Large Locomotive

That's a great picture. You can really see how big the old steamers were. Probably 20 feet tall or so and maybe 100 feet long? Thanks for sharing that.

Emile

For what it's worth, that locomotive in the photo above is an example of the "Southern Pacific" type (4-10-2), being class SP-2 on the Southern Pacific RR. They were/are three cylinder design and where quite successful, as by 1927 the SP had 49 such steam locomotives. They were very powerful, and even though they had only 63 inch drive wheels, they sure would get a train over the road. 

The Union Pacific also had 4-10-2 three cylinder locomotives, but none were saved.

HEY HOT WATER,

You'll notice that I said "Big Wheels" instead of "Drivers".

I knew better of course, I just wanted to sound like a dummy novice to see if anybody would notice!

At first I thought the loco might have been a "Texas"or "Decapod" type, with 10 drivers.

I read once that some engineers had trouble with routine maintenance on the center cylinder because the reciprocating parts were not so readily accessible.

BAD ORDER

Well, OK "novice", but Engineers didn't conduct "routine maintenance" on steam locomotives. The Machinist craft, as well as the Boilermakers, Pipefitters, Electricians, and Laborers handled maintenance & repairs.

(here I am, shot down again...)

HEY HOT WATER,

I recall seeing movies and pictures of hoggers going around with their long-spouted oil cans, applying a little of the "green stuff" to the rod journals and reversing gear.

I thought they always did that kind of "maintenance" before climbing into the cab.

Bad Order (I really don't know that much, do I?)

Hot Water is correct, but engineers could run into trouble, too.

The UP acquired 88 3-cylinder 4-12-2's between 1926 and 1930. At first they filled the bill as fast freight locomotives, keeping the UP competitive with the Santa Fe. Then maintenance costs started to climb. Men "built like bulls" were best at servicing the center cylinder, crosshead and crank. But the third cylinder and the Gresley valve gear were difficult to service. They got "out of time" as components wore. That stressed the whole locomotive and made for rough running. Except for the UP-5 order, frames were bolted together. They suffered as timing got worse. Roller bearings were eventually applied to the the Gresley valve gear, but not to locomotive axles and rods.

By the time the UP was having second thoughts about 3-cylinder power, the Great Depression tightened its grip. Eighty-eight heavy freight locomotives could not be retired or replaced. The UP put up with them until finances permitted new Challengers and then Big Boys.

European railroads ran 3-cylinder and 4-cylinder locomotives successfully. Some are still running. But American 4-10-2's and 4-12-2's were much larger, heavier, and more powerful. The 3-cylinder concept looked good on paper but, in retrospect, cast frames and roller bearings on axles and rods were necessary for economical operation of these behemoths.

I guess I'd better stay out of the deep end of the pool.

Bad Order

And an UP 9000 series #9000 actually pulled an excursion train.

PRR Ron - Have any details on the fan trip pulled by #9000? Was it when it was enroute to LA for display in 1956?

Mark it was March 11,1956 Denver-Cheyenne (RT).  It was for the "Rocky Mountain Railroad Club."  Not long after (April/May) #9000 was steamed to California to be put on display.

From the picture the consist were streamline cars.  I am pretty sure but not completely positive the cars would be armor yellow. Which means I/we can prototypically run our UP excursion streamline consist with a #9000 or #844 (have them) or #3985.  But of course since I do not believe any of the toy train makers have made an oil burning #3985 to be prototypical replicated the time period would be before early/mid 1990. 

Ron

Thanks, Ron. Some great locomotives showed up on fan trips in the '50's. #9000 was at the head of the pack! BTW, they had a tough time getting 9000 over Cajon Pass, having to grease the inside of the railhead to accomadate that long wheelbase on some of the tight curves.

They were impressive locomotives but, as ReadingFan said, maintenance headaches.  I  have always loved them and like my model of one a lot - although I seldom run it: even on 72" curves its end drivers come completely off the top of the rails.  Looks too weird.

The Gresley's three-cylinder concept was complicated but a clever and workable way to get more power into a loco or any particularly size.  It worked well for Nigel Gresley, no doubt because as the inventor he really understood it and did whatever it took to make it do well, and I think also because he never fitted them to "behemoths" - his A3 and A4 locos were actually pretty small by US standards, although very powerful with their three cylinders, meaing maintenance of that middle cylinder was possible if still rather difficult.  His Mallard still holds the official speed record for steam locos, and yes, lots of people insist that the PRR T-1 or the N&W J or this or that could go faster, and I agree with them to some extent, but then as most every team that ever went to Bonneville learned, there is a big difference between what a machine should be able to do and maybe does in testing, and what it does when being tested officially.  But like racing cars, where often technology that doesn't work for the street is more than acceptable, even desirable, three-cylinder locos were not the stuff for everyday use, but they made for magnificent high speed runners, and The Gresley A-1s and A-3s did do great service on the Flying Scotsman for years, at least with Gresley overseeing them.

This is my favorite article about Gresley and the three-cylinder Pacifics, a "track test" done by Road and Track magazine for its April 1st edition in 1966, in which they pointed out that a three cylinder steam engine was the equivalent of a V-12 gasoline engine.  Very fun article!

http://www.trainweb.org/lunarl.../Gresley/Gresley.htm