My vote is on the N&W's Y6a locomotives, how many are left? The only one I can think of is the #2156, in St. Louis. Powerful, versatile, and very handsome. Look up a picture. Of course this is only my opinion. I have other steamers I'd like to see running, ones higher up on my list.
Thing is, in these type of discussions, we all have favorites. Another thing is that the "best" would have to be used in a certain area. Big Boys are over-rated in my opinion. Do I still like them? Yes. Sure they were big, but no where near the most powerful. The image of Big Boy seems to be immortalized. And not to mention 4014 is coming back.
In terms of what would be the "best" articulated to pull excursions, It would have to be popular, to fill seats, and strong, to pull a lot of seats. In terms, to have a steamer be out for long, it has to be funded, the best way is to sell seats, you can't sell seats unless people like the steamer pulling it.
erikem Does that make Espee's GS-4 a "William T. Sherman" in steel??? (He did spend a lot of time in California)
Does that make Espee's GS-4 a "William T. Sherman" in steel??? (He did spend a lot of time in California)
Nah, more like a George Patton. Sherman wasn't flashy, and Patton WAS from California!
I'll say this much, I've seen films of Niagaras in action, and the raw power of the things were just awe-inspiring, almost frightening as a matter of fact. And that's on film! I can only imagine what it was like seeing one "in the flesh."
The N&W's J is a fine Southern Gentleman, a "Robert E. Lee in steel" if you will. A Niagara is a "Ulysses S. Grant" in full battering ram mode!
Reply to an earlier posting. I only rode behind an N&W J once, asleep in the NY-Norfolk sleeper, between Petersburg and Norfolk, but I was able to admire the locomotive when I detrained in Norfolk. I rode behind Niagras probably around five or six times, going between New York and Detroit, with the Niagras used between Harmon and Buffalo. It is also a fine locomotive, without doubt, and I would have been very happy if one had been saved, just as happy as if a J-3a or J-1a (Hudsons) had been saved. But the J was occasionalliy used to power freight, and the Niagra very seldom. The streamlining of the J made it a better match for the lightweight Powatan Arrow than the Niagra, a handsome unstreamlined locomotive, was with the New England States or the Century. I've said before that the J, the Daylight, and the New Haven I-5 are the best in the streamlining department, better in my opinion than the Dryfuss or Loewy jobs, although all these are way better than inverted bathtubs.
The Niagra probably looked great on the New England States when it was an all-heavyweight Pullman train before 1948. Note, again, they did not normally run east of Albany on the B&M, where Mowkawks or J-2 Hudsons (on lighter trains) took over.
I have found this thread to be quite a lot of fun. We've managed to wander all over, through super power, overseas midgets, fighter planes, Pennsy power and back. The H-6 came up when it seemed that the most practical engine for typical excursion length trains might be close to topic. Now it looks like we might get a chance to see that one steam.
CSSHEGEWISCH, even as a non-steam guy, surely you must find this pretty exciting! I do, and I'm not even a big engine person and as for compounds, I tend to be simple.
I have no real interest in steam locomotives since the only steam that I saw in daily service were NKP Berkshires which were gone by the time I was 6. What I find amusing about this whole thread are the various claims about a "best" articulated based on some outstanding performance characteristic which was atypical of daily service and automatically excludes such types as the C&O H-6 which performed quite well in the service for which it was designed. The various claims are academic at best since steam locomotives were gone from daily service by 1960 except for a few odd short lines and industrial switchers.
Best articulated?
Beyer Garratt
What are the chances of buying one used from Africa or India and running it on US rails?
Kevin
ACYA note about the B&O's EM-1's: They were capable of passenger train speeds and proved it on mail trains until 7625 turned over at speed at Oakland, MD. B&O stopped using them in passenger service after that, even though the cause of the wreck was an overturned rail, and was not attributed to anything associated with the locomotive itself. I don't know what speeds the EM-1's were capable of, but they could really step along in the right territory, with the right train. If their drivers had been larger than 64", they might have done even better in the higher speed ranges. B&O couldn't have operated anything bigger without rebuilding the railroad, so it's not really fair to dismiss them as the smallest 2-8-8-4's (which they were). In the great scheme of things, they were not small engines at all, and were quite capable.
EM-1s were capable of 75-80 mph operation without trying hard. Back in the 1970's, I had numerous conversations with B&O operating personal (some retired, some still working), who ran those engines on the Pittsburgh main. They told me, to the person, that the EM-1 never ran out of steam, never ran out of power, and rode like a big old Cadillac. Which could get you into trouble if you were not careful, because you were moving a lot faster than it appeared. The EM-1 was so powerful at high speed, the B&O was able to replace double headed 4-8-2 powered express trains with one EM-1.
