Another Kline Hudson gets the works! Tales from Harmon Shops

@RickO posted:

All this talk about "Hudsons". Someone please show me where the Hudson river flows through Kansas and New Mexico.

The only true "Hudsons" are those on the New York Central. All the rest are just plain ole 4-6-4's

On a side note the ATSF 4-6-4 never made it onto an album cover.

The Dreyfus was on a Commodores album and  Van Halen thought it was so cool, they copied it decades later:  http://www.feelnumb.com/2012/0...ovin-on-album-cover/

Thank you Rick!....if we keep knocking him around, he’ll see the light!...I’m boxing up a locomotive for ol’ Lou tomorrow, I’ll be sure to stick some thicker glasses in there,....then he’ll see the ugly on those ATSF Hudsons.....

Pat

*pulls pin in preparation of tossing a grenade into the thread*

Gentleman, we are ignoring the maxim that form follows function.  And the well engineered Water Level Route, simply had no use for an ugly brute that was required by the Santa Fe.  Why overbuild something that's just going to beat up the track if you have something that can already handle all the limiteds and expresses that you could want.

@naresar posted:

*pulls pin in preparation of tossing a grenade into the thread*

Gentleman, we are ignoring the maxim that form follows function.  And the well engineered Water Level Route, simply had no use for an ugly brute that was required by the Santa Fe.  Why overbuild something that's just going to beat up the track if you have something that can already handle all the limiteds and expresses that you could want.

Pin pulled, grenade landed in opponents lap....😉

to add, form meets function on two separate notes, ...both of which come from the book “ Thoroughbreds” by Alvin Staufer, ....as noted; the clean lines of # 5200 were for two reasons, first low clearances dictated the low roof designs of the cab, and Alco simply had a devotion to clean, horizontal lines.....

Pat

If you look back I never said the NYC Hudsons were bad looking. They just don't look as good as the ATSF Hudsons 😉.

@Lou1985 posted:

At least we can agree that the PRR had the worst/ugliest steam locomotives. That's a fact. They never even had a Hudson. Such poor motive power decisions.

What?! That hurts! We Pennsy guys love our K-4s. Built to work, not a show horse.  But shall we digress and compare the GG1 to the NYC P motor? Ha, lol.

@Will posted:

What?! That hurts! We Pennsy guys love our K-4s. Built to work, not a show horse.  But shall we digress and compare the GG1 to the NYC P motor. Ha, lol.

Unfortunately for the Pennsy fans, when our friend Lou finds himself against the ropes with out any argument left, he lashes out at the next available railroad.....mind you, none of us mentioned anything about the PRR ......the debate between the K4 and the Central’s Hudson has been discussed before, and I’ll remind Lou that he’d be comparing apples to oranges with the two. Two completely different platforms, with different tasks given the terrain each locomotive faced......The Pennsy was clearly proud of its K4 class, and built them in huge numbers .....a lot more K4’s than Hudsons .....So popular amongst PRR fans and state historians alike, the K4 is affectionately named the the state’s locomotive, and a bill was passed to prove it.......so yet again, Lou losing ground.....

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

@Lou1985 posted:

At least we can agree that the PRR had the worst/ugliest steam locomotives. That's a fact. They never even had a Hudson. Such poor motive power decisions.

Unfortunately for the Pennsy fans, when our friend Lou finds himself against the ropes with out any argument left, he lashes out at the next available railroad.....mind you, none of us mentioned anything about the PRR ......the debate between the K4 and the Central’s Hudson has been discussed before, and I’ll remind Lou that he’d be comparing apples to oranges with the two. Two completely different platforms, with different tasks given the terrain each locomotive faced......The Pennsy was clearly proud of its K4 class, and built them in huge numbers .....a lot more K4’s than Hudsons .....So popular amongst PRR fans and state historians alike, the K4 is affectionately named the the state’s locomotive, and a bill was passed to prove it.......so yet again, Lou losing ground.....

Pat

I'd like to remind everyone that the K4s predated both of the Hudson's that have been bantered about by almost 20 years - and had more tractive effort than both the J-1e and 3450 class.

I for one think the K4s is the most beautiful and well proportioned steam locomotive ever built.

I just acquired the same K-Line Hudson  and am very interested in seeing how Leapin' Larry's project turns out. Mine runs great in its "stock" configuration, but I may just want to have it upgraded someday.

