When I was old enough to start seeing the differences in steam locomotives, the Hudson, in particular the 5000 series NYC Hudsons appealed to me more than the Pennsy K4. I've read many snippets about both locomotives. Some touting the K4s superiority over the Hudson, some the other way round.
I still think the NYC Hudson designers hit a home run, while the Pennsy K4 designers hit a triple.
All of that said, what characteristics of each loco made it better or not as good as the other ?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Im partial, (obviously) Grandaddy said the J's could out pull the K4's from a dig in Chicago, …...that's what he said, and Im sticking to that...chalk one up for the Central!...………..
….Pat
Growing up in upstate NY I tend to favor anything NYC. So going by the name alone.... No wait, Mohawk.,no Berkshire. The Penn had the GG1 and early on, lionel was thought so too. Along with the new electronic control steam turbine. I must confess that my mikado, although used by the system extensively, is not as nice asthenicaly speaking, I'd favor the k4. Without the keystone thank you.
Gee, that's a tough one; ask 10 people and you'll probably get a 50/50 split. The K4 was definitely an older design; the Js were no doubt part of the "next generation: of steam i.e: "Super Power". I think it's fair to say that both were highly regarded, and served their owners well.
I saved an article from the "Trains" October 1968 issue, entitled "K4 vs. J-1 in 1931...The view from the cab".
A fellow got permission to ride in the cabs of both, hauling the Broadway Limited and the 20th Century ; it's well written and very informative.
If you can find a copy, that may be all you'll need to know. Happy hunting! 
Mark in Oregon
Each engine was designed for different territories. Hudsons for the mostly flat water level route, Pennsy K4 for a more mountainous railroad. Each well suited for where they were used. Nothing more and nothing less. Comparing them side by side is useless. Now with that said. NYC Hudsons all the way.
My favorite roads and I like them equally well. Unclad I'll take the J3 super Hudson. Clad (despite the collective groans of countless Dreyfus backers) I like the Loewy K4. There's no logic involved here, it's eye candy.
Simon
Put me in for the Hudson as well. Something just seems more 'balanced' with a Hudson than most other styles although there are many 'close seconds'!
In for a ‘super hudson’ here
Even though I have lived in PA. My entire life the Hudson is the most estethicially the best locomotive ever built.
Dave
Even though the C&O Didn't call their Hudson's "Super Hudson's" that is exactly what they were. The L2a was the biggest and heaviest of the so Call Hudson Engines......I would always compare these with the Big 4 NYC Hudson, when seeing them at the old Louisville 7th Street Station or when bicycling down to the Water Street where both railroads serviced, fueled and watered their engines of that era...I would hope that some day, some one would make a model of the C&O L2/L2a un-streamlined "Super Hudson", with the 30ton coal/22,000 gal water tender.....One will never know what a show of hands might bring....I was told that may years ago Sunset did this engine in Scale 2-rail, but I never saw one per say...…!
A whole lot of wide ranging issues come into the equation. These were locomotives, yes, but also transportation systems that spanned decades, and covered different types of terrain. The locomotive per se being a part. Because of its size, Pennsy was all about standardization and there were pros and cons to that as with all things. The Bellpaire boiler was a prr standard, which as a general matter essentially packed a bit more heat in a shorter length which avoided the need for 4 wheel trailing trucks which would be necessary on longer radial stay boilers like the hudsons. A long Bellpaire boilered prr Hudson would have been cool, but never happened.
I wouldn't call the k4 a triple and not a home run. They worked a long time, perhaps past their primes, but that goes to business and system wide type decisions. Using the hudsons on the PRR routes would not have provided better results, and I suspect vice versa would have been true as well. They would not have been apples to apples interchangeable.
Lots of interesting cosmetic comments. How about someone do additional technical research on the PRR K4s and the NYC various J class Hudsons, in order to determine which one was really technically "better"?
Wow, so far the K4 is getting its collective a** kicked; where are all the Pennsy guys?
And I think Jeff (and others) are right; since these were designed for different terrain, this question really is "apples and oranges"...still fun, though.
As for me, I like 'em both!
Mark in Oregon
My interest is in what my dad fired, Consols and Mikados, and grows from that to Mountains and Northerns, but l'd like to see that C&O 4-6-4, if it had the appliances of that road's Pacific's and Mikados.
