S. Kip Farrington dissented boldly from the usual encomiums directed at this design in his Railroading Coast to Coast (1976, p 4). “Readers might be surprised to know that I put the very popular and the pioneer Hudson type, New York Central’s J classes at the bottom of the list. They had many more troubles with them than were ever made public, although they did lead the parade.”
Does anyone know what he was talking about in terms of “troubles”?
I can’t give chapter and verse on this but I saw a reference once that the NYC tried an experiment on one of boosting the steam pressure for more power. The result was they bent the drive rods! So much for that.
I’ve never heard of any other problems with NYC Hudsons.
Kip Farrington was probably a Pennsy fan. [;)]
Imagine a debate between Kip Farrington and Rodney Kantorski (look him up, he’s hilarious).
Their operational history speaks for itself, and far more emphatically than one railfan author.
Hundreds were built and they were the backbone of NYC passenger service for decades.
The only problem I can think of would be the poor starting tractive effort that is inherent to all steam locomotives with a relatively low proportion of their weight on the drivers, and the NYC engines had rear truck boosters to get around that.
Kip didn’t care for his ride on an N&W class J because he didn’t have a place to sit down!!!
Farrington was an unusual bird: a true amateur in locomotive technology. For him to disparage a design would not have been from engineering or thermodynamics: he would have heard it from the crews or seen the issues firsthand.
Yes, it would have been interesting for him to have described the problems in detail. But as a proper East Coast gentleman given the privilege of riding NYC cabs, I’m not surprised he went no further than he did.
The bent-rod issue was, if I recall correctly, on one of the J3as (which I don’t like as much as the J1s – they should have been built either as fast Mohawks or (although the magic wasn’t there when the RFC ‘stimulus’ funding was provided) 4-8-4s. If I remember the story, the test was to 290psi which was to be the design pressure for the S1s… and what I suspect was that the rods were bent less from piston thrust than for fairly wild slip spinning a little too quickly arrested, if you take my drift…
One of the J3as – I think I learned the road number, but have forgotten it – was the famous engine that was spun up to over 161 “mph” cyclic as recounted in the 1947 survey of motive power. Among other things this established was that track flexibility, not lighter rail per se or “excessive” overbalance, was the primary exciter of damaging augment. (Keep in mind that the wretched C&NW E4bs, with 84" drivers and careful Alco attention to detail, were bouncing their drivers on movie film below 100mph in the 1938 AAR testing… )
Remember that PRR K4s outlasted T-1s during PRR’s dieselization, and were the last passenger power scrapped, even outlasting the LIRR’s G-5s. Because they were relatively easy to maintain and trouble-free.
The Boston and Albany J2s migrated to the Michigan Central when the B&A went all-diesel. And, as the “Steel Fleet,” beginning with the Century, was dieselized, J1s and even J3s migrated to the West Shore and to the Harmon - Poughkeepsie and Harlem Division trains, replacing older Pacifics. I don’t think this would have occured if they had lots of problems.
All true David. David Stevenson described the K4’s perfectly when he called them “As simple as a hammer and as reliable as an anvil.”
Also true about the Hudsons on the West Shore. Several years ago I picked up a fascinating book called “Along The Old West Shore.” Chock-full of photographs sure enough there’s Hudsons to been seen pulling passenger and commuter trains. AND occasionally a Niagara, but those were more the exception than the rule on the West Shore.
Southbound J1 enering Kingston, NY, on the West Shore:
Imagine getting a cab ride in a Class J and then bitchin’ because there’s no place to sit down! [:^)]
I’d pull up a nice, comfy spot on the coal pile if I had to!
If I remember correctly the late Hal Carstens (of Carstens Publications) said that growing up in Teaneck NJ on the West Shore had a lot to do with him becoming a railfan. Considering the parade of trains, both New York Central and Ontario & Western, and looking at that photo of the Hudson I can see why!
The best show in town, and it was free!
Them’s fightin’ words!
J1 or J3, beautiful engines!
Make no mistake, I loved the E4b locomotives, but they were just not up to the potential of an 84"-drivered express locomotive. We have discussed in the past how strange it is that the design, only very slightly different from the contemporary Milwaukee F7s, could not get the AAR test train above 100mph in 1938. I find it odd that C&NW did not try thin-section rods and low overbalance on them.
Certainly C&NW was second to none in reasonable high-speed engineering: the 1948 rebuilds of the H class rank as one of the very best of all 4-8-4s in my opinion.
I would be so exicted to be in the cab of a steam locomotive that I probably wouldn’t worry about a seat.
E-4 as built and tested in 1938.
OM: I saw our discussion of the E-4 on here in 2020. Did you ever get the AAR film or data?
Railroads usually did not buy 275 copies of locomotive designs that were troublesome. I’m inclined to ignore that statement given the lack of corroboration by other authors and the fact that Mr. Farrington didn’t bother to support it with an explanation.
There’s a copy of the report at the Hagley, and when the pandemic scare is over and ISM reopens I will go by Delaware on my way up.
I have not found a source for the film; perhaps it hasn’t been digitized yet – but it is assuredly something YouTube viewers would love…
Could happen any week. I remember when the Pocono newsreel footage appeared - up to that moment, I was sure I would never know how that multiple air horn would sound.
Your comment about the C&NW E4bs may explain why at the last minute the C&NW switched the new 1939 streamlined 400 from the E4bs to the EMD diesels, even though they ordered the E4bs for their fastest trains.
The C&NW E-4’s shared a lot of weight restrictions with the Class H 4-8-4’s. They were just too heavy for just about anything beyond the Chicago-Omaha main line.
Presumably the plan was to strengthen the bridges on the “400” route to take the E-4s, but the arrival of the EMD E units that didn’t need the stronger bridges, even before the operational and availability advantages were known meant that strengthening bridges could be forgotten.
Remember that the “Successful” Milwaukee F-7 4-6-4s were replaced on the fastest trains by EMDs and Alco DL-109s not that long after C&NW put their EMDs in service.
However, it is hard to believe that the Milwaukee F-7s and C&NW E-4s which were almost identical in general specification and built by the same company could be so different in performance. A single design with different shrouding could have done the job for both railroads. Hopefully the Milwaukee design would have been used.
Peter