As for which locomotive is the most beautiful, as they say, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Even though they are from rival railroads, I think the J1e Hudson is the most attractive steamer ever built, and the K4s is a close second. Since some of you have brought up locos that you find to be unattractive, the one that takes that prize in my opinion is the C&O Yellowbelly. Now that, in my opinion, is a face only a mother could love!!

I'll stand by the offhanded remark about PRR locomotives. Their prolific use of the squared  Belpaire firebox design (I know for the coal they used), flat smokebox fronts, flat pilots, and high mount headlights is not aesthetically pleasing to my eye. Just weird designs.

But back on Hudsons . ATSFs 3460 class was bumped from The Chief by diesels after WWII. NYCs Hudsons were bumped from the 20th Century by 4-8-4s, because they couldn't hack it on the flat "Water Level Route" any more. ATSF only had to use 4-8-4s in the mountains, not on the flat terrain between Chicago and La Junta, CO. Superior 4-6-4 eh ?

@Lou1985 posted:

I'll stand by the offhanded remark about PRR locomotives. Their prolific use of the squared  Belpaire firebox design (I know for the coal they used),

Again, your lack of technical knowledge is amazing! The Belpaire firebox design had NOTHING to do with the fuel burned. Remember that the Great Norther RR also used the Belpaire design, with many of their locomotives using oil fuel. An advantage of the Belpaire design is, all the staybolts are of uniform/standard length in any given area, when compared to a radial stayed firebox design.

flat smokebox fronts, flat pilots, and high mount headlights is not aesthetically pleasing to my eye. Just weird designs.

Well,,,,,,,to each his own, I guess. Then again, I never really cared for the appearance of the Santa Fe steam locomotives, plus I have never been a fan of Baldwin Locomotive Works products. From an experience standpoint, my first choice is, and always will be, Lima Locomotive Works (NKP 700s and SP GS class), followed closely by American Locomotive Works (UP 800s and 3900s).

But back on Hudsons . ATSFs 3460 class was bumped from The Chief by diesels after WWII. NYCs Hudsons were bumped from the 20th Century by 4-8-4s, because they couldn't hack it on the flat "Water Level Route" any more. ATSF only had to use 4-8-4s in the mountains, not on the flat terrain between Chicago and La Junta, CO. Superior 4-6-4 eh ?

You failed to comment on the slippery issues with the Santa Fe 3460 class locomotives.

Now, lets not forget that the NYC J3a Hudsons operated from Harmon, NY to Chicago, IL, taking water on the fly, and only taking fuel (coal) at Cleveland, Ohio.

Messed up on the firebox. My apologies. I was thinking of the Wootten Firebox for low grade coal:  Wootten firebox - Wikipedia Got them mixed up. Don't deal with PRR stuff all that often .

I've read and own a copy of The Santa Fe's Big Three by Farrington. Slippery or not the ATSF was quite please with the 3460 class. In fact they were regularly assigned to the Fast Mail Express in addition to The Chief because of their power...

@rplst8 posted:

I'd like to remind everyone that the K4s predated both of the Hudson's that have been bantered about by almost 20 years - and had more tractive effort than both the J-1e and 3450 class.

I for one think the K4s is the most beautiful and well proportioned steam locomotive ever built.

Where do you get your information from?...again, as mentioned comparing the K4s to the central’s J class of Hudsons is like comparing apples to oranges.....however, your statement on tractive efforts is false....remember, J class Hudsons are equipped with booster engines, ( in the rear trailing truck)  the K4’s have no booster....so the the tractive effort of a J3a is right around 54,000 lbs. vs. that of a K4 at 44,500 give or take a few lbs. ........it is noted that although an expensive way to railroad, given the large number of K class the PRR rostered, it wasn’t uncommon on heavy PRR trains, to have them double or even triple headed.....the booster on a single J3a class was a dramatic increase in tractive effort to the sum of 10,000 pounds + ....

Pat

When I became involved in O Gauge, I wanted a K4. They have a great reputation over here, as “the locomotive that inspired Gresley to design the Flying Scotsman”

@harmonyards posted:

Where do you get your information from?...again, as mentioned comparing the K4s to the central’s J class of Hudsons is like comparing apples to oranges.....however, your statement on tractive efforts is false....remember, J class Hudsons are equipped with booster engines, ( in the rear trailing truck)  the K4’s have no booster....so the the tractive effort of a J3a is right around 54,000 lbs. vs. that of a K4 at 44,500 give or take a few lbs. ........it is noted that although an expensive way to railroad, given the large number of K class the PRR rostered, it wasn’t uncommon on heavy PRR trains, to have them double or even triple headed.....the booster on a single J3a class was a dramatic increase in tractive effort to the sum of 10,000 pounds + ....

