Mountain vs Berkshire

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by choochoo30084

Some railroads used Mountain locomatives 4-8-2 and others used Berkshire locomotives 2-8-4. What was the advantage of either wheel arrangement?

If you can, get a copy of the Sep 2004 issue of Trains. The story "Big Boy or Big Mistake" addresses your question exactly. Generally, it found that high-horsepower, large drivered steam locomotives, such as most 2-8-4s, were wasted when used in mountain service. This was because most RR engineering departments didn't bother to study or didn't understand horsepower curves. One of the best articles of 2004.

BTW, welcome to the board!

[Anonymous]

Some railroads used both - IC, NYC, L&N, ATSF, SP, B&M, C&O, etc.

The 4-8-2 was intended to be a passenger locomotive for heavy trains over difficult profiles; the 4-wheel leading truck for guidance and a firebox carried by a 2-wheel trailer. It was an outgrowth of the 4-6-2 Pacific type passenger locomotive.

The 2-8-4 was intended to be a fast freight locomotive, needing only a 2-wheel leading truck for guidance but a larger firebox requiring a 4-wheel trailing truck to bear its weight; the large firebox was for higher horsepower at speed than its predecessor, the 2-8-2.

These uses became blurred over the years; several railroads (including IC, NYC) found the 4-8-2 to be an excellent fast freight engine on level territory; C&O often used its 2-8-4s in passenger service.

Old Timer

[choochoo30084]

Some railroads used Mountain locomatives 4-8-2 and others used Berkshire locomotives 2-8-4. What was the advantage of either wheel arrangement?