Anonymous QUOTE: Originally posted by jimrice4449 While some RRs did real well w/ Berkshires (NKP pops instantly to mind) the PRR and the NYC EACH had more frt Mountains than the total # of Berkshires on ALL RRs And all the NYC's (called Mohawks) were used in flat country, and a lot of PRRs were, too. Some of them spent time Altoona-Pittsburg, but most of them didn't. The first NYC 4-8-2s hit the road for freight service about 1916, and were truly pioneers. It was seven or eight years later that the PRR M1 appeared. Old Timer
QUOTE: Originally posted by jimrice4449 While some RRs did real well w/ Berkshires (NKP pops instantly to mind) the PRR and the NYC EACH had more frt Mountains than the total # of Berkshires on ALL RRs
And all the NYC's (called Mohawks) were used in flat country, and a lot of PRRs were, too. Some of them spent time Altoona-Pittsburg, but most of them didn't. The first NYC 4-8-2s hit the road for freight service about 1916, and were truly pioneers. It was seven or eight years later that the PRR M1 appeared. Old Timer
Dick Dawson
Anyone know why Pennslvaina M1 4-8-2 "Mountain" locomotives never really were that successful in passenger service. Seems Pennsy would rather double head a couple of K4 4-6-2 "Pacific" locomotives for name trains than use the M1.
I can hardly imagine New York Central using a couple of K3d 4-6-2 "Pacific" in place of a good duel service 4-8-2 "Mohawk."
One Pennsy M1b 6755 seems to have survived with no particular interest in it or it's class or performance. For that matter no one seems to care much for the two surviving Pennsy K4 which were much more famous - of which two survive. But the Pennsy T1 - "Duplex" which does not exist! is a candidate for REPRODUCTION!
Seems kind of odd when you could have a plethora of original fantastic Pennsy steam power that could be operated to choose from? One would think considering the famous passenger work of the K4 "Pacific" that the duel service M1 "Mountain" would have been a worldbeater!
Of course by derivation things to not always make sense - just wondering though?
Doc
Dr D For that matter no one seems to care much for the two surviving Pennsy K4 which were much more famous - of which two survive. Doc
For that matter no one seems to care much for the two surviving Pennsy K4 which were much more famous - of which two survive.
PRR K4 #1361 is currently being "restored" to operation in Altoona. The 1361 is in pieces, and has been since 1988. For the amount money being given to contractors to work on the loco, little of the major issues have been fixed. The 1361 project is pretty much a money pit, and is regarded as such by the preservation community.
Much of the riveting, welding, ect. that was done before 2002 has either been redone or slated to be redone. Not good.
For being the official "State of Pennsylvania Steam Locomotive", you would think they could maybe get the thing back into one piece for at least a nice cosmetic display.
The second PRR K4 survivor in Strasburg, PA is the only one left with the majority of it's original fabric intact, which would make it unwise to restore. That and the RR Museum of Pennsylvania would in no way be willing to give it up. When I spoke to the museum director in July he said that it is likely to be next to be cosmetically restored after they finish with the PRR "Lindbergh" locomotive.
I don't think we'll be seeing a PRR K4 steam before 2025, things haven't gone well and aren't going well for the #1361. If I were in charge (Which I'm obviosly not) I'd be done with the sketchy contractors and their high $$; Send the old girl down to Strasburg, where I at least know the boys could get her done, and done right, within a reasonable amount of time.
Strasburg would be an outstanding place to send 1361. They've worked so many miracles there the motto of Strasburg's steam shop should be "It's bad, but it's not hopeless!"
Strasburg is an outstanding place to send just about anything that rolls (or should roll) on rails. If you haven't had a chance to visit and tour their shops and talk with some of their employees, you're really missing out. The quality of work and the detail they go to to is jaw-dropping.
I was there this past summer with the NRHS RailCamp program, and had exclusive access to their shops. I even got to help them with some restoration work on a wood car they're working on!
Everyone hears about the work they do on steam, but if you can, get a look at what they can do with wooden passanger cars! Detail is done down to the match-striker on the wall!
Firelock76 They've worked so many miracles there the motto of Strasburg's steam shop should be "It's bad, but it's not hopeless!"
