The 2-8-8-4, is there any difference between a Yellowstone and EM-1

First, the 2-8-8-4 wheel arrangement was generally referred to as the "Yellowstone" type, especially since the NP had the very first ones. The same reason that the 4-8-4 wheel arrangement was generally referred to as the "Northern" type on many railroads, again because the NP had the first ones.

Second, there is very definitely big differences between the NP, DM&IR, B&O, and SP 2-8-8-4 wheel arrangement steam locomotives. You might want to visit that Steamlocomotive.com site for some technical information.

OK, I understand the Whyte classification according to wheel arrangement.  Let me rephrase my question.  Is it misleading to refer to an EM-1 as a Yellowstone simply because it happens to be a 2-8-8-4 (considering the "significant" differences)?

I have scale models of both engines and they look very similar size wise including details (but I guess you can't put much faith in that).  The Yellowstone is MTH Premier and the EM-1 is the Legacy pilot model.

Thanks,

Rich

I don't think anybody familiar with the B&O calls them Yellowstones.

All the brass manufactures now (also in the past) and even Bachmann advertises them EM-1's.

It's just the right thing to do.

Rusty

Just because a wheel arrangement was given a specific name does not mean that any or every railroad had to call their locomotives by that name.

4-6-4's were "Hudsons" on every railroad that used them, except for the Milwaukee Road, who called them "Baltics.".

2-10-4's were called "Texas" except on the Canadian Pacific, who called them "Selkirks.".

4-8-2's were "Mountains" except on the New York Central, who called them "Mohawks."

And let's not get started on all the different names for 4-8-4's.

Stuart

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that the SP referred to their 2-10-2's as "Decapods."  In my tiny, little mind there's a set of wheels that shouldn't be there.

Rusty

Well, according to the few "old times" that I met and talked to, they referred to them as "Decs", since they had five coupled axles. I had a hard time dealing with THAT, especially since they had those great three cylinder 4-10-2 locomotives. When I asked about those, the answers was, "Oh, you mean the 5100s?" I still never figured it out. 

IMO, these 2 look about as alike as an EMD F-7 and a AlcoFA.

The EM1 is a good looking engine and doesn't have that hardware on the front like the NP's.
The Yellowstone was considered a design, the B&O just happened to pick 2-8-8-4s because it fit their clearances.
The B&O EM-1s were several years newer than the NPs and would not have been built at all if not for the needs of the War Production Board. (B&O wanted diesels in 1944, Feds said no)
Refering to a EM-1 as a "Yellowstone" on the B&O of the 40s and 50s would probably gotten you a blank stare or a mumbled "Yellow-what"?

Compare the pics:

Some of the best photography and writing about the EM-1s came from the late J.J. Young,Jr., particularly in the Winter 1976 issue of Railfan mag.

The EM1 is certainly a "Yellowstone" by wheel arrangement definition.  They remain one of the two most mis-understood, under appreciated, and underrated late steam designs in North America....the other being the modernized PRR T1. These articulateds were some of the smallest if not the THE smallest of their wheel arrangement ever built - anywhere. The Russian P38 might even be bigger.  B&O management was not out to build a Diesel killer, indeed they were fully committed to EMD looooong before Baldwin ever got an inkling of this chooch !   No, here was a machine designed to give the absolute utmost for the lowest possible operating cost...and do it on the B&O...with all their idiocyncrasies.   Here was a "two unit FT Diesel", burning coal, and available right now.  Run 'em for fifteen years ( the life of the firebox) and throw 'em away !  Did it work? Better believe it !  Best steamer they ever had...by a long shot !

I have scale models of both engines and they look very similar size wise including details (but I guess you can't put much faith in that).  The Yellowstone is MTH Premier and the EM-1 is the Legacy pilot model.

Rich

The MTH model is based on the DM&IR Yellowstone.

The Lionel model is indeed based on the B&O EM-1.

Lionel also has made the SP AC-9 2-8-8-4.  Sundet/3rd Rail made a great looking model of the NP Z-5 Yellowstone a number of years ago.  And Lionel, MTH and Sunset have all made models of SP cab forwards.  All of the 2-8-8-4/4-8-8-2 models are quite good.  Get out prototype photos, drawings, a steel rule and dial calipers if you want to find errors or omissions.

