Hello Overmod. Yes, the standard branchline locomotives were the 4-8-0's, the "Mastodons" as they were called. These had been mainline engines downgraded to the branches when the bigger and better stuff became available.
When the N&W began dieselizing in the early to mid-fifties it was on the branch lines where it started, the Mastodons were coming to the end of their useful lives and no other smallish engines were available.
Assuming no diesels, I'd expect they might have been replaced with homebuilt modern 2-8-0's, or modern six-coupled types. But of course that didn't happen.
By the way, the Strasburg Railroad has a real-live-honest-to-goodness Mastodon on the roster, the only one operating in the country.
Don't you just love that name "Mastodon"? Only "Wooly Mammoth" would have been more colorful!
Another interesting question is what would have been used on the heavier branches, the ones served by the 2-6-6-2s. The very last new steam locomotive built by Baldwin was a 2-6-6-2, to a very old fundamental design but with some modern 'conveniences'. Would a similar locomotive based on the Z class be an ongoing solution? Would it be given the full roller bearing treatment for ease of maintenance, or would longer-life versions of plain bearings be chosen instead? What sorts of servicing arrangements would be made for them?
I had thought the 'standard' light branchline engines were the 4-8-0s. I would think an eight-coupled engine would be about the 'lightest' that would be used for any branch service on N&W; modern truck design ought to allow a 2-8-0, perhaps with lead-truck parts in common with the larger classes. I had the impression N&W did not have (substantial) trouble with reverse moves by the 4-8-0s, so it might not be necessary to go to a formal 2-8-2 to get adequate reverse guiding -- the principal reason would be if a deep wide firebox were to be used, rather than a narrow box or a wide one over the rear drivers -- the latter probably being the most likely. It might be fun to speculate on the further development of the M2 Automatic modification of 4-8-0s and its application to branch as well as switching service... but I would doubt the expense of the conversions would produce any meaningful return on the investment in road service. I don't see any likelihood of turbines, even if the TE-1 were to prove the technologies workable in service, although it might be interesting to compare the Swedish 2-8-0 Ljungstrom turbines with the work requirements...
PRR (when it was N&W's majority owner) was working on some interesting all-wheels-driven ideas that might have been useful for this service. (See the Steins patent # 2586109.)
As long as we're dreaming of steam lasting forever, I was wondering what would N&W have come up with for local service on the lighter branch lines. They had the J, A, and Y for road service, and the 0-8-0 for switching, but eventually I think they would want to replace the aging power on secondary lines with something more modern. Maybe light Mikado, Pacific or Prairie types? Conjecture is fun.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Hi Dave! Just one thing...
The J wasn't intended as a dual-service locomotive, as a matter of fact when they were used for freight toward the end of the steam era J fans thougt using them on freight was a downright disgrace! However, since they performed so well on freight it shows just how good they really were.
By the same token, the Union Pacific only found out how good their FEF's really were when THEY were downgraded to freight jobs.
I hadn't heard there were problems with New Haven's I-5's. Do you know what they were?
PS: I've got a Mike's Train House O Gauge Class J. Never, EVER do I use it to pull freight cars! Not even under the Christmas tree!
Wayne
I agree that the J was a mighty fine locomotive, possibliy my overall favorite steamer. The streamliniing was matched only by the New Haven I-5, which had problems, and few other 4-8-4's could match in in overall performance, either as a fast feight or fast and heavy passenger locomotive.
Having said that, I think the T-1 was a very capable machine in the right engineer's hands. But the J wins on lower maintenance costs even then. And the T- was not dual service.
The concern about the J's 70" driver diameter was probably a bit misplaced, even if a "PRR version" of the locomotive would probably have been the 72" of the M1. I think Firelock is correct in thinking PRR was being 'conservative' about sticking to some version of the 'diameter speed' argument for high-speed power, and misunderstanding the gist of the balancing improvements after the mid-Thirties (most certainly not respecting the N&W team's approach to high-speed balancing until the testing demonstrated how well it worked).
On the other hand, I think PRR was "somewhat overenthusiastic" over how fast trains would be operated over at least substantial parts of its main lines after the War. We have discussed the odd design choice explicit in the Q2 of a locomotive whose peak hp occurs 10 to 15 mph faster than permitted freight speed on its railroad, and both the S1 and T1 illustrate a locomotive design whose special characteristics outweigh their liabilities only at substantially higher speed -- and by that I do mean sustained speed.
I concur that the real issue raised in the J testing was how well the 70" drivered engine would hold up if actually run for long periods of time at the high speeds it could technically reach. I would very tentatively note that the valve seizure that terminated the high-speed testing was apparently of a severe enough nature as to show substantial lubrication difficulties. If the lubrication problem involved distortion or expansion of the valve itself, the situation is still more serious. (We can take up the alternatives available to the N&W and PRR at the time that might have addressed this, but it would be largely speculation).
For those who think that standardizing on the M1 rather than the K4 in the Twenties would have addressed most of PRR's operating situations adequately, it is not too great a leap to envision a slightly 'expanded' version of the J that would do as much 'more' over the M1 as the J did itself over the N&W K2s. In my opinion it would have served nicely to keep the schedule on any of the PRR passenger trains that were operating in that era. Whether it would have 'found' problems with PRR's track geometry, due to its interesting balancing method, at those required speeds, or if it came to be used for higher-peak-speed service after the War, is another question.
nyc#25 No way would there ever be 100 mph running on Middle and Pittsburgh divisions. PRR's racetrack was west of Crestline.
No way would there ever be 100 mph running on Middle and Pittsburgh divisions.
PRR's racetrack was west of Crestline.
True. Oh so true. And it probably wasn't realistic to do too much of it there either.
See here's the thing, and I believe the same mistake's being made today with the obsession over high-speed rail with some people. It's not high speed that's needed, it's reliability. Delivering the passengers "on the advertised" as it were. Even if the fastest you go is 70 to 80 miles an hour, so what? Get the folks there when you say you will, and do it all the time. That's what gets the business.
Hi Lois!
OK, the Pennsy's testing of a N&W J has been spoken of before, but there's no harm in speaking of it again.
Certainly, the J performed outstandingly and did everything the PRR wanted a passenger locomotive to do. Why didn't they go for it? Well, my opinion is, and it's strictly my opinion since I can't quote chapter and verse from any documentation, is this...
PRR had a symbiotic relationship with the Baldwin Locomotive works. Even ALCO gave up trying to crack it. As a J wasn't a Baldwin product it probably had two strikes against it no matter how good it was. If a J could run on the N&W's operating profile there's no reason it couldn't run on the Pennsy's.
I also suspect the PRR and Baldwin were probably a little put out that those "hillbillies" down in Virginia were more capable at building a superior steam locomotive than they were and just didn't want to admit it. DO NOT discount the effect egos have in shaping policy in business, government, the military, and other endevours! There's too many examples in history of the same for me to go into, but it's there, it's real, and it persists to this day. The sad lesson of history is so few people are willing to learn from it.
Just how responsible or realistic it was to do 100 mile-an-hour running on the PRR lines from Harrrisburg west is another issue. Was the track structure capable of it? Would the 'roads profile support it? Or did the 100mph "Holy Grail" blind the PRR to other possibilities? We'll never know at this point.
The plain fact of the matter is the PRR had a superb steam passenger locomotive there for the taking and they walked away from it. To bad for them. But what can you can about a group of people who called themselves "The Standard Railroad of the World"? That speaks volumes in itself.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.