I was recently thinking about 3 cylinder steam (Not including Shays) and got to thinking, 3 cylinder steam had it’s brief era in the US, mainly in the 1920’s, and we all hear about maintenance issues with the center cylinder, along with the center running gear, and so it was unpopular with many US railroads.
My question is why did the design take off in Europe? European 3 cylinders obviosly had the same problems that US ones had to deal with, so why did they turn out so well? There are even some 3 cylinder excursion steam locos operating in Europe today, and even the famous “Mallard” was a three cylinder. (Yes, I know the Mallard had issues with the center running gear after her 126 mph run)
In fact some european railroads went a bit further with 4 cylinder locos! (Two cylinders in the middle) And yet seemed to have no problems with these, either!
Thanks for helping answer my question! Amazing how opposite the results were with the same idea!
One of the reasons three-cylinder steam wasn’t such a problem in Europe was labor costs. In a nutshell, labor in Europe was cheap, labor in the US was expensive, or at least the railroad officials thought so.
So, remembering the old saying of “time is money” we can see why the American 'road officials had the policy of “get 'em in, get 'em fixed, get 'em out, and the less time in the shops the better!”
At any rate as the 20th Century wore on, and improvements in steam locomotive technology such as roller bearings, superheating, and lighter steel alloys for side rods came along the advantages of multi-cylinder locomotives seemed negligable.
And remember, in the end the steam vs. diesel contest was decided in the shops.
Not sure you can make this as a blanket statement. Europeans had at least one example of a reasonably large compound Mallet (Gt 2x4/4) which one could easily presume to have larger loading gage measurement over the forward-engine cylinders than a simple-articulated equivalent. Then there is the Borsig 2-6-8-0 approach to the Kriegslok – I have never seen clearance issues given as a reason the design wasn’t built. (Note that US articulated locomotive practice was explicitly considered in the design of this locomotive.)
Do I need to mention Garratts, most of which had four simple cylinders and could easily be designed to fit very restrictive loading gages (see the British examples)?
Most big American-style ‘single-expansion Mallets’ might have been too big to run inside European clearances, but that has little to do with their being four-cylinder locomotives…
I was thinking primarily about the UK- I tend to do that when European steam was discussed, though there was considerable difference between Continental and British Steam.
Good point on the Garratts, but they were restricted from many lines, just as much due to curvature and weight than overall size.
I have thought some more about this, and I suspect that the railroads simply were not trying to haul American-sized freight trains, and were content to double-head trains where neccesary. Also, many of the major grades were electrified early.
If we turn to passenger steam, though, one of the main reasons why they went to three and four cylinder locomotives is loading gauge, large cylinders would not have fit.
No question at all; what is potentially interesting is that just this argument largely governed the trend toward three-cylinder power in the United States in the '20s (up to the combination of Woodard et al. advocating relatively long stroke/small bore cylinders, higher boiler pressure, better dynamic and cross-balancing in the mains, and use of reduced mass and lower lateral offset in the rods and valve gear, etc. to do with two cylinders what previously would require three).
Credit goes to Baldwin for practically introducing the idea of a true high-speed (simple) articulated, and then to N&W, Alco, and UP’s Jabelmann for expanding some of the ideas to provide a Mallet chassis stable at high speeds. That is what made four-cylinder road power practical in the United States for situations where better two-cylinder running gear that was the functional equal of older three-cylinder drive began to be ‘too much’ for rods, main pins, etc. to stand.
HiHiAs you can see by a number of loco types of which existed both a four cylinder compound or three cylinder simple expansion variations and a ‘twin tin’ alternative , further as you can see by numerous four cylinder compound types with LP on the outside ( LP diameter was larger than that of a two cylinder simple expansion version of the same loco would / did ) and from what a simple cylinder dimensioning calculation will show , in Europe loading gauge limit never was a governing factor in deciding against a two cylinder simple .
Example I had noted in the 242.A.1 thread :
deGlehn NORD Pacific in a deCaso two cylinder variation .
Examples in DR standard types :
01 class heavy two cylinder simple Pacific initially also built as 02 class with a four cylinder compound unit having LP cylinders outsides ; 44 class heavy Decapod three cylinder simple in the beginning also built as a two cylinder variation , 43 class ; the 43 was first found somewhat superior in locomotive efficiency by a small margin , yet in the end the 44 class won because her three cylinder unit stood up better against wear in hard running while the 43s began to develop cracks in frames and turned out to be prone to main rod big end failure ( in the light of much later very hard running of the oil-fired 44s during the last decade of steam on DB the decision was fully proven correct ) . With the 01 / 02 comparison , I had noted earlier the compound was ‘designed to fail’ as indicated by the fact desig
There is no single reason. In the UK the loading gauge at platform elevation is quite limiting. All the UK 3 and 4 cylinder express locomotives were pre-WWII designs and they were more than capable of handling any train length that could be reasonably be handled at mainline stations. Their WWII performances under poor maintenance conditions were quite astounding. After WWII, the situation changed radically with nationalization and recovery from war-deferred maintenance. With one exception all the BR standard locos were 2 cylinders. As for the continent, much the same situation if not worse. Reconstruction of major mainlines was almost always electrified so there was little need for anything other than simple robust locomotives requiring little skill to operate and maintain. As for the Garratt configuration, little if any benefit in Europe. In the USA the benefits of low axle loading and flexibility were of even less consequence. Garratts could be very powerful, good examples in South Africa, Rhodesia and Australia. They could also be be fast, for example the Rhodesian 15th Class, well-known as the “fast fifteens”. Summing up, “horses for courses.”
