I recall an issue in the PRR Railroad Historical Sociiety where they speculated about the R-1 a PRR 4-8-4 locomotive. They had rought drawings of what it might have looked like.
Do you mean the Vol.33, #3 issue of The Keystone?" There were elevations of “what-if” PRR 4-8-4’s ca 1929 and 1942 . See pgs 52-55.
The drawings offered in the Keystone article are most interesting and inspiring to steam loco lovers . Uhm … yet how did this article say anything about the M1 Mountain supposedly having been equal to ‘a’ (? which one) 4-8-4 ?
Equal to one certain not-so-super 4-8-4 maybe (choose our own) , still that had never been an issue at the time when the class was being designed not could it have been . On an equal theoretical basis (like : same engine mass per wheel and consequently differing limits of grate size to name it) , no Pikes Peak mountain of a 4-8-2 could be a match for a Northern type in power output simply for lacking that odd pair of wheels that makes for a four-eight-four in the latter type and not just under Northern Lights .
However , with varying quality of design all sorts of relative power outputs could and were achieved : just to name Milwaukee’s Hiawatha A class Atlantic in really upper speed range outperforming most Pacifics of equal adhesion mass per drive wheel (note: wheel not total !) …
At her time Pennsy’s M1 was a formidable performer , especially on mountainous (!) lines and on heavy loads , less so the more speed became a vital part of demands - that’s why these engines stood very heavy duty in freight train running, effectively working as ‘another form of a Berkshire’ as to characterize their output range, with a degree of advantage over most 2-8-4s in the (mild) upper speed range, say 50 - 60 mph.
Unfortunately for her figures , in their ‘youth’ starting with cute square eight wheel tenders , that sort of exploits made most members of the class a case for the ‘weight watchers anonymous’ acquiring heavy ‘low rider’ 12 wheelers and even 16 wheelers , a rare case of tender with more wheels than engine – in my view an indication of consumptions having scored way out of reasonable proportion . However , all Pennsy cared for was if they got their trains over the line
Well, actually there ARE some Pennsy 4-8-4’s out there, quite a few as a matter of fact. Unfortunately they’re variations on a Class “J” in “O” gauge made by Williams. Quite handsome as a matter of fact, sleek, pinstriped and very impressive. Ah, what might have been.
Hi Firelock
Oh - I see …
Yet another point where modelrailroading shows the way to sleepy-drowsy RealRoads …
… if but some few years after the end of the Carbonian Age .
Yet , I ask : what about a that missing link of a Duplex 4-6-6-4 or 6-6-6-6 , preferably ?
the kind of locomotive cutie more optimistic people like me have since been waiting for ?
Just one of these innocently simple questions so hard to answer , I believe .
Regards
Juniatha
A Duplex 4-6-6-4 or 6-6-6-6? Hmmmm, maybe Mike Wolf (Mikes Train House) or Jerry Calabrese (Lionel) are looking in on this and who knows what might happen. Actually, Lionel had a real wierdy out a few years ago called the “Phantom” locomotive, looked like a cross between that whacked -out turbine locomotive that the C&O had and a vacuum cleaner ( a floor model). I think Neil Young had something to do with it, you know how rockers are.
Phantom loco?? There’s a picture of one at the 10 O’clock position on the Lionel clock on my (home) office wall… Kind of a weird sound effect too.
- Erik
quote :
like a cross between that whacked -out turbine locomotive that the C&O had and a vacuum cleaner ( a floor model) … <<
Hi Firelock
… and I had always thought the Chessi 500 was a vacuum cleaner ( luxury XXL rail model ) modelfiddled to indiscriminatingly suck up , finely grind and hastily expel just about anything from pieces of superfluous ballast , diverse coals and cinders , loose track fixing items to whole sedans parked at the Walmart parking lot alongside the CSX main leaving the freight yard .
CSX ? Well , from sources occasionally strangely prejudiced I heard the 500 - 502 had escaped steam scrapping because everyone who happened to see them in real (or unreal ?) immediately developed unsurmountable doubts if this could be steam locomotives at all . On the other hand there was a wide spread problem with people having no idea what if any was the deeper transport-philosophical meaning of this accumulation of powered and non-powered axles under one long hood . Some of the more outlandish guestimates meandered around an exxon-terestial monster escaped from Area 51 or a sperm whale redesigned from deep sea diving to high mounting climbing - which would have been hard to believe since this was five decades before gen tech experimenting even started .
In the end , it must be conceded , the locomonsturbous have since quietly disappeared - again by circumstances shrouded in mystery . Some still maintain they have just gotten weary of leading a shelved life , became deeply depressed and just sunk away in the
That’s the one, Brother!
Now why didn’t I think of this sooner? How about a 6-6-6? We could call it a “Lucifer” type!
Hi Firelock
I have a drawing of a 6-6-6 type - it’s a design of my own .
I gave it a very different name from mythology , though .
Regards
Juniatha
Hi Juniatha! Oh, now I’m curious, what do you call your 6-6-6 type? Anything with that “mark of the Beast” arraingement exhausts my knowledge of names for the “Dark One.” “Beelzebub”, Mephisto", “Old Scratch”, “Rosemary’s Baby’s Dad”…
Hi Firelock
The name was none of these rather negative ones . It was derived from white magic as the locomotive type was supposed to do something positive . I will tell you in a message , presently I don’t feel like posting any locomotive proposals or the like .
Regards
Juniatha
Hi Juniatha! Dear lady, I could have used some “White Magic” on the job today. I’m so tired right now I can barely see straight. Took me three attempts to spell “tired” correctly.
Lima apparently had drawings for a 4-8-6, with the large firebox made possible by the six wheel trailing truck intended to allow slower combustion of coal for better fuel efficiency. I would imagine there would be considerably more direct (radiant) heating surface in said firebox.
- Erik
Hi Erik
More direct heating surface – mmmiouh – yeah-well , ok . But that didn’t provide the main difference . One point was increasing grate surface , sure . However what Lima had put up as their burnt offering in the face of dieselization was a double Belpaire combustion chamber , as the Belpaire when doubled i e also used for the lower part meant to offer a slightly larger cross section for free gas area . So , did it ? Well , yes and no ! It did for a given boiler drum diameter – it didn’t for a given construction mass of a boiler at firebox end ( inevitably it incorporated a somewhat greater mass accumulation , thus for a given engine project it would have meant to slightly reduce boiler drum diameter and firebox / combustion chamber cross section – thus nullifying the effect , the same mental short circuit as in the Belpaire to start with ) .
Well, to get back to the original question, We’ll never really know if the PRR’s Mountains would have been the equal of the speculative R2 class but there is some basis for informed quesswork provided by the Southern Pacific. SP had extensive experience with its MT class 4-8-2’s and it also had a big stable of GS class 4-8-4’s. The ultimate Mt’s had 73" drivers and a rated tractive effort of 57,510 lbs. The passenger versions of the GS classes had 80" drivers and a TE of 78,650 lbs. SP engineers often stated that an MT ( they nicknamed them Antelopes ) could actually start a heavy train more easily than a GS type on account of having one less truck axle and that there was no hesitation about using an MT as protection power for trains normally assigned a GS. Both types could be found working fast freights and fruit blocks pretty much interchangeably. Perhaps this supports the argument that the PRR really didn’t need to develop a conventional 4-8-4 as long as it had its large stable of M class locos? Still. SP got a lot of use out of its examples of the two types.