Overmod selector Is that report available for reading/download? Here you go: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001615135
selector Is that report available for reading/download?
Here you go:
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001615135
I'm very grateful; thanks.
O-8
https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/gn3388.htm
Jones1945 Paul_D_North_Jr The early posts in this thread discuss how a 4-8-2 could be the equal or better of a 4-8-4: "PRR's M1 4-8-2 equal to a 4-8-4" - http://cs.trains.com/ctr/f/3/t/202112.aspx It seems the PRR M1's Belpaire firebox design may have had something to do with that? - PDN. Thank you for the link, Paul. This probably explained why PRR skipped building Hudsons and never wanted or needed a 4-8-4 for the passenger services. M1b was powerful enough and ready to handle longer passenger consists. Imagine roller bearings and rods, front end throttle, better balancing, poppet valves, and other cutting-edge technologies were applied to the M1s......
Paul_D_North_Jr The early posts in this thread discuss how a 4-8-2 could be the equal or better of a 4-8-4: "PRR's M1 4-8-2 equal to a 4-8-4" - http://cs.trains.com/ctr/f/3/t/202112.aspx It seems the PRR M1's Belpaire firebox design may have had something to do with that? - PDN.
The early posts in this thread discuss how a 4-8-2 could be the equal or better of a 4-8-4:
"PRR's M1 4-8-2 equal to a 4-8-4" - http://cs.trains.com/ctr/f/3/t/202112.aspx
It seems the PRR M1's Belpaire firebox design may have had something to do with that?
- PDN.
Thank you for the link, Paul. This probably explained why PRR skipped building Hudsons and never wanted or needed a 4-8-4 for the passenger services. M1b was powerful enough and ready to handle longer passenger consists. Imagine roller bearings and rods, front end throttle, better balancing, poppet valves, and other cutting-edge technologies were applied to the M1s......
If only we lived in an alternate world where the PRR built a durable updated fully-modern M class design analagous to the L3/4 Mohawks instead of toying with frankly ill-concieved duplex types. PRR probably would have been a lot better off that way.
EXTENDED 2-8-2 OR 4-6-2 ?
Was the 4-8-2 a 2-8-2 with a 4-wheel leading truck or a 4-6-2 with additional driving wheels? The answer depends on the specific locomotive. Clearly the first 4-8-2 in the USA was a 2-8-2 with a 4-wheel leading truck for better tracking at slightly higher speeds. In 1911 Richmond built for the C&O the first 4-8-2 in the USA and also in 1911 built the C&O's first 2-8-2 type ---- they were virtually identical. Builder's photos show the only visual difference was the leading truck and the air pumps; the 2-8-2 had two cross compound pumps while the 4-8-2 had only two single "lung" pumps. Moreover, specifications were nearly identical, both types used 180 lbs. steam pressure, had 29x28 cylinders, and virtually identical firebox dimensions, grate area, heating surface and weight on drivers. The only significant spec difference was the 57" drivers on the 2-8-2 and the 62" drivers on the 4-8-2. However, the 62" driver was even smaller than the 63" drivers most roads put on their 2-8-2s and much smaller than the 73" drivers the C&O placed on its 4-6-2s also built in 1911.
The 4-8-2 couldn't be considered a 4-6-2 with another driving axle until the Rock Island introduced a 69" drivered 4-8-2 in 1913. Subsequently most roads used the 69" or larger driver making the 4-8-2 a fast dual service type of locomotive. Nevertheless, some roads built 2-8-2 type "Mountains" into the 1940s. They can be distinguished by the main rod connection to the third driving axle. Some notable examples were used by the BAR, N&W, D&RGW, MP, GM&N and TC. A 4-wheel leading truck might also be used with a 2-8-2 type engine to support a heavy third cylinder as on DL&W or LV 4-8-2s.
In short, a wheel-arrangement might be guide to the characteristics of a locomotive but within a wheel arrangement there may be vast differences between engines. You can hardly compare a 63" drivered Alaska 4-8-2 weighing about 136 tons with a 70" drivered Illinois Central 4-8-2 weighing 212 tons.
ShroomZedIf only we lived in an alternate world where the PRR built a durable updated fully-modern M class design analagous to the L3/4 Mohawks instead of toying with frankly ill-concieved duplex types. PRR probably would have been a lot better off that way.
But better still, as things would have turned out, to go with a good 4-8-4 instead.
