One thing the NYC was notable for is the nearly complete lack of locomotives geared for heavy, slow drag freights along its network, apart from some articulateds in the hills of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
So what exactly was the NYC’s model for freight trains? Did they just double-head their heaviest trains with surplus Mohawks and Mikados, or did they never run trains heavy enough to be double-headed and just ran more frequent, shorter services, more akin to British companies? I’m wondering, because even other lines with mostly flat topography used 2-10-2s and larger on their heaviest trains.
Except for the 2-6-6-2s used in their coal lines (like down in West Virginia) and the 0-8-8-0s used in hump yard service, NYC really didn’t need Mallets. Due to their well-engineered “Water Level Route”, a lone 2-8-2 or 4-8-2 had no problem pulling a long freight train at a reasonable speed.
The infamous model for NYC in particular, following the W.H.Vanderbilt ‘policy’, was to run heavy trains with relatively small engines at low speed, sometimes not much more than 5mph, and ‘charge what the traffic would bear’. In those days ‘express companies’ with their own fleets of cars could command more ‘M&E’ speed… but again, the idea of ‘no more power or speed than would pay’ would apply. In the absence of trucks or ‘good roads’ it was good enough for an 8% dividend…
One place this model stopped being as effective was when passenger speeds began to increase. There were hellacious pileups when a shifted load or derailment was run into by a passenger train, which was then hit by another passenger train coming the other way. Another was the cost in equipment and engineer hours (as the D&H would recognize in the late 1930s).
Note that while the Berkshires were ‘faster’ than the Woodard 2-8-2s, they were not that much faster. The big step was Mohawks (and one Niagara with 69" drivers, very high at the time for an 8-coupled engine. The ones that followed, especially the L4s, could run as fast as a good passenger engine.
On the other hand, you’ll still find trains routinely run with tripleheaded 2-8-2s in some industrial service…
I’m well aware of the flat topography of the NYC. However, let’s compare to, say, the Illinois Central which was similarly flat, yet used some locomotives notably larger than anything on the NYC, with 2-10-2s and huge 4-8-2s with tractive efforts nearing 80,000 lbs. Was this just a general difference in management between the two companies?
Ever heard of the Nickel Plate Road or Erie? They did just fine with Berkshires. The PRR didn’t have anything bigger than a Mountain until WW2. Even the Santa Fe did a lot with eight-coupled power.
They were at the forefront of articulated-locomotive development just after WWI with the HC1 – it was just too big for its time, and appears to have queered PRR on adopting modern high-speed simple articulateds, even from its controlled N&W, when those came to be developed.
Those were all of WW1 vintage. Once respectively Berkshires and Mountains were available, the Decapods and Santa Fes were relegated to heavy mineral service. The days of the drag freight were almost over.
From the viewpoint of 21st century railroading knowledge - we really can’t comprehend just how slow railroads were in the steam era. In most ‘over the road’ runs the steam engine(s) had to be stopped at least once to negotiate their assigned run. Engines got changed at nearly every crew change point as the incoming engine needed full servicing for defects, lubrication, water and fueling before it could be used again. On grades with tonnage trains 4 to 5 MPH was the normal speeds. On the descent side of grades trains has to be stopped so brakemen could either turn up at the top of the grade and turn down at the bottom of the grade the Retainers of each car’s braking system.
We take for granted that you fuel and service locomotive(s) at origin that have sufficient power to conquer the ruling grade on the run and 900/1000 miles later after three or four crew changes the train is subject to its 1000 mile brake test and addition of fuel and sand to the locomotives that will then undertake the next 1000 miles of their run, conquering the grades at 12 MPH or faster and no stops for retainers.
I believe that is correct. I read somewhere that the distance between division points on railroads tended to be about 100 miles, because it would take about 8 hours for a train to go that far at the typical average speed of 12.5 MPH. As BaltACD talked about, steam engines - especially in the days before automatic lubrication and between-the-rails water troughs - could only go so far before needing attention.
BTW in the 1920s the fastest speeds on NYC’s “high speed” mainline freight lines was only 40 MPH; many lines had an even lower speed.
Very few carriers utilized water pick up on the fly and most did it for passenger trains only - as they only put the machinery on the tenders for passenger engines. That I can think of only B&O, NYC and PRR had water pick up on the fly. B&O, in concert with CNJ & RDG had it on the ‘Royal Blue Line’ between New York and Washington DC. NYC had it extensively on the ‘Water Level Route’. I suspect PRR had it but can’t think of any locations off the top of my memory.
PRR had something like 80 track pans at one time or another – one of S. Kip Farmington’s books (iirc ‘Railroading Coast to Coast’) has an appendix that lists them, or a great many of them, and I believe RRMPA has an exhibit with a map that shows them.
You’d think in this brave new world of AI you’d only have to ask and the whole list, neatly tabulated, would appear. Perhaps our resident Google Gemini maven can produce the list. This morning I was told with a straight face that two B&O track pans belonged to the PRR.
One of the chief problems with track pans came as boiler-water treatment became critical. Dosing and filtering water to be distributed in open pans was a fool’s errand, and onboard chemical treatment could be … problematic. A solution often used, particularly in ‘the last days of steam’ as the expensive water architecture started to be removed, was tenders with large cistern capacity or ‘auxiliary tenders’ whose added length and weight might be justified by reduced stops.
The basic day for train and engine crews (which is a minimum, not a maximum) was set for many years at 8 hrs or less, 100 miles or less. That’s like wjstix said, 8 hrs at 12.5 mph.
In the 1990s, the basic day mileage went to 130 miles. That’s 8 hrs ar 16.25 mph. Velocity on today’s freight railroads is around 20mph, give or take. For every fast hotshot intermodal there’s a plodding, work every yard manifest or a bulk commodities unit train.
What everyone forgets is prior to the introduction of canned food and frozen food almost all food came from a 50 maybe 100 mile radius of your house. Why lack of refrigeration was the biggest problem. Ypj didn’t go to the grocery store on a weekly basis it was a daily trip for your meat and veggies and other needed goods. So there wasn’t a need for really fast logistics. If it took a week to move that load of steel beams no problem or a week to ship the lumber across the nation no one cared.
Yes there was a limited selection of canned foods but nothing like today. Most vegetables were grown in home gardens and canning at home was routine.
Heck my grandparents had a massive garden up until I was in highschool.
A good example of Harold’s point would be milk. Grandpa Stix was a milkman for a creamery in south Minneapolis. Milk would be brought to them by truck or horse/wagon from local farms - mostly in what are now the suburbs of Edina, Richfield, and Bloomington. Big cities like New York would get raw milk via the railroads like New York Central, coming down from upstate New York in milk trains. Those trains had to move pretty quickly, as raw milk that’s not refrigerated goes back in like 12 hours (or less?).
Beer would be another example. Even after Prohibition ended, when ice-cooled reefers were common, most beer would have been local. Each large city had at least one (and maybe several) breweries, and even many smaller towns had their own local brand made right there.
with 69" drivers, very high at the time for an 8-coupled engine. The ones that followed, especially the L4s, could run as fast as a good passenger engine.