I was wondering how popular on average was the 4-6-0. I know it was the most popular wheel arrangement ever in Canada (maybe the wheel arrangement should be called the Canadian[(-D], like how the 4-4-0 was the American), but what was it’s popularity in the USA. And how good were they at climbing hills, and high speed?
And also, would a railway have a roster of all 4-6-0’s, and switchers?
Wow, what are the odds? I just ambled in to look at one of my all-time favorite steam locomotive book (Alfred W. Bruce’s “The Steam Locomotive in America”) and the pages just about fell open to page 71. Thereon is a chart which may not be a total answer to your question, but it’ll help. It’s titled “Types of main line steam locomotives in the United States as shown in the Consist of December 31, 1904”. Bruce also says about this chart “…presents the motive power consist at the end of 1904 on the United States railroads reporting to the Interstate Commerce Commission.” This would imply all railroads that do not interchange are not included. Lumber railroads come to mind–4-6-0’s would have been decidedly rare on them, though.
Anyway, the chart reports:
2-8-0 11399
4-4-0 11323
4-6-0 9232
2-6-0 5465
0-6-0 4764
0-4-0 1172
4-4-2 852
4-8-0 557
2-6-2 456
4-6-2 233
0-8-0 168
2-4-2 121
2-4-0 51
2-8-2 34
2-10-0 15
0-10-0 10
There’s more, but that’s a start. There were quite a few 2 and 4 cylinder compounds noted. And no articulateds–I think that happened 2 years later.
Ed
The 4-6-0 or ‘Ten Wheeler’ was quite popular from about 1870 until about 1900. It wa a follow-on to the 4-4-0 as a passenger engine, and also became a good dual service engine. It was built in small to larger versions through years. As trains became heavier, the small ‘between the frame’ firebox limited the amount of steam the boiler could generate - hence the trailing truck 4-6-2 ‘Pacific’ type that replaced it in passenger service. Ten Wheelers remained in secondary passenger service and dual service roles on branch lines until the end of steam. Hill climbing and drag service were not normal service for them. With the 4 wheel pilot truck, high speed running was possible as long as the boiler could produce enough steam!
Jim
The last camelback in main line service were the CNJ’s 4-6-0’s.
The 4-6-0 was very popular in the American Midwest, and many of the more modern ones survived to the end of steam. However, the Midwest is known for its easy grades, and 4-6-0s could run with short trains.
They were quite popular for a time, and some lasted well into the mid-20th century on branchlines and such. Depending on driver size, they could be primarily used for passenger, freight or both. I’ve seen pics of a then-new 4-6-0 hauling an iron ore train on the Missabe Road.
More numbers from my pal Mr. Bruce:
33,000 2-8-0’s built in the US–the largest group
17,000 4-6-0’s built in the US
As to why the 4-6-0 was the most popular loco in Canada, while the 2-8-0 was in the US, perhaps Canada viewed the 4-6-0 as a dual service loco (which it was) while America decided to go with both the 2-8-0 (which was generally superior for freight) combined with the 4-4-0 (which was certainly good enough for lighter passenger runs, and cheaper than a 4-6-0. Sorta like replacing a 4-8-4 (say a Santa Fe one) with a 4-6-4 and a 2-10-4 (also with Santa Fe ones).
Ed
As to why the 4-6-0 was more popular in Canada, was because there are much less people in Canada, meaning much less traffic, so that meant less need for power, so there were smaller engines in Canada.
If memory serves, the last steam locomotive on the Southern Pacific used in revenue service (August 25, 1959) was a ten wheeler. The SP favored ten-wheelers on its narrow-gauge Keeler Branch and had several of them. Switchers weren’t used on the self-contained branch.
The Southern Pacific’s only Camelback was a 4-6-0.
I am aware that Canada had smaller steam locomotives than the US. What I was wondering about is why Canada chose 4-6-0’s instead of smaller 2-8-0’s or 2-6-0’s for freight (more efficient with more weight on drivers) combined with 4-4-0’s (simpler and easier to maintain than a 4-6-0).
Ed
I don’t know, but the Canadian National had a lot of 2-6-0’s and 2-8-0’s, more than Canadian Pacific, but they had much more 4-6-0’s than Consols and Moguls. On the Canadian Pacific there was almost no moguls and a few Consols and around 1000 4-6-0’s.
Oops, I meant to say I don’t know WHY, but the Canadian National had a lot of 2-6-0’s and 2-8-0’s, more than WHAT THE Canadian Pacific HAD, but they had much more 4-6-0’s than Consols and Moguls. On the Canadian Pacific there was almost no moguls and a few Consols and around 1000 4-6-0’s.
Here’s a maybe explanation of the Canadian 4-6-0 phenomenon: The US railroads were older than the Canadian. Right? So there could quite likely have been a heap of old 4-4-0’s available in the US that could be used for light passenger service. Then the demand in the US would be for freight engines: 2-8-0’s. In Canada, where it appears to me there weren’t a lot of old 4-4-0’s available, there was a need for passenger and/or freight locos–and 4-6-0’s were quite good for dual service mainline use.
So, this theory says that the US WOULD have also bought a lot more 4-6-0’s if they hadn’t had a goodly supply of existing 4-4-0’s. And it explains why BOTH the 2-8-0 and 4-4-0 were so prominent.
Oh, yeah, there was a question about usage of 4-6-0’s. A lot depended both on the size and the driver diameter. One of my all-time favorite “old” locos is the LS&MS 4-6-0 (I finally picked up a Ken Kidder model). It was a huge 4-6-0 for it’s day and had 80" drivers–like the wind, I would imagine. And there was also the Pennsy version which had an engine weight 38% higher, but with 68" drivers it was undoubtedly slower. But much more appropriate for commuter work, I’ll wager. And then there’s my cute little Bachmann ten-wheeler–the low drivered one. My logging railroad bought one because the president thought it should have a dedicated (more or less) loco for towing a combine and an occasional coach from one end of the line to the other. Luckily, the company turns a handsome profit, so that the pres. can throw the money around a bit.
As for a line that had only 4-6-0’s and switchers, an easy one would be a commute line (as mentioned above). The switcher(s) would handle the coach yard while the ten-wheelers brought in the bucks. One could also bring in a bit of freight operation during off hours–might need a big 0-8-0 for transfer work, too. I’m having trouble coming up with something else, tho
Be aware that not all 4-6-0s were created alike. There were some “Ten-Wheelers” that had rather large drivers for passenger service and they were definitely NOT dual service.
Ed, you would probably have a better understanding of Canadian geography than I do, but I tend to think between Quebec and the Rocky Mountains, Canada’s terrain is not much different from the American Midwest: mostly level, the only serious grades coming out of river valleys.
What’s more, outside of a few areas in the east and on the coasts, Canada does not have the population density that the US has. Same thing would apply to industrial density.
I seem to remember that the British also preferred the 4-6-0, and there were few larger engines. But again, someone more familiar with British railroading would have to pronounce on this.
You surely don’t mean this particular Ed
Well, they have a little itty bitty island, so they would naturally have little itty bitty trains. They did get into Pacifics–there’s still one running now. And it’s a beauty!! But, no four wheel trailing trucks that I know of. And darn few, if any 8 couple locos. Or 10’s. Or, my favorite, 12’s. Or articulateds.
Ed
What about a narrow gauge line with gentle grades, and broad curves, with a need for a dual purpose engine with a turn of speed?