Two key timeline data: in 1935 comes the mandatory stoker rule, eliminating any grounds for not having larger nominal grate area; and after the coal strikes the quality of PRR coal goes in the toilet.
As with the C1a the water rate of any big simple will be higher than duplex, but "everyone" agrees that 92' was too small for practical requirements on a locomotive nominally using less fuel and water ... and even there, with Draconian weight saving elsewhere, there is still a four-wheel trailer (albeit one with almost 242 A1 spacing for 'honorary 2-wheel' status. Now throw in the added weight of internal circulators, Cunningham circulators, over fire arrangements and Snyder preheaters, all mostly rigged behind the trailing-driver-axle equalization fulcrum, and even an M1-size engine will see benefit to swapping that KW out for more support... even if you eschew the '40s equivalent of a Lewty booster.
I strongly suspect propaganda of a sort was involved here, too. When the Depression bit, 4-8-4s were still not quite recognized as high-speed engines, and the whole idea of three-cylinder power and long driver wheelbase to 'save' two-wheel-compatible size (as in the UP Nines) was being "superseded" by the exciting Woodard Super-Power revelations. Perception that any modern engine would have 4-wheel trailer would be thoroughly established early on; if PRR had, in fact, built hundreds of the M1s at the time it would have mattered, they'd require extensive rework, perhaps more than once as with ATSF 3751; even a little later and it wouldn't be a Mountain. (Remember the special load conditions on NYC that made the L4s such good medicine... where PRR had such conditions they either had or were seriously considering electrification, proven far superior to anyone's steam power this side of the pond.
A slight change of pace, here's another 4-8-2 from elsewhere.
New South Wales D57 class, was among the largest and most powerful locomotives ever ran in Australia.
POOR RELATIVE ?
Some may think the emergence of the 4-8-4 type in the late 1920s reduced the 4-8-2 to the status of an outdated, outclassed, inferior relative of the 4-8-4. Not so. The 4-8-2 did not become an obsolete design. In the 1930s, after the 4-8-4 had become popular, many railroads had new 4-8-2s built. They included the NYC, PRR, SP, L&N, SOO, MoPac, Wabash, B&O, CNR, Alaska, BAR, B&M, Frisco, and IC. During the war years over a hundred more were built. After the war the Rutland ordered four and the B&O's Mt.Clare shops built thirteen, three of them as late as 1948 when the diesel was fast replacing steam.
It should be remembered that some roads obtained 4-8-2s and 4-8-4s in the same year. In 1930, the Wabash had 25 4-8-2s built by Baldwin along with 25 4-8-4s. Visually the two groups were nearly identical but the Northerns provided another 12 sq. feet of grate area and 11 per cent more heating surface and were better at the most demanding runs. Nevertheless, the Wabash considered the 4-8-2 to be best for many requirements. The Canadian National had Montreal build ten 4-8-2s in 1944 along with 30 4-8-4s. Here again, a modern 4-8-2 was more suitable than a 4-8-4 for many assignments
Although the 4-8-4 allowed for greater steaming capacity than a 4-8-2, many 4-8-2s were built larger than some 4-8-4s and many 4-8-2s had impressive specifications. The Boston & Maine R-1 class built in 1935, 1937, 1940 and 1941 had a grate of 79 sq. ft. and 4511 sq. ft. of evaporative heating surface. They weighed as much as 208 tons which exceeded the weight of many a 4-8-4 such as those built for the RF&P, LV , NC&STL, CNR, GTW, TP&W, NdeM. T&NOntario and Timken 1111. (Four B&M R-1 duplicates were built for the L&HR in 1944). The Illinois Central probably had the best of all 4-8-2s. Some were heavier than the B&M R-1 and some were rebuilt from 2-10-2s and therefore had boilers that would dwarf some 4-8-4s. The Paducah Shops built 20 entirely new 4-8-2s weighing 423,893 lbs. in 1945 and 1946 which were the heaviest 4-8-2s ever built and were as modern, fast and muscular as most 4-8-4s.
The four-wheel truck on the 4-8-4 is associated with a large firebox with a large grate area. True, most 4-8-4s had much larger grates than 4-8-2s but there were exceptions. The GTW 6405-10 had grates of only 73.7 sq.ft. and the CNR 4-8-4s had 84.3 sq.ft. grates which were matched by grates on Wabash and MoPac 4-8-2s. The RF&P 4-8-4s had only 86.5 sq.ft. grates and 88.2 or 88.3 was used on 4-8-4s of the DL&W, LV T-1 and 2, SOO and MoPac ex 2-8-4s. Grate area is not necessarily a mark of greater steaming capacity but I included this comment to further attempt to show the 4-8-2 was a competitive design even at the end of steam.