I use the steamlocomotive.com database a lot when researching locomotives.  It may not be perfect but it is certainly better than any other single source I've found.  

The EM-1 is by far the smallest of the Yellowstone steamers that database lists, at least according to weight and grate area: 629,000 lbs and 117 sq. ft.  By contrast the DM&IR M4 is listed at 700,00 and 125 sq feet and the NP Z-5 at 715,000 lbs and 182 sq feet.  The DM&IR and Z-5 outweight the EM-1 by 11% and 14% respectively.  The EM-1 is listed at  115,000 tractive effort compared to 140,000 and 146,000 for the other two, respectively.  

None of this means the EM-1 isn't a great loco (I have the Lionel Legacy model and love it) and in many ways the EM-1 was of very advanced design compared to, say, the earlier Z-5, even if that was larger.

But size counts in steam locomotives, particularly model locomotives on the shelf or on the layout that impress with their mass and "gravitas."  This is why I've been searching for a good model of the M-4 or if I can find it, the Z-5: 10% and 14% differences show up as big - and big combined with a lot of wheels is very cool . . . .

A bit of a fine point regarding Stuart's observation that the Milwaukee Road called their 4-6-4's "Baltics". Please, take no offense, Stuart, as this is a widely held belief. Believe that name got into railfan lore from the Milwaukee discussing a 4-6-4 wheel arrangement locomotive with a builder, just prior to the New York Central's 4-6-4 appearing on the the scene (1927). At that time, the only 4-6-4 on the world stage was one in France called a "Baltic", so that name might have been used in the correspondence with the builder. Due to financial difficulties, The Milwaukee was unable to initiate the order. The Milwaukee did take delivery of it's first 4-6-4's in 1930 and 1931 (F6 and F6a), after the US railroad world had accepted the name "Hudson" for the 4-6-4 wheel arrangement, in deference to the New York Central. Believe the Milwaukee fell in line, too, calling their 4-6-4's Hudsons.

       A bit of evidence in that regard:  David P. Morgan's seminal work, "Steam's Finest Hour" (1959) listed the Milwaukee Road's F7 4-6-4 as a "Hudson". Morgan was a long-term resident of the city of Milwaukee and had relationships with many Milwaukee Road employees and executives. Additionally here is his account of riding the cab of a Milwaukee Hudson at 90 MPH, in 1950:  https://milwaukeeroadarchives....oard%20the%20464.pdf         A good tale of high performance steam locomotion!

Hi mark s, no offense taken.  In fact, a friend of mine told me that had the Milwaukee F-6 been delivered first they considered calling the wheel arrangement the "Milwaukee" type.

Stuart

 They were all Baldwins anyway, so it didn't matter.

That's cold, Hot...

Rusty

NOT on the Southern Pacific. 

Well of course, those came from the Boston & Main, so they must have known better.

The EM1 design came in for a lot of criticizm early on because of it's lack of size, weight, boiler pressure..etc.  IE; capacity.  Baldwin was not building this machine for DM&IR, or D&RGW, or anyone else. Beano people were very specific in what they were after, and had some effective ideas on how to achieve it.  Here was a locomotive that (just) fit the physical parameters, for size and weight - plus had the versatility to handle just about anything the B&O wanted to use them for, with the possible exception of high speed passenger & mail service on the West End.  Lower boiler pressure allowed for a lighter locomotive / boiler and less wear on the machinery.  Remember: the bottom line was always critical on the B&O, with their debt load under the RFC. You could fit a heavier, more powerful design into certain parts of the Beano operation, but look what it would do to the operating costs. No, Roy White and Uncle Dan'l hit the sweet spot on this one....and gave us a great looking engine to boot !

Here are a few bits of data demonstrating that the Yellowstone was a much bigger and more powerful locomotive than the EM-1

                                  NP                       B&O

Weight on drivers        553000lbs          485000

Total weight loco         717000              628700

Tractive Force             140000              115000

Driver diameter                 63"                   64"

Date built                       1928                  1944

Lew Schneider

Baldwin, Alco... neither compares to a Lima.

