I believe that UP’s 844(4) was the most sucessful, being the only unretired
american steam train. Also it had the 4th largest tractive effort (63,800lb),
losing to the N&W’s “J” class (80,000lb), SF’s 2900 class (79,960lb) , & the
SP’s GS-2 through 6 class (71,173lb). Also the tender had more support being on caterpillar trucks, unlike the 3 other classes listed. Other 4-8-4 classes
include NYC’s class Niagra class (61,570lb tractive effort), NP’s class A
(61,600lb),7 CNR’s class U-4 (52,457lb).
NYC’s were Niagara type (as in Niagara Falls). And the 844 is not the only unretired steam locomotive. There are at least a hundred more in operation in the U.S. alone. It might be the only one never retired by a U.S. Class I, but does that matter in anything other than a technical sense?
Many experts select the NYC Niagara as the ultimate in terms of mechanical efficiency. Others like the N&W J. However, the ONLY measure of success that matters to a railroad is how much money the locomotive makes. One way to measure that is ton-miles delivered for dollar spent on purchase, maintenance, and fuel. Availability and road-failure rate figure into that calculation too. It’s of no use to have a locomotive that delivers 10% more horsepower for 10% less expense if only makes it over the road without breakdown 50% of the time.
I’ll defer to the others to select which 4-8-4 made its owners the most money. The Niagara and J are going to be in the running for that prize.
OS
without regard to wheel arrangement - the most successfull of the modern steam locomotives was generally the last class to be scrapped. That will be different for each class 1 but they kept them running because it made economic sense to do so. Conversely the least successful would of been the first class scrapped - again for economic reasons - among which are age, maintenance (both the engine and it’s impact on the track), reliability, and fuel.
dd
… which would indicate that on most railroads, the most successful locomotive was a hand-fired hog of a 2-8-0. Now that’s irony.
OS
True, but UP 844 was the only train that wasn’t retired. All I can say Is that, poor
N&W J-class 611 got retired twice. As for NYC no survivors exist. You were also
right about the other 4-8-4’s in operation including SP 4449, SP 700, SF 3751,
CB 819,& MR 261.
You mean locomotive, not train. 844 may well have been the only standard-gauge locomotive not retired by a Class I. Have you accounted for the narrow-gauge locomotives? But what does it matter anyway except as a trivia question?
OS
— actually I was thinking of the hundreds of 0-6-0 switchers but the 2-8-0 was almost as universal. something about the meek inheriting the earth?
dd
Britan had many pacifics,but the poll was on 4-8-4’s.
The Rock Island’s 4-8-4s were first built in the late 1920s, and more were built to basically the same design during WWII. I understand that the D&H locos were basically similar and that the NYC Niagaras used the same basic boiler design. So these locomotives started early, lasted a long time and there were more of a single design than any other road in the USA, I believe. Sounds successful to me! But the Canadian National 4-8-4s must have been successful, one basic design lasting from 1927 until the 1960s!
Peter
Africa came out with a new 4-8-4 ,The class 26 red devil! Shocking huh.
O.S. you are right on the N&W J class being a money maker. It’s axle load was (33tons),
its heating surface was (5,271ft2), & 6000 horsepower.
As for engines that were never retired,D&RGW had 3 narrow gauge 2-8-2s,#s 473,476 and 478 used on the Durango to Silverton branch that lasted until the line was sold in 1980. The three engines went to the new owner.
I think that it is unfair to declare the UP 844 more successful than, say the N&W 611 on the basis that it has been running for a longer period of time. The reason that 844 has run longer is not because it is a better locomotive, but that historically the UP management has been more “steam friendly” than their eastern counterparts. As far as the centipede tender being an advantage over traditional tenders, I’m not sure where you’re going. Having more tender wheels certainly would lessen axle loading, however I don’t believe that standard 3 axle tender trucks were much of a problem for most railroads.
Brennan
I’d vote for the N&W J as the most succesful for reasons well stated by others. Dave
I agree with everything you say, but how could one be more steam friendly than the N&W?
Gabe
Define success! If by successful you mean ‘survived’ then, yes, of mainline steam you’d have to take the 844. And I like that locomotive; she’s a wonderful engine. However, I doubt – without a very very precise definition of success – you could settle on just one engine type of that wheel arrangement. Certainly the NYC Niagaras were a fabulous engine, as were the J’s and the UP 800’s. All shared one thing: they were doing what they were designed and built to do, and did it very well indeed. I would have to say all three were successes!
Oh I can’t take it anymore, why didn’t they preserve at least one Niagra!
Gabe
NYC was stupid. Very little has been preserved by NYC.
I guess what I should have said was that the UP was more steam friendly than the N&W in the years after the end of regular steam operation.
Brennan
NYC was stupid? What do you think a railroad is supposed to be, an amusement park for railfans? That sound you hear is another brick chunking into the big brick wall separating you from getting access to a railroad or railroader.
As for UP being more “steam friendly,” that’s arguable at best, and another brick being hoisted into place at worst. I doubt any of the former N&W people are going to like hearing that all the efforts they went to, year after year, to run a hell of a lot more miles than UP ran, mean they’re not as “steam friendly.”
OS