To be honest, for good looks I like the balanced wheel arrangement of the 4-8-4 but I think the 4-8-2 type should not be underestimated. In 1957, when the N&W was almost all steam, I spent some time in Roanoke where streamlined 4-8-2s and 4-8-4s worked side by side -- maybe the J-1 was a better locomotive but the K-2 looked just as good.
nhrand Some may think the emergence of the 4-8-4 type in the late 1920s reduced the 4-8-2 to the status of an outdated, outclassed, inferior relative of the 4-8-4. Not so. The 4-8-2 did not become an obsolete design.
The same could be said, quite equally, about the 4-8-4 reducing the 2-8-4; the Nickel Plate ran one of the fastest steam-locomotive services without need for Northerns; L&N built a late example that lacked nothing for performance; the last Alco steam locomotive class built new was the A2a (which has achieved a worse reputation than I think it deserves, considering how late it ran and how apparently effective it was based on movie clips that have survived).
I recommend that anyone interested in this subject read (or re-read) Dr. Leonard's discussion of why 4-8-2s were so effective on the NYC.
Overmod,
I would offer the unique contribution of Alvin Staufer in his book Thoroughbreds p.295 - "From the Men" - the observations of Raymond K. Smith an engineman who ran NYC steam in Michigan. A very unique comparison of engine acceleration performance between NYC J3 Hudson 4-6-4, and NYC L4 Mohawk 4-8-2 and GM diesel. I cannot recall ever reading a similar test.
"I had the pleasure of firing one of these engines in a branch line passenger run in 1955 on trains 351 and 352.
"Our regular engine was J3 5429. It ws a pure delight to fire this engine. While we had rather light trains, seven to eight coaches, there were places that we could test the true performance of the engine. One such place was Owosso, Mich. where southbound trains climbed a steady grade for about three miles out of town. We planned to test the time from stand still to sixty using standard stop watch.
"I allowed the water to just show in the glass and prepared a hand fire while doing station work.
"When we recieved the highball the engineer H. Brazee, started the watch and opened the throttle. The engine slipped once but otherwise worked at full power. In exactly 90 seconds the speed recorder crossed sixty, the track speed. It was interesting to note that on an L4 good running condition with the same train required 2 min. to obtain the same speed.
"Later, with steam-power retired, we tried this test with a single G.M.G.P.7 Passenger engine. Unfortunately we never completed the test as the engine never reached 60 till we passed the next town.!"
--------------
I would note that the J3 and L4 represented the best of both designs of the NYC steam power. Also that the small drivered 4-8-2 should have had the edge over the high drivered 4-6-4 in regards to acceleration because the the 4-6-4 was designed for high speed running not high torque given to acceleration demands. Further the diesel electric was at its best pulling at low speed and one would think the electric drive in its element in low speed acceleration. I would, however, guess the horsepower of the Hudson to be in the 4000 hp range and the Mohawk slighty more, while the one unit diesel in the 1,500 hp range.
Often practical performance of any engine defies the specifications and design advantage. It would seem that some engine designs were just "born to run and some born to run very well."
--------------------
It is also unique to consider that Owosso, MI still echos to the sounds of the steam locomotive and is home to Pere Marquette 1225. I am not sure if the NYC tracks still exist but it would be an interesting test to duplicate with the Lima Super Power 2-8-4 today.
Further, all these engines were 7 axle engines 4-6-4, 4-8-2 and 2-8-4 where one could consider them all variations on concepts of steam locomotive design. Hudson 4-6-4 the ultimate passenger engine - Mountain (Mohawk) 4-8-2 duel purpose freight and passenger and Berkshire 2-8-4 a full freight design.
I would grant the Mountain 4-8-2 for purposes of this test was compared in its passenger performance to truly renouned passenger engine the Hudson 4-6-4. And similar test could have been conducted with similar freight trains with quite different results. Likely the Berkshire 2-8-4 could be tested for comparison in both capacities today.
Dr. D
Overmod I recommend that anyone interested in this subject read (or re-read) Dr. Leonard's discussion of why 4-8-2s were so effective on the NYC.