A Lima Locomotive Works steam locomotive. What else?

FWIW, I've heard the three cylinder 4-10-2's on the Southern Pacific referrred to as the ''Stuttering Decs''.

i have always heard that, although the 2-10-2 wheel arrangement was generally known as a 'Santa Fe' type, the SP crews couldn't bring themselves to use the name of rival ATSF.

It's sort of like the NYC (aka the Water Level Route) choosing to call their 4-8-2's Mohawks instead of Mountains like most other roads.  Or southern line Nashville, Chattanooga & St Louis calling their 4-8-4's 'Dixies' rather than (gasp) Northerns. 

I think the rule of thumb is whether or not a dinner party for 12 people can be held inside the firebox, as I believe Alco did for the first NP Z-5 publicity. Anybody have a pic or two of this event? 

SP guy here. Decapod means ten feet. All ten-coupled locomotives have ten feet, unless you start counting the smaller wheels.  As I understand it, the Santa Fe called the 2-10-2 type "Santa Fe" and the SP would have none of it.

I think, but will have to check the Boynton book, (and it is too late) that the SP called the 4-10-2 the "Southern Pacific type".

Some folks (not the SP) called the later cab forwards "Yellowstones".  One of them might be that guy who had to put a plus sign in the articulated wheel arrangement code.  I can't tell you his name but his initials are LeMassena.

Yes, that is the data I mentioned is on the steamlocomotive.com database.  The Z-5 was a lot bigger and more powerful (tractive force, at least) than the EM-1, so I really want a model of it if I can find a good one.  It was a brute of a loco.

As to the names of locomotives - decapod, etc.:

- a rose by any other name . . .

- I do know that at least one Santa Fe employee - my uncle - referred to 4-8-4s as Northerns, not Mountains and 4-6-4s as Hudsons, but then he always referred to himself as "an engine driver" which I understand was not a widely used term for locomotive engineer, so maybe he was in a minority in that company.

Well, Hot, even Baldwin got it right some times. Thus the EM-1's.

The Baltimore and Ohio called them Appalachians.

They, according to railroaders I've talked too, said they steamed great,

and rode, to quote one railroader, "like a pullman car"

The crews loved 'em, and called them "Big Appas"

I watched them all from Piedmont High School, during study hall, senior English,

and civics class!

Ed

Baldwin, Alco... neither compares to a Lima.

Except in the total amount of locomotives built.

As for the builder on the B&O EM1, I'd bet money that Baldwin was the lowest bidder, and probably offered the quickest delivery.  As for Baldwin getting it right...this was no doubt one of the finest locomotives they ever built - provided you understand the design parameters.  The B&O mechanical Dept. provided  most of the input .....and reaped most of the benefits !  Just think....we almost had TWO EM1s saved...7629 at Cumberland, and 659 at Butler.  Lack of coordination and communicaton, plus Beano's horrible bottom line in 1961 killed them both.  Aaahhhhhhhh !

Ed Mullan - would love to hear further descriptions of seeing EM1's from your high school classes. Did the other students even look up?  

       Had a similar experience in 6th grade. Was in Mr. Wagner's math class in the old Jr. High in downtown Hinsdale, IL. It was 1956, and the Burlington (CB&Q) had fired up some 100+ steam locomotives to accomadate much higher traffic levels.  It was a beautiful fall afternoon, and suddenly a stupendous commotion developed. An O5 4-8-4 had caught a redboard just west of downtown and was accelerating it's freight from a standstill.  05's are loud, so loud, that the entire class jumped up and ran to the open windows to see what the heck was going on! After the train had cleared town, the kids drifted back to their seats. The perturbed Mr. Wagner commented, "What's the big deal, it was just an old steam engine".     Perhaps amoung the last those kids would ever see!

Originally Posted by steam fan:

Baldwin, Alco... neither compares to a Lima.

Except in the total amount of locomotives built.

True, they may have built more engines than Lima, but Rolls Royce doesn't build as many cars a year as Ford and Chrysler either...

