Isn't this young lady amazing? Everytime she posts I learn something new. What a mind!
Hi Ralph
About tender capacity – you’re sure right they were looking for the maximum of it . The wheels of the trucks were standard (small) 36 ins , the cast steel frames of the tenders were water bottom type . What gave them a ‘low rider’ look especially were the longitudinal water pockets outsides down the frames cast and the trucks . The capacity of these pockets was tolerably small – ponder that against inconveniences in maintenance service to check / repair brake and suspension rigging on half-covered trucks (with leave and coil springs placed inside of rather complex cast steel truck frames structure !) I don’t see there was much that could be done to them without lifting …
As concerns fast running as well as curve negotiation eight wheel trucks with a long wheel base and with two intermediate axles that did not help inscription of the truck in curve were not exactly representative of edifying design . I agree that axle load with high capacity tenders was a point for sixteen wheels , yet if you mind , on European rails Co-Co electrics are being phased out and replaced by double header Bo-Bo traction (if necessary at all) because the longer three axle bogie with its intermediate axle is considered causing 'excessive' rail wear in curves then you will surely see the point : the still longer wheel base of those PRR tender trucks with two intermediate axles that by principle do not inscribe properly in radius of curve must have caused still heavier wear on rails . It's all about inscription and wheel flange pressure and angle of wheel to rail. Intermediate axle(s) in a bogie frame do disturb inscription of guiding axle in curve and do not by themselves help curve passing of bogie , in other words they increase pressure flange on leading wheel on outer rail guiding shoulder and a further increase of bogie wheel base just increases angle between that wheel and rail which by itself increases pressure of wheel flange to rail because of deficit between axle actual position and ideal position , micro slip of wheels contact surface on rail (torque slip , necessary to turn wheel along curve plus longitudinal slip to compensate for difference in travel length on outer / inner rail of curve) .
Wheels of smaller than some 40 ins diameter did not help fast running . The point for larger wheels was not an important one with roller bearings on axles but none the less , wheel tire wear by brake shoe abrasion was . Although today's express coaches have disk brakes , still no one would propose wheels as small those the PRR used on these sixteen wheel tenders – and that although very light axle loads of modern coaches as compared to those tenders would be much more promoting for small wheels . Actually 1050 mm (41 ins) are standard . The only cars where very small wheels are being used of necessity are those of pick-up trains (intermodal traffic) where loading gauge makes low deck height of carrier vehicle inevitable .
My proposed changes reducing tender mass were therefore part of a package aimed at reducing a bunch of problems encountered with T-1 locomotives running very heavy , or – as in my view – too heavy , passenger consists . In less than favourable conditions, the 4-4-4-4 engines as they were proved in fact not fully equivalent to a good 4-8-4 as concerns sure footed starting and running at full power output on demanding line sections . They should perhaps have been regarded more like something in between a 4-6-4 and a 4-8-4 in heavy train running while they were clearly superior to both as concerns speed attainable and sustainable with medium train mass . In my view , trimming tender mass would favourably have supported T-1 engine characteristic in connection with train service modified towards faster schedules with reduced mass of train consist . Trimming down consumption in this way , tender mass could have been reduced , this would have saved some part of engine power output consumed for tender trailing , i e for no revenue earning purpose , plus somewhat eased sustained power output would have saved on fuel expelled unburnt right out of the chimney due to forced combustion rate . Interestingly , introduction of E-7 / 8 / 9 diesel traction succeeded much by help of reduced train mass with new light weight coaches .
One thing that occurred to me : since the outsides water pockets were the lowest of water space , this called for taking water from one of these and I looked it up in Locomotive Cyclopedia : yes , they did : at the front end of the outside pockets . That however exposed water feed to possible fatal rupture by obstacles hit in even a lighter accident . This ads an item to something I have repeatedly come to wonder about : in steam locomotive design and running , stunningly little attention seems to have been given to concerns of accidents . Most auxiliaries , even such vital ones as boiler feed and brake functions , have been placed at outsides positions , some even near the loading gauge limit and in the lower vertical range , that clearly left them vulnerable , to be easily torn off by any vehicle hitting the side of a locomotive as has happened so many times by tower error , misarranged signals , drivers error , derailing , you name it . Why , with that very low outsides position at the front corner of the tender , water tank valve could be shorn off just by derailing tender by erroneously turning switch under moving locomotive (this may sound silly but incredibly has happened many times) or by hitting a truck on a level crossing – each of these possible incidents leaving boiler shorn off water feed ! In contrast to practice as it had obviously been , I think these vital functions should have been much better protected by design to provide as good a chance as possible for surviving accidents .
Regards
Juniatha
Juniatha,
I agree, that the running board be on a level plane and at the same distance below the grab rail, for safety's sake, as well as, for aerodynamic and aesthetic purposes.
Due to long distance travel, in a passenger consist, the P. RR's tenders need the many, small wheels which provide a smooth, speedy ride, as well as, better weight distribution.As, for the tender having a low body, I believe this design is for a larger capacity area, enabling the tender to carry greater quantities of coal and water.
The large tender's size and shape may not be as aesthetically appealing and may not be aerodynamically helpful, but this behemoth got the job done.Let's not forget the rails were not as improved, as today's are, so top speed, at certain locations and for certain durations had to be considered.
This is my uneducated guess.
So long for now,
Ralph
Hi Juniatha: I read your reply at the end of your message to Crandell. I'll definitely try your suggested remedy. Thanks for your concern!
Hi Crandell
>> ...is that because of a bow shock effect for a locomotive's relatively blunt front end moving at speed through the air? <<
Sure ; regular blunt boiler (smoke box) front ends – generally with some mildly spherical shape , sometimes flat – cause a low pressure zone around the smoke box drum, starting right around the circumferential front edge , then extending and incidentally collapsing approx at about or after lengthwise position of the front tube plate – in most cases leaving chimneys sensibly in the region of largest extension of this low pressure zone . That’s why I think the Loewy wedge shape should have helped with engines as they were , as far as preventing smoke drifting downright all around the boiler : it helped keep smoke trail above the engine to most part – only , with stack practically flush with boiler shrouding the wedge could not prevent trailing smoke from clinging rather tight to the upper area of the engine with some of it swirling down around upper half of boiler cladding and cab windows .