They've worked so many miracles there the motto of Strasburg's steam shop should be "It's bad, but it's not hopeless!"
A prize to the man that came up with that! With a bit of tweaking, they could use use it on t-shirts to give out to employees and dedicated customers to their shops.
I'd buy one!
Great idea! You should send 'em an e-mail with your t-shirt proposal!
I'm sure they'd love it!
PS: That photo looks like the Strasburg's old Reading Camelback, their first steam engine that unfortunately just didn't have the guts to pull the consists they wanted it to. I understand it's undergoing a cosmetic restoration, there's no plans to run it again, at least not at this time.
That would be correct, Firelock, although when I was there in July there was no work being done on her. The answer from their steam director was "eventual cosmetic restoration" so who knows when the work will be done.
He also said in exact words that "No, you can't buy it."
Oh well, thought I'd ask!
Pennsylvania M1 4-8-2 in original configuration...with 72" drivers
Pennsylvania K4 in original configuration...with 80" drivers
Pennsylvania M1 with Coast to Coast tender...
Pennsylvania K4 doubleheader on varnish...
M1 Audio Recording - starting out slow then really starting to roll...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7b9iNTQwzU
The accompanying slides also include several of M1s showing off their dual service ability on passenger trains - not widely known as they operated in the shadow of the K4 in that regard.
Dear kgbw,
Nice photos... I am a 74 year old computer "slow Learner"... Maybe you could post a photo of a P&LE 2-8-4 A2a #'s 9400-9406 for the fans??? A little education for the younger generation..... I saw the 9406 at the Chicago Railroad Fair summer of 1948 when she was new, a shiny dark olive green paint job with white paint trim on the driver tires and running boards.....wmreever@tds.net
Here you go, markreeveer! They were nice looking units - it would have been interesting to see what those big boilers could do if they had been given 69" drivers like the Nickel Plate Berkshires.
Here is a painting...
Thank you, good job!
As a 7 year old in 1948 the A-2a's were my prime interest at the Chicago Railroad Fair. My father took me most every Sunday in July thru October to get me out of the house as my 2nd baby sister was born on Sept. 8th..... I've been in the cab of the 9406 maybe 7 or 8 times on those happy trips! Mark
The front end of the A-2 has to be one of the ugliest that I've ever seen. No wonder that P&LE didn't want them.
S. Connor That would be correct, Firelock, although when I was there in July there was no work being done on her. The answer from their steam director was "eventual cosmetic restoration" so who knows when the work will be done. He also said in exact words that "No, you can't buy it." Oh well, thought I'd ask!
Lady Firestorm feels your pain, she saw a 1938 Seagrave fire engine at a car show two years ago and the owners wouldn't sell it to her either!
They never took their eyes off of her as well, so she couldn't hot-wire it and run off with it.
The NYC late model steam locomotives - I mean the "Niagara" 4-8-4 S1 and "Berkshire" 2-8-4 A2 were the very latest thought on modernization of steam! Paul Kiefer the brilliant New York Central steam designer was working out some very advanced concepts in these two locomotives. The "Niagara" embodied the very maximum size boiler that could be fitted to a chassis and at the same time meet maximum size clearance restrictions.
These boilers on these two engine are absolutely supurb creations. While not much is known about the performance of the A2 "Berkshire" the same design elements can be found in the S1 "Niagara," and were world beater design concepts. The power and performance of the 4-8-4 and its Poppet Valve S2b variation are truely outstanding in service and availablity showing 26,000 miles use per month along with 6 days per week availability - all new standards in reliability. Amazing road performance such as running the S1 engines from New York thru to Chicago a journey of 938 miles while easily topping 100 mph all the while featuring the availabilty of a record breaking 6,600 tested horsepower.
Kiefer's design featured many well worked out ideas such as use of a steam "dry pipe" system instead of a "steam dome" to get the boiler size up to its maximum usable diameter.
I would venture to say the NYC A2 "Berkshire" had the potential to become to freight train performance what the NYC S1 "Niagara" was to passenger train performance. Much is made of the Van Sweringens Nickel Plate Railroad and Pere Marquette "Berkshires" - it would be fine to see these compared to the late model New York Central Systems A2 which were very similar. Notice the A2 was equiped with some advance in "drifting valves". Also these A2 engines had combustion chambers with an increased overall firebox capacity which was set upon small drivers, freighters with smoke consumers and valve pilot indicator systems! - they must have been a "notch up" on the very similar "Lima Super Power" Berkshires, and must have been truely high efficiency yet small package TORQUE MONSTERS!