64" drivers on a freight engine are plenty big enough if things are well balanced. The 611 and 614 are both good for over 100 mph operation with their 70" and 72" drivers.
I always get a laugh at people labeling the EM-1 as the "smallest" 2-8-8-4. They were not small by any stretch of the imagination. They were the lightest of the 2-8-8-4 wheel arraignment (628,000 lb engine weight), but they were also the most modern and best engineered version.
Besides, I don't know if you can really compare them to the other 2-8-8-4's. EM-1 were technically not Yellowstones. They shared the same wheel arraignment, but had a different design purpose, and were a different locomotive. The B&O did not want a drag freight locomotive. They needed something to pull existing trains faster to free up line capacity. The B&O was well aware of what other railroads were getting out of 4-6-6-4 Challenger types, and what the N&W was getting out of the 2-6-6-4 Class A. They also knew that a x-6-6-x wasn't going to work on their severe grades. When they were turned down by the War Production Board for new EMDs, they proposed a design to Baldwin that had the speed of a Challenger type, but would be more sure footed on a hard pull. The EM-1 was not a rehash of the 2-8-8-4s that Baldwin built for the DM&IR, but an entirely new design with a completely different purpose in mind.
CSSHEGEWISCH C&O provides some pretty good examples. The H-6's were their last new steam locomotives, and they were well-designed for their service, heavy-haul and low-speed mine runs. The H-8's were designed by Lima for higher speeds, similar to N&W A's, but wound up being misused mostly in low-speed drag-freight service.
C&O provides some pretty good examples. The H-6's were their last new steam locomotives, and they were well-designed for their service, heavy-haul and low-speed mine runs. The H-8's were designed by Lima for higher speeds, similar to N&W A's, but wound up being misused mostly in low-speed drag-freight service.
That is not entirely correct about the H-8's. If you look at their entire service area on the C&O, there was plenty of areas where they operated at speeds they were designed for. The only place they operated at "drag speed" was the climb up the Allegheny Front. They were also used extensively on faster general merchandise trains. The N&W and B&O faced the same issue with the Class A and EM-1. They had to grunt it out up and over the mountains, but once over the grades, they could open up and operate in the thick of their power curves.
I have video showing the slow stately Y's chuffing mightily up the Blue Ridge at barely more than a human's jogging speed while A Classes charged past in a flash. True, they were sometimes pressed into a drag roll, but they were at least as often used to move fast freight, and right smartly did they do it.
-Crandell
wjstixFor example the N&W 2-6-6-4s were great engines, but had fairly large drivers allowing them to run at high speeds, like on a fast freight or passenger train. However, they spent their careers on slow coal trains, where smaller drivers probably would have worked better.
.
Overmod Getting back to the original question -- and taking note of a recent development: The answer to a "one large articulated" question is going to depend heavily on the anticipated service, and the practicality of achieving the anticipated service effectively with the 'target' locomotive.
Getting back to the original question -- and taking note of a recent development:
The answer to a "one large articulated" question is going to depend heavily on the anticipated service, and the practicality of achieving the anticipated service effectively with the 'target' locomotive.
That's the problem comparing engines, you have to factor in what it was designed for, and how well it met that need. For example the N&W 2-6-6-4s were great engines, but had fairly large drivers allowing them to run at high speeds, like on a fast freight or passenger train. However, they spent their careers on slow coal trains, where smaller drivers probably would have worked better.
Firelock76The Niagara was a superb piece of machinery for the NYC's uses, how it would have performed on any other 'road than "The Water Level Route" is open to conjecture.
Not much conjecture: it would have performed as a 6000 hp locomotive on any railroad that could use the high-speed horsepower. Might have been some additional pin fractures on roads with a sawtooth profile, but that will probably remain a supposition. Two areas of concern would be the lack of booster (relatively easily remedied) and the sensitivity of the domeless boiler to level changes and water carryover on grades (less easily remedied without adding a dome, or raising the steam separators somehow). Just because the locomotive was built to fit restricted clearances does not make it unfit on roads with larger ones...
Best all around 4-8-4 would probably have been something closer to the PRR assessment after testing the J class, perhaps with 76" drivers and Double Belpaire... somewhat similar in dimensions to the C&NW class H Zeppelins. Which themselves were interestingly great locomotives, both before and after their rebuilding...
Back to articulateds.
Not much of a chance CSX will let that 2-6-6-2 out for a romp on the mainline, at least not for the forseeable future. In fact it's going to be flatcarred out to the WM Scenic for the restoration process, which answered my own concerns as to how it was going to get out there to begin with considering CSX's "no antiques" policy. NOT picking on CSX mind you, it's their 'road, they call the shots.