I would propose that there is a slight philosophical approach/institutional bias at play as well with regards to this.
If I may apply an overly broad, prejudicial, but demonstrably accurate stereotype, compare the “classics” of European automobile design versus comparable American examples, especially sports and race cars. As a rule, American designers attempt to make everything bigger and more powerful (think Corvette, GTO, Trans Am, Charger, SUVs, etc.–and if they’re not powerful enough, you just soup them up), whereas British, German, etc. sports cars reach their goals through engineering (Jaguar, Audi, Porsche, Volvo, Citroen, etc.). Exceptions abound, of course, notably Italians (Ferrari, Lamborghini).
I am aware of several three cylinder steam locomotives that have survived in the United States.
In southern California one of the Southern Pacific Railroad - SP 5021 survives today. Known as the “Overland” type according to the Whyte system 4-10-2. These locomotives were developed in 1925 primarily for pusher service on mountain grades. They used Gresley valve gear. The outside cylinders were Walcharts valve motion and the center cylinder - Gresley - used two links on the pilot beam which had a pivot post built into it. The combination of motion by the outside cylinder valves moved these links which controled the valve to the center cylinder. Speed limit on these engine was limited to about 35 mph. They were also built for Union Pacific RR.
Probably the most famous three cylinder design which was created only for Union Pacific in 1926 by ALCO with over 90 locomotives built. The wheel arrangement 4-12-2 was called the “Union Pacific” according to the Whyte system and was never built for any other railroad. Cylinders were 27" for the center and 31" for the two outside. Stroke was 34" and boiler pressure was 220 psi. The center cylinder drove the second drivers effectively making this axle shaft into a crankshaft and then the outer cylinders drove the third driver and axle set. Gresley valve gear was used to control the center cylinder valve. Surprisingly Union Pacific RR achieved 60 mph with the 4-12-2. The original locomotive UP 9000 remains today in Pamona, California and was on display with the Union Pacific RR “Big Boy” UP 4014 - before it was called to excursion service. Both of these locomotives were unique to the world to Union Pacific RR who developed and used both designs extensively.
The last surviving 3 cylinder steam that I know of, is the Baldwin Locomotive Works BLW 60000 which was an experimental engine designed to showcase new t
Looking at a different country, Japan imported six Alco 4-6-2s (C52 class) and built 97 more to their own design (C53 class.) They were early casualties as electrification progressed post-WWII. A few earlier 2-cylinder 4-6-2s lasted 20 years longer!
The reason? KISS lives. Two cylinder locos have accessible machinery, don’t require dropping axles to work on rod bearings, require less shop time for each hour of road time…
Just one oddity. A C53 was the subject of a Japanese attempt at streamline styling. The basic design returned in the recent Shinkansen EMU sets with end cars that look like inverted grain scoops.
The basic idea was that a big boiler could feed three cylinders of reasonable size rather than two humongous clearance-busters. As speed and boiler pressure increased, even a big boiler couldn’t keep up with 2-cylinder steam consumption.
It’s not on a ‘treadmill’ – you may be thinking of PRR 6100 at the World’s Fair. 60000 is on a short piece of track, and was moved forward and backward with a screw arrangement when I last saw her. Here in fact is a video of what happens now:
Thanks for the cool video, I have seen the SP 4-10-2 back in the 1960’s when I was in California but never got to the Franklin Institute. Very impressive to see BLW 60000 and it is BRAND NEW! The cab, what a trip with the Duplex stoker - never vandelized, never worn out, never rebuilt in the backshop and every bit of paint is from 1926! No engine in the nation can claim that! Right out of the time capsule. WOW!
As cool as it is, that also means it will likely not run again. Every speck of paint is as it was when rolled out of the Baldwin works. It is absolutely amazing!
A restoreation would destroy this unique trait. But I would rather see it like this, completely original and intact, than running down the rails with new paint, changes to many things, replaced parts. I just don’t think it’s worth the trade-off.
At risk of repeating historical facts known to readers , I feel a few remarks should be made in view of Dr D previous posting :
The Southern Pacific was looking for a dual purpose locomotive for their difficult Donner Pass line , this resulted in ordering the known 4-10-2 three cylinder engines . UP ordered a somewhat lighter version of the same concept , too due to tolerably similar traction demands on their mountain line through the Wasatch Range . While SP was content enough with the engines to order a production batch , UP never found their’s fully satisfying , already went one step further considering a significantly larger 4-12-2 which – in spite of its extra set of drive wheels at the back end – also was to feature an increased wheel diameter . As bigger power arrived , the 4-10-2 on both RRs were much relegated to back end services .