Originally Posted by smd4:

Originally Posted by steam fan:

Baldwin, Alco... neither compares to a Lima.

Except in the total amount of locomotives built.

True, they may have built more engines than Lima, but Rolls Royce doesn't build as many cars a year as Ford and Chrysler either...

And they're probably no where near as reliable.

Point taken, however.

I want to help set the record straight re the B&O EM-1.

B&O had the most challenging mainline route of ANY US railroad. The maximum grade (Cranberry) is 2.2% uncompensated and is 2.87% compensated for curvature, after the additional resistance to traverse several 10 degree adjoining curves is considered. In comparison, the PRR old line on the Pittsburgh Div. was 2.2%, Norfolk & Western Roanoke to Bluefield was 1.34%. ATSF had some pretty severe grades did Great Northern, but none approached what B&O had to contend with. GN was electrified…… 

For mountain work, a B&O EM-1 had 64” drivers. To keep axle loadings as light as practical, an EM-1 ran at 235 psi, which would permit thinner boiler steel and resultant lower weight while maintaining the required ICC boiler safety ratio. This somewhat reduced max boiler pressure resulted in a calculated starting tractive force of 115,000 lb. Adhesive weight was 485,000 lb. resulting in a low factor of adhesion of 23.7%. The only other mallet design that MIGHT comply with B&O clearances and that could match the EM-1 performance on the B&O on Cranberry was probably an N&W Y-6. However, the Y-6 had an adhesive weight of 66,500 lb per driving axle, which may have precluded a loco of this axle loading in this service on the B&O. (The EM-1 had an individual axle loading of 60,625 lb.) With higher drivers, a B&O EM-1 would have been faster on the more level portions of the B&O than a compound mallet with 57" drivers.

A horsepower rating for an EM-1 has never been published, but it is possible to roughly determine what the horsepower might be from the trains that these engines hauled and their speeds in doing so. In the Staufer book “B&O Power”, an EM-1 unassisted on a QD (Quick Dispatch) train was rated at 1300 tons on Cranberry. If the EM-1 reached 20 mph with this train of 50 ton box cars, its drawbar HP would be 4230. If it could run at 25 mph with this train on this grade, its DBHP would be 5310. (I do not know what the uphill speed limit was on Cranberry uphill during the steam age, but this speed seems reasonable in view of current operations by CSX.)

The EM-1 was not a “large” Yellowstone type, but it was definitely not “small”! Of all the coal burning simple articulated locomotives built by Baldwin, the EM-1 was probably only eclipsed by the DM&IR Yellowstones and the SP AC class, which were significantly larger. 

The calculated (using dynamometer car) drawbar pull and corresponding speed, and therefore drawbar HP, for a NP Z-5 Yellowstone was 5180 after being rebuilt after WWII with roller bearings, grate partially blocked, etc. This is from the Frey NP book. While the Z-5 is larger dimensionally and weighs more, it was a 1930 design, while the EM-1 was a 1940's design. The EM-1, along with the PRR T-1 and the ATSF 2900 Northern and 5011 Class 2-10-4, are probably the best steamers ever outshopped by Baldwin. My opinion.....

And Southern's Saluda at 5.7%??

One obvious difference between the Yellowstones and the EM1s is a vestibule cab which was not on B&O 2-8-8-4s.    

And the centipede tender...

Rusty

The EM-1 was an outstanding locomotive, of rather advanced design compared to the N-5 and even M-4, since it was designed later with more "modern" technology.  But I think it is pointless to argue which Yellowstone loco had the most power or the most this or that.  You can never really settle such arguments - data is always a bit fuzzy and if one loco had more tractive force, another always seems to have had more power - or may, possibly have had more power - at 25 mph or was it 35?  It never ends and really it never can. 

I have a nice model of the EM-1.  I like it a lot.  What seems indisputable is that the M-4 and the N-5 were noticeably larger, heavier locomotives: they will have more "shelf gravitas" if nothing else, and so I would really like to have models of each, or at least one of the two, to add to my set of "big boys" that I display and occasionally run.