding the alleged misuse of the 2-6-6-6, I found some of Dr. Huddleston's comments in The World's Greatest Steam Locomotives very interesting:
The C&O had the exact same tonnage rating on some grades for both the H7 2-8-8-2 and the 2-6-6-6.
So for all the engineering and investment in the newer 2-6-6-6, what did C&O really get, in terms of applied real world power on the railroad? What was really gained other than newer, more reliable power?
Some have suggested that more 2-10-4's might have been equally as effective as the 2-6-6-6 in real world service on the railroad. Could this be true?
Huddleston commented that the 2-6-6-6 was designed specifically to beat the Norfolk and Western A Class in power output. Did Lima sell the coal roads (C&O and Virginian) more engine than they really needed just so they could one-up N&W? Could an improved 2-10-4 have been a better choice?
It's also interesting--as Huddleston points out--that UP, also on the exact same sustained grade as some C&O tonnage ratings (1.14%) gave the ex-C&O H7's a higher tonnage rating than C&O did--while at the same time, the Big Boy tonnage ratings were even higher than the H7's. He felt C&O was conservative with tonnage ratings--not wanting to tie up a mainline if something went wrong. Huddleston logically concluded that UP would have given the Big Boys a higher tonnage rating than the Alleghenies (because the Allegheny and the H7 were comparable). From a logic view, that makes sense, but...
Another fan who seems not to have given the puzzle a thought was William Withuhn in his article in 6/74 Trains: "The railroads' habit of grossly misusing their steam has been mentioned here in TRAINS, but the implications really never have been worked out. Time and again a modern steamer, specifically suited for a speed regime of 30 to 60 mph, was put to use at 10 to 20 mph. The Allegheny type perhaps was the best (or the worst) example of this." The 2-6+6-6 "developed its best drawbar horsepower, and reached proper running efficiency, at 35 to 45 mph. How was this engine used primarily from its first day? In drag coal service, of course-- and by C&O, which should have known better. This sort of situation happened time and again. Using high-speed engines in high-speed service, and designing actual low-speed engines for low-speed service, apparently were concepts too difficult to grasp." Far as I can see, the "difficult concepts" here are the same as before, and quite undifficult: longer trains require more TE, more TE requires more drivers, etc. Can anyone find anything in that article beyond that? (Similar was Bert Pennypacker's article in April 1992 Trains on the WM 4-6+6-4s, where he said the railroad "probably would have been far better off" with a 2-8+8-4.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.