Keep in mind DaveK called the N&W's Class J the best "all-around" 4-8-4. The Niagara was a superb piece of machinery for the NYC's uses, how it would have performed on any other 'road than "The Water Level Route" is open to conjecture.
The recent announcement regarding C&O 1309 is a good example of how a comparatively modest articulated may provide a significant improvement to a particular operation. Likewise the UP restoration of 4014 ... which had not yet been determined when this thread started ... illustrates some different aspects.
Keep in mind that the cost of restoring a locomotive to operating condition and then keeping it in that condition, and then operating it, has to be recovered, from corporate-level support, donations, or from operations revenue of some kind. In my opinion, all discussions of this thread's general kind should contain this information.
Once that has been addressed, the issue of where the locomotive can be run arises. (Note that this often involves how the locomotive will get to and from the location it will run.) This should probably be decided, and perhaps contractually nailed down, before an operating restoration for excursion service takes place.
Just on the remote chance that CSX would ever let her out on their rails; does any C&O-phile out there know what the maximum authorized speed for H-6 class 2-6-6-2 is? I don't think the Western Maryland Scenic runs over 20mph, but maybe 35ish for mainline service?
Mr. Daveklepper: I'm surprised that a New Yorker wouldn't have a Niagara on his list!
Recappping what I have written earlier: Best articulated, both the N&W A and Y6, each for its purposes. Best all-around non-articulated, N&W J. Best non-articulated freight: AT&SF Ripley-designed 2-10-4.
My opinion for what ever it is worth.
ACY: You're quite welcome. I would love to help you with the EM-1, but I had already allocated all my winnings to rebuild K4s 1361 and build a superheated full size reproduction of W.W.&F. #4. Unfortunately, I didn't even get a free ticket. What are the odds? My only hope is the royalties from the egg thing, but the patent lawyer isn't returning my calls.
Perhaps I have expanded this topic as far as use can be wrought from it, but it sure will be great to see steam used twice in the east for the first time since 1960!
Paul Milenkovic I believe Wardale that the changing weight with consumables is a non-issue on a Garratt as it is on a Diesel with a belly fuel tank.
I believe Wardale that the changing weight with consumables is a non-issue on a Garratt as it is on a Diesel with a belly fuel tank.
The problem is the torque peakiness on the reciprocating engines. Diesel TMs have relatively even torque, and the fuel load is a relatively small percentage of the overall weight carried in the center of the locomotive. The Garratt has the consumable weight representing most of the actual adhesive weight on the outer ends of the frame; asking the equalization to carry the load from the inner Garratt pivots is not going to work as the frame itself is what 'cocks' with the weight disparity. The situation on a Mallet-Garratt, of course, is substantially worse, as the equalization isn't carried through the intermediate pivots and Alco-style control of the outer engines might result in too stiff a vertical compliance.
I have seen concerns over the need to de-rate North-American-scale Garratts relative to fuel/water consumption in too many places to believe it's an old wive's tale. Mr. Wardale himself mentions the relative importance of normalizing the weight on engine units (see for example p.406 of the Red Devil).
My big concern is the long steam lines. The throttle lag could be cured by "front end throttles" closer to the cylinders. What is more difficult to cure is the power and efficiency robbing pressure drop, both in admission and exhaust, of the long steam lines. I guess you can cure the admission problem with a big steam chest near the cylinders, but how do you solve the exhaust back pressure problem -- automobile-style tuned exhaust "headers"?
Long steamlines are no longer a heat-loss issue, now that we have multiple-shield aerogel insulation. If there is really a concern about these, they can be preheated via the same sort of tracer lines used to keep the cylinder blocks hot under their insulation.
Yes, you can use Wagner throttles with servo control (as on the ACE 3000) to produce the appearance of snappy throttle response, although in my opinion throttle action is already a bit too fast (particularly when requiring high force to move the main front-end throttle off the starting poppet) with respect to slip induction. I'd prefer to see some form of slower loading that assured proportionality -- perhaps this could be done via fluidics with the Wagner throttles...
The exhaust back-pressure 'problem' is partly handled with very large, proportionally expanding profile exhaust plena. You can 'tune' the header for a bit of pulse extraction, but remember that the "gas" involved is two-phase exhaust steam: rarefy it and it nucleates; compress it and it superheats. So in my view the normal scavenge mechanics doesn't work the way it does with IC engines.
