A Pennsylvania Railroad 4-8-4

I was actually thinking of several fictional classes for PRR 4-8-4s. Which I will describe now. Many were created by the fictional Milanese engineer Augusto Lombardi. It is also important to note that in this timeline. Steam on most lines lasted into the 70s or 80s. Which would give the preservation movement enough time to snag more engine than they did really.

The R3
Number built: 300, of which at least seven are preserved
Years of production: 1933-1940
The first of Lombardi's truly original designs. He envisioned the 4-8-4s as being destined to become the ultimate in PRR steam engine design. While most 8 coupled stem engines on the PRR were put to work on freight, the R3s were used as the true successor to the K4 Pacific. This class had a staggering 300 examples built in the years from 1933 until 1940, after which the US entered WW2 in 1941. Becoming the largest amount of any PRR engine other than the K4 Pacifics. These 4-8-4s, known as "Keystones," were the ultimate PRR engine. They were powerful, fast, cheap to build, and easy to upgrade and experiment upon, an advantage with most other big PRR engines like the T! did not have. As said, they mainly worked as the long sought successor to the K4. Pulling the fastest trains in the PRR passenger fleet. They soon went on the inspire the J class 4-8-4s, the most prized engine of PRR subsidiary Norfolk and Western. Among the other steam engines it went on to inspire were the South African Railways 25NC. 

The R4 

Theses 4-8-4s, called Mini-Duplexes, were built along side 6110 and 6111. They were to be used in case the T1 didn't prove themselves well. But due to the fact the T1 eventually go the proper modifications, only six were built. The few six worked mainly on short passenger and freight run until all were scraped in 1968.

Interesting discussion:

I'd say the options are:

1) bigger M-1- a short stretch.

2) Something similar to the C&O 2-10-4 (PRR J-1), modernized round window cab like the J, about the same length. C&O 614 would be the model. Larger drivers than the N&W J, similar to the MILW S series, or Santa Fe 4-8-4's

3.) A 4-8-4, large driver, T-1 style. Single set of steam cylinders, not a duplex, maybe with the Franklin poppets. That engine might just have worked. 

Don't think the S-2 boiler idea would have worked, although it had a large Belpaire firebox, but configured to suit that large turbine in the middle. 

Interesting ideas!

Jim

Andrew Boyd posted:

I was actually thinking of several fictional classes for PRR 4-8-4s. Which I will describe now. Many were created by the fictional Milanese engineer Augusto Lombardi. It is also important to note that in this timeline. Steam on most lines lasted into the 70s or 80s. Which would give the preservation movement enough time to snag more engine than they did really.

The R2
Number built: 40, of which three are preserved
Years of production: 1929-1934

 A little known fact is that the R2s were built using repurposed parts from PRR D2 4-4-0 locomotives,  which makes them...

No, I can't say it.  I still have SOME sense of shame.   

Mitch 

Con-cor beat you to it many years ago...

Rusty

Kelly Anderson posted:

Andrew Boyd posted:

The R2

Number built: 40, of which three are preserved

Years of production: 1929-1934

The R3
Number built: 300, of which at least seven are preserved
Years of production: 1933-1940

 

Part of your fantasy PRR must include that the railroad was never electrified.  Part of the reason behind the lack of new locomotives for many years was that they had surplus engines running out of their ears, especially after the east end was electrified.  Without the lack of electrification, and in actuality, they had no reason to build either of those classes.

Yes, well there were plenty of issues they ran into with paying crews. Like in the case of K4s double-heading.

I'll take one of each model!

Norm

For all curious, here is what my idea of a PRR R3 would look like. Along with a Lima-esque 2-8-4 and a 2-6-6-4 that'd be the fictional inspiration for the N&W A class.

https://mrbill6ishere.devianta...neration-2-712701830

I would bet that the PRR 4-8-4 would have looked like the Australian version of the PRR T1!

 This class had a staggering 300 examples built in the years from 1933 until 1940, after which the US entered WW2 in 1941. Becoming the largest amount of any PRR engine other than the K4 Pacifics.

 

 Maybe the second largest class of passenger engines, but there were several classes with significantly more engines than the K4s.

L1s - 574 built

I1s - 598 built

H9s - 560 (in service July 1947)

H10s - 414 (in service July 1947)

Source - Pennsy Power

Stuart

 

I agree with PRRHORSHOECURVE: probably a non-duplex T1, That being with the Loewy streamlining, of course.

