I have just finished re-reading Jim Scribbins’ fantastic book, The 400 Story and this thought has come to mind:
The initial four E-2 Pacifics that were modified to run the steam-hauled ‘400’ - they became class E-2-a (oil burners, larger drivers, amongst other modifications - are very impressive machines. The diagram for the ‘400’ must have been one of the most punishing in the U.S. in terms of demand for rapid acceleration and sustained high speed running. Yet, if it wasn’t for Scribbins’ book, I don’t think I would ever have known how remarkable those locomotives were. Not only were they overshadowed by the Milwaukee Road’s A class Atlantics and F-7 Baltics, I think they were also somewhat in the shadow of their owner’s ‘H’ class Northerns and E-4 Hudsons.
Anyone else have nominations for otherwise impressive and capable steam locomotives that were overshadowed by more ‘glamorous’ (for want of a better term) or simply better known rivals?
I don’t remember your posting here before, but just in case this is your first post, or topic for that matter, don’t be surprised if there’s a time lag from when you hit “Submit” and when it shows up on the Forum. That’s typical for new posters, the moderators are going to look at your posts and determine you’re one of the “good guys” before you get “free rein” on the various Forums. So don’t re-submit if you don’t see your post right away.
To get to your topic, two locomotive types that spring to mind are the Delaware & Hudsons Northerns and Challengers. Powerful and good-looking as well they just don’t seem to get the attention that they deserve. Probably because the D&H was off the beaten path a bit for most railfans in the old days? Or maybe because none were preserved and no effort was made to do so? Who knows?
I’m tempted to say a better D&H example might be the poppet-valve Pacifics – the Northerns and Challengers were by far the most famous and iconic D&H power right up to Sterzing’s rolling museum of first-generation dieselry.
I’d be tempted to bring up the PRR E6 vs. K4, or the NYC K5b against the Hudsons. A very significant one is the Milwaukee F6; most people see only a gangly and somewhat homely wallflower with a weird feedwater heater, not the first locomotive to hold 100mph with a real train.
And yeah, the A-2-A vs. the Niagara. Did you know the guy who researched the book about them couldn’t find one person who ran them that didn’t like them … stifling cabs, maintenance problems and all?
I consider the D&H 4-6-6-4 's as the finest example of that wheel arrangement, if not Mallets in general. I believe I omitted them when I listed my five favorite steam locomotives in the past.
Hi Flintlock, thanks for the heads up, much appreciated. I think it was a combination of my unfamilarity but also a slighty dodgy internet connection at my end that made me doubt the original post got through.
VGN’s Blue Ridge class were quite a bit lighter than the original C&O Alleghenies, with about 9 tons saved by better rods and some other improvements. Even at that they were very heavy, enough so that VGN had to make special arrangements with NYC (Toledo & Ohio Central) to get them from Lima to Deepwater, where they were handed over to the VGN. The AG class replaced an equal number of older articulateds allowing faster train movements from the coalfields to Roanoke. Only five BA class Berkshires puchased in 1946 were newer steam road power than the AGs. Both classes lasted into the mid-1950s. The BAs, nearly identical to C&O Berkshires, had a reputation as smooth runners, with one reputed to have hit 87MPH with a 3500 ton train on a detour move over the N&W.
For under-appreciated locomotives, how about an entire wheel arrangement: the 2-8-2.
The backbone of heavy freight service for so many years on so many large railroads, approximately 10,000 were built over the years for North American railroads.
If what you mean is there’s a point where ubiquity becomes anonymity I can see your point.
On the other hand, the last time I checked the numbers, which admittedly has been a while, there’s more 2-8-2’s preserved and in operation today than any other type of steam engine.
Stands to reason, the 2-8-2’s were so useful most lasted right up until the end of steam and went right into the waiting hands of preservationists.
You’re right about the 2-8-2 being well represented in preservation.
What I meant is that when most people think of steam, either light branchline operations or the ‘Super Power’ era and big articulateds/mallets/duplexes of all types come to mind, not the far more common Mikado.
The British War Department 2-8-2 built for use in the Middle East initially.
While 200 of these were built in the USA initially, a further 809 were built to 5’6" gauge, mainly in Canada, for use in India (and later Pakistan).
After the war, 20 more were built for Australia and (maybe) 15 for Portugal.
Those in India and Pakistan would be among the last US and Canadian built locomotives in regular use anywhere. Twenty of the original 200 ended up in China
Did Baldwin build any of those Mikes? I read that their last steam locomotive was built for India, either in '54 or '55.
As a New England exile living in Western Pennsylvania, I’m a big fan of the B&M. I lived too late to see the steam. And I lived on the wrong side of Vermont to see the last of CV steam.
I think those might indeed be USATC S200s, and given the ship’s routing via the Philippines, which were only retaken in 1944, I think it would then be part of the 30 locomotives UNRRA sent to China.
I have not yet found a source lining up the exact builder with this order. Baldwin and Lima each built 70 and Alco built 60, but again I don’t know the year or months of production to narrow down provision of the UNRRA order. I’m sure there are people who read this who will know or can find out with better sources or research.
However, these look to me as if they are narrow-gauge engines, a pretty good fit with the S118 (which I believe is derived from an Australian design). That jibes with the cab numbering… at least in principle.
