I am looking for the article in Trains magazine by that name and need to know what issue it was in. If you can help me out, thanks.
are you sure thats the right title? because it doesnt make any sense…
All 4-8-4’s were modern…very modern…as modern as it gets…
Scot
ah! thanks Dale…thats different! 
there is a big difference between “Was there ever a super 4-8-4?” and “Was there ever a modern 4-8-4?”…“modern” and “super” have very specific meanings when it comes to late steam…
I havent read the article, but werent quite a few 4-8-4’s considered “Super Power”?
especially engines like the DL&W Poconos and the N&W J-class…and plenty more…
Scot
Generally “super power” referred to any engine that had a large firebox requiring a four-wheel trailing truck to haul it, usually along other modern things like roller bearings, larger drive wheels for higher speed service etc. So really it would be hard to come up with a 4-8-4, 2-8-4, 2-10-4 etc. that wouldn’t be considered “super power”.
So I wonder what the article is actually referring to by “super 4-8-4”??
[%-)]
the beginning of “Super Power” is generally attributed to Lima and their Berkshires of the 1920’s.
Although the first “super power” locos were Lima 2-8-2’s…then Lima took the concept a step further with the larger firebox, requiring the 4-wheel trailing truck, and inventing the Super Power Berkshire.
but yeah, im confused by this Trains magazine story too…because it seems virtually all 4-8-4’s would have fallen under the “super power” umbrella…and there certaintly cant be any question around “Was there ever a super 4-8-4?”…the answer is very obviously “yes”…
Scot
It is a 6 page article by Robert Le Massena comparing the 1119 4-8-4s and 53 4-4-4-4 locomotives, to see if there was a “super 4-8-4” that was better than the others. The criterion used included grate area, combustion chamber, boiler diameter, steam pressure, firebox type (radial, Belpaire, watertube), feedwater heater, poppet valves, booster and roller bearings.
The concluding two paragraphs-
One can only guess what No. 5500 might have done if it had been given the same qualities of fuel as had been burned in No. 6023’s firebox. A 15 percent increase in maximum drawbar horsepower (to 5750) is perhaps optimistic, but 5500 DBHP - what the designers had intended - was within reason.
There seems to be little room for doubt that the 5500 came closer to being a super 4-8-4 than any other steam locomotive of its wheel arrangement. What it could have done, had it been equiped with a Belpaire firebox and a double Kylala-Kylchap exhaust, is a matter for fascinating conjecture.
There is a rebuttal to the article, a letter from John Ingles (David’s dad?), at the back of the June 1975 issue.
I would be interested in feltonhill’s and Tim Z’s thoughts on the article.
Scotty, do you know which railroad the 5500 and 6023 were on?
Sorry about the name. I had just heard something about it somewhere and was interested to see the drawing and read the article.
The article is talking about New York Cental’s Niagaras built by ALCO 1945-1946. Richard Steinbrenner wrote about these locomotives in ALCO: A Centennial Remembrance pp. 234-237.
interesting! I wish I had seen that article…
yes, the New York Central Niagaras were about as Super as they come!
The Niagaras along with the Norfolk & Western J-class and A-class are often considered the ultimate pinnacle of steam locomotive technology…they were as good as it ever got.
The 4-4-4-4’s refered to in the article would have to be the PRR T1’s then…
The NYC Niagaras were the height of NYC steam, and the T1’s were the ultimate on the PRR.
PRR T1: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_prr5541.jpg
Sadly, there are no surviving New York Central Niagaras or PRR T1’s… 
There is however one surviving N&W J, the famous 611, and one N&W A-class.
Scot
Not to change the subject, but, also in that same issue was another good article on the FEC:
Where did the railroad go that once went to sea?
Dale - Thanks for the mention! I have the article and its reply. I tend to agree with John Ingles’ criticisms regarding lack of technical support information. The comparisons seem a bit simplistic and miss the interaction between steam production (boiler) and energy conversion (steam circuit and running gear).
My schedule is kind of crazy today and part of tomorrow, but I’d like to comment a bit on this article later. I hope timz also gets into the discussion.
When somebody on the Web refers to an article or book, we who are curious about the subject tend to imagine the answers we’re after would all be in the article, if only we could get a look at it. In this case, don’t any sleep over the deprivation; the article is harmless enough, but it probably wouldn’t tell you much you don’t know already. Ingles’ letter just reminded us that Le Massena wasn’t any big expert.
Actually, tho, he throttled back on the pontification in this article, compared to some of his others. He proposed to arbitrarily define a “super 4-8-4” as an engine that could evaporate 100000 lb/hr, produce a (cylinder?) horsepower from 13 lb of steam, produce 6000 dbhp, haul 12 heavyweight sleepers up 1 1/2 percent at 60 mph, or 5000 tons at 60 mph on the level. Then he tried to guess whether such an engine could or did exist. (The 12 sleepers at 60 mph on 1.5% was a miscalculation.)
