I am inspired by the truly great Rose painting “Walking across Texas.” But why two beautiful Ripley 4-8-4’s?
Granted the early AT&SF experiments with huge Mallets with bending (jointed) boilers weren’t successful, but could they not benefit from approximating their neighbors’ Challengers, Yellowstones, and Articulated Consolidations? Why was their Texas-type their largest modern freight power?
Or was the kind of scene dipicted in the picture a rare phenomenon?
Not an ATSF guy but I will take a stab. If like the PRR they found that repairs tied up the equivalent of two engines and was not worth the effort. What year does the picture represent? World war two resulted in huge traffic demands for the railroads taxing facilities and rolling stock
Not yet haing an answer with someone with direct experience with AT&SF steam operations, your answer seems appropriate.
Except for Raton Pass, Santa Fe had moderate grades on its main lines. The early Mallets were not particularly successful (even the straight boiler versions) due to limited steaming capacity and lack of superheaters. By the time better articulated design came along Santa Fe was reasonably satisfied with its well-designed non-articulated power. Helper districts were also relatively short compared to other western carriers.
They weren’t, of course-- but what if they were? Why would that make articulateds unsensible?
It’s a waste of time for us fans to try to guess why one RR chose this kind of engine and another RR chose that kind. Their decisions were based on cost of operation, and we have no idea what those costs were.
Dave asked the same question on the “Trains” Forum and I did my best to asnwer it there, but in a nutshell the Santa Fe’s experience with their first articulateds left such a bad taste in the company’s mouth they walked away and never looked back.
They didn’t like the additional maintanance involved with articulateds either.
Chief operating people of the period all had their own prejudices of what was best and would not let any facts stand in the way of their opinions.
Just like today brother, and not just in railroading, trust me.
But the Santa Fe purchased some second-hand N&W Y-3’s during WWII for Raton Pass didn’t it? I suppose it was because they were available at the right price, not because there was other non articulated power out there?
Victor A. Baird
How many and how long did they last?
During WWII, Santa Fe received eight of the surplus N&W Y3 class locos. PRR got six and five went to the UP. In 1947 Santa Fe scrapped one of the Y3’s, selling the other seven to the Virginian.
The Santa Fe indeed had a bitter experience with its first generations of articulateds and this influenced corporate culture for the remainder of the steam era. As to heavy grades, the Santa Fe had several where a modern mallet could have proved useful. There was the Abo Canyon grade in New Mexico, Raton and Glorieta Passes on the Colorado - New Mexico mainline West and the Arizona Divide between Winslow and Topock, a heavy climb in both directions but particularly eastbound. In fact Topock to Seligman was the longest sustained mainline grade in the entire United States! When the Santa Fe developed the 5001 class 2-10-4’s in the late 'Thirties they were the largest non articulated freight locomotives ever built by a US railroad and their capabilities rivalled those of most articulated engines then in service. Perhaps the Santa Fe would have gone the articulated route eventually but they were a very early convert to freight diesels, having tested the FT as early as 1941. By the end of WWII they had a considerable fleet and were well on their way to dieselization with all development of steam power halted.
where did the UP and PRR use them?
The largest non-articulated freight locomotives in the USA were the UP 9000’s, their 4-12-2’s. But I would not be surprised if the Ripley 2-10-4’s could easily match their performance.
Prr used them in the Columbus Ohio area and dumped them as fast as they could also.
Santa Fe did use ex-N&W Y-class mallets as helpers on Raton and Glorieta during WWII.
UP employed the Y3’s in helper service over Sherman Hill and in coal service to and from the Hanna Mine located at Rock Springs, all were gone by 1948.
Dave
Ouch! Challenged on my facts, eh. OK, here’s some statistics. I’ll present them and let the readers decide. The UP 4-12-2 weighed 495.000 lbs versus the final batch of AT&SF 2-10-4’s at 549,500 lbs. UP’s engine length was 64’ versus Santa Fe’s 66’ 3". I could find no reliable height for the Santa Fe but the UP loco stood 16’ on 67" drivers. The Santa Fe rode on 74" drivers so she probably was a bit taller than that. To cap it off the Santa Fe 5011 class carried a tremendous tender, 55’ long versus 37’ 8" for the 4-12-2". Horsepower output for the entire class of Santa Fe engines was never equalled by any other non articulated engine.
The 5011 series Santa Fe locomotives had a much higher HP compared to the 9000 series Union Pacifc locos, which were much older and limited in speed to fifty or sixty mph at best.
If you consider the PRR Q2, which was a rigid frame locomotive developed more HP than the 5011. I would still bet on the 5011 series for being the best overall.
RR
Thanks, I stand corrected. In a somewhat weak defense, I can point out that I had gone to the trouble some time ago, here or on the steam and preservation TRAINS forum, of posting the idea that the Sante Fe Ripley Texas types were the very best non-articulated steam freight locomotive built. I was challanged by some who claimed the C&O and PRR’s were as good or better, but I think I did defend my point of view pretty well. I can thank you for confirming that idea. I apologize for having been brainwashed too much by UP 9000 fans.
Hey Dave, the UP 9000’s may not have been the ne plus ultra of steam locomotives, but they sure were cool!