All engines with low chimneys more or less showed trouble with smoke swirling around boiler – the problem sharpened with high efficiency draughting as there was less energy left for lifting steam and gas mixture off chimney and up into the air . Short cut-off running added to it . As always in technical design , if you advanced one item , deficiencies remaining in connected functions immediately showed up . With steam , in contrast to other fields of engine development , intricacies turning up with trying a progressive design all to often were never solved , often lead to retrograde steps returning to former practice and in the end this petrified design which prematurely sealed the coffin for the steam locomotive .
I guess , Loewy’s wedge front shrouding (actual smoke box door was further back inside the shrouding) should have worked very well in combination with small deflectors since it provided a much smoother parting of air stream than usual rather blunt smoke box front ends . Actually , coming to think of it : since the wedge – even the later simplified form – started with a rather narrow front , continuously spreading out sideways , if fitting small deflectors they would not have had to stand forwards of the wedge front , or by just one ft , because the wedge did not produce such a hefty sideways push of air stream as did the usual blunt smoke box front . It would have been a matter of some test runs applying various shapes and positions – that’s all . I think I see your point in objection : the deflectors spoil the idea of an engine body starting from a nose tip smoothly spreading to full boiler width , an idea that came to life as a passing T-1 and train was seen from an elevated position . On the other hand European view was , lightly built deflectors – small type more than large type – provide to a steam locomotive what Chrysler once had advertised as ‘the Forward Look’ in their radically new 1957 line of cars – a time tolerably contemporary to the last of European steam loco designs . Likely , I owe it to my actual acquaintance with European steam taking up that notion .
Yet another point, by the way : As coal was being used up , the emptying coal compartment provided a trap for smoke and it might also have entered T-1 cab through rearward openings . Coal dust and smoke swirling into cab from the back side was a known problem with streamlining steam locos in general and there have been several attempts to cover up coal compartment – all of them failing more or less formidable as coaling up steam locomotives was and forever remained quite a coarse action more akin to mining than to train running . Coal compartment covers (ccc) , most of them obviously designed under a big HQ warning sign “But it must be cheep!!” still tangible by looking at drawings , tended to jam up and , I feel , generally were a hindrance in getting the dusty job done without fuss . I think the Brits never cared about the ccc craze but West-German DB , long after streamlining had been taken off three cylinder Pacifics 01.10 and 03.10 classes , spent a new type of ccc when they reboilered their 03.10 light Pacifics , a group of 26 locos then modernized with high hopes only to become dispensable by electrification some seven years after . The cover consisted of two longitudinal curved halves that opened by folding down to the sides of the coal compartment , they were structurally stronger than previous covers and were air operated . By design these ccc should have worked fairly well , yet in practice steam crews managed to jam them up by habitually re-coaling until a clearly visible Monte Coalino had been piled up – loading gauge limit or not (in the wake of events , no amount of coal that could be stowed on board was too much) . On the other hand , practical thinking of steam crews made these covers ‘succeed’ tolerably well by simply leaving them open 24/7 – this way maintenance costs were trimmed down to zero and coaling dock time was no longer than without covers . So , in the end the ccc provided reboilered 03.10 a new tender look – about reminiscent to American built contemporary 141.R Mikes of SNCF – as seemingly , curved sided coal compartments had finally found their way to DB .
Hi Jim
42s had been working the Mosel valley but DB had scrapped them early , by 1965 there were only 50 class engines left with Wannentender . I would tend to think it might have been a 50 class with boiler having four ‘domes’ (feed – sand – steam dome proper – sand) , those were the original standard type boilers but with boiler swaps at large overhauls any combinations could be found .
Color slides : first of all I would propose to take them out of glass frames and clean slides with soft cleaning tissue . lightly tinctured in pure alcohol (not drenched , or you might risk the sensitive coating of your photos (other side is non-sensitive to alcohol) – the alcohol kills fungi or mildew ; you may re-frame them without glass or keep them with paper layer between photos – do not pack cleaned photos immediately and without paper between them as that could repeat effects as with glass frames . Basically , films or color slides should be kept in dry , dark , constant temperature condition .
42 2562 of Bruck an der Mur shed climbing the Semmering line with freight ;
Witte smoke deflectors much as originally fitted , they were uniquely low poised on the 42s ;
650 x 660 mm (25 ½” x 26“) cylinders , 1400 mm (55”) drive wheel dia , bp = 228 psi , te at 0.7 bp = 49000 lbs ;
cylinder casing formed a 42-typical rugged transversal unit that almost gave a look of ‘one piece cast steel loco bed’ – yet , although series construction returned to bar frames with the 42 , cylinders always remained separate pieces in European steam , mounted to frames by body fit bolts (possibly with isolated exception in individual cases) ;
short engine stack to keep within general European loading gauge height of 4280 mm (14’) above rail ;
steam rising mid-boiler is from turbo generator mounted midways on left running board
photo : A Luft
USRRA light Mikado descending 141.R , spoked wheels version , rolls freight through Boulogne , July 1964 ; stoker firing has fireman keep his seat relaxing with inevitable cigarette – as engines so men enjoyed to have a little smoke ; Café du Jardin over-looking station – a nice place for steam enthusiasts ; photo : M Dahlström
USRRA light Mikado descending 141.R , spoked wheels version , rolls freight through Boulogne , July 1964 ;
stoker firing has fireman keep his seat relaxing with inevitable cigarette – as engines so men enjoyed to have a little smoke ;
Café du Jardin over-looking station – a nice place for steam enthusiasts ;
photo : M Dahlström
Restored 241.P.9 of Le Mans with express at 120 km/h (75 mph) , June 1973 ; Light exhaust pressure by double Kylchap ; haze around chimney tells of circumferential low pressure area around smoke box that attracts smoke with easy engine running ; photo : M Dahlström
Restored 241.P.9 of Le Mans with express at 120 km/h (75 mph) , June 1973 ;
Light exhaust pressure by double Kylchap ;
haze around chimney tells of circumferential low pressure area around smoke box that attracts smoke with easy engine running ;
Lest we forget the people who ran steam : crews of restored 241.P.9 at Le Mans engine facility June 1973 content with having finished successful test run – the attitude of working men as much as artists photo : M Dahlström
Lest we forget the people who ran steam :
crews of restored 241.P.9 at Le Mans engine facility June 1973
content with having finished successful test run – the attitude of working men as much as artists
Edit
diverse re-formatting of photo texts to tame it's kicking ; address to Jim that I had failed to write - sorry Jim ;
Hi again, Juniatha: Well, your question sent me to once more rummaging through my memory banks to see if I was an accurate witness. My firsthand memories of German steam date back to the summer of 1965 when I was all of 20 years old ( I'm 67 now!). Reviewing other sources confirms your statement that the vast majority of Class 44's had the standard sguare tender. Why was I thinking Wannentenders, then? Just last month I visited the Austrian State Railroad Museum at Silberwald and guess what? They had one Class 52 and one Class 42 on the property and both had Wannentenders. Of course these were Kreigsloks versons of Class 50 and Class 44 and it seems that they weren't using Kreigsloks on the Moselle Valley line, at least not when I was there. As for your comments on Class 50 and its variant, Class 52, I agree that these engines had a long, lean look to them and their moderate axle loading made them useful just about everywhere in Europe. With regard to Class 01 Pacifics, I did see some at the Hauptbahnhof in Nurnberg and I agree that they were very handsome While on the station platform I met a local who was busy photographing everything in steam that came into the station. His name was Michael Bauer and he was actually the Brandtdirektor for the whole city. Over the years of our correspondance he sent me over 600 color slides, mostly steam, in exchange for American books and railroadiana. I'm sad to say that I haven't looked at the slides lately and some of them seem to be growing a peculiar fungus or litchen like growth. I'm wondering if there's some way to restore and protect them. Just about every class of German steam engines is represented as well as antique engines and restorations. Anyhow, thanks for your essay on the Class 50's I had no idea they were manufactured outside of Germany. Also a careful study of Gunther Feuereiben's book, "Mit Dampf auf der Strecke" indicates that there were a few Wannentender equipped engines doing mainline work in East Germany as late at the 1980's.
