I know the railroads of the West only operated Northerns and Mallets but no Berkshires or Hudsons. Eastern locomotives are not welcomed there.
Huh? What?? You better start some searches and reading because you are waaaaaayyyy off!
Canadian Pacific operated Hudsons in the West, and Canadian National operated Northerns in the East.
Or is Canada just considered the North?
Santa Fe, Burlington, Milwaukee and Northwestern all had Hudsons, and ATSF & CNW had some Berkshires too, although they were few.
I could go on…
Speaking of CN 4-8-4s , Did Canadian National ran the 160 Northerns systemwide, or restricted to only Ontario and Quebec because of their size and weight.
What do you mean by “West”?
Milwaukee road had 4-6-4s very early, ordered before the appearance of NYC 5200 which they called “Baltics”.
Milwaukee and C&NW had very large 4-6-4s, both with 84" drivers.
Santa Fe had the 4100 class 2-8-4s, and they and SP both purchased former B&M 2-8-4s.
Santa Fe had the 3450 and 3460 class 4-6-4s including 3460 itself which was streamlined and painted blue and is pretty well known…
Peter
Except for the Santa Fe who didn’t have any use for articulateds after a bad experience with some early ones I can’t say any railroad anywhere had a prejudice against any particular locomotive wheel arrangement. Remember, these 'roads were run by very practical men, and if a certain locomotive type looked like it would fill a need they’d certainly take a good hard look at it.
While the Northerns were more common in the east they would also be found out west, and CN’s 2-10-2s and 4-8-2s (commonly found in the western provinces) were nearly as heavy as a 4-8-4.
I do not believe there were weight restrictions on the 4-8-4s, as CN had inherited a number of main routes with lighter-duty track they ordered locomotives that could run on them.
I may be mistaken, but I have the impression that the Northern Pacific used Northerns–and that they were so-called because the NP used them.
Of course, the Dixie Line used Dixies.
You’re not mistaken Johnny, the Northern Pacific was the first to use the “Northern” type, the name and the wheel arrangement found each other and stuck fast.
Of course, you and I know there was no way those proud southern railroads were going to call their 4-8-4’s “Northerns”, especially with the “Late Unpleasantness” only 60 years in the past! Hence the name “Dixies”, “Greenbriers” on the C&O, Class J’s on the N&W, “Governors, Generals, and Statesmen” on the RF&P, and there were more than likely others who’s names elude me at the moment.
Wow. The thought just hit me. There was less time between the end of the Civil War and the first Northerns than there is between our time and the end of World War Two! Scary.
Wayne
Yes, I did not recall the other names for the 4-8-4’s
While on the subtopic of alternate names, remember that the Central of Georgia and one other road operated MacArthurs (were they Big Macs?) during WWII.
Back to western roads and their engines.
Oh yes, when World War Two began some folks considered the name “Mikado” inappropriate since we were fighting the Japanese, so the name “MacArthur” was subsituted. I don’t think it ever really caught on though, however some did call the 2-8-2 types “MacMikes.”
I understood that ATSF changed out hudsons for northerns at LaJunta. Did many hudsons operate west of the front range?
A curious artifact of the ‘balancing revolution’ was the idea that six-coupled (or fewer) drivers were needed to make high speed, hence ATSF using the 3460 class for fast running on the prairies and handing over to 4-8-4a on grades. Hudsons could and did run through – you may remember an early high-mileage test using one – but something funny happened in the meantime: ATSF discovered fast 4-8-4s. By the time of the 3776 class ATSF had 4-8-4s that had a measurable speed advantage over the 3460s as well as being more tractable at high speed.
Meanwhile consider the vast difference between the Milwaukee F7, a proven and effective high-speed locomotive, and the nominally similar C&NW E-4 that could not even get to 100mph with the AAR test train. The 3460s had appalling valve tracting and while they could apparently make it up to 102 or so the bottom fell out promptly and about the highest verifiable speed, downgrade with a tailwind, was somewhere around 105. And all this with 84" drivers and supposedly good balancing.
Remember too that the Niagara was an unexpectedly late development out of what as late as 1945 was expected to be little more impressive than a 75"-delivered clone of CRI&p/D&H size locomotive. Very few “Western” engines had the performance of what Alco produced with lightweight motion work and good detail design even with some of the more ridiculous Eastern clearances. No Western engine produced the speed of the N&W J in direct test even with much larger drivers. It would have been highly interesting to see what Kiefer or Glaze might have produced with ATSF clearances … or for that matter what a slightly less wack oil-fired duplex might have done … but even as early as the Thirties most of the West belonged to diesels even on roads with the best approaches to big steam express power.
There’s a much scarier way to put it: less time between the end of the Civil War and the first high-speed Northerns than from the time most of the Eastern high-speed steam was scrapped to now.
I am still not quite sure why the rebuilt H-class C&NW Zeppelins aren’t far more famous than they are. THAT was a large dual-service engine with acquired grace.
Oh great, as if I don’t feel enough like yesterdays man!
The C&NW Zeppelins, after the brilliant and outstanding rebuild post WWII are definitely in my top 5. They are underrated and somewhat overlooked. Their appearance went downhill a few years after that may have been a contributing factor, and they had a short time in the big show really after the rebuild, but then so did most everything else.
A beautiful and outstanding locomotive.
I suppose they got the name “Zeppelins” when the old “Graf” was making its world-renowned flights and long before the “Hindenburg” disaster.
Eckener made the around-the-world flight the year these were introduced. Then came the Century of Progress exhibition and the famous stamps. This came from there:
Ah, Herr Doktor Hugo Eckener and his wonderful “Graf Zeppelin!”
How’d you all like to go for a ride with the “Old Man” and his amazing airship?
OK, here 'ya go…
Overmod said:
Meanwhile consider the vast difference between the Milwaukee F7, a proven and effective high-speed locomotive, and the nominally similar C&NW E-4 that could not even get to 100mph with the AAR test train.
I mentioned these two in my post on Standardisation in Argentina.
How did this happen?
They were built by Alco in the same year to the same general specification.
It is like someone bought
Perhaps all those minor differences all add up to a certain optimum.
Also we know steam locomotive construction was dependent on craftsman, a very certain bias to a way of doing something. A specific way of doing things would have applied somewhat differently through these seperate orders.
Perhaps coal grade and water management played a role as well.