A 4-6-4 on the PRR would be a P class, but they certainly wouldn’t have let a 4-6-4 steam locomotive be called a Hudson anymore than the NYC would let a 4-8-2 be called a mountain. So, if you were the PRR, what would have called a 4-6-4?
How about a “Juniata”?
It wouldn’t necessarily have been called a P class. The letteres were assigned in order of design and production so you jump from E to G to K from a 4-4-2 to a 4-6-0 to a 4-6-2. I doubt the PRR would ever have had a 4-6-4 as they used 2 wheel trailing trucks up until the very last engines. It was the borrowed J class engines of C&O design that got them into four wheel trailing trucks. I don’t recall an “O” class and it could have stood for “Oddball”.
Which J class C&O loco did PRR borrow? I recall they tested an N&W Class J in Dec 1944 but that was after the first two T1’s and most of the J1 2-10-4’s were on the road.
What was borrowed on the PRR J class was the C&O design - the War Production Board wouldn’t let Altoona experiment with scarce steel and limited manpower resources, so mandated that Pennsy would have to build to a proven design.
IIRC, the ‘borrowed’ 2-10-4s were Santa Fe locos.
Chuck
Well, the PRR electrics followed their steam class numbers, e.g. DD-1s were 4-4-0s, GG-1s were 4-6-0s, P5s were 4-6-4s, the R1 was a 4-8-4. So, I figured a 4-6-4 steam locomotive would be a P class.
The borrowed 2-10-4s were C&O T-1 class locomotives, a product of the Van Sweringen Road’s “Advisory Mechanical Committee”, the same people who created the Nickle Plate Berkshires and all of the C&O’s modern steamers.
Sounds reasonable to me. A minor correction, the GG-1’s were the equivalent of two 4-6-0’s back to back, hence GG-1 as opposed to G1. Had the PRR bought some Challengers, they would have also been GG’s (GG-2???).
And I think you are correct. A PRR Hudson would have been a P-something. DD-1’s were two 4-4-0’s back to back, GG-1’s were two 4-6-0’s back to back. The B-1 switchers were electric and the B-6’s were steam (slope-back tenders, also used by Washington Union Terminal until the Alco’s arrived), both 0-6-0’s. So you are correct.
The PRR did not need four-wheel trailing trucks to support large fireboxes, because of its excellent heavy track structure. The PRR equivalent to the first Hudsons was the K-5, which was a good design, but was not built in quantity because of electrification . The K-5 could perform as well as the J-1 Hudson.
The duplexes had four wheel trailing trucks, the T-1 and Q-1 and Q-2.
The PRR J-1, was the C&O’s 2-10-4 Lima design, but with the booster omitted. It was a poor choice in many people’s opinion, because the work it did could just as easily have been done by the old reliable 2-10-0’s! But the crews liked them because of more pay (heavier) and more comfort.
PRR 2-10-4’s had boosters as built. Some may have been removed, although all photos I’ve seen indicate the presence of a booster.
I doubt the I1’s could come close to duplicating the same goss ton-miles per train-hour that J1 could generate. We’re comparing a 3,000 DBHP @ 25 mph loco with a 5,000 DBHP @ 40 mph loco (DBHP at rear of tender, not on Altoona test plant).
Can’t blame the crews. Can you imagine enduring the rough ride of an I1 for an entire division?
You are correct about the borrowed design of the PRR J class. But Chuck is correct, too, because PRR did borrow SF 2-10-4s to run on their Sandusky line. It all depends on how you apply the word “borrow.”
There were two vesions of the J1. At least one version had boosters. The J1’s produced nearly the tractive effort with their two cylinders that a UP Challenger did with four (not so for the NP’s versions which were substantially more powerful). I hardly think the J1 could be matched by a mere 2-10-0.
-Crandell
From what I read the performance of the K-5 was not satisfactory, or at least not enough to justify building more. They had power but lacked the factor of adhesion necessary to reliably apply that power to the rails. They weren’t sure-footed like the K-4s were. If they’d put an extra pair of driving wheels on them to ensure better traction I’m sure they would have been excellent performers.
My understanding was that it (only one was built) was successful, and adhesion could have been improved by adjusting spring rates and equalization, but electrification and only electrification doomed the project by eliminating the need for more steam locomotives. I guess it depends on whom we have heard! The PRR J was a fine locomotive, but it was not used where its superior ton-miles per ton of coal performance could shine. I understand it was mostly used in helper service, and did not have the opportunity to outperform a 2-10-0 in that particular service, being actually less economical to operate. Why the PRR didn’t exploit its capabilities better is a very good question.
I did not know that the PRR J was built with a booster. In my experience the only ones I ever encountered must have had them removed at a maintenance shop visit.