Pat

Well, Lou opened a can of worms and this thread has digressed. K-4 has more tractive effort than the J class WITHOUT booster. I'm sure that's what rplst8 meant. Yes, the K4s were double headed through the mountains. I agree its apples and oranges, but maybe Lou should have let sleeping Pennsy fans lie. Design wise, I like the distinctive "hump" in the K4 boiler. It givers the engine a feline look of coiled power waiting to pounce.

But I happen to like the Hudson and the NYC as well as the Pennsy.

@Will posted:

Well, Lou opened a can of worms and this thread has digressed. K-4 has more tractive effort than the J class WITHOUT booster. I'm sure that's what he meant. Yes, the K4s were double headed through the mountains. I agree its apples and oranges, but maybe Lou should have let sleeping Pennsy fans lie. Design wise, I like the distinctive "hump" in the K4 boiler. It givers the engine a feline look of coiled power waiting to pounce.

But I happen to like the Hudson and the NYC as well as the Pennsy.

Yes Will it has, and mind you, this is a standard tactic of ol’ Lou,...🤣🤣🤣🤣 ....I’m not much of a Pennsy fan, so I can not, nor will I comment on looks, that’s to the eye of the beholder....I have no argument with the PRR fans, they have their favorites, the Central fans have theirs,.....and I’m not even sure how the K4’s got into this conversation, but we’re falling off track......the real argument is the one against the ATSF Hudson....like I said, when cornered, Lou likes a diversion .....to exit like a fox,....😉

Pat

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 4-6-4 "Hudson" Locomotives in the USA (steamlocomotive.com)

ATSF 3460: as built 48,618lbs tractive effort, 49,456lbs rebuilt. No booster .

I never said anything about a K4s. I just said PRR steam looks unattractive to me. Came out in the argument about looks, because that's the best argument the NYC guys have. But, as we all know looks are subjective. Tractive effort is not .  I don't think anyone was talking about K4s before today.

Speaking of tractive effort how's the subject Hudson coming along?

@Lou1985 posted:

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 4-6-4 "Hudson" Locomotives in the USA (steamlocomotive.com)

ATSF 3460: as built 48,618lbs tractive effort, 49,456lbs rebuilt. No booster .

I never said anything about a K4s. I just said PRR steam looks unattractive to me. Came out in the argument about looks, because that's the best argument the NYC guys have. But, as we all know looks are subjective. Tractive effort is not .  I don't think anyone was talking about K4s before today.

Speaking of tractive effort how's the subject Hudson coming along?

Might see signs of life this evening,.....as promised, it’ll be sometime this week for sure,......stop with the diversions man........stand your ground with your Shrek look alike locomotive!....just out of curiosity, how long did those 3460’s stick around for?......did they have a fabled career?....

Pat

1937 to 1953, the end of steam passenger and pretty much all steam operations on the ATSF. Steam operated once or twice a year after that up till 1957, but it was only a handful of 2-10-4s and 4-8-4s as helpers on wheat trains.

@Lou1985 posted:

1937 to 1953, the end of steam passenger and pretty much all steam operations on the ATSF. Steam operated once or twice a year after that up till 1957, but it was only a handful of 2-10-4s and 4-8-4s as helpers on wheat trains.

No, no,....just the ATSF Hudson,....not 2-10-4’s & 4-8-4’s.....

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

No, no,....just the ATSF Hudson,....not 2-10-4’s & 4-8-4’s.....

Pat

1937-1953, when regular steam operations ended on the ATSF.

I noted that above, just giving the caveat that there were some steam locomotives running after 1953, but only as emergency power.

For all of you throwing boosters around, those things cut out at a certain speed!

And, it seems to me that I have read more than once that NYC Hudson's had trouble getting out of Albany station going west with a heavy train without a pusher.

@Big Jim posted:

For all of you throwing boosters around, those things cut out at a certain speed!

And, it seems to me that I have read more than once that NYC Hudson's had trouble getting out of Albany station going west with a heavy train without a pusher.

Shake it any way you’d like ....tractive effort is tractive effort, .....if the booster is there, add it to the math....I can’t speak for Albany station’s practices,...I can speak of practices at Harmon, as Grandad worked there, never did he mention of pushers out of Harmon after having backed a steamer down the reverse loop to couple onto an outbound north or west,.....

