Attachments
Images (2)
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Great footage of these powerful, ponderous machines. It was said that the Pennsy J1 could start a heavier train then the SantaFe locomotive, but once moving, the SantaFe 5000 could move it's train faster. 69" vs 74" drivers.
Some of the SantaFe boiler tube pilots were bent inward due to coupling J1's nose to nose.
It was said that the SantaFe engines were returned with missing seat cushions, as they were more comfortable then Pennsy's.
1956 was a golden year; these were not the only 2-10-4's running in No America. Also, Canadian Pacific Selkirks up in Alberta, Burlington Colorados in IL and maybe IA, DM&IR/B&LE Texas's on Proctor Hill, and Central Vermont 2-10-4's in Vermont and Quebec.
That's interesting. But why would a Santa Fe engine have been coupled nose-to-nose with a J1 in this service? One of them would have had to run in reverse, of course ... for what purpose?
Great vintage filming. Saw this one awhile ago. I remember reading a 1975 article in "Trains" magazine that the AT&SF 2-10-4's were worn out upon their return to home rails. Too bad Pennsy didn't save one of the J1 engines. Thanks for posting.
B: Believe it was the hostlers that coupled the locomotives together in the servicing area in Columbus, rather then on road trips. Perhaps to move a group of locomotives at once. After a couple of mishaps, imagine the hostlers caught on that the Santa Fe pilots protruded.
It's interesting the number of similarities these two railroads had in common.
1. Both experimented with early articulated locomotives, with very poor results.
2. Both instead became major users of ten coupled designs instead.
3. Both bought ex-N&W Y-3 2-8-8-2's during WWII.
4. Both were big users of tenders with eight wheel trucks
5. Both were big customers of Baldwin.
6. Most of their locomotives used Walschaerts valve gear, and experimented with poppet valves.
7. Both had several classes with 300 psi boilers.
Of course there are three major differences.
1. Coal vs oil fuel.
2. Belpaire vs radial stayed fireboxes.
3. Headlight locations, high vs centered.
Stuart
Good observations, Stuart. Both the ATSF and PRR pushed steam design to the known - and practical - limits available in the 1930's and '40's. Minor (very minor!) point, the Santa Fe burned coal to Kansas City !!
mark s posted:Minor (very minor!) point, the Santa Fe burned coal to Kansas City !!
Actually, Santa Fe used both oil-fired and coal-fired steam engines between Chicago and Winslow, Arizona. Santa Fe used oil-burning steam engines all over the system, and -- at the end of steam operation, 1954-1957, used only oil-fired engines. A number of coal-burners were converted to oil fuel during the 1940's.
Last time I drove US 23, that coal dock at Harvey was still standing just west of the highway overpass. Those Js were gorgeous indeed.
Thanks, Tom, for pinpoint clarification. I knew ATSF used coal burners out of Chicago and I guessed that Kansas City would be the logical break point. Railroads like the Burlington, C&NW, MoPac, Rock Island, used the Missouri River as the break point for coal to oil. Where did the Santa Fe find a source for coal in Winslow, AZ? What was the financial rationale for hauling oil into Chicago/IL/IA - - presume it had to come from TX, CA and OK?
mark s posted:Where did the Santa Fe find a source for coal in Winslow, AZ? What was the financial rationale for hauling oil into Chicago/IL/IA - - presume it had to come from TX, CA and OK?
There are a number of coal mines in northern New Mexico, more or less around Raton, and some coal mines nearer to Gallup. You'll see lots of photos of coal burning steam on Raton, right up to the early 1950's. Passenger engines were exclusively oil-fired somewhat earlier because of the cleaner exhaust and elimination of cinders. There are large refineries on-line at El Dorado, Kansas, but I am not sure where the Bunker C fuel used in Illinois came from, most likely from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Hauled in Company tank cars as Company material. Santa Fe owned some oil fields.
I am almost certain that there is a standing concrete Santa Fe coaling facility on the former Great Bend District, and I think it is at Great Bend, Kansas. Never used, as I understand it. It was required by the government during war. I have never explored the Great Bend District, but it's on my list.
Attachments
Images (1)
Thanks, Tom. Certainly can envision the Santa Fe using oil fired locomotives in passenger service, as they were always very fastidious in the service they provided. Was surprised that ATSF would haul oil as much as a 1000 miles for fuel. Most roads preferred using fuel from closer sources, to avoid the non-revenue mileage. But, then, the ATSF was a rich road, as opposed to a Milwaukee Road or C&NW.
Got a kick out of a report that the lordly ATSF even had a bucket coaling station on a branch line in (I believe) Kansas !!
Number 90 postedI am almost certain that there is a standing concrete Santa Fe coaling facility on the former Great Bend District, and I think it is at Great Bend, Kansas. Never used, as I understand it. It was required by the government during war. I have never explored the Great Bend District, but it's on my list.
