When I think of large steam locomotives, I think of these five groups. None of these locomotives have operated in the last 40 years, and it is doubtful if any will run again. On the bright side, 14 of these locomotives from 4 of the groups are still around for us to marvel at.
The first group are the Southern Pacific 4-8-8-2s, commonly called Cab Forwards.195 were built by Baldwin between 1928 and 1944. They had 63" drivers, 250 lbs pressure, and weighed 657,900 pounds (1,051,200 with tender) and their TE was 124,300. The last one to run was on a fan trip in Dec. 1957. The only one left is the last one built, 4294, which is inside the CSRM in Sacramento.
The next group is the Northern Pacific 2-8-8-4s, called Yellowstones because they ran on NPs Yellowstone Division. 1 was built by ALCo in 1928 and 11 more by Baldwin in 1930. They had 63" drivers and 250lbs of pressure. They weighed 723,400lbs or 1,125,400lbs with their tenders, while the TE was 139,900lbs. All were scrapped between 1952 and 1957.
The third group are the 18 Duluth Missabi and Iron Range 2-8-8-4 Yellowstones which were built by Baldwin in 1941 and 1943. They also had 63" drivers and operated up to 240lbs. Weight was 699,700 (1,138,035) and TE was 140,000 lbs.They were retired in 1962 and 1963 and three are saved in Minnesota. 225 in Proctor, 227 in Duluth and 229 in Two Harbours.
Next came the UP 4-8-8-4 Big Boys. 25 were built by ALCo from 1941 to 1944. Pressure was 300lbs and drivers were 68". Weight was 772,250 (1,208,750) and the tractive effort was 135,375lbs.8 are saved- 4004 in Cheyenne, 4005 in Denver, 4006 in St.Louis, 4012 in Scranton, 4014 in Pomona CA, 4017 in Green Bay, 4018 in Dallas and 4023 in Omaha.
The last group are the 60 C&O 2-6-6-6 Alleghenys. They were built by Lima between 1941 and 1948. 67" drivers, 260lbs, weight was 775,330 (1,207,040) and the TE was 110,200.The last one ran during 1956 and two are left, 1601 in Dearborn MI, and 1604 in Baltimore.
I have seen the 4004 Big Boy in Holliday Park, in Cheyenne. Got pics too if anyone would like to see.
Come on out to Green Bay’ s “National Railroad Museum” to see Big Boy #4017. It’s in beautiful condition. You can climb up into the cab and get some nice pics of yourself in the engineer’s seat. The National Railroad Museum is a fantastic facility with many more pieces of railroad history on display!
Nanaimo73 - what is it about each of these groups that makes them appeal to you?
Old Timer
Up here in Canada we had 20% of the US mileage but only 10% of the population. As a result, railroads up here did not have the density that required locomotives this large. The cost of these locomotives was pretty high, but there were other costs relating to strenghtening bridges, longer turntables and such.The capitol required for these locomotives had to be recovered by keeping them busy.The United States also had builders who could design and construct machines of this size and complexity. For these reasons the other countries of the World never had locomotives this size in common use.
I think all 5 of these groups represent the mazimum size a steam locomotive could have grown to. If diesel development had been slower, I don’t think anything bigger would have been built. Priority would have gone to refinements like exhaust nozzels and rotary-cam poppet valves.
One of the most fascinating articles Trains has ever printed is in the June 1974 issue showing how much further steam still had to develop.
How did the largest Garrats compare in size, weight, and TE to the largest USA articulateds? Anybody got figures?
The size and weight of these behemoths was no less of a restriction here. It is only the fact that most of the mainline trackage has been beefed up that allows the 3985 (along with most of the big steam that’s still running) to wander where it does. Even the NKP Berkshires were restricted to certain parts of the NKP system, and they are almost tiny when compared to the big articulateds.
daveklepper-I don’t believe the Beyer-garratts were anywhere close to these. I found one site with 4-8-4+4-8-4s listing them as the largest locomotives in the world on 50lb (!) rail.They were pretty small. I think they were just normal size locomotives stretched out for the rudimentary trackage in Africa. elg-OOO-g+g-OOO-gle them if you want. (Sorry-I could not resist). The September 1995Trains has 8 pages on them with the largest weighing 505,000lbs and having a TE of 69,333, about half of those big ones I covered.
50 lbs rail? That is not even trolley standards? Is there 50 lbs rail anywhere in the United States? Surely not; I would have hard time believing 80 lbs in something other than a spur.
Gabe
Good answer. I did see up close one Beyer Garret of the Rhodesian Railways while visiting Capitol Park engine sheds in Praetoria around 1986, and was very impressed with its size. But then I had not nearby US power for comparison, and had gotten used to the South African typical locomtives, which are large for narrow gauge but not any bigger than British standard gauge steam. By the way, the London and Northeastern had the only British Isle Garrets as far as I know, but I got to British steam first in 1962 after they had gone. I did photograph and ride behind a Gresley A-4 “Kingfisher”, a Bullard Pacific London - Southampton on the Bournmouth Bell, and rode behind plenty of 4-6-0’s. However, maybe the largest Garrat is comparible to the largest USA articulateds in one dimension: length.