Possible names of a PRR —and why didn’t they give a T-1 a name? Juniata for shure, but also Keystone, Apaplachian, Princeton, Liberty, Carneige, Brynmore, Norris, Gibbs, Atterbury
There were two K5’s - 5698 and 5699. 5698 was built with Walschaerts valve gear and 5699 had Caprotti poppet valves. They were not successful and were eventually removed. The only credible history I know of was written by Charlie Meyer in the Winter 1995 Keystone, pgs 13-30, published by PRRT&HS. Their main problems seemed to center around poor steaming and drafting, probably interrelated.
I don’t know where the info came regarding the use of J1’s in helper service. I believe th the source may be questionable Every photo I’ve seen where they were used (which is pretty much anywhere west of Altoona on the main lines) shows a J1 or two up front and an I1 or two pushing when required. I’ve never seen or heard of J1’s being regularly used as helpers, except as part of a double header north out of Columbus. They are generally acknowledged as one of the most successful locomotives PRR ever had.
J’s: I respect your sources as more auhoritive than what I heard. Possibly the hoggers I heard were talking about use of the Pennsy J’s after most road power was diesel and the J’s had been demoted, but they didn’t tell me that.
K-5’s: However, the source that told me that the K-5 project was dropped only because of electrification and for no other reason was reliable. The main point is that if the track structure can take the weight, and for many years the heavierst rail in use in North America was found only on the PRR, there is not necessarily an advantage in using a four-wheel trailer truck as compared with a two-wheel. Note that the “Apex of the Atlantics” Kalmach book says the PRR dropped a super Atlantic project for the same reason. Hopefully someday there will be companion K4 book, and I think the locomotive deserves it. Then, all information on the K-5 development and its termination will be at hand. One of the K-5’s received modifications, forget what they were, as was used successfuly for a number of years. Possibliy that is why I had forgotton about the one that was retired early.
The Milwaukee Road, which actually had steam 4-6-4s, did not refer to them as Hudsons but rather as “Baltics.” I seem to recall there was European precedent.
Perhaps the Pennsy would have used that same terminology as it would both avoid referring to their NYC rival and also avoid making it clear they were avoiding referring to the NYC.
Dave Nelson
Keep in mind the nicknames of various engine types were just that - nicknames, often unofficial. There was no government agency regulating it or anything.[swg]
Yes a few railroads like NYC promoted use of certain nicknames for some of their engines, and some railroads tried to give different nicknames to certain types of engines (like the Milwaukee’s failed attempt to get “Baltic” to catch on for 4-6-4’s, or southern railroads calling 4-8-4’s “Dixies” instead of “Northerns”), but others didn’t really care. I suspect if the PRR had 4-6-4’s they wouldn’t have nicknamed them anything.
In any case, most working railroaders referred to their road’s engines by their letter-class designation or their number series, not by their nicknames. I believe UP guys called the railroad’s 4-8-4’s “800’s” for example, based on the engine’s number series.
You are certainly correct. The Pennsy had 2-8-2 steam and electric locomotives that were both considered L classes. Additionally, they had steam and electric 0-6-0 locomotives and both were B classes.
Have to contradict ndbprr. The PRR letter designations for locomotive classes were, in fact, logical and based on wheel arrangement. See the table on page 5 of Westcott’s Steam Locomotives. The logic was skewed (Taking the sequence: J = 2-6-2, K = 4-6-2, L = 2-8-2, M = 4-8-2, it appears that the determinant was a 2-wheel trailing truck.) but Pennsy always marched to their own drummer. The PRR O-1 class was a not very successful 2-Bo-2 electric. If there had been a steam 4-6-4 with a keystone number plate it would indeed have been a P-something (P-6 if built after the P-5 class electrics.) As for 4-wheel trailing trucks, the letter system broke down when they were introduced on the (second) J, Q and T designated locos.
Logically (PRR skewed logic) a PRR 4-8-4 would have been a class R, between the 4-6-4 P and 6-8-6 S classes. They could have done a lot worse t
Chuck’s comment is interesting. The Pennsy actually did “borrow” a N&W J class 4-8-4 for testing. They liked it pretty well but were put off by the 70" drivers. They wanted an engine that could maintain 100 plus MPH between Crestline and Chicago and believed that this mandated an 80" driver. The N&W J could do 100 but that kind of speed would mean a lot more wear and tear on both the track and the engine than an 80" drivered engine would experience. As for avoiding four wheeled trailing trucks, the Pennsy relied on the superior steaming qualities of its Belpiaire boilers which furnished more steam on less grate area than the more common radial types. The Belpiaire boiler was the real secret of the K4’s and M1’s success as road engines. Anyway, a lot of folks have questioned the value of the 4-6-4 wheel arrangement. Why invest in this type when for just a little more expense you could add one more diving axle and have a dual purpose Northern instead of this passenger traffic only race horse.