A non Loewy design could likely have the J1 or Q2 "face". Since the Qs had belpaires, that would likely carry over. As far as driver size and other specs, what did the NYC Niagaras have? I can see the rounded cab windows of the Js/Qs too. Always thought those were handsome for such a minor detail.

Time for a kitbash!

PRRT&HS magazine The Keystone had an article in the Autumn 2000 issue (Vol.33, No.3) that covered two what-if PRR 4-8-4's in considerable detail - one early based on the M1 and a later one based on modern 4-8-4's. The latter looked like a small Q2 with 80" drivers and roller bearing rods. Elevation views of both were part of the article.   There was also an earlier article in the Keystone (Spring 1998, Vol.31, No.1) re: a PRR 4-8-4 along with a painting that inspired the appearance of the modern PRR 4-8-4 in V33,#3.

A friend an I actually cooperated on designing this idea for a PRR 4-8-4. The first engine here, caleed the R3. (The R2 would be an M1 with an extended firebox).

Andrew Boyd posted:

A friend an I actually cooperated on designing this idea for a PRR 4-8-4. The first engine here, caleed the R3. (The R2 would be an M1 with an extended firebox).

Looks like somebody photoshopped an MTH catalog. Besides, the cab roofs shouldn't red either!

My take on some of these PRR "flights of fantasy" designs is that at least a few of you are very likely using "recreational chemicals"......

For example, I don't see any need on the PRR for a 2-8-4. The low speed mineral traffic was all I-1 and J-1, and the high speed stuff (for PRR, that is), was the M-1, a loco with a four wheel lead truck. As good as Berks are, they just don't have the tractive effort capability to be used in freight service everywhere on the PRR. The mountains were covered with I-1's and J-1's, engines with a rated starting tractive effort near 100,000 lb., and for the Middle Division they had the M-1. The Panhandle used J-1's.....

As for an "R" class 4-8-4...think about it! The Pennsy did not even install stokers on their K4 until the gov't and the unions forced them to. So a 1933-40 era 4-8-4 is a non starter, in my opinion, even aside from the friction bearings ie brasses on driving wheels that most PRR power had. In 1930, PRR had a brand new M-1, so why would they have built another slightly larger design? The PRR would do anything to eliminate an axle on a locomotive.....

The PRR was late to the party when it came to horsepower increasing appliances like stokers, superheaters, higher steam pressure, roller bearings, and most other modern appliances that made a steam locomotive "modern". I am not sure what a 4-8-4 without roller bearings and using a low steam pressure would look like, but "it wouldn't be pretty"...

For the later "R" class, the WWII contemporaries to a T1, why would PRR complete and build two major steam designs with the same targeted service? Now if someone decided that they would build a 4-8-4 INSTEAD of a 4-4-4-4, that might fly, at least until the very close relationship that PRR enjoyed with Baldwin and Ralph Johnson, the divided drive champion, was fully investigated.

Let's face it, the PRR was ahead of the country with one locomotive, and it was an electric. If PRR had the money, they would have abandoned steam even sooner and skipped diesels, and there would have been a GG1 successor (another tough putt) and an extended electrification system to at least Pittsburgh to run it.

For what it's worth:

Slap some DGLE and a couple keystones on a Class J, and off ya go!    

Mitch 

M. Mitchell Marmel posted:

For what it's worth:

Slap some DGLE and a couple keystones on a Class J, and off ya go!    

Mitch 

Sorry but, the PRR actually TESTED an N&W J Class locomotive, and found it "unsuitable" for their needs, i.e. it wasn't their design, operated at speeds notably over 100 MPH, and outperformed anything the PRR had. Yes, there were clearance issues with that "big N&W J", but the PRR Mechanical & Engineering staff would NEVER admit that that "big N&W J" was the absolute best locomotive that ever turned a wheel on PRR lines!

N&W 610 was the test engine on the PRR.

prrhorseshoecurve posted:

I would bet that the PRR 4-8-4 would have looked like the Australian version of the PRR T1!

 

My first thought as well.  At least one if not more of these is still in operational condition in excursion service.  Imagine if the PRR had not had their duplex folly and then the immediate need to buy mismatched diesels from every builder known on earth each with their own parts and service requirements. 