As the S1 "Niagara" was a short rod, high drivered, roller bearing racer - the NYC A2 "Berkshire" was a long rod, small drivered behemoth, that featured "steam expansion" and "steam utilization" as their star features. About 20 of the mighty "Niagara" S1 4-8-4 were built and similarly only 6 of the 2-8-4 "Berkshire" A2.
It was unfortunate that the same Robert Young "wall street speculator" and railroad administration advocate - was going to kill off all the C&O "Kanawaha" (Berkshires), "Greenbriers" and "Allegheny" and do the same to the NYC "Berkshires," "Niagara" and "Hudsons" et al. The A2 "Berkshire" were built in 1948 and scrapped in 1956 - one of ALCO's last and truely best locomotives saw only 8 years service. ALCO's fleet mighty passenger "Niagara" used only 10 years - almost brand new.
Regarding the "Selkirk" smokebox design - well - IT WAS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE! Easy to get the superheaters out of the flues without pulling the front off the smokebox - exteremely easy servicability - the fantastic Milwaukee 4-8-4 "Northern" MLW 261 had the exact same smokebox front end design.
Just my thoughts on the very best in steam - A2 and S1, S2!
Niagara as delivered...prior to smoke lifters being added
Berkshire A2a...
Niagara getting 'em on a roll on the high iron...
L4 Mohawk - same smokebox design as Niagara and A2a Berk, but centered headlight...
.
so if the upper management wasn't determined to kill steam then the NYC steam should have lasted in to the 1970s,correct? ?
The question that really needs to be asked is why NYC management ordered what appears to be a well-designed 2-8-4 for a subsidiary whose own management was already committed to dieselization and didn't want it.
Paul Kiefer the brilliant New York Central design engineer likely had been working on the S1 and A2 concepts quite a while before they came down the pipeline. I would say he anticipated the technology that existed before WWII to remain after the war. Likely no one expected the explosion in science the war would bring - jet planes, rockets - atomic bombs etc. The general public was entirely unprepared for the jet age and the whole "nuclear" thing and thought the nuclear reactors would power everyone's car, train or boat.
No I think steam railroading started getting blown away unexpectedly by the Robert Young takeover of the Van Sweringgen family railroad empire attempted takeover of the Pullman empire followed by the second takeover of the Commadore Vanderbit family railroad empire. Young's "vision of the rail future of America" dominated much of the nation owing to his financial power. Fortune Magazine called him a gasbag on futuristic rail ideas some practical and many not.
Paul Kiefer was a locomotive design engineer not a business tycoon and stock speculator who was dealing with an "engineering vision" for steam power in a way very different from a "financial business visonary" like Robert Young. If you read Paul Kiefer's book "A Practical Evaluation of Railroad Motive Power", he makes a profound case for the steam locomotive as a viable option to diesel electric drive and electric drive in the days of very cheap oil. Time and tide were against him, however. Further, a whole "modernist" movement had captured thinking in America - and the mindset of the country was changing - you had to be there to understand it.
"Modernist" visionary Robert Young was just such a man, bent on change and distruction of an older order of American business - and he was himself swept up in this reordering and destroyed by it also. When you look at the early demise of these great steam locomotives - the NYC "Niagara" and the A2 "Berkshire," - and this whole "throw away America social attitude" - you have to add into the mix the fate of "Robert R. Young" himself.
What came out of the Young railroad empire administration was "radical change" on both Chesapeake And Ohio and the New York Central and eventually the Pennsylvania Railroad. These last two companies which were wrestled from their former managements fared worse - having among other things their assets manipulated, bled off and stolen creating a financial banking collapse in America that was only stopped by the interveniton and supervison of the Federal Government of the Richard Nixon Presidential Administration and US Congress. In effect what was called "Corporate mismanagment and contempt for the public interest bordering on the criminal."
