The Pennsy had 139 GG1's, that may be more 4-8-4's than the UP, NYC, SP & N&W combined.
You forgot the 125 T1, 4-4-4-4 duplex's, which were held up and hindered by the war effort.
1) You of all people should know that a GG1 is NOT a 4-8-4 wheel arrangement!
2) No, I didn't forget about the T1 duplexes either, since they were NOT 4-8-4s and NOT used in freight service either. Plus, they didn't have 125 T1s, the PRR had only 50 of the "production" locomotives!
The Pennsy had 139 GG1's, that may be more 4-8-4's than the UP, NYC, SP & N&W combined.
You forgot the 125 T1, 4-4-4-4 duplex's, which were held up and hindered by the war effort.
Isn't a GG1 a 2-C-C-2 and that "4-8-4" a 2-D-2?
Rusty
The Texas and Pacific had ZERO 4-8-4's. But I think they had about 60 2-10-4's, including T&P/AFT/SOU 610!
I think Southern did not have 4-8-4's either.
OK, KCS had 2-10-4's. They looked like PRR J's. Were they close?
The Pennsy had 139 GG1's, that may be more 4-8-4's than the UP, NYC, SP & N&W combined.
You forgot the 125 T1, 4-4-4-4 duplex's, which were held up and hindered by the war effort.
1) You of all people should know that a GG1 is NOT a 4-8-4 wheel arrangement!
senior moment Hot Water, you were referring to the R1 only one was built -Westinghouse competitor to the GG1
2) No, I didn't forget about the T1 duplexes either, since they were NOT 4-8-4s and NOT used in freight service either. Plus, they didn't have 125 T1s, the PRR had only 50 of the "production" locomotives!
Another senior moment - was thinking of th 2-10-4's J war babies.
Oh no, you win again 
In any event..The leased N&W Y6b (and there may have been more than one) was able to produce a minimum of 152K starting TE at the time of the lease. A while later these units were upgraded with extra weight and a booster valve to enhance low speed compound operation. The end result was a machine capable of 166-170K TE, and 132+K TE compound...this was on 5600DBHP@ 25MPH. Pennsy never had a steamer that could touch this, and neither did anyone else, AFAIK. The Big Jay was by far and away their best steamer...rated at 95+K without the booster, and this was the paper figure...as was the 93K TE number generated by the AT&SF 5011 class. Actual dyno figs for the 5011 in test showed a spike peak of 130K TE !! Makes you wonder what the PRR J could actually do. The PRR I1sa was worth 96K TE on paper, but those Hippos barely had the weight on the drivers to back that up; lucky for the Penn they were a five coupled locomotive, and more forgiving of the lack of F.O.A. Too bad the Penn didn't go ahead and let Lima build those 25 additional J1 units on order. It might have delayed Diesels by what...five minutes!
The GG1's had a "4-6-6-4" wheel arrangement speaking in simple terms. I guess that would translate to 2-C-C-2
The GG1's had a "4-6-6-4" wheel arrangement speaking in simple terms. I guess that would translate to 2-C-C-2
I think we pretty well covered that already.
I doubt PRR crews liked her very much; they liked smaller engines in multiples that weren't as much a threat to jobs . . .
EdKing
Ed brings into the picture what most of us post steam foaming rail fans who will stare at the numbers and stats until we are blue in the face and form all types of opinions and state them as fact can't bring to the table.
The other 2/3's of the equation - the human part:
* How the unions would look at the use of a locomotive type;
* How the company interacted with the unions and their own operational context.
Interesting... at least to me, as someone in IT management and dealing with a union.
Pennsy Power III (or is it II?) has some before and after photos of material needed to weld together a new steam chest for a PRR M1. The caption states there was no apparent advantage to replacing the original cast steam chests, but it was "busy" work. No doubt partly to keep the union happy and skilled workers on staff.
Bob
The GG1's had a "4-6-6-4" wheel arrangement speaking in simple terms. I guess that would translate to 2-C-C-2
I think we pretty well covered that already.
If everybody knows what "2-C-C-2" stands for then yes.... About all you covered was that a GG1 is NOT a 4-8-4 wheel arrangement. 
The GG1's had a "4-6-6-4" wheel arrangement speaking in simple terms. I guess that would translate to 2-C-C-2
I think we pretty well covered that already.
If everybody knows what "2-C-C-2" stands for then yes.... About all you covered was that a GG1 is NOT a 4-8-4 wheel arrangement.
If everybody knows what "2-C-C-2" stands for then yes.... About all you covered was that a GG1 is NOT a 4-8-4 wheel arrangement.
So then I assume that you also were not aware of what the PRR model GG1 actually stands for?
A class "G" on the PRR was a 4-6-0, thus a "GG1" class became a 4-6-6-4.
A while later these units (these were locomotives, not units; units refer to diesels) were upgraded with extra weight and a booster valve to enhance low speed compound operation. The end result was a machine capable of 166-170K TE, and 132+K TE compound...this was on 5600DBHP@ 25MPH. Pennsy never had a steamer that could touch this, and neither did anyone else, AFAIK.
The N&W 2100-series engines included 100 locomotives in classes Y-5, Y-6, Y-6a and Y-6b (all of equal capability), and in everyday operation lifted 10,000-ton coal trains up New River from Glen Lyn to Walton at an average speed of 31 MPH. This was an average grade of 0.2% with constant curvature, and, using the normal train resistance formulas, Dave Stephenson calculated that it called for 55-5600 horsepower on the rear drawbar of the auxliliary tender.