Pat

Interesting Pat, not to hijack this thread but my grandfather, father and uncle worked for the central out of the Harmon yards. Dad told me many of stories and used to show me his squashed thumb complements of a tender drawbar pin.  Frome early 20s to  news photo and article I got of my uncle retiring off his geep I belive in 69

@Big Jim posted:

For all of you throwing boosters around, those things cut out at a certain speed!

And, it seems to me that I have read more than once that NYC Hudson's had trouble getting out of Albany station going west with a heavy train without a pusher.

Probably the steepest grade on the whole line coming out of the Hudson Valley to Schenectady. Then again they may have been pulling 18-20 heavyweights. They called them heavy for a reason.

Pete

@Big Jim posted:

For all of you throwing boosters around, those things cut out at a certain speed!

Yes, the Franklin Railway Supply "High Speed Booster" was good for speeds up to 25-30 MPH upon starting & acceleration. When descending in speed, the booster should not be re-engaged above 20 MPH. Such practice has worked very well for SP 4449 throughout her career, both in regular service, and since 1975.

And, it seems to me that I have read more than once that NYC Hudson's had trouble getting out of Albany station going west with a heavy train without a pusher.

Hard to believe that a "pusher" was used on any of the streamlined luxury passenger trains.

@E-UNIT-79 posted:

Interesting Pat, not to hijack this thread but my grandfather, father and uncle worked for the central out of the Harmon yards. Dad told me many of stories and used to show me his squashed thumb complements of a tender drawbar pin.  Frome early 20s to  news photo and article I got of my uncle retiring off his geep I belive in 69

How cool is that!?...great grandad worked out of Beach Grove shops, grandad worked out of Harmon as a mechanic in the electric shops, during the war they differed him, ( he wasn’t happy about that)  and he worked OT in the roundhouse as a Hostler and mechanic since he was qualified steam too......Grandad was good friends with Fred Beech, the company’s filmmaker .....he & grandad both wound up being hostlers due to man power shortages,...grandad said the highlight of his career was the first time he backed a Hudson down the loop ......I have pictures of him smiling ear to ear as he was standing with the road crew,....who weren’t smiling......

Pat

My dad was deferred too. When he returned he got his job back and I forget but I think a leather binder wit the central logo on it with all papers and metal cards honoring his service I think. I have them packed away I'll have to look at them again I'll post a few pics when I do. Small world. They probably knew each other. Dad worked Harmon at the roundhouse before and after the war.

@E-UNIT-79 posted:

My dad was deferred too. When he returned he got his job back and I forget but I think a leather binder wit the central logo on it with all papers and metal cards honoring his service I think. I have them packed away I'll have to look at them again I'll post a few pics when I do. Small world. They probably knew each other. Dad worked Harmon at the roundhouse before and after the war.

Yes it is, ...I have all of grandads tools, ....some of which, are so well made, I still use them to this day....all of his ball ping hammers, his chisels, all bearing NYC logos, that were no doubt made on site, .....really cool to use those tools on a daily basis at my work.......no neater feeling using the very tools he knocked on a Hudson or a Mohawk with, and here I am knocking a ball joint out of Bronco with the same hammer.........priceless!..

Pat

@Lou1985 posted:

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 4-6-4 "Hudson" Locomotives in the USA (steamlocomotive.com)

ATSF 3460: as built 48,618lbs tractive effort, 49,456lbs rebuilt. No booster .

I never said anything about a K4s. I just said PRR steam looks unattractive to me. Came out in the argument about looks, because that's the best argument the NYC guys have. But, as we all know looks are subjective. Tractive effort is not .  I don't think anyone was talking about K4s before today.

Speaking of tractive effort how's the subject Hudson coming along?

Well technically you didn't mention K4s but three days ago you said " At least we can agree that the PRR had the worst/ugliest steam locomotives. That's a fact. They never even had a Hudson. Such poor motive power decisions." And the equivalent PRR steam would be what? Nice try though.

Soooo....after a lot of back forth on this thread, here’s the reason we’re here in the first place!...updates on Larry’s Hudson!...so we’ve fitted and installed the Cruise Commander, and routed the basic wires for running .....the shape of the boiler shell dictates a perfect landing so the CC can’t scrub the inside of the shell,.....run/program switch will be mounted in the smoke box door for easy programming, along with smoke on and off......note the FR gasket paper used to line the boiler shell to protect the CC.....test runs tomorrow!...yaaaaayy!!!