Hot Water and Strummer are both correct in their posts. Strummer, as far as seeing these different you would probably think Pennsy would be my favorite, as my parents rented an old house which was directly behind the Pennsy Round house in the West End of Louisville. I remember seeing the South Wind come into Louisville from Southern Indiana, and in the 50's was always Double Headed, both coming into, and heading back North to Chicago, via Indianapolis, Ind....I was told by a roundhouse employee of the time, on a Sat Morning visit that I'd Missed the biggest engine that they ever had come into Louisville, and that was a Pennsy T-1, but I never saw it. I did see the J1,and J1a, as well as the Decapods....I apologize, as I got away from your post concerning Hudson's.
A C&O Railroad friend of mine said he's gone up and down the Ohio River both running, and as a Road Foreman in the cabs of the Hudson's, he said they were a smooth ride at over a Hundred Miles Per Hour with 78" drivers...Myself I liked the pilot mounted head lights and flying front pumps of the C&O Engines, better than what the other railroads had of the day......Just another cosmetic difference, in the apples and oranges...….!
As the NYC Hudson was a later locomotive, my guess would be it had better operational numbers.
But the Selkirk front end on ANY Central locomotive makes it look mean. Or trying to relieve itself of a bad case of intestional constipation.
A lot of interesting information so far. I hadn't thought about the different terrain and the age difference between the two locomotives.
I have recently finished reading the book Apex of the Atlantics, about the prr E6 Atlantic, recommended here on the forum. That book and others reveals the depths and details in the engineering of steam locomotives for their given function. The E6 Atlantic outperformed the K2 Pacifics in certain situations. Driver size, weight on drivers, cylinder dimensions, etc, and many many other variables, including fuel efficiency. Careers were spent on this stuff. But, ultimately the locomotive was (is) a tool for a job, sometimes a tiny screwdriver is a better tool than a big hammer, a car is better than a truck, etc.
IMHO, the PRR engine that should be compared with the NYC Hudsons is the K5 4-6-2. The biggest problem with both the K4s and K5 was Pennsy's insistence on hand firing them. Once Pennsy added mechanical stokers these engines performed much better, but even then the K4s was not in the league of the Hudsons. No feedwater heater, and lower boiler pressure were the prime deficiencies.
Jeff, I've also read Apex of the Atlantics (several times - I love that book). The way Pennsy developed the E6s Atlantic was a great example of smart engineering.
Stuart
PRR planned and built most of its locomotives in house. To me it seems they reached their high point around the time the K4s and E6s. After that, stream locomotive engineering just stalled. By the time WWII came along, they built the J class based on the C&O 2-10-4's. One would think the PRR would keep newer concepts on radar, even with the Great Depression and surplus of steamers due to electrification.
My opinion of this is that the ultimate determining factors in a race between a Pennsy K4 and a NYC Hudson, pulling passenger trains of lightweight cars of equal train length and tonnage, side by side from a standing start (as I understand frequently occurred with the Broadway and 20th Century Limiteds, eastward out of Englewood, Illinois) would be the skill of the respective Engineer and Fireman and the quality of the coal, as well as the mechanical health of the respective locomotives on that day, more than the competing locomotive mechanical designs.
I'll leave it to the Mechanical Engineers to determine which locomotive was designed to outperform the other.
There are 3 reasons why I'm so fond of K4s: 1. My days of watching steam in action, late '40s-early '50s, were along the Long Island Railroad (owned by PRR). While their G5 engines were not K4s, they had a very similar look. 2. My best friend had a postwar AF passenger set pulled by a K5 (which looked just like a K4, but with the bell under the headlight). I liked his set more than mine, a Lionel 244 with freight cars. 3. I can see many K4s today. The Hudsons were all scrapped, so I never saw a real one.
I have no idea which one was "best".
These are my 2 favorite steamers, but if forced to choose only 1, it's the Hudson all the way.
John
Well I like the K4. The design served very well and was built over a 10 year span, the last ones in 1928 I think. The fact that they lasted until end of steam in some service on commuters, points to the quality of the design. They served well during the passenger era across the system which included some pretty rough mountainous territory.
I agree that they are not as sleek looking as the hudson, but I think they have a more hard-working down-to-earth appearance.
Did a quick Google search and found:
Tractive Effort
My normal answer to the which was better, the NYC Hudson or the PRR K4s is the Southern Ps4. The K4 and the Hudson were designed to operate under different conditions. The comparison between the two isn't usually made based on head to head operations under similar conditions. It is made based on which locomotive better operated under the conditions its railroad intended for them to operate. If that is going to be the test, then other locomotives of the same era should also have a say.