Juniatha ... To catch air stream , deflector wings had to reach some 20 – 40 ins in front of smoke box , ending somewhat short from or nearly at vertical plane of buffer beam ... Juniatha
Thanks, Juniatha, that helped me a lot. Thanks for simplifiying the technical stuff for me.
The quoted portion of your last post, above...is that because of a bow shock effect for a locomotive's relatively blunt front end moving at speed through the air? Also, it's shape, I presume, would influence the bow shock in some way, so deflectors would have to be tailored for each engine?
I do understand now why you made the changes to the outer skin of the tender and the loco. The stepped running board, for example, looks rakish, but for fast running, not very helpful. I wonder if they affected smoke movement around the cab.
Crandell
As dramatic looking as the Pennsy's T-1 was, in the end it was a "rush-job catch-up" on the PRR's part because they stuck with the K-4 Pacific longer than they should have. I've read that the PRR didn't quite trust the concept of the 4-8-4, anticipating problems that never arose, hence the duplex design. Well, no-one could tell the Pennsy anything, and what could you expect from a road that called itself the "Standard Railroad of the World"? (Sorry Pennsy fans.) Juniathas T-1 Dash 2 would probably been a roaring success, if only she hadn't been born too late! I think we all feel a bit out of our time on occasion.
Thank you for explaining . I see the ‘wings’ are quite unusual to you and probably other’s . Maybe we might better look at the first modification . Actually , my main points were to keep running board straight over the entire lengths and visually ‘lighten’ tender by reducing the size of the side sheet panel .
The big 16 wheel PRR tenders were unique in having water space troughs along sides that visually increased the tank size at cost of the trucks visibility . In my view, the massive tender tank on what looks like a large number of relatively small wheels has always been in strong contrast to the engine with 2 x 2 large driving wheels per side .
Actual PRR experience with the T-1 engines in traffic had shown they were very good at high speed running yet fared much less well at starting heavy trains . With that given engine characteristic in mind , not going into any technical refinements , it should have been preferable – admittedly in hindsight – if train mass had been limited to some 600 – 800 tons , taking advantage of high speed power to run even faster schedules than with full size LTDs that proved arduous work for T-1 locomotives . Some reduction of continuous power demand at speed would still have been saved with the lighter trains , even with faster acceleration and keeping tighter to line speed limits , I believe mostly 100 mph on the major Chicago runs at that time .
Continuous power output demand being the power typically sustained at high speeds , which is clearly higher than average over the entire distance yet disregarding peak effort .
If for now let’s assume proposed lighter train loads (like with new lighter coaches as were built for diesel traction) would have allowed to ease continuous ihp demand by just -10 % , engines could have been run less hard , not only keeping clear of adhesion limit at speed but also allowing for somewhat better expansion , bringing steaming rate down by , say , -12 % . At the very high firing rates needed for high steaming rates on regular runs with the heavy trains as they were , a 12 % reduction of steaming rate would have gained a disproportional reduction in firing rate like -16 to -20 % . This was so because combustion conditions would have been allowed to stay further away from grate limit – i e all losses that tended to rise over-proportionally the nearer firing rate approached grate limit , in reverse tended to ease down considerably when keeping well below that limit .
Grate limit was the point where no matter how much more coal would be fed , no more combustion heat could be produced per time unit . Any extra coal fed just produced less complete combustion as all the oxygen in combustion air aspired by draughting was already being used up . Since like most heat energy processing characteristics of the steam locomotive , grate limit was not a fixed limit like ‘gas pedal floored’ in car but more of a hazy border line with conditions becoming ever more difficult as limit of combustion rate was being approached , logically all accompanying detrimental effects experienced in this region worsened over-proportionally in relation to increasing heat energy production until approaching grate limit . At a combustion heat production rate of ~ 90 % of grate limit , unburnt losses would typically amount to some 1/3 of coal fired , to name a rule of thumb figure . That explains how by a relative small easing of steaming rate a substantial saving in coal consumption could have been obtained , as well as running at combustion conditions much better to handle for engine crew .
With this technical and traction perspective in mind I was looking to reduce tender mass by trimming coal supplies to return to six wheel trucks , which again would allow to save some mass in total bogies assemblage (frames , wheel sets , brake rigging ..) – all of it again adding to reduction of total mass behind engine traction bar .
External corporate shape of engine and tender in my view harmonize better when emphasizing length of engine by an unbroken running board and reducing expanse of tank side sheet area of tender with a rounded lower edge line lifted making running gear more prominent .
No wonder the T-1 had been self-polluting since a generally smooth enough shrouding multiplied effects with practically zero chimney clearance height . While – e-hm – smoke deflectors could have helped to keep trailing smoke clear of upper engine surfaces and said lighter running would have considerably eased amount of cinder throwing , daily cleaning routine at turn around would have had to be arranged to keep an attractive appearance .