Where can I find this exactly?
Dr DIt is also unique to consider that Owosso, MI still echos to the sounds of the steam locomotive and is home to Pere Marquette 1225. I am not sure if the NYC tracks still exist but it would be an interesting test to duplicate with the Lima Super Power 2-8-4 today.
The former NYC track north of Owosso still exists, however, the track to the south (the subject of the fast start) is gone.
Dr D ... the small drivered 4-8-2 should have had the edge over the high drivered 4-6-4 in regards to acceleration because the the 4-6-4 was designed for high speed running not high torque given to acceleration demands.
Would be, not just because of the nominally lower drivers but the additional cylinder capacity facilitated by the larger weight on drivers (and the somewhat larger proportional steam-generation capacity.
Complicated a bit if the Hudson uses booster and the Mohawk doesn't, in that acceleration at the lower speed range is facilitated but the boiler mass flow drops off quickly with increasing speed since the NYC's version of booster did not have cutoff control or multiple-speed gearing. If the Mohawk has a booster, it's quicker-accelerating over the full range of speeds...
Further the diesel electric was at its best pulling at low speed and one would think the electric drive in its element in low speed acceleration.
Two things: First, speed of loading; second, derating of permissible amperage based on motor rotational speed up to about 10mph. Note very carefully what Staufer said in this (memorable!) quote -- not that the diesel couldn't accelerate the train quickly at low speed, but that it wouldn't reach a full 60mph track speed in the permissible distance (about 7 miles?) In part this is passenger gearing, but mostly an artifact of constant horsepower (as you note peripherally); very likely the diesel would accelerate the train far more quickly than a Hudson up to about 15 to 20mph, with a little variation in the achievable acceleration rate along the way, but as soon as you got in the rectangular-hyperbola hp curve the bottom would fall out of the acceleration just as the Hudson would have 'gathered its speed'.
N&W would see an analogue of this with the turbine-electric TE1, which was vaunted to be able to run 65mph but in practice would load down to its somewhat pathetic 4500hp generator capacity far below that speed; it would be interesting to see engineer reports on the performance of the Redbirds compared to the J and K locomotives they replaced...
... Hudson 4-6-4 the ultimate passenger engine...
Now son, you know better than that, and you don't even need to go away from NYC to get a better answer.
Just how heavy were those H-8 hauled troop trains anyway?
Photo of bullet-nose CNR 6060 taken from my web site, https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/cnr6060a.htm . Photo credits (as known) are there.
I do not believe that any of the NYC 4-6-4 Hudsons or 4-8-2 Mohawks retained a steam booster engine in the 1950s. It guess it would appear that the NYC mechanical department found rebuilding them at that late date completely impractical. This is usually evidenced by the missing booster exhaust stack and other assorted steam piping from the sides of the engines.
In this context the two NYC engines tested in Owosso, MI should have been fairly evenly matched for acceleration performance.
------------------------
I rode behind NYC Hudsons as a child traveling to northern Michigan and can remember their nimble acceleration very well. They seemed to hit about 30mph and then just fly!
I also believe the only 4-8-2 locomotive I ever rode behind was the freshly restored CN 6060 in the about 1974. I can remember the company CN business observation car on the end of the train filled with suitable CN officials and staff; one of which had his young daughter along for the ride.
In a camp moment she had obtained one of dad's cigars and was teasing him by attempting to light it up - being of similar age I snapped a 35mm picture of her. Dad gave me his company CN business card and asked for me to send him a copy of the photo promising a favor in return.
I sent the photo but thoughtlessly, I never found occasion to request the favor!
---------------
ShroomZed Overmod I recommend that anyone interested in this subject read (or re-read) Dr. Leonard's discussion of why 4-8-2s were so effective on the NYC. Where can I find this exactly?
I ask again, where exactly can I find this?
A PRR M1 4-8-2 hauling passenger train. Only 30 M1s were assigned to passenger service. Note their 64,550 lbf TE ( M1b: 69,700 lbf ) and 70mph maximum speed.
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
ShroomZed ShroomZed Overmod I recommend that anyone interested in this subject read (or re-read) Dr. Leonard's discussion of why 4-8-2s were so effective on the NYC. Where can I find this exactly? I ask again, where exactly can I find this?