Yes, there are those like Robert Young who believe in such "radical change" as - "The Way of the Future" - but its a violent and invasive thing and I am not sure such revolutions are always necessary, as those who advocate them would think they are. England and Europe for example showed much more reticence to accomplish this process - of very similar changes - also thought to be necessary in railroading of the late 20th century. These they accomplished without such cost to everyone and such loss of public service as that which Robert Young brought down on our head.
Paul Kiefer to my mind was the "General George Armstong Custer" making a glorious "Last Stand of Steam Railroading in America" and whose heroic last battle was to be waged with just 20 mighty S1 and S2 "Niagara" and 7 of the A2 "Berkshires" if given the chance to fight.
Yes, the NYC A2 had and ignoble fate - it was brilliantly designed then foisted off on the disinterested Pittsburg & Lake Erie Railroad by an equally disinterested New York Central Railroad managment. Neither were interested in any more steam - but the A2 was designed to be what the Nickel Plated Railroad found its LIMA Super Power "Berkshire" to be in the high cost efficiency of branch line railroad freight power. "Engines that saved a railroad!"
I personally watched Michigan stripped of its NYC passenger rail service by a "Robert Young" freight serving only NYC business mentality that had no concern nor care for public service. Thanks to Young the junk man, the junk man was in business! and to this day the public is still dis-served by the changes he foisted upon us. Short line air travel that makes no practical sence, rail service that is non existant and automotive travel that is incapable, expensive, dangerous and makes us all highly government dependent. Yes, imagine the Northeast Corridor Rail Service of Boston, New York and Washington shorn of its rail! Yes, go to Cleveland, or to Toledo, or Detroit and look at this dis-service that is missing service that was once the New York Central Railroad - then try to travel easily anywhere.
Where is our low fare high speed go everywhere rail passenger service like Europe? Scrapped and off the junk yard by a misguided freight only managment mindset of corporate thinking! Re-instituted by a disfuctional highly inefficient Federal government bureaucracy to be run on still complaining dis-servicing corporate freight railroads about to be sold out to Canada! Then we can have US Government passenger train service run on Canadian owened freight railroads in the high achieving and business minded United States. Go Figure!
To my mind Robert Young represents another case of American corporate greed gone wrong! - and fate did not decree him a bullet in the head for no reason. It was the ultimate act of selfishness!
Just my thoughts!
Anonymousall the NYC's (called Mohawks) were used in flat country
The entire NYC was "flat country"; at least, according to the Traffic Dept's brochures. "The Water Level Route ... You Can Sleep", don't you know.
Of course, the Traffic Dept guys didn't like to talk about the B&A.
ChuckAllen, TX
While I will not dispute that Paul Kiefer was a brilliant steam locomotive designer and engineer, it appears to me that he confined his engineering talents to his particular niche and chose to ignore engineering advances in other fields that would affect railroading. I will also state that the Niagara may have been an excellent design but it may have been too big for New York Central. His treatise noted that the Niagara was a more powerful locomotive than a pair of E7A's, but the E7A set was adequate for the service in which it was used.
Robert R. Young today would be labeled as a takeover artist and/or activist investor. He may not have been the best thing that happened to C&O but he did drag NYC into the postwar era with the support of a lot of other shareholders. He may not have saved NYC in the long run but he did hire Alfred Perlman, who did a lot to postpone the inevitable.
PRR was a victim of its own corporate snobbery and mismanagement.
Amtrak exists because the railroads could no longer afford to operate a passenger service on which they could not make money. The implied regulatory policy at the time seemed to be that of a cross-subsidy of passenger service from freight revenues and the continued operation of services that nobody rode. Why should a railroad invest in a service in which it could expect NO return.
One can still travel easily to lot of places from Cleveland, Toledo or Detroit. All of those cities have ample air service and Detroit and Cleveland are both operating hubs.
Robert R. Young was also known to be bi-polar. DO NOT denigrate his self-destruction as an act of fate or selfishness.
It took the Flint, Michigan water crisis to illustrate to the nation the corporate business heritage left to the midwest - the Public transportation situation is the same!
We have much to thank New York Corporate Managment for when it comes to present railroad service and history in the midwest! There was a time in America when the business community put someting in this country besides the money it could take out.
