In 1924, UP had 60 new 4-8-2’s with 73" drivers. I would not be shocked to find that UP viewed the 4-10-4 as an extension of these recent locomotives. So then, what were the 4-8-2’s being used for?
A scanning of an article in “The Streamliner” (Volume 9, Number 3) shows use in passenger service at that time.
Ed
On Page 247 of Gordon McCulloch’s “A History of Union Pacific Steam” is a drawing and data dated 1 August 1927 for the proposed Lincoln Type 4-10-4. All the data agrees with the original post, 73" drivers, 240 PSI, 3 25x30 cylinders. Other specs are 108 1/4 sq ft full depth grate area and weight estimates of 295,000 on drivers and 465,000 total.
It’s too bad that the name “Lincoln” didn’t get applied to another wheel arrangement since the 4-10-4 did not get built.
Just think that it could have been applied easily to the ‘Challenger’ (which is an arrangement UP named) or as a proper name for the Big Boy arrangement itself.
On the other hand, we have the name ready for the first road, or person, who builds one – it won’t be a case of having to call it an Eighteen-Wheeler or some similar wimpout.
The very interesting thing to consider is why nobody built one. It’s quite a confluence of different factors!
Of course, Union Pacific had the first 15 of its 4-12-2 Union Pacific Type on the roster in 1926. If the 1927-proposed Lincoln Type had 73" drivers for fast freight, one might suppose that UP looked at the performance of their 67-inch-drivered Union Pacific types and they decided a Lincoln-type was not needed, seeing as they ordered additional 4-12-2 locomotives in 1928 (23), 1929 (25) and 1930 (25) to bring their fleet of 4-12-2 locomotives to 88.
the 4-10-4 was for passenger use but UP decided that a 4-8-4 was a better ideal.Gary
From what I understand, Russia built a 4-12-4, when they still had steam. I think it was attempt to upstage UP with their 4-10-2, and Russia could brag they had the largest one frame locomotive.
Russia sent a team over to study best American practice circa 1928, the right time for early Super-Power but a tad early for the better improvements to the idea. The great fruit of that trip was the IS class 2-8-4, which was successful; I think the 4-14-4 would have worked fine on its intended service – heavy trains on obligate light rail, ridiculously light rail by our standards. What it would NOT do was traverse light track not nicely lined and surfaced… or any kind of diverging switch or yard trackage. Alas! this includes most wye trackage to turn the engine around, including the reverse leg.
I think one factor no one built a 4-10-4 is that the four wheel leading truck was -needed for three cyclinder locos (see 4-10-2 and 4-12-2) due to the weight up front. Since three cyclinders in North American practice went out of style in favor of high wheeled Superpower (Erie’s Berkshires and C&O’s Class T-1 2-10-4’s) around 1930 and Northerns provided plenty of grunt for passenger service, there was no market for a four wheel leading truck on ten-coupled power (save for the PRR’s pseudo-ten coupled class Q abortions).
A large part of the fascination with steam locomotives is the many design tradeoffs and how no single design is suited for all railroad services.
There are also numerous design rules that end up getting violated, too, making for more variation, along with arguments in the enthusiast community.
We a discussion on another thread as to whether a large-firebox 2-8-4 could be replaced by a 2-8-2 wheel arrangement by rigging the equalizers to redistribute weight? Wardale thought a 4-8-4 could be turned into a 4-8-2 by such a change to take weight from the trailing truck and transfer it to the drivers?
Another rule is that a 4-wheel leading truck is required for a locomotive in high-speed service. Maybe a 2-wheel leading truck was never used in applications exceeding 80 MPH, but 2-wheel trucked locomotives have been used on passenger trains?
Overmod pointed out that a minimum weight needs to be placed on a lead truck to allow the amount of horizontal resistance needed to obtain stable guiding, but there are cases where the required boiler makes the locomotive so heavy that the non-driving carrying wheels are at the axle-load limit. The 2-6-6-6 Allegheny comes to mind along with the Pennsy 6-8-6 S-1 and S-2 locomotives?