HotWater,

There are many surviving PRR internal memos that reflect great admiration for the N&W J while it was on test.  About the only objection that those that were close to the tests came up with was the low drivers and the resulting high machinery speed at 100 mph and above.  PRRT&HS magazine, The Keystone, ran  two articles on this test and several of these memos were quoted.  See The Keystone, Vol.41,No.4, Winter 2008 and Vol.42,No.2, Summer 2009, for the two parts.  The tests are covered in detail with supporting PRR correspondence.

feltonhill posted:

HotWater,

There are many surviving PRR internal memos that reflect great admiration for the N&W J while it was on test.  About the only objection that those that were close to the tests came up with was the low drivers and the resulting high machinery speed at speed exceeding 100 mph.  PRRT&HS magazine, The Keystone, ran  an article (s) on this test and several of these memos were quoted, IIRC.

Agreed. But that "high machinery speed", specifically the piston speed, sure didn't seem to have a negative effect on those J Class locomotives operating on the N&W over their lifetime.

645 posted:

Hot Water posted:

feltonhill posted:

HotWater,

There are many surviving PRR internal memos that reflect great admiration for the N&W J while it was on test.  About the only objection that those that were close to the tests came up with was the low drivers and the resulting high machinery speed at speed exceeding 100 mph.  PRRT&HS magazine, The Keystone, ran  an article (s) on this test and several of these memos were quoted, IIRC.

Agreed. But that "high machinery speed", specifically the piston speed, sure didn't seem to have a negative effect on those J Class locomotives operating on the N&W over their lifetime.

And where on the N&W did the J class routinely operate at 100 mph? I don't think they ever did in regular service so of course the "high machinery speed" would be an non-issue for N&W.

At least two place that I know of on the N&W: 1) east of Crewe, and 2) along the Ohio River between Kenova, and Portsmouth, Oh.. While delivering the new EMD GP30 units to N&W from Late June through November 1962, I met many, many N&W Engineers who had run passenger trains with steam.

Hot Water posted:

Andrew Boyd posted:

A friend an I actually cooperated on designing this idea for a PRR 4-8-4. The first engine here, caleed the R3. (The R2 would be an M1 with an extended firebox).

Looks like somebody photoshopped an MTH catalog. Besides, the cab roofs shouldn't red either!

If you're going to insult the quality, you can at least make a proper second sentence. 

feltonhill posted:

PRRT&HS magazine The Keystone had an article in the Autumn 2000 issue (Vol.33, No.3) that covered two what-if PRR 4-8-4's in considerable detail - one early based on the M1 and a later one based on modern 4-8-4's. The latter looked like a small Q2 with 80" drivers and roller bearing rods. Elevation views of both were part of the article.   There was also an earlier article in the Keystone (Spring 1998, Vol.31, No.1) re: a PRR 4-8-4 along with a painting that inspired the appearance of the modern PRR 4-8-4 in V33,#3.

Interesting. Do you perhaps have a picture of the designs they showed?

Andrew,

I have pictures of both designs, but since they were published in a copyrighted magazine, I don't believe I can copy them here.  However, PRRT&HS offers single back issues for sale. 

The N&W 610 that ran on the PRR on test stripped its valve gear on one run, and had to be towed, so that test was not completely successful.

PRR had ONE 4-8-4.  An experimental electric!

But would a passenger 2-10-4 worked on heavier passenger and m&e trains in the mountains?

The 110mph performance of N&W 610 on the PRR is definitely impressive, especially given the 70" drivers and big pistons.  But to defend the PRR officials, performance on a one-off test and day-in/day-out reliability at speeds near or above the century mark are not the same thing.  The N&W may have had a couple of stretches where a J could run at high speeds, but the Pennsy ran across Ohio, Indiana, and (if going to St Louis), across Illinois.  I can see why they would be worried about those 15% higher machinery speeds over extended high speed running between Crestline, OH and Chicago, for example. 

What is a motive power man most fearful of?  His locomotives falling down on the road.  

sgriggs posted:

The 110mph performance of N&W 610 on the PRR is definitely impressive, especially given the 70" drivers and big pistons.  But to defend the PRR officials, performance on a one-off test and day-in/day-out reliability at speeds near or above the century mark are not the same thing.  The N&W may have had a couple of stretches where a J could run at high speeds, but the Pennsy ran across Ohio, Indiana, and (if going to St Louis), across Illinois.  I can see why they would be worried about those 15% higher machinery speeds over extended high speed running between Crestline, OH and Chicago, for example.  

It's sort of analagous to an Indy or NASCAR race car.  Great for 500 miles, but you don't necessarily want to drive it at top speed from New York to Los Angeles, or even from Philly to Chicago... 

Mitch