Think about it - I watched the New York based railroads in the 1960's do everything they could to kill passenger service with no regard to the market that could be developed with a mediocum of imagination. Rude managment - discourtious service - filthy equipment - total lack of understanding of marketing -
Railroad managment thanks to Robert R Young set a pattern - cronies like big talking Perlman were a New York JOKE!
I also remember when Santa Fe refused to allow its passenger trains to be taken over and run by AMTRAK because they refused to allow service to sink so low!
The stock market "mentality of volatility and speculation" to feduciary responsibilty is a poison to real appreciation and growth of the nation! Time was when cost accountants did not run the nation they just helped run it! - There is more to America that a railroad mangament buck! There is the vision and the dream to span the nation with SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE!
Robert R Young spewed a poision he ended up taking himself.
- Just my humble opinion!
I tend to agree. But the NYCRR's negative attitude about passenger service goes back to Vanderbilt's comment to a Chicago Trib reporter in the late 19th century. Passenger rail service (as he said) always loses money. As long as we have a market economy with private for-profit corporations, then passenger rail service should be run by the government, on government-owned RoWs and funded on a long-term basis.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Dr DI also remember when Santa Fe refused to allow its passenger trains to be taken over and run by AMTRAK because they refused to allow service to sink so low!
Sante Fe passenger trains were taken over by Amtrak on day one. They simply refused to let Amtrak use the 'Super Chief' brand. Southern, RI and DRG&W did not join Amtrak initially because the handover fee they would have had to pay exceeded the cost to continue running on their own. That decision was a cost accounting one, not altruistic service.
I always thought it odd that New York Central chose to develop its 2-8-4 "Berkshire" A1 into the high tech 2-8-4 "Berkshire" A2 with super max boiler like the 4-8-4 "Niagara." This seems an odd project for the year 1948.
I would have thought given the overall quantity and performance of the NYC 4-8-2 "Mohawk" as a freight hauler it would have been chosen for a late model super max boiler treatment.
On the whole the New York Central never used the "Berkshire" design anywhere outside of the Boston & Albany Railroad. The fact that the NYC A2 ended up on the Pittsburg & Lake Erie for an ignominous career seems most unusual - this could have been done with a few old B&A A1's. I would have thought the A2 would be better served elsewhere.
Odd waste of a fantastic NYC 9400 series redesigned locomotive. Why show it at the 1948 Chicago Railroad Fair if this was not a premere effort - which it obviously was.
Possibly Paul Kiefer was struck with the design success that the Van Sweringen family was having with the Nickel Plate Railroad "Berkshire." Possibly he realized there was some significant freight locomotive improvement to be had for the NYC in "steam expansion" and "steam utilization" that his former manifest freight designed 4-8-2 "Mohawk" had overlooked.
The NYC 9400 is too impressive an engine to have ended up where it did. Being overlooked by the new NYC managment change is the only answer to the mystery.
Paul Kiefer may have been suffering from tunnel vision when he came up with the design for the A-2. He seemed to be so intent on developing a better steam locomotive that he couldn't (or didn't want to) see the improved performance and availability that diesel-electric locomotives had to offer.
Only 7 A 2s were ordered and delivered in 1948 to the P&LE. They served there until retiring in 1956 (during an economic downturn), scrapped in 1957. The scapegoat of Mr. D's discontent, Mr. Young, was not the executive in 1948, as he stepped in to a declining NYC after the proxy fight in 1954.
Paul Kiefer wrote his treatise "A Practical Evaluaton of RAILROAD MOTIVE POWER" in 1947 it was published in 1948. His book was a scientific comparison of the rail power options - steam - diesel electric - electric. Keifer evaluated each of these and compared them from an engineering and cost accountanting perspective in order to dispell mistaken assumptions about the advantages of each type of motive power.
The A2 "Berkshire" were ordered from ALCO - American Locomotive Works in Schenectady, New York in 1948 and were the last domestic order for steam from that famous builder. 10 locomotives were ordered 9400-9406 the last 4 were canceled.
Some conjecture remains as to what they were built for, and where they were to be assigned. Rumor being that they were foisted upon Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad where they were used but later transfered to other parts of the NYC System.