To catch air stream , deflector wings had to reach some 20 – 40 ins in front of smoke box , ending somewhat short from or nearly at vertical plane of buffer beam . That can be seen on photos of numerable European steam locos with large or small type deflectors , as for British steam : LMS Duchess Pacifics , some LNER Pacifics , BR standard 7P , 8P and 9F classes ; French steam : later series of ex PLM Pacifics , ex EST 241.A Mountain , SNCF types unifiées 141.P and 241.P , 150.P , ex NORD 141.TC tank engine , 231.C Super Pacific ; DB steam : practically all Pacifics , Mikados , Decapods , same with eastern DR , having retained ‘elephant ears’ Wagner 01 Pacifics ; Polish Pt-47 , Ty-45 with large wings , Ty-42 with small wings ; only exception : Austrian 214 large drivered passenger 2-8-4 having various types of deflectors that did not stand forward of smoke box front end or just a very short part .
What about il classico vapore in Italia? Well , as I mentioned in my earlier comment to the topic , steam development had ceased too early to have adopted this feature . When visiting a steam special tour with a 740 class 2-8-0 , sitting on a bank at the platform with the locomotive in front of me I sketched up a 2-10-0 version of the class (there had once been a 480 class Decapod but it was long since gone) and freely equipped it with Witte wings . I can tell you , the effect to one Italian steam fan was much like your’s and another of them remarked it was like putting a Ferrari label on an OM truck – which in turn lead to discussing if steam could be compared to a truck , let alone an OM truck (‘course not!) or to any of the automobile sculptures manufactured by Ferrari (very delicate question ..)
Kind regards
Juniatha, by "Dutch Girl", I mean a brand name logo that used to be popular on a product available here in N. America. It showed a young Dutch girl with a white winged cap, and when I saw your T1, it sort of reminded me of that logo. From the angle the T1 appears in your illustration, the deflectors seem to protrude substantially to the front, but I will defer to you when you say they don't extend past the smoke box.
I hope I have not offended. I'm trying to continue our dialog, but not at the expense of the harmony here.
@ Crandell >> .. the 'Dutch Girl" look .. << The Dutch girl ? pardon me - who's the Dutch girl ? >> .. of the front-protruding ones you depicted on the T1<< Well , may I specify the deflectors are not front protruding or else they wouldn't last very long; they only reach in front of the smoke box which by itself is set back against the front buffer beam . Regards = J =
@ Crandell
>> .. the 'Dutch Girl" look .. <<
The Dutch girl ? pardon me - who's the Dutch girl ?
>> .. of the front-protruding ones you depicted on the T1<<
Well , may I specify the deflectors are not front protruding or else they wouldn't last very long; they only reach in front of the smoke box which by itself is set back against the front buffer beam .
= J =
Well , they had to keep to timings on German mainlines because of usually dense traffic . Freights had times almost as passenger trains and if you didn’t keep proceeding to schedule they might have put you in the loop and when that had happened it was hard to go on because from then on the dispatchers had to squeeze your train in – which they hesitated with a freight if they had express trains coming up . So you were in for a long shift , then.
A 44 with a semi-cylindrical tender ? Are you sure ? There were only two of them running , one was 44 1267 – not entirely impossible to have been around there , although later on the engine went north to Rheine for traffic on the Emsland line to Emden .
There were more of the 50 class light Decapod having Wannentender. They differed visually from the husky 44s by lanky boiler and shorter running boards with live steam pipes freely visible just before the front end of the running board . They also had larger cylinders since they were two cyl engines instead of three cyl 44s . The 44s to about 99 % all had the standard T34 tender with high water tank sides and stubby coal compartment with stays above .
As this thread is about aesthetics : The semi-cylindrical tenders (two types, the major type with various variations of course) only came into being by redesigning the 50 class for austerity mass production . That its rounded shape suited the light Decapod very well – arguably better than the standard T26 rectangular form – was an effect that turned out by itself rather than by intention . It proved a major visual characteristic of the war production 52 class Decapods , which fared much better in the years after WW-II , to became what in fact was the first European standard locomotive type – again without this having been intended by design . The ‘Gypsy Type’ as I also call the 52 for her free roaming all around Europe during the 1950s and 1960s , very much proved a unique type of steam locomotive with a ‘head of her own’ if you pardon my expression, because in many design aspects the class did not conform to the established system of German standard steam locos . Instead the 52 included various design characteristics of international origin , yet outlasted most of the standard classes and post war 5040 class Decapods . Many of the 52s never saw too much mileage on German rails before becoming damaged by war action , only to be seized by other forces and in post war years they went away never to return , finally finding home on other European railways where they were often better appreciated than back home . During the initial post-war years some locomotive builders such as Graffenstaden (France) , WLF (Austria) , Chrzanov (Poland [speak chshanov]) , Malaxa (Roumania) , and other went on to build small series of 52s anew . The Polish railway men just loved them , while at the same time hating the Germans , understandeably in view of events . Only – much to my regret – Ansaldo in Genova , Italy , manufacturer of the Italian four cylinder Pacifics , had never built 52s , although in the 1950s the works restarted steam construction for their last time with the massive 2-10-2 Ma for Greece . As in these days Greece is a lot in the news : 52s worked all the way down the Bosporus states and on CEH , while a number got even further , to TCDD – which arguably might be considered ‘gone too far’ as concerns a locomotive’s welfare in good maintenance . The Turks cut off their Witte wings , on the other hand dolled them up with folkloristic decorations and adornments – though as far as I know they didn’t have to wear headscarf when leaving (round)house .
Eh-m .. did you see any 01 class Pacifics on the Mosel line ? They were then on many express trains in that region .
Hi Juniatha: No need to apologise for your "biases". Much of our appreciation for locomotives hinges on what we were exposed to in our impressionable youth. Still there are happy discoveries to be made. I was exposed to German steam during a student tour of the Continent in 1965. To this day I can close my eyes and recall splendid memories. Perhaps my favorite was travelling through the Moselle River Valley in a big German autobus driven by a big, lead-footed German autobus driver. On the opposite side of the river, effortlessly pacing us, was a very handsome Class 44 Decapod with a long rake of coal cars tied to his wannentender. He kept up with us for miles and miles ( kilometers and kilometers? ). That was precision railroading at its absolute best. Today I model the Pennsy in HO and my layout holds at least one of every significant type they had. At train shows I keep a sharp eye out for older brass to run on my club layout. My latest find is a Southern Pacific Class AC 9 2-8-8-4 which was a very rakish conventional articulated complete with a skyline caseing and all weather cab. Not a particularly well known engine but my nomination for the handsomest Yellowstone type ever built. and yes, there is a T-1 in my stable too. In Brunswick green with a scarlet coal bunker and tender deck its hard to beat for eye appeal!