The Russian 4-14-4 was said to have a 33-foot “rigid” wheel base whereas I looked up that the Union Pacific 4-12-2 type “only” had 30-feet 8-inches?
I read, was it in Kratville and Bush, The Union Pacific Type, that those locomotives were restricted in where they could go. There was something written about getting a retired Union Pacific type to California for display in a city park was a close thing getting it there?
The Russian locomotive used a combination of lateral motion on end drivers and blind drivers in the middle, so perhaps its wrecking the track was a combination of a badly designed equalizer rigging, badly constructed track, overenthusiasm for bragging rights and just bad decisions on where to operate it?
The Russian engineers were not idiots, although far too many would die as if they were; I think the design assumption for what was basically a massive mineral hauler was similar to Porta’s at Dona Cristina: long trains on main lines at near-constant speed, with a maximum of adhesive weight.
That it would not negotiate track in yards could be predicted. That it would not like anything but veeeeerrry long crossovers might be equally predictable. What might not have been as clear was the need to turn engines with that rigid wheelbase on wyes (or loop tracks) to set up for loading and unloading.
The thing other than straightening switch trackwork would be rolling rail, and on much of the track at that period I’d expect even a 14-odd ton axle load to be oprimistic science fiction much of the time…
I presume the GN O-8 was included in the discussion.
Grate area 98.5 sq ft
Weight on lead axle 30340 lbs
Weight on drivers 325000 (4 x 81250) lbs
Weight on trailing axle 70200 lbs
Driver diameter 69"
T. P. at 83.5% Working Press. 75900 obs (Working Pressure 250 lbs)
GN used 2-6-2’s on passenger trains, along with a multitude of 4-6-0’s. The Prairies had a higher weight per driver axle than any of the Ten Wheelers. Driver diameter was 69", while the 4-6-0’s had a large range of diameters, with a max of 73". I imagine the 2-6-2’s would have been the better choice for slower speeds and frequent stops.
The LS&MS was very much into high speed. And 2-6-2’s.
Here’s one pulling the 20th Century:
Liked this so much that I positively had to:
The interesting thing is that the big Prairies actually seemed to work as high-speed locomotives on the LS&MS, although not elsewhere: I am actually unable to tell what the actual truth was.
It gets worse in the wake of the problems with the Wilgus electrics, which were designed with the same general guiding principle and were branded as such a disaster after the initial runs that they had four-wheel trucks shoehorned in – without consulting Wilgus who quit as a result. ‘New York’ then took over motive power design, and sent orders to rebuild the Prairies as rather inferior Pacifics … or so the story went.
I am pretty sure that a leading Bissel in that era was grossly incapable of the necessary high-speed accommodation if this engine were to encounter a critical augment resonance at the upper speed range it could most probably reach… in other respects it was a better engine for high speed than either an Atlantic in the same ‘form factor’ or a typical Pacific of its era.
I’d wager that track quality had a lot to do with it.
Think of all the British locomotives with 2-wheel leading trucks, or their road freight engines without lead trucks.
Glad you did. The height of elegance!
It did.
British railroads were built by industrialists who had plenty of money, and they didn’t have to travel the distances American trains did, add in relatively cheap labor and they could build those tracks with superb quality.
The downside was, when the Americans started competing with the British for overseas markets the American locomotives handled less-than-perfect track than the British locomotives did, so the American builders started getting most of the business. The Brits build darn near perfect locomotives, but they needed darn near perfect tracks to run on.
I think the Burlington used 2-6-2s in commuter service at one time.
In a way, it never did get any better. Consider that the torch would be passed, further east, to something not quite as splendidly pared-to-the-bone greyhound lithe but just as carefully machined and driven for high speed. Never mind that much of the rest of the railroad might be slowed to suit the best financial interest of the stockholders – 'The Twentieth Century must go through! … let her fly, and with such wings!