Note that locomotives work just fine with relatively large back pressure... in fact, it makes recovery from slipping more positive. You design around it, and try to compensate by using the exhaust steam energy effectively in the Rankine cycle.
The Meyer locomotive is often depicted with the cylinders facing inwards rather than outwards as on a Garratt, but I am thinking the Garratt's first loco had inward facing cylinders underneath the water tender and coal bunker.
Of course, there are reasons why every successful Meyer, and every Garratt after the first one, has had the cylinders facing relatively outboard! If the cylinders are inboard, adjacent to the firebox, maintenance there becomes an everlasting pain... and that's just one reason to avoid; getting steamlines in and out of that space requires the sort of approach used for the rear cylinders on the PRR Q1, but now with flexible and slip jointing...
Trust me -- you want the cylinders facing out! Heat and pressure loss can be dealt with. Poor DFM, not so much... ;-}
The other big Garratt advantage is the unobstructed fire grate and ash space. I could go for Meyer-style inward facing cylinders if it can shorten the steam lines. But the unobstructed grate is a big deal for things like the Gas Producer Combustion System or related efforts.
For all intents and purposes, a Meyer firebox and a Garratt firebox can be identical in depth and GA; they both have no required structure under them. The Garratt has a slight advantage if manifolding for Cunningham circulators is to be provided at the throat, but increasing the Meyer wheelbase even slightly provides room in that area. Note that Wardale's 'final' proposal for ACE (what he calls the 'Mark 1-C') is much more a Meyer than it is a Garratt. Shortening the absolute wheelbase of the locomotive is very desirable for most North American services that would use these locomotives (for example, on coal trains that are effectively siding-limited).
Unobstructed grate is relatively LESS important for GPCS, as you want to limit the primary air going through, and provision of the required 'process steam' can easily be made around or through truck or frame structure. But there is little question that allowing the greatest possible vertical space between grate and crown is significant, as is having an easily-serviced ashpan (with ashaveyors that don't involve convoluted paths or required air blasts). I suspect that the arrangement found on the N&W TE-1, with side-opening doors near rail level, might be a preferred configuration for either a Meyer or Garratt.
Overmod A principal problem is the fuel and water required for 'American-scale' operation. Garratts lose adhesive weight on drivers as they use fuel and water. The water issue can be handled by pumping from a trailing aux tender ... but then the useful length goes way up. There are technical ways of getting fuel forward from trailing cars (I have developed a couple) but it's difficult to 'sell' them in practice. Yes, there are some issues with the long steam lines, but nothing I think is particularly fatal. Engine crews would need to learn about slower throttle (and cutoff) adjustment, but 'special technique' is also needed for other flavors of modern engine, particularly unconjugated duplex-drives. I do believe that a Meyer configuration is better suited to North American requirements than a Garratt, but will not induce MEGO syndrome (another form of sleep disorder?) by going into it here. RME
A principal problem is the fuel and water required for 'American-scale' operation. Garratts lose adhesive weight on drivers as they use fuel and water. The water issue can be handled by pumping from a trailing aux tender ... but then the useful length goes way up. There are technical ways of getting fuel forward from trailing cars (I have developed a couple) but it's difficult to 'sell' them in practice.
Yes, there are some issues with the long steam lines, but nothing I think is particularly fatal. Engine crews would need to learn about slower throttle (and cutoff) adjustment, but 'special technique' is also needed for other flavors of modern engine, particularly unconjugated duplex-drives.
I do believe that a Meyer configuration is better suited to North American requirements than a Garratt, but will not induce MEGO syndrome (another form of sleep disorder?) by going into it here.
RME
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I'm sure you've all read that Western Maryland Scenic is going to restore and use C&O 1309, the 2-6-6-2 from the B&O museum. I like to think they got the idea from my posting from last year. Of course, I also like to think that I have this weeks lottery numbers and that I invented the cheese omlette.
I will definitely make a trip to Cumberland to watch that one run!.
wattleI appreciate the big Americans were good and enjoy hearing about them dut I wonder if a garret built to the same scale would be more useful . I
The monster Garratt (note both spelling and capitalization, please) was discussed in Trains in the '70s, and is one of the 'timeless topics' on the Yahoo group 'steam_tech' (where I would refer you for discussions that are far more involved than would be tolerated for long on this forum!)
I appreciate the big Americans were good and enjoy hearing about them dut I wonder if a garret built to the same scale would be more useful . In Africa they did amazing jobs both at tractive effort and speed considering track standards. In Queensland I know of one comment from an engine man that you had to make throttle changes a minute before necessary because of the length of the steam passages.
Gentlemen, check out who's back on "What steam we haven't seen." Not going to tell you, it'll spoil the surprise.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.