Juniatha ... the ‘large type’ ‘elephant ears’ are as the Pennsy had applied them . I have not touched that part of the picture . ... Juniatha
Okay. I asked because I have only ever seen one or two photos of the S2, including this one which does not appear to me to have the deflectors. So, they came to me as a novelty in your image above, which, as I have said, I find many times more appealing than the 'Dutch Girl" look of the front-protruding ones you depicted on the T1. I do see your point that the ones the Pennsy added to the S2 were at best notional. However, aesthetically, I am all for them.
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/turbine/prr6200.jpg
Hi Dave
The N&W really seems to have given it a try , that’s true . I recall listening as a child to one of my father’s stories , ‘the end of steam in 1949’ , part of his seemingly never ending series of ‘old times’ , I asked (off memory) “But why didn’t you go to the North-Western Folks?” meaning the N&W as I had already gathered they continued with steam . He leaned back and thought for a moment , “Because … that was a completely different group , and the writing was on the wall anyways .” As I remember he continued , those people felt like there was no-one to tell them anything about steam and the mere fact their steam locos continued while other roads’ fell was to prove them right in each and every aspect . It was obvious to him , this could only go on for so long until they would become an isolated antithesis to the general trend in railroad industry and there would be ways to stop that . Which very much was what happened a couple of years later , I believe management of the Pennsylvania had a hand in that , too .
I guess , that self-complacent attitude must have had a shrill ringing alarm when that EMD demonstrator roamed their rails , interesting to note Electro Motive had beefed it up for N&W – those managers and engineers there certainly knew precisely what they were doing and why ! I have never understood why N&W invested in steam switchers because if there is any service where there is no questioning diesel’s superiority , it is shunting with its intermittent work , highly fluctuating demand of power and emphasis on quick starting . If you ask me , I would have opted for dieselizing shunting work , branch lines and helper service – that way making continued main line steam running somewhat less provoking , maybe tolerable to sales-pressing EMD . It might have allowed steam to breathe for some more years , but once saturation of railroads with dieselization sent sales plummeting , pressure would have been raised on N&W like hunting pressure is increased on the last whales .
Last stand effort with the one unconventional C0C0-C0C0 steam turbine electric # 2300 was an ambitious effort that would have taken much more than building one prototype to develop this concept into a reliable , ready for traffic alternative . As it was , they seem to have had some success although there was trouble with electric equipment caused by unburnt coal and cinders emissions . This could have been amended by using oil-firing – however to burn coal was a center point . As with the other examples of steam turbine electrics , to make these initial trial locomotives do actual work on the road in controlled conditions probably was as much as could be expected under given conditions of limited resources and time allowed to the experiments . Namely the high-pressure steam turbine electric with condensation is about the most complex and interacting concept of all catenary-independent power using electric traction motors – that is my résumé after having spent much time and energy – though with but student’s private means – at a design of my own , as I had earlier written in another thread ( Jet Trains of Tomorrow With New Techology?
link : http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/185148.aspx?PageIndex=2 ) If made to function flawlessly , such a locomotive could be a motive power engineering prodigy – yet never ask about relation of design plus testing & improving plus construction costs to monthly ton-mile work in actual traffic ! For management of a revenue earning railroad in the 1940s , if opting for steam to continue for a limited time to come , I would have strongly recommended to stay with classic concept steam – that , however , with all improvements available to raise overall actual thermal efficiency languishing terribly low because in my view there was no exchange deal with physical laws like “I drop my engine’s efficiency and you spare me some maintenance costs”.
There were no maintenance costs to be saved by distributing unburnt coal over the road sides or by using valve gear of compromised characteristics causing high specific steam consumption that weighed in heavily on boiler thermal stresses which again increased boiler maintenance etc . What had been missed in that mindset focused on ‘low efficiency doesn’t matter because coal is cheap’ was : low actual thermal efficiency at drawbar meant low actual exploitation of heat energy conversion and since there was a limit as to how much coal per hour could be burnt on a given locomotive’s grate , low actual thermal efficiency meant low drawbar power output – and that surely was the last thing railroads wanted .
R & P : Never mind – &ldquo$1****$2happens” as was another wording of ‘Rumbling Donald’ and sure it does .
USRRA types : You are right , they were well balanced designs . As I wrote in an answer before , there sure were quite a number of classes or engine types that were worth noting , yet I have dropped them – or missed them . Actually , I had some locomotive classes I would have liked to include – I pondered dropping K-4s for J-3a , but then again you can’t seriously miss the K-4s , can’t you – maybe as much as you can’t miss the J-3a . Generally , my list – fully subject to personal preferences – concentrates on later power , both in w/a and in actual classes . So , please don’t mind my not listing the standard designs – it doesn’t mean to disregard them . The GS 4-8-4 in paint scheme bright in full sunlight sure was a piece of delight on the Daylight – no doubt . Again , my typical ‘NATO’ (North-Atlantic Tended Orientation) has lead my list to lean heavy towards East Coast RRs . I managed to avoid mixing in European steam , though . Schenectady , NY , born , for most part grown in Berlin (Ger) I hope you may pardon my biases .
E-hm – on the S-2 picture , those ‘Witte’ type smoke deflectors – or ‘small type’ as they were also called in contrast to the ‘large type’ ‘elephant ears’ are as the Pennsy had applied them . I have not touched that part of the picture . Would it have worked on any engine ? e-hm , I’m afraid .. sorry , Crandell , no they wouldn’t ; although it happened ages before I was born , I bet you the way they had slicked those 52’s deflectors to the smoke box sides it didn’t do anything . Where was the air stream supposed to enter if the plates did not stand out over the smoke box front and when there was practically no room between the inner sides of the deflectors and the smoke box drum ? I think it was a tongue-in-cheek effort to get a benefit from something without really doing it .
Well , make no bones about it : if going for yielding extra power by low pressure draughting you need wind channelling by deflectors and that means you'll have to allow for just a little bit of Veronica Laking steam .
Veronica Lake
I mean , I’m not talking of Janis Joplining
Janis Joplin
like the Pennsy did with this-here
K-4s 5030
– although , ok , in my style it's perhaps a little bit more like Lindsey Vonning steam .
Lindsey Vonn - queen of world ski racers
Juniatha S-2 with Witte smoke deflectors as put on by Pennsy . By size and shape these could really have been spares obtained from a 52 class light Decapod , or almost ; however they can hardly have worked that way , mounted ‘directly’ to the smokebox sides . 6200 on diet after my quick chirurgical job of running board straightening and tender bottom lifting (weight watchers anonymous) and yes I lifted some smoke , too .