I only remember it being somewhere in the maze of links and material associated with
https://www.railarchive.net/rlsteam/index.html
In fact, whether the actual discussion was made by Dr. Leonard or linked by him, I don't remember. But it's there somewhere.
The NSWGR D57 shown here was the 'class leader' 5701 built at Clyde Engineering and entering service in Sept 1929. The photo submitted looks as delivered, with headlight yet to be mounted. These are 3 cylindered loco's with 'Gresley conjugated valve gear' where the valve drive for the middle piston is derived from the outside motion, as was the U.P. 4-12-2 #9000's.
There were other broad gauge 5' 3", 'Mountains' working in South Australia from Adelaide on the main line over the 'Lofty Mountain' range to Tailem Bend, they were built on Tyneside, U.K. to general Alco design of 2 cylinders. They S.A.R. were 500 class of 1926 build.
The 500 Class looked decent when they were newly built.
"51,000 pounds of tractive effort – for heavy haulage of passenger and freight traffic on heavy lines"
http://www.repositoryofideas.com/webb_locos.html
Very well done, Australia!
My favourite 4-8-2 design are the only 4-8-2 design ever built in Britain, and they are both still running today. "Samson" and "Hercules" were designed by Henry Greenly and built in Colchester by Davy Paxman for the Romney Hythe & Dymchurch Railway, a (very nearly) fourteen mile long 15 inch gauge line. They were intended to haul freight traffic, but this never developed. Samson was left for some years and became derelict, Hercules received armour-plating during the Second World War and powered an armed military train which is alleged to have shot down a German fighter.
Both were restored for passenger work and now, as they have done for many years, they run thousands of miles every year.
See them here https://www.rhdr.org.uk/locomotives/ or better still come and travel behind them!
https://www.railarchive.net/nyccollection/ba1435_cw.htm
The above linked photo is from Dr. Leonard's List of NYC locomotives. It ia an A1b class Berkshire 2-8-4. Having lived in the South and one whose impression of Northeaster Steam has come from reading and photos of others.
I have always tended to be partial to the Berkshires [2-8-4] classes. A number of years back I spent some time with a retired NKP conductor, and engineer who sung the praises of this class of LIMA steamers. I guess he won an acolyte.
The photo linked from Dr. Leonard's collection[ linked @ https://www.railarchive.net/nyccollection/index.html#selections04 shows a view of an NYC engine in freight service in its namesake mountains, and its' presentation is unlike most of the NYC steamers I'd ever seen. It is gritty,working, and ballsey all at the same time.
Here is a 4-8-2 flatlands fast freight flyer from the same collection:
https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/bo725.htm
Jones1945 The 500 Class looked decent when they were newly built. "51,000 pounds of tractive effort – for heavy haulage of passenger and freight traffic on heavy lines" http://www.repositoryofideas.com/webb_locos.html
They weren't too bad looking as withdrawn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Railway_Museum,_Port_Adelaide#/media/File:NRM-504andY97.jpg
Peter
Very classy!
http://www.australiansteam.com/504.htm
Dozens of 4-8-2 designs were built in the U.K., but all for export - South Africa alone had at least 4 or 5 different classes and designs.
North British / Robert Stephenson / Beyer-Peacock / Armstrong-Whitworth / Vulcan all built 'Mountain types for export.
How about this 3-cylindered Australian brute with 65,000 lbs tractive effort? This one would have looked right at home on the Illinois Central pulling fast merchandise as well as coal trains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_D57_class_locomotive#/media/File:5712_Mt_Vic_1954.jpg
Frisco built the 4300 and 4400 class brutes from 2-10-2 feedstock. They were some of the heaviest 4-8-2s built.
The 4300s rolled on 70-inch drivers, had cast-steel engine beds, and developed 66,391 lbs of tractive effort, plus another 8,750 lbs from a booster unit. They often pulled a tank car canteen for increased range.
https://frisco.org/mainline/2017/11/04/4-8-2-4302-3/
The 4400s rolled on 70-inch drivers, had cast-steel engine beds, and developed 68,626 lbs of tractive effort, plus another 8,750 lbs from a booster unit. Half of this class was used in passenger duties as well as freight.
https://thelibrary.org/lochist/frisco/friscoline/images/photos/p00923.jpg
This poster grew up liking the N&W Js. However as an emgineer I have really fllen for the raw looks that came from locos that you can see each external pipe, wheel, bogie, steam lines etc. It just gives a very big importance to raw power.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.