There have been several Garrats in Britain.
IIRC, the LNER had the only 2-8-2+2-8-2 Garrat (one engine).
The LMS had serveral 2-6-2+2-6-2’s. They even tried - unsuccessfuly - to use them in fast passenger-service.
There have been several Garrats on British industrial spurs, mostly 4+4’s without non-driving axles.
There is a book “Garrats around the World” or something the like.
I used to live in Zimbabwe and developed a big intrest in African steam and Garratts. The largest Garretts in South Africa were the GL’s 4-8-2+2-8-4, weighing in at 211 imperial tons, TE 78,650 lb @75% boiler pressure. Beyer Peacock also built a one off Garrett for the Soviet Union in 1932, which was heavier and more powerful in tractive efford terms by about 500lb. In Africa many lines were build as pioner lines but industry never developed to the extent it did in the western USA. As for track weight 50lb per yard was branchline stuff. Main lines in Southern Africa were in the 75 to 80
lb per yard range. As for the LMS Garretts, they were never used on a regular basis on passanger trains, they were tested on a passenger train as there was a plan for passenger Garretts to be used in Scotland.
Garratts may not be nearly as big as Big Boys, Yellowstones, Alleghenys, etc. but they are still an impressive piece of machinery. It would have been most interesting if Alco would have been able to sell a few Garratts to D&RGW for the narrow gauge lines.
I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that Garratts may have been the last articulated steam locomotives built. South African Railways had some 2-6-2+2-6-2’s built for their 2-foot gauge lines as late as 1968.
Was ALCo trying to sell them to the D&RGW ? Do you know any details ?
Among the more unusual US large steam engines were Uintah RR’s #50 and 51. These were 2-6-6-2T articulated narrow gauge locomotives used for moving Gilsonite (a coal like petroleum product) to the DRG at Mack, CO. I don’t have the specs on these engines right now as my reference materials are in storage, but they were designed by Baldwin for 7.5 percent grades and 66 degree curves.
dd
They went to the Sumpter Valley in Oregon and then rotted away in Guatemala.It’s too bad one didn’t stay in Oregon.
I remember reading about them. They were pretty clean well designed locomotives also, even though they were “tank engines”. If I remember correctly, they ran equally well backwards as well as forwards.
Nanaimo -
What’s wrong with the Virginian 2-10-10-2s, with a starting tractive effort in simple operation of 176,000 pounds? They only operated for 30 years, and one of them longer than that. Santa Fe had 2-10-10-2s too, but they weren’t in a class with the VGN engines.
Or N&W’s Y-5/Y-6 2-8-8-2, with 5600 DBHP and 166,000 pounds starting TE? How many of you, when visiting the transportation museum in St. Louis, walk right past N&W 2156 on your way to look at the UP 4-8-8-4? Big mistake.
Or are you only interested in blockbuster specifications? And if you are, what puts the Espee 4-8-8-2/2-8-8-4s in your spotlight, with their starting TE of 124,000 pounds? The fact that the last one still exists?
Your five groups puzzle me; engine weight, tractive effort, drawbar horsepower? These statistics mean little. The ones that mean the most are related to actual performance: Gross Ton Miles/Train Hour/Dollar (first cost, maintenance, fuel and water, crew costs, etc.). Put this equation to work and some of your groups don’t look so good any more.
Old Timer
According to Garratt Locomotives of the World by A.E. Durrant
The largest Garratt locomotive proposed (none were built) was the “Super Garratt” or “Mallet Garratt” to be built by ALCO for the American market
Wheel arrangement: 2-6-6-2+2-6-6-2, Tractive effort (85%): 203,000 lb
Compared to US locomotives (per a table in the book)
Virginian 2-10-10-2, TE (85%) 147,200 lb:
Erie 2-8-8-8-2, TE (85%) 160,000 lb:
UP Big Boy 4-8-8-4, TE (85%) 135,375 lb
The largest Garratt built was a single 4-8-2+2-8-4 built by Beyer Peacock for the Soviet Railways in 1932 TE (75%) 78,700 lb It was not successful and was dismantled in 1937.
The meter gauge East African Railway Class 59 4-8-2+2-8-4, ordered in 1950 but not delivered until 1955, had a tractive effort (85%) of 73,500 lb. It was the largest meter gauge Garratt. It was very successful.
One of the knocks on the Garratt for US service is that it used its fuel and water for adhesive weight. The farther you got up the mountain, the more coal and water you used, and the less weight you had on the drivers, and the more slipping you’d do.
Garratt fanciers liked to say that Mallets had to drag around a separate car for their consumables, but the farther you got up the mountain, the more coal and water you used, and the lighter your trailing load became. But you still had the full weight on your driving wheels.
Old Timer