The topic speeks for itself.
I THINK, if a 4-8-4 had modern technologies and fuels other than coal and oil (or some techlology to make coal and oil less pollutant) it would be unstopable. No deisel would last as long or do as good a job as it could.
The pollution problem would be a scruber. The problem for that would be would it fit?
The ACE 3000 Tests showed that diesel was still more superior.
But why am I saying this? It’s because steam can’t be resurrected. Ever. Even though I like steam a lot, it will never topple diesel.
But the only 4-8-4 to last more than your average diesel is 844.
But diesels older than 844 still run, and lots of them.
The most useful steam locomotive to me would be either a 2-8-0 or a 2-8-2.
After all they were used for everything from switching to passenger.
CHUCK
This may sound strange, but i think that CPR’s good ol 10-wheeler 4-6-0’s would fit the bill, some were built in the late 1800’s and lasted until the end of steam, on both passenger and freight trains.
This photo by Robert J Sandusky, who inspired me to take railway photo’s is one of my fave’s
Elora Mixed hauled by rare D-6 class 4-6-0 526 drifting through Belwood on June 28, 1955.
What diesels older than the 844 ? I have run a couple of SD-9’s here at BNSF and both cards were dated 1957( hence me finally being able to drive a 57 Chevy lol) But we are the exception really.
Even all those un rebuilt SOO line Geeps here in the Quad Cities I think are newer than the 844.But I am truly curious as I would love to get some shots of old power.
As for best steamer here is the problem. Some posted 2-8-0’s and 4-6-0’s but I would have to say that for light branches and switching give me a 4-6-0 or 0-6-0.Mainline locals a 2-8-0 or 2-8-2. Passenger or a Gold ball freight a 4-8-2 or 4-8-4. The joy of steam is most designs were for a specific purpose and seeing certain wheel arangements meant you kinda knew what you had tied to the drawbar of the tender nine times out of ten.
Before I forget for drag engines I would have to go with the 2-10-2 and 2-10-4 design and any mallet that the N&W owned.Plus just to be a smart aleck lets say I have a tight industrial district with some moderate grades I would go for a Heisler or Shay.CT had the story of the KCS 2-10-4’s and as a sidebar the story of their 900 class Shays.But I have to put the Heisler first as that is my favorite geared engine.
The American type 4 4 0s the first universal engine it was used for everything and and a couple of shortlines were using them until the early 40s But I woyuld have to agree that the 2 8 0s and 2 8 2s and 4 6 2s were also used extensively Just a thought Larry
Electric traction has too many benefits to be replaced, and rod-driven steam too many liabilities to be revived.
The modern dual-purpose 4-8-4’s were probably the pinnacle of steam design. Unless someone has the Chinese build one for excursion service, we’ll never see another new one. It’s electric traction for the immediate future.
If you love steam as I do, try to support the groups that keep it alive.
RIX
GENTLEMEN
Read the question.
CHUCK
…and then, when it is read, what else needs understanding…or at least, definition? What does “useful” mean? All engines were “useful” and most were purpose-built. Would a Big Boy have been “useful”, more useful, or most useful in passenger service? How would a Pennsy T1 do with coal drags? How would a ten-wheeler of a Consolidation do with coal drags? What constitutes a coal drag? And on it goes.
The question needs fleshing out, and even then the answer is going to be largely moot.
BTW, with respect to steam vs. diesel longevity, diesels typically end their useful cycles on an average of 13.7 years if I recall the figure correctly. Steamers were used for decades. Steamers have other serious problems, of course, and they are highly unlikely to ever return revenue service on a grand scale.
BIGBOY, NORTHERN OR A T-1 RUNNING A LOCAL ON A BRANCH LINE DOING SWITCHING. OR PULLING 3-4 CAR PASSENGER CONSIST? IT WOULD INTERESTING WATCHING ANY ONE OF THEM CRUSHING THE RAILS AND SETTING DOWN ON THE BALLAST.
WHEREAS 2-8-0’S AND 2-8-2’S LIGHT, MEDIUM AND HEAVY HOOKED UP TO A VARIETY OF CONSIST’S ON A VARIETY RAILROADS AND DID THEIR JOBS WITHOUT THE FANFARE OF THEIR MORE FAMOUS BRETHERN
THE MOST USEFUL STEAM LOCOMOTIVE EVER BUILT
how about the good ol’ 0-8-0? maybe it was slow, but it was used to pull everything (in the yard) heheheh…
The most “usefull engine” ever built?
At least the fat controller says so…
For its time the 4-4-0 American was the single most successfull locomotive design of its era, maybe of all time in the US given how many different types, and sizes built from the 1850’s to the 1900’s.
For the 20th century, the 4-8-4 Northern was probably the single most versital engine of the modern era. They were just everywhere in great numbers pulling everything from freight to passanger service. I remember reading where by the end of steam the 4-8-4 was also built in more numbers than any other type of locomotive.
I wouldn’t consider 857 4-8-4 as a record holder for most built, 2-8-0 33,000+
I knew there was an 8 in there somewhere [;)]
re: “I THINK, if a 4-8-4 had modern technologies and fuels other than coal and oil (or some techlology to make coal and oil less pollutant) it would be unstopable.”
No.
(1) Maintenance labor costs will kill you. Ever consider how much labor-intensive maintenance steam locomotives need?
(2) Fuel costs along will kill you. Relatively modern, semi-realistic proposals for steam locomotives have been based on the notion that coal is a relatively cheap fuel that can be used in a steam locomotive. The problem is that, AFAIK, coal cannot really be burned that cleanly in a steam locomotive, especially where the fuel-air mix etc. cannot be controlled tightly. Even if you assume you can burn oil cleanly (easier to do, but clean here is only relative!), a steam locomotive, or any external-combustion engine, is inherently a much less efficient oil-burner than is a Diesel-electric engine, or pretty much any internal combustion engine. I can’t tell you exactly the fuel consumption of modern Diesel locomotives under various loads, but I can tell you that an oil-burning Harriman-standard Mikado of my acquaintance gets about 0.1 mpg.
(3) The longevity stats are misleading due to the changes in the relative costs of labor and equipment. A hundred years ago, locomotives were relatively expensive and men’s wages to maintain locomotives were relatively cheap. So it paid to maintain and repair older locomotives. Today the opposite is true, so locomotives have a shorter economically-useful life.
Most useful is a pretty subjective term. In the modern era of steam power (say 1930-50) I think more freight trains were headed by 2-8-2’s and more passenger trains by 4-6-2’s than by engines of any other wheel arrangement. I’ll leave it to anyone else to decide if this made them most useful or not.
While I don’t have their numbers at hand, I believe there were more 0-4-0 saddle tankers built that even Consolidations. Most of course saw use in construction, quarrying and industial applications as opposed to running on “real” railroads.
I would say the 4-4-0 for the 19th century and the 2-8-0 for the 20th century. the 4-4-0 with its 3 point suspension was able to ride the rough rails of the early roads and provide power for the short trains of the time. At least one lasted in the U.S. until 1952. The 2-8-0 was the versatile work horse from 1900-1950’s when the diesels came in. It could work branch lines, shortlines, and peddler freights. It was also used for switching and passenger trains when needed. I think it was the most popular wheel arrangement built.
Enjoy
Paul
One type of locomotive, not one wheel arrangement, but a particular class?
The Army 2-8-0 tops them all. Didn’t this serve in both WWI and WWII? Look at the number of countries where it was used, and in many it ran to the absolute end of steam, including the USA. Great Britain, Russia, China, France, Italy, North Africa, Germany, Austria, probably responsibe for at least one military victory.