The Ps4 came into operation about the same time as the Hudson and slightly later than the K4. It not only adequately met Southern's needs for a long distance passenger locomotive at the time it was adopted. It also remained the premier passenger locomotive on the Southern, performing adequately until it was replaced with the diesel locomotive. The Hudson, good as it was, was already being replaced by other steam locos before the diesel switchover took place. Pennsy's electrification complicates the status of the K4, but the T1 was making inroads when the Pennsy began to dieselize. If the ability to survive as premier locomotive until replaced by diesels are thrown out there are a number of other locomotives from the era that could also make a claim.
The NYC was moving to bigger locomotives. PRR went with doubleheading.
I think #90 jas a point. A pull off between the two would be great using the same train. But not just in Chicagoland. Also on grades.
But except for computer modeling, that is not going to happen.
Now, PRR did have a pull off of sorts when they used N&W 610 for a month.
The T1 opens a can of worms which may not be proper to this thread....
TM Terry posted:Did a quick Google search and found:
Tractive Effort
- NYC J3a: 41,860 lbs
- PRR K4: 44,460 lbs
I think TE on a steamer is based on a particular speed, among other things.
Dominic Mazoch posted:TM Terry posted:Did a quick Google search and found:
Tractive Effort
- NYC J3a: 41,860 lbs
- PRR K4: 44,460 lbs
I think TE on a steamer is based on a particular speed, among other things.
No. Tractive Effort on a steam locomotive is essentially constant, but the Horse Power increases with speed. Steam locomotives a essentially "constant torque, variable horse power" machines, while the diesel electric is just the opposite, being "constant horse power, variable torque" machines.
To further affirm Hot Water’s comment of constant Tractive Effort for steam locomotive, the formula for calculating T.E. includes piston(s) diameter, piston stroke, boiler pressure, and driving wheel diameter. There is no speed consideration in the formula.
The tractive efforts referenced above are the CALCULATED STARTING tractive effort for each design. The amount of drawbar pull at the tender coupler, which is the starting tractive effort MINUS the power required to move the engine itself, depends on a LOT of different things, including adhesive weight and rail and weather conditions.
The amount of drawbar pull at any specific speed is the DRAWBAR horsepower, and is given by the formula: DBHP=Speed (in MPH) x Drawbar Pull (in pounds), divided by the horsepower "constant" which is the number "375".
The calculation for calculating starting tractive effort referenced above has to include the "cutoff percent", which for most steam locomotives is in the 82 to 85% range at starting.
david1 posted:Even though I have lived in PA. My entire life the Hudson is the most estethicially the best locomotive ever built.
Dave
While I may not agree 100% with Dave that the NYC Hudson was the most aesthetically pleasing steam locomotive ever built...
...I will agree that the NYC Hudson is a much better looking engine than the PRR K4.
I am not a fan of the looks of the Belpaire Firebox.
It is only my opinion, but the firebox disrupts the lines and the flow of the locomotive.
I clearly understand that locomotives are designed and built to perform and not built for aesthetics.
Some manufacturers sure did an excellent job in both looks and performance.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Both the Hudson and the Niagra, of the NEW YORK CENTRAL are pleasing to look at. Both have clean lines and give an aesthetically pleasing appearance whether sitting still or at speed. While I think Raymond Lowey did outstanding work for the Pennsy, The Dreyfus Hudson and the Empire State Hudsons are particularly good proportions. Both are minimalist designs yet have enough presence of art to make a bold statement.
Personally, I agree that the NYC steam engines were and still are the best of the best for pleasing the eye. It just seems like they have a clean appearance and everything is where it's supposed to be and there's no clutter appliances hanging off here & there. And I'm also equally sure it was no accident. Hats off to the folks that did it for our enjoyment, generation after generation. They had to have known what they were doing. Just don't try to explain it to someone who's not a train lover.
It seems to me that at least from Crestline west, the PRR could have gotten better performance with a Hudson. Of course I'm a Super Power guy.
Dieselbob posted:It seems to me that at least from Crestline west, the PRR could have gotten better performance with a Hudson. Of course I'm a Super Power guy.
From Crestline west, the best power, at least for the bigger trains like the Broadway, would have been either a Mountain or a Northern. An 80 inch drivered Northern on the flatlands would have been perfect.
To Pennsy's credit, they developed the T-1 for flatland service.
It has been said that if Pennsy had stayed with Walshaerts valve gear the T-1 experiment would have continued.
As you can tell from my handle I am a fan of the NYC Hudson but I really like the PRR K4 as well. I just think the K4 is a great looking locomotive. So I like both.
K4. I don't need a reason. Just because. 
GG1 4877 posted:K4. I don't need a reason. Just because.
No sir, you do not.....reasons not required...…...Pat
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