According to the current Google Street View, it's still there alright, and looks to be in excellent condition.
mark s posted:Good observations, Stuart. Both the ATSF and PRR pushed steam design to the known - and practical - limits available in the 1930's and '40's. Minor (very minor!) point, the Santa Fe burned coal to Kansas City !!
On the PRR, the push lead to things like the T! and the Q's. Locomotives which had a lot of power, but hard to keep up. At least for freight, more J's might have been better. And a passengerized J for getting around The Curve.
So many"what ifs"!
Yes, the coal tower at Great Bend, Kansas is still standing. I talked to a old Santa Fe B&B crew member that told me that he was on the crew that were dynamiting down the old coaling towers. BUT when they blow up the tower at Boise City, Oklahoma the tower did not fall the way it was planned to fall and fell across the mainlline. So Great Bend was on the list to go down, but the Santa Fe said to stop and headquarters was going to come up with a new plan to get it down. ( Looks like the future planning took to long and the Santa Fe sold the tracks to a class III railroad.)
It has always amazed me how the PRR could screw up the appearance of a loco! In the case of the J1, once they finally got rid of that Belpaire firebox, what did they do? They stuck a tender behind that was too low to flow with the loco cab.
Not in the same geographic area, but speaking of great cement coaling towers, the is a great one in Macon, Georgia. I came across it when driving around Macon on a weekend while working at Robins AFB to the South of Macon, in Warner Robins, Ga. Looks like it would be a good one to model........
Jesse TCA 12-68275
Attachments
Images (2)
mark s posted:Thanks, Tom. Certainly can envision the Santa Fe using oil fired locomotives in passenger service, as they were always very fastidious in the service they provided. Was surprised that ATSF would haul oil as much as a 1000 miles for fuel. Most roads preferred using fuel from closer sources, to avoid the non-revenue mileage. But, then, the ATSF was a rich road, as opposed to a Milwaukee Road or C&NW.
There was a lot of coal used on the Illinois Division. Most freight engines there burned coal. So, most of the oil fuel was for passenger engines. And, I believe that the last coal-fired passenger engines were on the Illinois and Missouri Divisions (main line east of Kansas City).
Got a kick out of a report that the lordly ATSF even had a bucket coaling station on a branch line in (I believe) Kansas !!
The Great Bend District arced upward like a bow, from Kinsley, Kansas, to Newton. It was the original main line. Although it never received block signals, the Grand Canyon ran via Great Bend until the middle 1950's*. It was a valuable alternate route when there were derailments on the main line via Hutchison, and had well-maintained track, limited to 49 MPH for freight and 59 MPH for passenger, only by the lack of a signal system. Local passenger trains between Newton and Dodge City took over the passenger business in the 50's. The pair of Budd RDC's that had been wrecked in L.A.-San Diego service in 1956, were rebuilt at Topeka, and were the local passenger train on the Great Bend District until the service ended in the early 1960's. The Great Bend District generated a lot of wheat seasonally, and had through freight service. So, it might be best described as a secondary main line through wheat country, serving Great Bend and Larned, in a prairie setting otherwise composed of small towns and big skies.
* Don't recall specifically if it was the northern or the southern section of the Grand Canyon.
Thanks for the images, the videos, and this thread in general. I've always liked the massive look of the J's.
RETINPA posted:Thanks for the images, the videos, and this thread in general. I've always liked the massive look of the J's.
Ditto that!
MTN posted:Penney didn't remove a Belpaire boiler from the J1 - it never had one since it was built to C&O plans. As for the tender - Pennsylvania used a design of their own, which gave it a distinctly Pennsy family look.
Yes, I knew that. Maybe I should have said "didn't use". And as for the tender, you are correct about the family look. And it still doesn't fit!
The Gulf Coast and Santa Fe part of the railroad seemed to go to oil very early.
Interesting the GC&SF was built and owned by Galveston County as a way to get products to and from its port.
Maintained its identity after ATSF bought it because of Texas railroad rules.
The causeway along I45 just north of the island is stilled owned, I think, bu Galvrston County.
The J1 is not a PRR designed engine. It was forced on them by the government during the war. The C&O T1 is the original design.
Jan
Jan posted:The J1 is not a PRR designed engine. It was forced on them by the government during the war. The C&O T1 is the original design.
Jan
Yes, but, the C&O didn't build 'em to look like this!
The C&O built 'em like this! And, had the good sense to put a proper tender behind it!
Jan posted:The J1 is not a PRR designed engine. It was forced on them by the government during the war. The C&O T1 is the original design.
Jan
Actually, they government didn't force them on the Pennsy. Pennsy needed a good freight hauler quickly and didn't have time to develop their own design, so they tested both the C&O T-1 2-10-4, and the N&W Class A 2-6-6-4.
Stuart
To get materials for an engine PRR had to use a proven engine already in service. The N&w and C&O fit the bill.
Which begs the question: How coud the PRR get material for the T1? Was that not experimental?
Lead in times for the T1 covered this, Same thing with L&N EMD E6s in 1942
I'll agree that the C&O taller tender looks better...the PRR J1 looks better than the C&O engine.
