Some railroads built many of their own locomotives. And many railroads purchased used locomotives from other, usually larger, roads. But did any U.S. railroad ever contract with another (not a parent or subsidiary) to build locomotives for it?
I am not aware of any during the steam era, but Conrail assembled some SD70MACs for BNSF.
The Virginia and Truckee #18, Dayton, on display at the old V&T Virginia City freight house, has a HUGE builder’s plate from the Central Pacific Sacramento Shops. It’s in the filigree skirt between the drivers , below the running board.
I believe that other V&T locos were also built at Sacramento.
Chuck (Nevada resident)
I would imagine that some short lines may have purchased some locos directly from a railroad shop . I am aware of situations where short lines used class 1 shops for heavy repairs of their locomotives
The Reading built several classes of steam locomotives for the Central Railroad of New Jersey. These were virtual duplicates of locomotives which the Reading built for itself.
Was CNJ controlled by RDG at the time? I ask because, although it didn’t happen, it would have been perfectly normal for PRR Belpaire fireboxes to have shown up at various times on new B&O or N&W power.
But corporate relationships like that were not what I was wondering about in the first place. I was wondering if there were any locomotive vendor/customer relationships between two independent railroads. I don’t know of any control of CNJ by RDG so maybe this was one example.
The PRR built 50 electric switching (shifters) of which 15 were built for the LIRR, which was under PRR control.
Ed Burns
Probably more appropriate to say that B&O controlled both Reading and CNJ in that respect – that was how the B&O reached the New York area. If I recall correctly, B&O controlled the Reading, which controlled or owned CNJ.
Of course, B&O spent so much on the New York arrangements that they quickly fell under economic control of the PRR, but that’s another story…
Reading controlled the CNJ until around 1944 or so, that’s when the markings of CNJ engines changed from Reading style “Central Railroad of New Jersey” lettering to the Statue of Liberty herald.
In a way, the Norfolk and Western built some locomotives for other railroads. The N&W built some 4-8-2’s in the 1920’s that just didn’t work out for their purposes. They sold them to another 'road, don’t recall which one.
Pennsy built G5s and D16b engines for the Long Island. The B&O had consolidations based on PRR H6 class and Atlantics which were duplicates of E3 class. I’m not sure if Altoona buillt these engines or (more likely) Baldwin.
Those God-awful K3s. As far as I recall they went to the Rio Grande, the RF&P, and in 1948, the Wheeling & Lake Erie. Suspect they pounded the hell out of the track geometry in those places, too.
The RF&P wasn’t too crazy about those things either, having to limit them to a 35mph speed wasn’t so good, being a two track main freight as well as passenger traffic had to MOVE on the RF&P. They unloaded them to the W&LE as soon as the war was over, presumeably speed wasn’t a factor on the W&LE.
The K3 class had the main rod connected to the third driver, as opposed to the K2 class having the main rod connected to the second driver. For you engineering types out there, might that had something to do with the pounding with the added weight reciprocating?
K3…
K2…
And K2 after streamlining…
I’m not an engineer, but my answer is succinctly DEAR GOD, YES!!!
The combination of this feature with little 63" drivers that couldn’t accommodate full counterweight in the mains, let alone reciprocating overbalance for All That Main Rod Mass, and then ponderous weight from the big boiler, compounded the felony. (And then you have the question of how effectively that trailing truck controlled lateral hunting from the unbalanced longitudinal forces…)
The interesting thing is that this is high on the list of designs that would benefit from the '30s-style “package” of lighter-alloy rods, disc main, etc., but I don’t think it ever received it. I suspect that the lateral forces in that main would make it prone to buckling under a wide range of potential conditions if you made it “light enough” by any of the logical means… Of course there are plenty of designs that effectively couple to the third axle … any successful Berkshire I can think of, for example … and ‘reading between the lines’ the A2a NYC/P&LE locomotives might not have been the balance dogs Classic Trains assumed they were (even with low, spoked drivers as here). All that I’d naively think would be needed for the K3 would be extended piston rods and crosshead guides to get the mains to Berk-like compromise of rod mass vs. angularity. And of course a trailing truck with more positive lateral control…
The important take-home message about the K3, though, is that it constituted a clear wake-up call to the N&W people to revise their thinking – and they quite thoroughly, and quite effectively too, implemented much of what they l
Mr. Wislish, you make some really great points. I wonder if other railroads also might have learned from the N&W K-3 situation? I just did a quick check, and it seems like many, if not all, the freight engines developed with four wheel leading trucks and a third main driver had that extended piston rod and crosshead guides. Examples I saw that had what you explained included the UP 4-10-2, 4-12-2, 4-6-6-4 and 4-8-8-4, SP 4-10-2, and all the other 4-6-6-4 units.
UP 4-10-2 three cylinder…
UP 4-10-2 rebuilt to two cyiinder…
UP 4-12-2 three cylinder …
SP 4-10-2 three cylinder…
About the only other example of a four wheel lead truck with a third main driver that I could find were the Rio Grande M-67 and M-75 Mountains.
Rio Grande M-67 two cylinder 63 inch drivers…
Rio Grande M-78 two cylinder (M-67 with booster applied)…
Rio Grande M-75 three cylinder with 67 inch drivers…
On the other hand, it seems like almost all other four wheel leading truck engines built primarily for freight haulage - Mountains and Northerns (though capable of dual service, of course) - had the
Having the rods connected to the third driver is one of the defining characteristics that distinguish freight Mountains from dual service and passenger Mountains. Because the Northern was a dual service locomotive on most roads they had rods connected to the second driver to allow for higher speeds.
Error
Shortly before Conrail was split, the Juniata shops assembled 24 standard-cab SD70s for NS and 15 SD70MACs for CSX.
Just thought of another example: PRR built 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 yard engines for Washington Terminal.
Steam locomotive ROD LENGTH to STROKE LENGTH considerations -
This can be a much more complicated engineering issue than first realized. Speaking from an automotive engineering perespective, the length of the rod in relation to the stroke is one of the modern areas of design study today.
Basically, the issue focuses around the question - How do changes in rod to stroke length effect the “dwell” time of the piston? How long it remains stopped or fairly motionless at the end of its piston stroke?
And the resultant effects on the “speed of the piston” as it travels through the cylinder and the “inertia effect” of its movement of acceleration while starting and stopping.
Inertia and acceleration that is too high can cause piston, ring and cylinder failure from the inertia loadings as well as affect design and performance issues.
In the 1960’s in the heyday of Japanese two stroke engine development as well as today’s engine efficiency studies of, this “rod angularity calculation” becomes extremely important - because the breathing effects upon engine cylinder design.
That cylinder breathing performance is substancially effected by this “rod angle ratio.” In effect the rate in which the cylinder intake and exhaust ports in the engine cylinder open and remain open and the effect of this for cylinder breathing.
Additionally, the inertia effect of gas flow moving through the port opening effects the nature in which the cylinder can be so filled with live steam and so cleared of exhaust steam - in effect creating horsepower.
The steam locomotive uses similar cylinder wall ports to a two stroke gasoline engine ports and the rod angularity would effect the rate in which the steam passages are covered and uncovered and the time in which they can effect the performance of the steam piston with regard to pressure.