Stauffer holds that they were a continuation of the LIMA "Super Power" concept of which the NYC A1 was the original example. The A2 was an update of this design putting it into the same classification of operation as the NKP 750 class "Berkshire," the PM 1200 class and the C&O 2700 class "Kanawaha."
All three of the Van Sweringen family railroads found the updated "Berkshire" to be extremely successful in manifest freight and some passenger work featuring POWER, ECONOMY and AVAILABILITY as their chief cost effective features.
As the historical observer of today it would seem logical that Kiefer percieved the "Northern" aka NIAGARA and "Berkshire" type locomotive designs to be the "heir to the throne" of new steam locomotive design able to survive into the diesel electric era.
Here is a comparison of the NYC A1 and A2 designs and an additional comparison to the Van Sweringen engines.
-------------------
New York Central - A1c Berkshire - built 1930 -
Tractive force with booster 81,400 lbs - cylinders 28"x30" - driver diameter 63" - engine weight 396,100 lbs - grate 100 sq ft - boiler pressure 240 psi.
New York Central - A2a Berkshire - built 1948 -
Tractive force with booster 67,100 lbs - cylinders 26"x32" - driver diameter 63" - engine weight 426,000 lbs - grate 90.3 sq ft - boiler pressure 230 psi.
---------------------------
Nickel Plate Railroad - S3 Berkshire - built 1948 -
Tractive force with booster 64,000 lbs - cylinders 25"x34" - driver diameter 69" - engine weight 444,300 lbs - grate 90.3 sq ft - boiler pressure 245 psi
Both late design NYC and NKP "Berkshire" locomotives show a smaller grate area and larger firebox volume. Increased weight of engine and reduction of tractive effort. A reduction of cylinder bore and increase in cylinder stroke. And an overall increase in technolgical design.
One can see by these statistics the the updated NYC 9400 class A2 is a dead ringer for the highly successful NKP 750 class. Both were last built in 1948 and used thru the late 1950's. While NKP loved its "Berkshire" steam to the point of "saving the railroad" and preserved many copies, the NYC typical of their New York attitude ignored every advantage and scrapped every locomotive.
Makes one wonder why the Robert Young era railroad executives even bothered to go into the railroad business? They really appear to be more business speculators than company managment executives and were more involved in gutting NYC of its assets in a corporate raid and takeover. History records that within a few years the assets were gone and the gutted company was cast away to bankrupsy.
How odd that a modern railroad continues to function so well in place of it today under different managment?
Yes, the inevitability of the efficiencies of the diesel electric locomotive would have definitely carried the day.
But for those of us who love steam locomotives nonetheless, thankfully not all carriers changed over to diesel as quickly as they potentially could have.
In the instance of the New York Central and several other railroads, it would have been nice to preserve a few more models of the magnificent creation of man that was the steam locomotive.
Here are a few that come to mind...
A New York Central 4-6-4 Hudson, 4-8-4 Niagara and 2-8-4 A2a Berkshire would have been nice to have around, along with a Pennsy 2-10-4 J-1 and 4-4-4-4 T-1, a Boston and Maine 4-8-2 R-1d, a B&O EM-1 2-8-8-4, a Great Northern 2-8-8-2 R-2, a Norfolk & Western 2-8-8-2 Y6b, a Northern Pacific 4-8-4 A-5 and 4-6-6-4 Z-8, a Milwaukee 4-6-4 F7 , 4-4-2 A, and 4-8-4 S2, a Southern Pacific 2-8-8-4 AC-9 and 4-8-2 MT-5, an L&N 2-8-4 M-1, a Rio Grande 2-8-8-2 L-131, an IC 4-8-2 2600 Class, a B&O 4-6-2 P-7, a Chicago & Northwestern 4-6-2 E2 and 4-6-4 E4, a C&O 2-10-4 T-1, a Rock Island 4-8-4 R-67b, a Missouri Pacific 4-8-2 MT-73, etc.
Actually, the list could go on and on. But thankfully, in spite of the brutal efficiencies of the diesel electric, steam hung on for a while longer and we are able to enjoy what was preserved today.
Thank you so much for that link, kgbw49. It's really awesome when played in full screen on a large monitor. It's kind of like my desktop but my desktop has only one M1 among many other locomotives and it's silent. I wonder if there's any way ....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.