I’m in the market for a PRR K4, what do guys think about this one?
Nothing wrong with it,go ahead and get it.
I have one. It runs well. New ones are only about $160 if you can find one. They have been discontinued.
I have one and it runs like crap. It;s from the first run, later ones might have improved drives.
$99.00 for that? It’s one of the older runs of the Spectrum version, try to get a newer version, they can be found for well under $99.00 by the way. The newer versions are in the slim black box with the gold label on the end, much like the other Spectrum locos use.
Mark
I found the description to be confusing.
The seller lists the K4 as HO and then says his reason for selling is that he is upsizing from N to Ho and is only going to have freight engines. Is the K4 not a freight engine? If it is then why is he selling or is the loco actually an N.
Happy Railroading
Bob
Reading the sellers description gives the answer:
Hi Jeff,
Yes, the K4 was considered the premier passenger locomotive but according to www.american-rails.com/class-k-4-pacific.html also was used in freight service.
The Pennsylvania Railroad Class K-4 Pacific
 |
|---|
Perhaps the best-known steam locomotive of all time was the Pennsylvania Railroad Class K-4 Pacific. This steamer carried a simple beauty to it, which also lent to much of its success. Another reason the K-4 is so popular is because almost all of the locomotives were built directly by the PRR itself in its famous Juanita shops, well over 300 in total with the remaining being built by Baldwin. Perhaps what made the locomotive so successful was the perfect blend of weight, size and powerful that allowed it to haul almost anything from passenger to heavy freight trains.
Happy Railroading
Bob
Bob.
The K4 was the premier passenger engine.
Utley.
Try a newer K4. the older ones were split frame and not easy to convert to DCC. They did come out with DCC and sound but not easy to find. The Spectrums are lite on the rails. Mine only could pull 3 HW cars on the clubs long grade without spinning. If I stopped on the hill the drivers would spin wildly and a pusher was needed. I added a little lead fore and aft and now it pulls the full train of 7 HW cars. I can even start on the grade with no slipping.
If a K4 is what your after try a BLI or even the MTH. Twice the price but twice the loco.
Pete
I had always taken the Pacific Class 4-6-2’s, in general, to be speedsters that would not have been pressed into freight service except in the case of dire need. With 80" drivers, and even though they slightly out-performed the newer non-boosted Hudsons from the New York Central in tractive effort, I find it very hard to accept that they were used on “heavy” freights. To me, a heavy freight is anything in excess of about 2000 tons. I doubt that even the most exceptionally adept hogger on the Pennsy could compel a K4s to lift a 2000 ton train.
But, I’ll keep an open mind. I may just learn something today.
Crandell
Out of the box, the K4, even the newer versions, is not Bachmann’s best effort. While they run smooth enough they lack weight and can be touchy in the area of their “special” drawbar design.
But, for a modeler able and willing to do a little work, they can make a very nice model. The drawbar can be replaced or “tuned up” and there is room for weight which largely solves the pulling issues,
Detail wise, while not perfect, it is a good model and can be the basis for a great model. I know a number of PRR modelers who have done great things with them.
If you are strictly the RTR type, you may want to spend the extra money for a BLI or MTH version.
While production of K4’s by Bachmann has “wound down” now after 15 plus years, they are still out there to be had. I would suggest contacting Star Hobby in Annapolis MD. They have a very large stock of Spectrum locos, including many that have not been produced for while. Yes there are still some dealers who “invest” in inventory. and, their prices are very good.
As for the prototype, the K4 was a great design, no doubt. Was it the best Pacific? Maybe, but similar locos like the final modernizations of the B&O P7 had similar performance records.
K4’s and P7’s were known to handle 18 plus car trains of heavyweights with no problems on the flater sections of their respective lines - so at least a “medium” size fast freight should not have been a problem - until a real grade was incountered.
I don’t model the PRR, but many of my friends do. I have never heard anyone talk about K4’s on freights, but can’t say either way.