With the 12 coupled wheel arrangement , UP took full advantage of the three cylinder unit in that it enabled six powered axles at no more than an equivalent axle load Mikado’s piston thrust . With a two cylinder unit it would not have been possible to take full advantage of six powered axles in line and in view of UP’s perennial search for increased power this was the fulcrum of advantage with the three cylinder unit .
The arrangement of six consecutive drive wheel sets in a rigid frame in spite of presence of some appallingly tight curves on the mountain line and in yards was made possible by applying ALCO lateral motion device as in the lead
Thats the way it is with lots of stuff. Sometimes “original condition” is more valuable because “its only original once,” but used stuff that is “beat up” is a lot more fun.
I have a WWI Colt automatic pistol. Its in nice shape and I bought it because it was nicely rebuilt and refinished. I can carry it, use it, really enjoy the 1917 piece - and I shoot it lots. If this thing was original I would have to keep it locked up, protected because it would be much too valuable to risk damaging, and every scratch would reduce its value - just a serious investment!
BLW 60,000 shows us just what a steam locomotive was in 1926 - pristine original condition. Its a benchmark! that tells us just how a locomotive should look and be finished. No questions how Baldwin did their work, wiring, piping, assembly, and fasteners, and what was the standard of production.
Sometimes today we repaint this kind of engine to look like a Cadillac instead of a train with the new types of paint finish, we upgrade all the accessories so it can run on modern railroads, with tight lock couplers, and modern brake equipment for crying out loud UP 844 flattened its driver wheels when they were trying to hook it up with a diesel MU so UP844 could control the diesel engine coupled behind the locomotive.
Back in the 1970’s the C&O still had a line of steam locomotives in storage behind the shop in Russel, KY. As a young guy of 22 years old I really enjoyed visiting the yard and finding these old steam engines. I those days no one cared if you climbed all over this kind of stuff. There before my eyes was the rusted glory of the age of steam. A C&O 2-6-6-6 Allegheny, a C&O 2-8-2 Heavy Mikado, a C&O 4-8-4 Northern (eventually Ross Rolland 614) it was numbered C&O 611 with roller bearing side rods, also several C&O 2-8-4 berkshires which for some reason the railroad thought we
We have another thread going about NYC 5315 which was destroyed in a wreck in 1940. The engine hit a rock wall after jumping the track in Little Falls, NY at 70 mph. The rear four wheel engine truck was never found and assumed to have gone into the Mohawk River where it probably remains today. Given the mass of the truck and its speed we are wondering how far it could have gone out into the water? Sounds like you could make an educated guess about that. The thread is the “Union Pacific 4006 tender swap.”
Wow! great explanation of the UP 9000 series. The transfer of motion lost to the center cylinder is nicely explained as only science could show! Truely the engine was a behemoth and the fact that Union Pacific stayed with it and included 90 copies is a testament to another age - the age of American “drag freight service.”
Truely some American railroads never moved out of the mindset of “drag freight.” As long as the train could be started and moved that was all that mattered, it would eventually get over the road! The C&O continued to use its high power 2-6-6-6 Alleghany locomotives into the 1940’s in this fashion by operating them at low speeds where their power never became effective.
Science moved on, but C&O opperating managment stayed behind in the past and never did get used to the potential new idea. The last C&O steam locomotive purchased in 1949 was an antiquated 2-6-6-2 design from 1917 of the “drag freight era.” Strangely C&O saved it C&O 1309 - Baldwin Locomotive Works last construction - and it is being restored today to use as a tourist engine on the Western Maryland.
I can think of a few similar archaic British locomotive designs of the time that continued to be built well past their age. Industrial engineering as we understand it toda
I realize that, and the more I look at Staufer’s pictures I wonder if the boiler explosion did’t throw it out there. I looks like the firebox blew out the grate, blew back the frame and broke it around the center driver and hurled the rear truck into the river.
When the boilers went up on a moving locomotive under power they usuall went a half mile or more. Still it has to be out in that river in a radius extending from the sight of the wreck. I mean they found the Titanic three miles down in the middle of the Atlantic - this four wheel truck from NYC Hudson 5315 can’t be that far! NYC just didn’t care, and it was the age when people dumped everything - every sort of junk went into the river to get rid of it.
Thanks for kind appreciation , I was just trying to point out some design specifications in three cylinder locos as built . If and when I get to it I want to describe some of the three cylinder engine unit’s typical unique characteristics .
British steam : oh , no I don’t think British steam loco engineering had much in advance of America’s . You should have heard me , uh-so-long-ago when with my late dad as a teen on a special behind a beautifully restored Gresley Pacific when some old Londoners who then looked to me like they might still have worked for the LNER , for it’s predecessors , even told me in most impressive words what technical marvels these locomotive were . When they came to take breath , admiring their own ardent worshipping , in my then pretty direct ways I laconically dropped " Well , you know , we always had the biggest and the best …"
Silence .
After the trip my father told me one of those folks had remarked to him " Your young daughter may look like a madonna , but trying to tell her about locomotives will only destroy the picture ."