Pat

Suggestion for @harmonyards, start a new thread with just the project information and photos and update this new thread with information about your locomotive project as you progress.  Leave this hodgepodge of diverted traffic to run its own course.  And edit the new thread's title with a new date to indicate when you've added new information and/or photos.  I'm tired of clicking on this thread only to discover more BS unrelated to your modeling work.

@Will posted:

Well technically you didn't mention K4s but three days ago you said " At least we can agree that the PRR had the worst/ugliest steam locomotives. That's a fact. They never even had a Hudson. Such poor motive power decisions." And the equivalent PRR steam would be what? Nice try though.

Don’t let em’ off the hook Will!....sock it to him!!.....we’ll root him out with a stick!!!..lovin it!!....

Pat

@Pingman posted:

Suggestion for @harmonyards, start a new thread with just the project information and photos and update this new thread with information about your locomotive project as you progress.  Leave this hodgepodge of diverted traffic to run its own course.  And edit the new thread's title with a new date to indicate when you've added new information and/or photos.  I'm tired of clicking on this thread only to discover more BS unrelated to your modeling work.

Good point Carl, probably the best thing to do at this venture, is to ask everyone to tone it down a notch .this way, the moderators don’t get irritated with me, having a double thread going, and the discussions above simply migrating to another thread, with basically the same thing going on....so it’s probably best if we keep this thread focused on Larry’s Hudson, and questions or comments directed to the build,.....and yes Carl, I’ll update the title as we move along,....all solid good suggestions.....

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

I can speak of practices at Harmon, as Grandad worked there, never did he mention of pushers out of Harmon after having backed a steamer down the reverse loop to couple onto an outbound north or west,.....

Pat

I didn't say anything about Harmon or the water level land it is on. Getting out of the Hudson river valley around Albany is another thing.

Update on Larry’s Hudson,....1st test run, no sounds or smoke, so far so good starting a long train, ....it can be longer, this is what I could grab quick for a test run,....I have a small issue with the lead truck traversing switches ( it wants to jump up) so I’ll tackle that next,.....that’s minor compared to things that can go wrong!...but this is why we test, test & more testing!...not disappointed at all so far!..

Pat

Hey Harmonyards, Wow, slow, smooth, and pulling over 23 cars, the trains so long I couldn’t count them all. Thank you very much. I’m excited. I’m sure you can take care of the pilot wheels, your the man. This will be a fun to run locomotive when it gets through The Harmonyards Shops. Keep the pictures coming. Also, Your layout is awesome, beautifull scenery, very nice track work and amazing structures. It makes the Hudson look real. So cool. Merry Christmas Everyone

That’s just what I grabbed handy Larry to at least get to a starting point,.....that ain’t nothing for this new build ,.......wait till we get her all outfitted and pull a long string of Heavyweights,.......one side effect of this build I forgot to mention, when we combine the Kline boiler with the MTH chassis, we actually add to the total weight,.....the Kline boiler shell is heavier naked than the MTH shell, and obviously the MTH chassis with the large Pittman is much heavier than the Kline chassis,.....so, you get the added bonus of a little weighted traction,.....that train looped around 3 curves, and she didn’t even slip one time,.....again, so far so good, we’ll work out this front truck issue here shortly, I’m sure it’s something silly & simple,....

Pat

Quick question...is that an original K Line headlight?  If so, they did really well!

And the layout is awesome!  Love the built in shelving!!

@Larry Mullen posted:

Quick question...is that an original K Line headlight?  If so, they did really well!

And the layout is awesome!  Love the built in shelving!!

Thanks Larry!...that’s the factory Kline headlight, it’s not bad out the gate, however, I will be ditching the toy-like lens and installing a proper reflector and lens .....then she’ll look the part,....but yeah, the housing isn’t too bad off,.....seems MTH & Kline got it close, Lionel failed across the entire J class family....I think the first thing Pete ( Norton ) does to all his Lionel Hudsons is to take a  ball ping hammer to the headlight housing and whack it off,.....pretty sure Gary ( Sulerwarp1) does it too,.....that’s why PSC can’t keep those NYC housings in stock!..😉...

Pat

Way too quiet! Shouldn't those old steamers make more fuss?

Very nice. Wish I could send you a Challenger that is geared way too low.....