ok, lets here them. whats your opinion. mine would be, in no particular order…
santa fe…probably the 2900s
norfolk and western Js (who would have ever thought that!)
new york central’s niagra’s
union pacifics last batch
c & o 610-614
rock island’s and the southern pacific’s should be there i guess (no roller bearings for the sp) not sure about the rock island engines.
SAR ‘Red Devil’
N&W J
NYC Niagara
SP GS3-6
ATSF 2900
(UP’s FEF-3 missed the cut because of its limited cutoff. Its main bearings can’t handle all the power the cylinders can put out.)
Chuck
C&O’s Greenbrier class
ATSF’s 3751 class
SP’s GS4 class
N&W J class
MLW’s S3 class
A mighty fine lineup of steam locomotives…
Luke
In no particular order:
SAR 25 class
SNCF 242 A 1
N&W J
C&NW H
ATSF 3776 class (2900’s were war babies and heavier)
This type of thread can be fun, but I’m afraid it will be inconclusive except to reveal people’s preferences in variance. We discussed this question at great length about four years ago in the Classic Trains forum. The problem lies in defining “top”, or “best”. There are so many factors and variables to take into consideration, not the least of which is the terrain and working requirement set out at the time of design and matching that requirement to how the engines performed in an objective manner. It would be a gargantuan task to work through all the reams of paperwork and records, assuming they were veridical and that the standards of measurement were the same from road to road…which they were not.
So, with what little I know, and I do emphasize little, my choices, especially if I were to be rewarded with even 30 minutes of footplate time on them as a result of my selection, would be:
First, the S1b Niagara
Second, the J Class
Third, the UP’s FEF, don’t really/can’t really say which version…pick one for me…
Fourth, ATSF 3759, the one on display at Kingman, AZ
Fifth, just 'cuz, the CN/GTW U 3/4 class flyers.
-Crandell
i would think all 4 8 4s are good engines. too many to choose from. the J stays with me because it has the most (80,000 lbs TE) and can still run 100 plus mph. seems to be the best of both speed and tractive effort. with that being said, i have tons of books that show a burlington 4-8-4 pulling 155 empty boxcars, and some santa fe engines with 100 plus cars just to name a few with less tractive effort than the J.
Here’s my choices:
N&W J
Reading T-1
C&O J-3a 610-613
RF&P Governors
NC&StL Yellow Jackets & Stripes
Roger Huber
Western Maryland Patomic
Reading T-1
C&O J3a
MILW S3
N&W J
My favorites in order
Reading T1
Lehigh Valley T3
New York Central S1
Pennsylvania R1
Soviet Rails Northern
Looking at the results, seems to provide more than enough evidence that there is no consensus as well as criteria. This seems to indicate why a reproduction in a new locomotive like Tornado will never occur here.
In Britain the consensus is/was that a Peppercorn Pacific was the best?
It was a missing piece in that locomotive classification. However, I am not qualified to provide any definitive answers, as someone from the UK should have more information as to how the choice was arrived at. Interestingly, if I recall correctly, wasnt a Trains poll conducted for this? I think the winner was the “Big Boy”, ironically a class where several examples still survive.A new reproduction is not required. Go figure.
I can’t claim to have any particular knowledge, but due to a quirk of history a lower proportion of ex LNER locomotives survived than say Great Western. I believe that this was due to a lot of western locos (and others) being bought for scrapping by Woodhams in Barry who then left them in long lines until they got around to cutting them up. Many of these were left long enough to be saved and restored. Many ex LNER locos went to scrapyards in the north east who got on with the job of destroying them. Hence what was considered to be an important missing class.
There are various schemes around to build other lost classes, one being to produce a small passenger tank engine that would be of use to a lot of preserved lines as it would be much cheaper to run than a big main line engine. The railway environment in the UK is very different to the US. Locos are generally smaller, there are numerous preserved lines where visitors expect to see steam not diesel and it is possible to run steam on the main line.
“The railway environment in the UK is very different to the US. Locos are generally smaller, there are numerous preserved lines where visitors expect to see steam not diesel and it is possible to run steam on the main line.”
That is the second reason I doubt a Tornado type project would work here. There are others as well. Thanks for the insight.
How about the engines that gave the type the name - Northern Pacific’s A-class 4-8-4s??
Honourable mention? [:D]
PRR’s R1 was an electric, only one built, initial competitor with the GG1. However, it could be considered a 4-8-4 (or 2D2) depending on how you want to look at it.
I think there is only one top or best and the best was the last. As an important moot point is that it is my ideal choice for a reconstruction that will never occur.
Over on the General Discussion’s “History Quiz” thread, we had a brief discussion this morning of 4-8-4’s on the NYC & PRR, which got me to thinking (not always a “safe” activity), and that led to my following two more-or-less random thoughts:
1.) Sadly, no Niagaras were preserved, and I have to agree with wallyworld that none will be reconstructed (unless either Bill Gates or Warren Buffet takes a personal interest, or it becomes a eligible project for the “stimulus plan ?”) That said, though, the “elephant ears” smoke deflectors brought to mind UP’s 844, and I thought, “Gee, they seem a lot alike - I wonder how similar they really are ?” Well, I fortunately have a set of the 1970s “Locomotives in Profile” series (only 2 volumes ever published, I believe), and on pp. 169 - 192 of Vol. II is an article on “The American 4-8-4” by the series editor and principal author, Brian Reed. Part of that article is a comparison chart on pg. 192 - “TABLE II - GENERAL DIMENSIONS OF A SELECTION OF 4-8-4 LOCOMOTIVES” - here are some excerpts:
Railroad: NYC UP
Class: S1-b FEF
No. in Class 26 &
Paul, the two engines are indeed comparable, although the S1b was less tall than the FEF. I haven’t checked to say how much, but the clearances on the NYC routes were somewhat less, so there are no domes, for example, on the Niagara. But, essentially, I can see why you raised the matter, and I agree that for all practical purposes, they are the same engine. I would guess that, apart from the visual disparities here and there, the FEF must have had a horsepower advantage at a certain speed, and apparantly had a slight tractive effort advantage. The top speeds would have been close, within a few miles per hour, although we would probably quibble.
I don’t feel that there can be an equitable comparison between the T1 and the Northern-type engines. The Duplex was a faster engine, and configured and powered differently. Even though it had different weight distribution, it also had two banks of cylinders and different valving. I can’t say definitively, but I believe the idea was to put a lot of distance between steam and diesel when they designed the T1…they wanted an engine that could literally run away from any diesel, and they got it. I don’t know enough to say what the speed record for the fastest F class diesel or E was at the time, or what they could practicably do, but the T1 routinely ran at speeds above 105 mph, usually to make up time. I believe an unofficial account published in Trains Magazine in the early 90’s had the engine doing something close to 120 mph. I suspect it could safely do somewhat faster and for a sustained run…it would run out of track before it got much higher.
This is all my assumption and understanding to this point. I will be very interested to learn more and to read what others think who have a better grounding in the subject, including yourself.
-Crandell