Both Lima's 2-6-6-6 and UP's 4-8-8-4 would produce that dbhp reading at that speed, and could develop higher readings at higher speeds than that. But neither had the starting drawbar pull of the 2100. N&W used two of these engines to lift that train over Alleghany Mountain's 1% grade, and two Big Boys didn't have the low-speed power to do that; it would have taken three 2-6-6-6s to get that train over that mountain.
What made these engines unique was that they had boilers the size of a big 4-8-4, and the use of compounding allowed them to squeeze that kind of performance out of it. The others had humongous boilers with appetites to match.
EdKing
If everybody knows what "2-C-C-2" stands for then yes.... About all you covered was that a GG1 is NOT a 4-8-4 wheel arrangement.
So then I assume that you also were not aware of what the PRR model GG1 actually stands for?
A class "G" on the PRR was a 4-6-0, thus a "GG1" class became a 4-6-6-4.
Actually I did know that. I've read several articles and books on the GG1's.
If everybody knows what "2-C-C-2" stands for then yes.... About all you covered was that a GG1 is NOT a 4-8-4 wheel arrangement.
So then I assume that you also were not aware of what the PRR model GG1 actually stands for?
A class "G" on the PRR was a 4-6-0, thus a "GG1" class became a 4-6-6-4.
Actually I did know that. I've read several articles and books on the GG1's.
Those Philistines who didn't appreciate the styling of the GG1 referred to them as the Goofy-Goofy one.
Like I said - Philistines.
EdKing
Good photo of a Hippo with 210F82 tank. The doghouse is the "three man" model made popular in the early '40s, on the Q1, Q2 and Big Jays. A huge improvement over the tiny steel can types frequently found on L1s and other earlier types. My Apologies over the Y6 - unit thing...but I'm a nonrepentant Dieselover! And speaking of Alleghenies, the Sandusky line is one place where these could have given a good account of themselves, had they been leased from C&O, instead of the 5011s. Of course this assumes that they'd fit! Train sizes and speeds were just about right for the HP curve. Had PRR been a bit more desperate for power in '56,
perhaps they might have tried to lease some N&W Y6s ...and use them say between Johnstown and Altoona, on the big hill. What a show that would have been!!
Seems N&W steam was "under rated" by the rest of the industry!
Thanks, bbunge Bob, for the first-hand info about handling the oil fuel.
The mention of tender doghouses reminds me that we had a Conductor on the AT&SF Los Angeles Division, Walter Corsi, who had first worked on the PRR in Ohio. He came west to the Santa Fe in 1956. He told me some interesting stories of working on the J1 locomotives, during some of our many trips together. He was a good hand - Pennsy's loss, Santa Fe's gain.
Seems N&W steam was "under rated" by the rest of the industry!
Its was the typical case of NIH (not invented here).
Stuart
Seems N&W steam was "under rated" by the rest of the industry!
Its was the typical case of NIH (not invented here).
Stuart
The great thing about this point is not only was it true, but that N&W didn't care what everybody else thought.
Consider it in this light: N&W designed locomotives suited for its specific needs by doing things and tackling enginnering problems that the commercial locomotive builders didn't want to be bothered with, and that companies like the PRR were constrained from doing by outside influences. The result was an immensely profitable motive power situation for N&W and a different situation everywhere else.
EdKing
...Which brings us to the unsung hero of N&W steam; the lowly S1/S1a classes of 0-8-0 ponies. Actually, more like a road switcher, the way N&W operated 'em. Here was a design going waaay back to USRA days (kinda like the 2-8-8-2) and then dusted off and reworked for the C&O in 1948. If the railroad world was aghast then, imagine what they must have thought when N&W bought the surplus C16s in 1950...and then further dusted off the design into the S1a a couple of years later! With a boatload of refinements to keep 'em operationally profitable, these mighty mites lasted to the very end...May 6, 1960. Who else would have even dreamed of such a thing...except mebby Northwest Steel & Wire. As it was, only the Alco T and the EMD SW1200 would even get close to the street performance of these rugged little beasts! Way to go...Roanoke!
Seems N&W steam was "under rated" by the rest of the industry!
Its was the typical case of NIH (not invented here).
Stuart
The great thing about this point is not only was it true, but that N&W didn't care what everybody else thought.
Consider it in this light: N&W designed locomotives suited for its specific needs by doing things and tackling enginnering problems that the commercial locomotive builders didn't want to be bothered with, and that companies like the PRR were constrained from doing by outside influences. The result was an immensely profitable motive power situation for N&W and a different situation everywhere else.
EdKing
What were those "outside influences" on the PRR?
From what I can see from Link's pictures, the N&W was a class act.
Another thing. Depending on the RR and union contract, locomotive weight influenced pay.
hello guys and gals........
Did N&W ever had 2-10-4's ?
the woman who loves the S.F.5011
Tiffany
Did N&W ever had 2-10-4's ?
Tiffany
No. Too long of a ridged wheel base for their curvy track in the coal mining, mountainous areas.
hat were those "outside influences" on the PRR?
What I call "outside influences" are internal prejudices (a distaste for articulated locomotives, in PRR's case) or pressure from unions or other entities affecting motive power policy, that may impact the decisions of the folks charged with trying to furnish the most efficient and profitable power possible.
Oh, and N&W did consider ten-coupled power about 1910 or 1911, producing a preliminary diagram for a 2-10-0 for pusher service.
EdKing
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
