BaltACD"In 1945 the third Pocahontas coal road, the Virginian Railway, also received eight Alleghenys to replace 2-8-8-2 and 2-10-10-2 Mallets on coal drags between Roanoke and Norfolk.
A clue might be the year: 1945. During WW2 the War Production Board and other federal agencies determined what was built and with what materials. It was not unusual for railroads to order a run of a particular locomotive, only to be told they had to settle for something else. Maybe the Virginian engines were all they were able to get at that time?
For example, I recently purchased an HO (Athearn Genesis) model of a Clinchfield 4-6-6-4 Challenger. The booklet that came with it explained that during the war, the Clinchfield and D&RGW had tried to order large engines of different designs, but instead were told their order would be added to UP's order for more Challengers.
Many railroads who ordered EMD FTs were given steam locomotives instead...except, oddly enough, Minneapolis & St. Louis, who ordered 2-6-6-2 Mallets and were given FTs instead. The railroad would have had to buy steel to upgrade several bridges to handle the heavier steam engines, and Washington decided it would take more steel to do that than to give the railroad lighter but equally powerful sets of diesels.
Leo_Ameshere's what Neil Carlson wrote about them in his article 'Fast Freight Articulateds' for the 2004 Steam Glory special issue. "In 1945 the third Pocahontas coal road, the Virginian Railway, also received eight Alleghenys to replace 2-8-8-2 and 2-10-10-2 Mallets on coal drags between Roanoke and Norfolk. As with C&O, this was not exactly the service for which the locomotives were best suited."
Did Virginian regularly use 2-10+10-2s east of Roanoke? Or even 2-8+8-2s?
In any case, no reason to assume a 16- or 20-driver engine was the best choice for coal up the Virginian's 0.2% grades east of Roanoke. (I forget -- did VGN have a 0.6% climb east of Roanoke?)
BackshopIs there something we're missing here ...
The knowledge we're missing is what it cost to pull coal up 0.57% with a 2-6+6-6 instead of with a 2-8+8-4 or compound 2-8+8-2. Railfans figure since the 16-driver engine can pull more, it must be cheaper to operate. Apparently C&O didn't think so -- so, what do the fans know that C&O didn't?
No fan has ever had an answer to that question, and no fan ever will. For all we know C&O would have done better pulling coal to Alleghany with compound 2-10+10-2s, but for one reason or another they didn't think so.
Here on Trains people have theorised that C&O was determined to have the world's most powerful steam locomotive, so they ordered 2-6+6-6s knowing they weren't the best choice for their coal trains. So they ordered ten of them, and got the 6700 dbhp or whatever it was. So now they have the record -- what now? Now they're free to buy the right engine for hauling coal to Alleghany, while they use the 2-6+6-6s on coal trains west from Russell. Instead they bought more 2-6+6-6s.
And if C&O was only concerned about showing the world they had the biggest engine, why did they keep quiet about it? Pretty sure there was no mention of the "7498 dbhp" in Railway Age, Railway Mechanical Engineer or even in the C&O company magazine. No mention in Trains until the 1950s -- probably no mention in Railroad?
BaltACDAll the authors can make all the claims they want. C&O found the engines met their needs - that is all the is necessary.
I don't think anyone has ever questioned that.
They did indeed do some fast freight.
https://www.trains.com/trn/railroads/locomotives/locomotive-profile-2-6-6-6-allegheny-type-steam-locomotive/
My impression is that the H-8 was like a Class A on 'roids. Both were meant for higher speeds, but except for troop trains (and I have never seen where those trains moved faster than many/most freights...to be honest), and maybe an express freight or six, the H-8 was often under-utilized.
Leo_AmesThe same criticism has been directed towards the Virginian's close copies here and there in the pages of Kalmbach publications. For instance here's what Neil Carlson wrote about them in his article 'Fast Freight Articulateds' for the 2004 Steam Glory special issue. "In 1945 the third Pocahontas coal road, the Virginian Railway, also received eight Alleghenys to replace 2-8-8-2 and 2-10-10-2 Mallets on coal drags between Roanoke and Norfolk. As with C&O, this was not exactly the service for which the locomotives were best suited." He argued in favor of 2-8-8-4's for roads like this one, the C&O, and the D&H instead of the types of fast freight articulateds that they went with for heavy service on mountainous lines where they rarely could put their power potential to full use. Presumably something like a modernized NP Z-5 or the modern M-3's and M-4's on DM&IR. I believe author Ed King, a familiar name to Trains readers, has also been criticial of the choice of these by C&O (and at the Virginian by an executive right off the C&O where he had been impressed by their new Alleghenys) in the pages of Trains several times through the years.
"In 1945 the third Pocahontas coal road, the Virginian Railway, also received eight Alleghenys to replace 2-8-8-2 and 2-10-10-2 Mallets on coal drags between Roanoke and Norfolk. As with C&O, this was not exactly the service for which the locomotives were best suited."
He argued in favor of 2-8-8-4's for roads like this one, the C&O, and the D&H instead of the types of fast freight articulateds that they went with for heavy service on mountainous lines where they rarely could put their power potential to full use. Presumably something like a modernized NP Z-5 or the modern M-3's and M-4's on DM&IR.
I believe author Ed King, a familiar name to Trains readers, has also been criticial of the choice of these by C&O (and at the Virginian by an executive right off the C&O where he had been impressed by their new Alleghenys) in the pages of Trains several times through the years.
All the authors can make all the claims they want. C&O found the engines met their needs - that is all the is necessary.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The same criticism has been directed towards the Virginian's close copies here and there in the pages of Kalmbach publications. For instance here's what Neil Carlson wrote about them in his article 'Fast Freight Articulateds' for the 2004 Steam Glory special issue.
The C&O is derided for buying the 2-6-6-6 Allegheny because it's power/speed profile didn't match the service that the C&) used them in. Yet, the Virginian bought copies and no one ever talks about them. Is there something we're missing here because both RRs were competently run and had good mechanical departments?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.