Dominic Mazoch posted:To get materials for an engine PRR had to use a proven engine already in service. The N&w and C&O fit the bill.
Which begs the question: How coud the PRR get material for the T1? Was that not experimental?
I have often wondered about that. The PRR seems to have been given the "benefit of the doubt" and allowed to develop experimental steam locomotive types during WWII, when other roads were forced to make do with locomotives they would not have picked. As a result, the Pennsy built a number of experimentals and unconventional configurations that were either unsuccessful (S2 turbine, Q1 being examples) or had significant teething pains that were never resolved (T1, Q2 duplexes).
Does anyone have insight into why PRR wasn't made to use proven modern designs that were in successful use elsewhere?
Ok, here's my pointless comment: The J1 has the most formidable front end of any locomotive on the planet - brutal looking, in tandem with the power of the locomotive. The C&O locomotive, aesthetically speaking, is essentially a stretched out NKP Berk/Van Swearingen Mechanical Committee 2-8-4. A fine locomotive, but certainly not particularly unique.
(pointless comment because discussions of locomotive aesthetics are 100% subjective)
sgriggs posted:Dominic Mazoch posted:To get materials for an engine PRR had to use a proven engine already in service. The N&w and C&O fit the bill.
Which begs the question: How coud the PRR get material for the T1? Was that not experimental?
I have often wondered about that. The PRR seems to have been given the "benefit of the doubt" and allowed to develop experimental steam locomotive types during WWII, when other roads were forced to make do with locomotives they would not have picked. As a result, the Pennsy built a number of experimentals and unconventional configurations that were either unsuccessful (S2 turbine, Q1 being examples) or had significant teething pains that were never resolved (T1, Q2 duplexes).
Does anyone have insight into why PRR wasn't made to use proven modern designs that were in successful use elsewhere?
You very much need to look at the history and the time lines on these locomotives. I'm going to let you do your homework, as Mom used to say "Go look it up yourself" (and that is not to be read as "snarky"). However, the T1 and Q1 were delivered in 1942. That means that the design work on the locos started well before the U.S. went to war. There were only TWO (2) T1's built until after the war restrictions were lifted. The Q1 was less at only one being built. Even being delivered in 1944, the solitary S1 design work probably had been started before the war (I don't know for sure).
Your other question about using proven power (re: J1) has already been addressed.
mark s posted:Ok, here's my pointless comment: The J1 has the most formidable front end of any locomotive on the planet - brutal looking, in tandem with the power of the locomotive. The C&O locomotive, aesthetically speaking, is essentially a stretched out NKP Berk/Van Swearingen Mechanical Committee 2-8-4. A fine locomotive, but certainly not particularly unique.
(pointless comment because discussions of locomotive aesthetics are 100% subjective)
Actually, the Van Swearingen / Advisory Mechanical Committee 2-8-4 was a scaled down version of the C&O T-1, as the T-1 came before the Nickel Plate S class 2-8-4.
Stuart
Anything you do to the PRR J1 appearance wise is going to mess it up...she's just that good.....their best performing steamer as well ! Too bad Lima didn't get the opportunity to build the twenty five additional locos that were in their order book.
jaygee posted:Anything you do to the PRR J1 appearance wise is going to mess it up...
I still have to disagree with you. That tender looks like it could contend with the "Lowriders" out in L.A.!
Big Jim posted:jaygee posted:Anything you do to the PRR J1 appearance wise is going to mess it up...
I still have to disagree with you. That tender looks like it could contend with the "Lowriders" out in L.A.!
I'll second this. In my opinion, ONLY the front end of the PRR J1 class locomotives looks good!
Stuart - 100% correct. The"Committee" took the highly successful T1 design and scaled it down for NKP/C&O/Pere Marqette/W&LE use. Highly successful? The T1 2-10-4's "were pulling 160 car coal trains into Columbus (OH) when Electro Motive Corporation was peddling doodlebugs" (comment by David P. Morgan !) in the early 1930's.
Thank you Stuart & Mark for setting the record straight! I was looking for my T-1 book and couldn't find it.
mark s posted:Stuart - 100% correct. The"Committee" took the highly successful T1 design and scaled it down for NKP/C&O/Pere Marqette/W&LE use. Highly successful? The T1 2-10-4's "were pulling 160 car coal trains into Columbus (OH) when Electro Motive Corporation was peddling doodlebugs" (comment by David P. Morgan !) in the early 1930's.
What's also interesting is that considering that the C&O didn't use their H-8 2-6-6-6's to pull longer/heavier trains than the T-1 2-10-4's, they could have just ordered more T-1's, thus saving themselves the extra cost of the larger engine, and the higher pay scale for the crews.
Stuart
Very good observation, Stuart. It hadn't occurred to me, but, yes, the Alleghenies pulled the same 160 car trains into Columbus. Theoretically they would have pulled the trains faster - faster over the road times - with their higher horsepower, but I bet not, in actuality ! Maybe Big Jim has found his T1 book and can offer more insight.