Now THAT works for me!!! And I appreciate the lesson that went before it, Juniatha. Thanks very much! Would those more modest 'flaps' work on the T1?
Hi Juniatha: Arrrrgh.... You caught me out! Now that I've read some of your comments I'll know better than to spout off without rechecking my sources (Yves Broncard, The Last Steam Locomotives of France, 1977 ). Meanwhile, scanning your lists of favorites, I'm interested that you didn't include any of the USRA locomotives. H. Stafford Bryant, Jr. once wrote a slim volume extolling the virtues and aesthetics of these most American products ( The Georgian Locomotive, Weathervane Books, New york, 1962 ). He stressed their harmonious proportions, refined use of standardized components and mechanical excellence. Perhaps the Southern Railway was the most creative parton of this type and their apple green Pacifics and Mountains were the stuff of legend. One survives today in the Locomotive Hall of the Smithsonian and it is truly a thing of beauty. My own esthetic favorites are admittedly offbeat but I grew up in Oakland, CA in the '40's and 50's and I still enjoy the sight of silver smokebox fronts, headlights mounted just below center, Vanderbuilt tenders and skyline casings. The GS series Daylights in full warpaint are hard to beat for sheer beauty on the rails but even a humble Harriman Consolidation holds a place of honor in my mind's eye. Meanwhile, Your little prod will remind me to keep my alphabet letters straight!
The valient and most successful North American effort to keep modern steam running was definitely the N&W's effort, which involved modern locomotives, admittadly not including all European advances in efficiency, but then there is always the trade-off between fuel efficiency and maintenance. But they did take a total approach to the problem, includig sevicing and maintenance. They got their feet wet with diesels with the coal-strike Southern E-unit runthorughs on passenger trains, then bought some GP-7's of -9's or replace 4-8-0's on branches, and then finally went the whole way with the massive GP-9 total conversion order. At that point steam lost, and not really until then.
In 1952 EMD sent N&W a four-unit F-7 A-B-B-A demosntrator, with souped-up diesels (actually I believe advance F-9-GP-9 prime movers) for 6100HP total. The only orders that followed were the branch line replacements. Interstingly, about the same time, the N&W bought surplus 0-8-0 modern switchers from the C&O which was dieselizing its switcher operations, something the N&W did not do until total dieslization.
The F-7 demosntrator was painted UP colors and went to the UP after demonstration on the N&W.
Well , the J isn't that long - I mean the ‘North Folk's and Western’ J – more of a body-builder locomotive. Actually , the PRR T-1 isn't all that long , if you come to think that half the length is just high capacity tender of approx same mass , loaded , as engine and of same number of axles –
and that brings us to your remark >> an improvement? <<
I could have included technical improvements , but I confined depicted changes to appearance , since entering into the field of technical changes – although confining considerations strictly to technology known to steam loco design in 1945 , to be sure ! – would have considerably intensified the overall changes applied and it would have mixed two sides that I believe should go together in a good design , however I wanted to keep apart for this discussion – except for one point , which was to trim down tender loaded mass to allow for using 2 x 6 wheel bogies to relieve engine from 1/4 of former tender dead mass to pull at speed .
As it was , the T-1 was an example of the price paid in performance loss for low overall thermal efficiency , composed of low combustion efficiency , worsened by low thermo-dynamic cylinder efficiency and low draughting efficiency (since the lower the latter two , the higher steaming demand and even higher coal consumption super-increasing mainly because of degrading combustion efficiency , increasing unburnt losses – by the way this again caused further costs through higher maintenance costs since higher thermal stresses on boilers lead to super-increased amount of work necessary on staybolts replacements , tubes and firebox tube plate foundation ring and other critical parts of the Stephensonian concept boiler) . Especially , fast running passenger engine suffered severely from excessive tender mass necessary to compensate high consumption rates with low thermal efficiency , since tractive effort at speed was not high for a given output - not even at 6500 ihp . Because the rolling resistance grew with speed , both factors of the power equation - speed and traction effort - grew at the same time with heavier tenders and with higher speeds and that meant a radical increase of power lost from cylinders to traction bar at higher speeds .
That is why with freight trains of 12000 tons , like the ones taken by the J-1 and Q-2 class on the Sandusky line , sixteen wheel tenders didn't matter much and locos could even take auxiliaries water tenders if that avoided water stops – not so in passenger traffic . The Pennsy had learned that when they tried twelve wheel tenders on some K-4s but obviously had believed the problem would ease with stronger engines that just had the power to pull heavy tender plus heavy train . While that was true , the fact seems to have gotten somewhat blurred , such engines consumed again more water and coal and thus tended to resolve the problem but incompletely – if on a generally higher level of traction work . True , the Pennsy made an effort at improved cylinder efficiency with Franklin poppet valves – however , without due adjacent improvements there wasn’t much to be gained . Strengthening but one link in a weak chain can never supply a full answer to a problem – a simple fact , yet all to often ignored in efforts to improve the steam locomotive’s efficiency .
Where such single-focussed attempts met with wide spread attitude to existing technology like “It might help , but we can’t use it ‘cause it’s foreign” results of trials had to be disappointing and all to often caused resignation to keep bearing down the same hammer on the anvil until the hammer wore out – which pretty much was the case for US steam in 1945 – 49 .
This is generally agreed as ‘the critical four years post-war period’ , although , as my late father had told me , memorizing professional life in steam loco construction during this period , the diesel’s full implementations introducing imminent and far reaching changes to railroad and locomotive business only became evident in hindsight while during the actual time being many of those working with or for steam had continued for years largely missing to perceive the ‘writing on the wall’ or (to quote my father’s saying) “The New Day Dawning” with the diesels ante portas ; or they didn’t realize full momentum of the situation , firmly believing “steam can never be replaced as a mainstay of railroad traction” and would some way somehow just survive the diesel onslaught . if in future parting traction with the new power .
One misconception popular during the initial years , he said , was to belief the diesels would only take over passenger service ; later it was still believed diesels would be too expensive for every-day low fare bulk freight traffic .