There was an article in Steam Glory published as ClassicTrains Special Edition No. 2 in 2004 on Union Pacific’s 800 series 4-8-4’s. The final part of the article deals with A.H. Fetters, UP’s chief locomotive designer, instructing Otto Jabelmann of the Research and Mechanical Standards Department to come up with a design for a Super 800 for post WWII use. A drawing and proposed specifications are included.
Couldn’t let this thread go by without mentioning C&O’s Greenbrier class (eg. 614), these actually built by Lima, the purveyors of “super power”.
There have been a number of new videos of the 614 showing up on YouTube lately.
Here’s two showing the 614 with a 22 car train at close to 80 MPH:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhGoR1cpdrM&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0R9PkVB244&feature=related
This one shows the 614 with 25 cars at speed from the Chessie Steam Special days on the high speed B&O main in Maryland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAQwPc4JmS4&feature=related
what’s up with 614, is Ross really trying to convert to bio fuel[xx(]
The article, Was There Ever a Super 4-8-4?, is an opinion piece and as such, the author can come to any conclusion he wants. There’s no right or wrong. However, there can be differences of opinion!
I have the following observations after reading the article again, and doing a bit of research to support my objections. That’s what took so long.
100,000 lbs of steam/hr out of a 4-8-4 is asking a lot over the road. The only 8-drivered passenger locos I know of that ever accomplished that in documented test results are the N&W J (104,946 lbs/hr total evaporation) and PRR T1 (105,475 lbs/hr total evaporation). The Niagaras and the ATSF 2900’s may have also managed it but I’ve not found any test report that confirms such a figure. BTW, total evaporation consists of tank water plus condensate from the FWH; it is not the same as equivalent evaporation. Be careful to watch for the adjective, or lack of it.
I agree with timz that 13 lbs of steam per unspecified type of HP-hr is likely based on indicated HP. The PRR T1 managed the lowest documented ratio, 13.6 lbs steam per IHP-hr (Test 1428, 76 mph). The lowest for the Niagara is 13.72 lbs per IHP-hr (Test 129, 11 cars, 65.2 mph). Very close, but not 13.
60 mph with 12 heavyweight cars (est 1,100 tons) on 1.5% requires about 6,300 DBHP. I doubt any 4-8-4 could manage this, super or not.
The Belpaire firebox has always been a mystery to me. I’ve heard this 20-25% assertion before from other sources, but I’ve never understood how it could generate more steam just because of its square-topped design. Heat transfer takes place from the firebox through the firebox wrapper to the surrounding water. This is not dependent of the firebox type. Steam is collected above the surface of the water over the crown sheet. However, the Belpaire does provide a larger volume of steam above the crown sheet. That’s apparent in any cross section. Maybe this is what the proponents have in mind. One of the other advantages is that th
GP40-2 - Have some videos of 614 on NJT and it’s always good to revisit the high speed running with a substantial train!
As a matter of interest, several modifications to 614 were proposed by David Wardale in 1983, before the ACE tests in 1985. They’re listed in his book, The Red Devil and Other Tales From the Age of Steam (pg386), and include, among other things, triple Lempor exhaust, FWH, larger valves, and revised valve timing.
It sounds like the author of that (Trains magazine) article completely re-defined, on a whim, the defination of “Super Power”, creating his own defination for the purposes of the article…rather irresponsible IMO…because we all know that Super Power 4-8-4’s existed…in fact, probably EVERY 4-8-4 ever built fit the defination…so the whole point of the article is rather pointless IMO…
Its like writing a magazine article to solve the big unknown mysteries of: “Did the New York Central ever use 4-6-4 Hudsons?, we investigate!” or “Did the PRR ever use Pacifics in passenger service? mystery now solved!” 
While there might not be one “all encompasing” accepted defination of “super power”…I think we can all agree that the concept was developed by Lima and is best known from their Berkshires of the 1920’s…ALL of the modern 4-8-4’s are direct evolutionary decendants of those Berkshires, and are even MORE advanced than those Berkshires, incorporating all the features of those Berkshires, which makes them automatically “super power” by birth…and even MORE “super” than the first “Super Power” engines…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lima_Locomotive_Works
Perhaps he should have been looking for “SUPER Super Power” or “ULTRA Super Power”…at least then we would all know what he was going for…Calling the article “Was there ever a Super 4-8-4?” doesnt quite work…How about “Searching for the Ultimate 4-8-4!” as a title…that would have worked…
Scot