Simple question, but I cannot find a reference…[:I]
Was the 2-10-2 used for passenger service?[?]
Yes, in China, but not normally in the USA since they were very limited in speed.
What determines an engine used for passenger service is wheel size. The bigger the wheel the more likely it is intended for passenger service. Pure passenger engines had drivers approaching 8’ in diameter. The logic is easy. A passenger train doesn’t weigh as much as a freight, goes faster and is more economically run with larger wheels as they make fewer revolutions. So that is the rule of thumb on straight level track. Now when you get to hilly railroads or mountain climbing even the PRR used 2-8-2’s in helper service because tractive effort was needed not speed. Feasable yes. In reality probably not in the US. 2-10-2’s are from a drag freight era when it was thought it was better to drag a couple of hundred freight cars out of the yard at 10 mph rather than 100 at 20. DOn’t ask me why but that was the thinking.
2-10-2s were a pre-superpower engine design, meant for low speed, high tonnage drag freight service (drag freights average five to eight MPH; “high speed” service averages 16 MPH). IN general, that’s what they were used for. In general.
Major exceptions include the IC, C&IM and CB&Q. The IC used 2-10-2s on their Iowa division, running high speed, first class meat reefer blocks from Dubuque to Chicago. Average speed was 22 MPH (whyich blew away most passenger schedules), and the engines would regularly reach 70 MPH. The CB&Q used some of their 2-10-2s in fast freight service out west. And the C&IM hauled fairly short coal strings from southern Illinois to Peoria on tight schedules, with engines reaching 50 MPH regularly.
And what engines are USED for is a function of design, finances and availability. What the engines were DESIGNED for is partially based on driver diameter (but only partially; most 4-8-4s were designed as dual-service engines, and had large drivers. They were mostly ONLY used for freight)
The CPR used Class S2A 5800 series 2-10-2’s in pusher service on both freight and passenger trains in the Rockies. Fifteen of them were built in CP’s Angus Shops in 1919 and 1920. Most of them saw service until the mid to late 1950’s.
I was just looking at my 1946 Pere Marquette timetable, and the slowest (10 stops + 7 flag stops) passenger train (pulled by light pre-USRA Pacifics) made the 184 mile trip from Grand Rapids to Chicago in 7 hours, averaging 26 mph. The equivalent trains with less stops (8 stops + 0 flag stops) covered the same milage in 4.5 hours, averaging 41 mph. 22 mph seems aweful slow for a passenger train schedule, even with non-superpower steam.
The original 1946 E7 diesel pulled “Pere Marquette’s” made the 152 mile trip between Grand Rapids to Detroit in 2 hours and 40 minutes to 3 hours (2 stops and 8 stops respectively), averaging 57 and 50 mph respectively.
Tell that to the AAR. National average car miles was only something around 12MPH. Of course, that includes loiter time in yards, which significantly cuts travel time: if you spend one hour at 100 MPH, but nine hours at zero MPH, your average speed is 10 MPH!
I believe at some point in the early 20th century the 12 MPH “average” was recognized and incorporated into the workrules - that’s where the rule saying if you drove a train for 100 miles, it was considered one full work day regardless of how long it actually took you (since at an average freight speed of 12 MPH it would take about 8 hrs to go 100 miles). It wasn’t until maybe the 60’s that those rules were removed.
BTW that’s part of the reason division points are usually about 100 miles apart.
That’s one of those “depends” questions. There was a train robbery on SP’s Siskiyou line about 1921 where the the locomotive hauling the train was an F-1 class 2-10-2. IIRC, 2-10-2’s were also used in the 20’s over Tehachapi on some trains and Santa Fe used them to haul passenger trains from Williams, AZ, to the Grand Canyon. SP also from time to time used its 4-10-2’s in passenger service.
In any case, 2-10-2’s were often used in helper service on passenger trains in mountainous territory.
Andre
Quote: ndbprr
Pure passenger engines had drivers approaching 8’ in diameter. The logic is easy. A passenger train doesn’t weigh as much as a freight, goes faster and is more economically run with larger wheels as they make fewer revolutions.
–
I am not sure that this is the logic… Larger wheels go further for each revolution allowing higher speed. While the “more economical per revolution” argument may be true, I do not think it is the primary one.
Think about the first non-geared “Penny-farthing” bicycles with the big front wheel. Since there was no gearing, and you could only pedal so fast, it was necessary to make the front wheel bigger to achieve higher speeds.
In any case, a “general rule of thumb” is that engines with 4 wheels on the leading truck (e.g. 4-6-2, 4-6-4) were designed for higher speeds (passenger and/or express trains of perishables), whether or not they ended up being used for that service or not.
Andrew
Quote: ndbprr
Pure passenger engines had drivers approaching 8’ in diameter. The logic is easy. A passenger train doesn’t weigh as much as a freight, goes faster and is more economically run with larger wheels as they make fewer revolutions.
–
What about the pure passenger N&W J? It only had 70 inch diameter drivers and could easily run 100mph plus on flat ground?
Yes but I said on straight level ground and that topography altered that assumption. I even said that the PRR uses 2-8-2’s in passenger helper service where tractice effort was more important. 70" drivers are on the rare side for freight steam engines.
Paraphrasing ERIE POWER from the 1970s, Stoffer says 2-10-2s were especially suited for fast freight around WWI and into the 20s during the drag freight era. They also helped on heavy coal range grades as pushers.
There is a note also that the Texans served as head end on passenger trains from Hornell to Meadville to move the heavy troop trains over heavy grades.
One heck of an engine to model.
SMS
Well Texans were not 2-10-2’s they were 2-10-4’s which indicates they were a later breed from when firboxes were growing to the point they needed more support. Most of the 2-10-4’s rank either in or close to superpower years and were revered by most railroads. Your comment though supports my contention in that they were used to move heavy troop trains over heavy grades.