It is only by difficulty of getting a clear overall view on implementations of radical changes when living in the very time when they actually happen , it can be understood how in search for an answer to steam’s ‘life-threatening’ question of the time , as late as 1949 Lima could come up with offering extensions of arguably marginal importance to existing design path such as a double Belpaire firebox , enlarged over six trailing truck wheels in an eight coupled power configuration with a 4-10-2 super tender , i e yet more carrying axles with still the same number of driven axles as in a dual purpose medium driver dia 4-8-4 – enlarging yet again on what such power as the Greenbriar , N&W J , you name them , already had in abundance – i e steam – while not adding a pound to what was desperately needed : starting tractive effort which really was steam's Achilles' heel . The Lima 4-8-6 offered a great (superb?) machine in categories of steam’s Super Power – only , those categories had become obsolete , the proposal did not answer actual demands . It was a classic case of engineering having failed to ask the right question and thus having formidably missed the mark .
Not before the last efforts of what was then put high hopes on as ‘modernization of steam’ – in hindsight rather isolated re-animation attempts of steam in coma – had faltered until 1953 did the last of unwavering steam promoters among engineers concede the battle was lost .
Since then , there have been many more examples of blindness of professionals in various industries or economy to big changes coming up “because things will never change from what they are since that’s the way it has always been” , see IBM , see Lehman Bros , see General Motors , see examples enough in ‘Old Europe’ too .
S-2 with Witte smoke deflectors as put on by Pennsy .
By size and shape these could really have been spares
obtained from a 52 class light Decapod , or almost ;
however they can hardly have worked that way ,
mounted ‘directly’ to the smokebox sides .
6200 on diet after my quick chirurgical job of
running board straightening and tender bottom lifting
(weight watchers anonymous)
and yes I lifted some smoke , too .
To Dave K: Isn't it interesting that some roads, and the engines that ran on them seem to get more notice than others? Certainly, the New Haven's I-5 was a great looking engine, but the Delaware and Hudson had some good lookers as well, and don't seem to get a lot of mention. I've got a theory, and I'd like to know what you think. that the further a road gets from a major metropolitan area, say New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles and such the less publicity it gets and less railfan attention. I know the New Haven ran into NYC, but with electrics, which didn't excite too many people. The D&H was way up New York State way, with it's engines running in, well, maybe obscurity is too strong a word, but with less attention than say if they ran from Philly across New Jersey to Jersey City or Hoboken. Norfolk and Western certainly got a lot of attention, but I think that had a lot to do with them being the last major steam citadel. Again, I'd like to know what you think.
I like your T-1. Improvement? Just different. Still like the N&W J and the NYNH&H I-5 better.
YOu like the J better than the I-5 because the I-5 isn't long enough for your tastes. Figured that out.
Hi, Juniatha! Yes, I think that T-1 looks waaaaay cool! You'll probably get more feedback from the various posters on this topic. At this time (20:30 hours EST on a Sunday ) and at the tail end of a weekend when most folks are out doing other things I wouldn't expect to see too much. As the week starts there'll probably be more comments on the T-1 Dash 2. And of course, others are still probably in a state of shock! Still cool, though!
Hi Firelock Thank you for a more differentiated view on my work and for your appreciation . I wrote with a sense of foreboding that the result of my changes in two versions , without / with smoke deflectors , may come as a shock to some people . This is understandable if you come to think of the situation being very different for me as the one who has evolved her ideas on steam loco looks along thoughts about both technical engineering and engine aesthetical design – after all this was what enabled me to do these modification pictures in one afternoon – and an viewer who without knowing anything about that evolutionary process is confronted with the result without having a minimum of introduction and time to adapt . The two versions are about as far as I could go with a limited amount of spare time to spend on it . Yet , I posted it , hoping for a topic oriented , more profound discussion on steam loco aesthetic values ; although I was aware that my expectations might be a bit optimistic I had actually hoped one of the gentlemen would have the grit to put up a proposal of his own and we could then discuss relative virtues . Frankly , at least taking a closer look and explaining one's critics as to which points and why would be have been only fair . Shucks – tant pis ! Regards Juniatha
Hi Firelock
Thank you for a more differentiated view on my work and for your appreciation .
I wrote with a sense of foreboding that the result of my changes in two versions , without / with smoke deflectors , may come as a shock to some people . This is understandable if you come to think of the situation being very different for me as the one who has evolved her ideas on steam loco looks along thoughts about both technical engineering and engine aesthetical design – after all this was what enabled me to do these modification pictures in one afternoon – and an viewer who without knowing anything about that evolutionary process is confronted with the result without having a minimum of introduction and time to adapt .
The two versions are about as far as I could go with a limited amount of spare time to spend on it .
Yet , I posted it , hoping for a topic oriented , more profound discussion on steam loco aesthetic values ; although I was aware that my expectations might be a bit optimistic I had actually hoped one of the gentlemen would have the grit to put up a proposal of his own and we could then discuss relative virtues . Frankly , at least taking a closer look and explaining one's critics as to which points and why would be have been only fair .
Shucks – tant pis !
Continuing this great discussion on esthetics, I think we have to go back, way-way back to a class most of us have forgotten, the 4-4-0 type of the Civil War era, or more correctly from the 1850's through the 1870's. As far as pure class and elegance I don't think anything since has come close. These machines looked more like pieces of jewelry than workhorses, but workhorses is what they were. A perfect reflection of their time, when the philosophy was "Anything that works well, looks well, for beauty and utility are one in the mind of God!"
The paintwork, the brasswork, the decoration up to and including gold leaf I suspect may also have been intended to make a public who may have been frightened by this new technology just a little more comfortable with it. People are always uneasy with things they don't understand, look at nuclear energy in our own time. Making all that power attractive (Hey! Come on up! Look at me! Don't be afraid!) would certainly have helped acceptance. And of course in no time at all the "steamcars" became the best show in town, and a free one at that! Yes, it's hard to beat the old 4-4-0's, too bad more haven't survived.
I just looked at Juniatha's evolution of the T-1 scenario. Wow. Oh, wow! Forget the Deutsche Reichsbahn, it looks more like "Pennsy meets 'Star Wars'"! I could imagine Darth Vader leaning out the cab window and the whistle blowing the opening bars of the "Darth Vader March"! But you know, each improvement is logical and functionally correct. It all makes perfect sense, and I imagine the Pennsy enginemen who ran the T-1 would have apprciated those smoke delectors, as I've read the T-1's were a smokey engine to run and the crews did have a problem with dirty cabs and visibility, not to mention breathing. I can see how a steam traditionalist might have a problem with this, but todays Sci-Fi fans would love it! Hey, the more steam fans out there the better! I'll have more to say on esthetics later, but now I got to cut the grass, whack the weeds, and catch my breath.