Sheldon
I don’t know why a K-4 couldn’t have handled a 2000 ton freight, especially when SP rated its A-3 4-4-2’s at 2400 tons in San Joaquin Valley freight service. Even with the booster engaged, the A-3 had far less tractive effort than a K4. The rule with steam was that if you could start it, you could pull it, so a K4 would have no trouble with a 2000 ton freight under the same conditions.
There’s a pic in John Signor’s book of an SP P-1 in freight helper service between Mojave and Tehachapi. I’ve also seen pics of Santa Fe 1226 class 4-6-2’s on reefer blocks in the San Joaquin as well as pics of SP P-8 and P10’s on freight almost at the end of steam ops on the SP.
It’s too bad it’s a double header, but here’s a pic of SP P-5 #2447, a Harriman light Pacific, on a freight: http://www.yesteryeardepot.com/SP2447X2.JPG .
Oh, forgot to mention that the A-3 4-4-2’s mentioned above had 81" drivers and the P-1 and P-5 4-6-2’s had 77" drivers.
You’d be surprised at what a relatively small steam locomotive is capable of under the right circumstances.
Andre
That surprises me, Andre, but I thank you for bringing those facts forward. As I said, I was open to having my thinking adjusted. [:)]
Crandell
I have three of the Spectrum K-4’s. All good runners. Make sure you get the one with tender pick-up on all 4 wheels. This is the newer release with wires between engine and tender. Trainworld i think may still have some. I also got one recently on Ebay for under $70.00 new.
Bob
Crandell,
As I suspected when writing my earlier post, the “steam Locomotive designer” on www.steamlocomotive.com easily supports the the idea that a K4 or P7d (which had more tractive effort than a K4) could have handled 2000 tons on level track - BUT as grades approach anything over 5% they would start to be in trouble with such a load.
Sheldon
The primary purpose of the K4 Pacific on the Pennsylvania Railroad was passenger service. That is not to say they were ever on freight service. Many times after shopping a locomotive it would go out on a local freight to break in, but it was not the primary service of a passenger locomotive.
The ACL and NYC had specific Pacific classes dedicated to freight service, these Pacifics had a smaller driver diameter of around 73" for better tractive effort on freight trains while still providing the speed the railroads wanted for expedited freight service.
Rick
Andre:I don’t know why a K-4 couldn’t have handled a 2000 ton freight, especially when SP rated its A-3 4-4-2’s at 2400 tons in San Joaquin Valley freight service.
Simply put the K4 was to slippery…If you look at pictures of K4s they are usually on short trains or doubleheaded.
Pennsy doubleheaded them because they were a little short in the horsepower department compared to an NYC Hudson. (roughly 3200 for the K4 and 4700 for a J-3) and horsepower is what’s needed for a long fast train.
As for being slippery, I find that hard to believe. What with about 201,830 lbs on drivers and a 44,000 lb tractive effort, the factor of adhesion works out to 4.59, well above the 4.0 which was generally regarded as the minimum to prevent excessive wheel slip.
Andre
As for being slippery, I find that hard to believe. What with about 201,830 lbs on drivers and a 44,000 lb tractive effort, the factor of adhesion works out to 4.59, well above the 4.0 which was generally regarded as the minimum to prevent excessive wheel slip.
Andre
The K4 was indeed a slippery engine as far as day to day operation…What those charts doesn’t show is the true facts…The K4 was not the ideal passenger engine-again that’s why they was single on short passenger trains and doubleheaded on longer trains.
Well, they must have been really lousy engines, then. There are pics by Fred Jukes of SP P-5’s singlehandedly handling 10-12 car all steel trains on the Nevada desert. The P-5 had less than 75% of the K4’s tractive effort. How is it that SP enginemen could coax a performance like that out of a much smaller engine?
And to think, Pennsy had over 400 K4’s.
Andre