Why did the five railroads, SP, UP, SP&S, NP, GN ran only 4-8-2s to Portland Oregon as the 4-8-4s were being used elsewhere, that is, SP 4-8-4s ran only in California, UP 4-8-4s ran only in Wyoming, Utah, and Nebraska, etc, as Portland Oregon wasn’t 4-8-4 territory in the steam locomotives era.
Well, the Southern Pacific did run 4-8-4 Northerns to Portland, but of the smaller GS-4 and GS-6 classes. This was due to a VERY sharp curve on the stretch connecting their main line with Union Station. The did run G-4 types on occasion, including at least one visit by 4449 itself. The Northern Pacific used “Class A” Northerns between Seattle and Portland. The Spokane, Portland, and Seattle used clones of the Northern Pacific Class A-3 for its Portland to Spokane connection of the Empire Builder. The Union Pacific avoided Northerns due to their own issue with a sharp curve on the line to the north of Portland. The Great Northern decided a 4-8-2 was adequate for what where secondary trains on a level track. Hopes this helps; done off the top of my head and subject to correction
Oops, GS-6 class not GS-4
Why no Great Northern 4-8-4s to Portland, Oregon, Were they systemwide locomotives. What’s the reason.
TheGN northerns never came farther west than Wenatchee, or the eastern end of the electrified district. This was the beginning of the toughest stretch of railroading the GN. The first class of Northern types, S1, were used to haul fast freight on the Great Plains. The S2 class was used to Wenatchee. However, it did not run to Seattle on account of clearance issues at the King
Street Station in Seattle. As with the Portland area curves, it is strange that relatively fixable problems served to rule out of whole classes of locomotive. In any case, the Great Northern P2 Mountain type was it itself a very capable passenger locomotive, and capable of all purposes west of the Cascade mountains
It could go to Portland via Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway instead hauling freight trains.In fact, if thr SP&S Northerns can go to Portland, why not GN Northerns.
Remember, in the steam era, the name of the game was ‘horses for courses’. With each carrier endeavoring to use the smallest power possible and still get the job done to their satisfaction considering the number of cars, grades and speed component. If the job can be done with a Pacific satisfactorily, why incur the additional expense to operate a Mountain or a Northern. The bigger the engine the more fuel it uses.
That is such a great point. Who at an individual railroad was responsible for making such decisions about what type of steam engine to run?
Rich
Did Northern Pacific 4-8-4s used King Street Station tunnel and King Street Station…
Normally someone like ‘Vice President of Operations’ or some similar type position would set the power utilization policy - then Division Superintendents would pass the policy along to their Chief Train Dispatchers and other operating personnel for it to be implemented on the Division.
Thanks for that explanation. It is interesting to understand the chain of command on a railroad.
Rich
Physical limitations like turntable lengths could limit locomotive wheelbases. More than one railroad settled for smaller power based on that factor alone. Lengthening a turntable often meant altering the associated roundhouse as well, as stall lengths were tied to the turntable length.
On the other hand, at least one railroad (L&N) built a 4-8-4-sized locomotive as a 2-8-4 because of turntable restrictions. Shorter does not necessarily imply ‘smaller’…
Good point. A bigger longer turntable is one thing, but the railroad would also need to rebuild the roundhouse.
Rich
Oops, good counterpoint.
Rich
And some “centipede” tenders could lift their last set of wheels off the rails to allow use of a not-quite-long-enough turntable. Some local restrictions were either weight-related or just the result of long-standing practice.
I have seen photos of steamers hanging a bit off turntables. That takes some risky skills to pull off.
Rich
That might involve nothing more than lengthening the back end of some roundhouse stalls. That’s how the PRR 6100 ‘Big Engine’ was accommodated at Crestline.
I guess that makes sense but if, for example, a 90’ turntable was replaced by a 130’ turntable, wouldn’t something more than lengthening the back wall of stalls be required to accommodate the changed geometry?
Rich
[quote=“richhotrain, post:19, topic:406108”]
if, for example, a 90’ turntable was replaced by a 130’ turntable, wouldn’t [quote] … would something more than lengthening the back wall of stalls be required to accommodate the changed geometry?[/quote]
Changing from 90 to 130 would involve widening the pit 20’ in radius, and if the aprons to the stalls were not at least that deep, you’d need to jack up the framing, pull down the front wall and doors, and rebuild structure ‘further back’. That would have the advantage of increasing the door width of the stalls. You’d then presumably knock out some of the back walls and either extend or use lower-height construction as above. Some interesting considerations on where to put the smokejack system, and route the direct-steam piping as you’d surely want to implement it in the rebuilding.
The issue is that your capacity is the same number of tracks at the greater pit radius, whereas tearing out the whole structure and laying new tracks would give you potentially more stalls (I’m not doing the math, but it should be easy to figure)
With the rise of lubritoria and good transfer tables… you might build something more like the Cotton Belt house in Pine Bluff where 819 lives…