I have to say, to be frank, that aesthetically, in my opinion. this is not an improvement. I won't dispute that it may have helped visibility, but only for the cab crew.
I much prefer the lines of the later Duplex, and not the Decco version with the bulls-eye a la Buick ports along the front side fairing. To me, the later look evokes power and purpose, even though it was an odd and unique design.
Locomotive aesthetics is pretty subjective, so take my thoughts as you will. The smoke deflectors make the T1 look like it was exported to PRR from the Deutsche Reichsbahn. The running board and tender stripe look borrowed from N&W, a distinct PRR image might be preferred. Restoring the cylinder covers is a positive, though.
Ok, I’ve done It ! I ‘threatened’ it and now here it is .
As for Jim's original question – locomotive appearance was largely defined by contemporary styling – although in most cases it was claimed to be strictly functional – and to national preferences . Where broader views were applied , I feel it has helped both technical virtues and visual appearance and the results often were advancements of the steam locomotive . With the advantage of retrospect view , I have applied some modification to Loewy’s sheet metal art , joining American art and engineering with some European visual aspects .
A - But first let’s have a look at the T-1 , second version , the one I call ‘Altoona version’ to distinguish from the original Loewy style with front cylinders hidden in his Art Deco skirt or fake motor hood complete with Buick style bull eyes (hinting a V6 engine hidden underneath !?) that saw some modifications in construction before production had ended all too soon . The photo shows a T-1 in their later and belated rather wanting condition with poppet valve gear covers missing , overall dirty condition and shrouding section taken away from tender top next to water tank lids . Sorry , I have no further information on the location (Englewood?) and don’t know the photographer or else I would happily have credited him .
B - Well then , this here shows my changes to appearance – non technical modification only – with straight and slightly reduced in depth running board valances , cab with cab side and window flush (in the original design it stands angled out) , no tender shrouding behind coal compartment , lower edge of water tank raised and rounded , dispensing with the water legs along sides and returning to two six wheel bogies with reduced mass of tender . Up front I trimmed the ‘handbag’ with auxiliaries and the side valances with steps connecting running board to front buffer beam . The rectangular number box standing canted within the Loewy wedge I replaced with a box having round ends and mounted flush with the wedge and last not least I reapplied the covers to the cylinders (this latter not just for aesthetic reasons but with the delicate mechanism it was vital to protect against abrasives emitted by the engine’s exhaust) .
C - A word on smoke deflectors :
Functional purpose of smoke deflectors was to keep exhaust mixture of steam and gases clear of locomotive to avoid obstruction to view as well as to minimize cinder hazards to crew outlook and besides that reduce self-induced staining of steam locomotives . Importance of smoke deflectors increased with traveling speed , with shorter cut-off running and with more complete exploit of exhaust steam energy for draughting which left less energy in exhaust mixture for lifting off . This was realized by keeping air stream tighter to boiler sides to prohibit exhaust mixture to be dragged down by low pressure zones around the boiler , namely about the front half of its length . For that purpose , the deflector plates were curved like sails to capture the air stream and keep it to boiler sides . Namely the lower edge was rolled-in for that purpose while air stream was allowed to overflow upper edge to a certain extend .
The lower edge of Witte wings was generally made slightly sloping down towards the front – with but very few exceptions to the rule in more coarse applications . You may ask why ? Well , frankly I think it just looks better as it accentuates the ‘forward look’ . But of course there was a strictly functional reason given in DB papers on introduction of Witte wings , which was : the rolled-in lower edge is made to stand in line with drivers view from cab so the deflector’s longitudinal shadow is minimized . That way – as I can confirm from cab rides on 52 class Decapod engines equipped with these deflectors – obstruction to forward view is only small and was generally felt acceptable by loco crews .
Ok , here she comes – the T-1 with Witte smoke deflectors :
The visual changes I made to the T-1 locomotive are aimed at smoothening appearance , accentuating unity of engine and tender and adding dynamic vigor , namely to upper front as to balance with the given rather massive lower part that used to contrast with the rakish wedge theme of the smoke box . Wind deflecting function of the Witte wings should have been very effective with that sideways wind splitting front end shrouding .
Position and length of deflectors – or wings as I prefer to call them – are arranged to make them appear in line with boiler top from a near-by viewer’s position , this way extending the top silhouette line . To do that , they are actually positioned nearly around the boiler center line , height of their sheets being about same as radius of boiler incl cladding . In accordance with the front treatment I have modified the cab to have slightly folded sides with planes slanted around window , vertical below . Again , I can say from my own experience this noticeably eases look out forwards along cab side snuggly resting ellbow on window board as was the habitual international posture of steam crews – night or day , sunshine or rain – in spite of just as international railroads warnings not to do that (in France , resigning railways provided biker goggles to crews while in Germany window frames were equipped with little wind breaking glass shields that only made drivers lean out further to look around them) .
Well , there she goes , into the twilight of steam … I know – a Pennsy Duplex with Witte wings may come like a bit of a shock to some people – never mind , just have another look at some later time .
I can understand your liking the Niagra. In order to fit Eastern clearances the design had to be smoothed, with low flat long and wide domes instead of high cicular domes, rounded side corners of the cab roof, etc. I think it is a good visiual design, as well as very fine locomotive despite my preference for the J. But I also like the Ripley designed Sante Fe locomotives, which don't quite make it for you. Is it the European influence that makes you prefer the Niagra?
I rode behind Niagras lots of times, on the Empire State, Wolv erine, Laurentian, and other trains. But I never rode behind a Ripley 4-8-4 (or 4-6-4), because by the time I got to ride to the West Coast and Texas points, the AT&SF had dieselized. The nearest type was a number of rides behind the CB&Q O-4 5632 in excursion and charter service. Q steam, like the PRR, had a visual signature all its own. Charming but not beautiful. Like the K-4.
I think you also would prefer the K-4 to the E-6. I don't but think they are both charming but not beautiful. The E-6 even more charming than the K-4. And the PRR D-16 is really my favorite 4-4-0. It is beautiful and elegant.
Dave and Big Jim
As for New Haven I-5 Hudson and Norfolk & Western J class – I can fully appreciate your choice and after all it’s left to you to define your preferences . I’m sure there will be quite a number of further locomotive types people would consider top ranking – what I have posted is just my personal subjective evaluation .
It’s like with music – some like Norah Jones , some like Connie Dover – of the old Warriors of Rock some liked the Doors , some liked Deep Purple . Here's one allegoric for steam - or for finding out which one it was ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.