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

I should have added that the B&O had the steepest mainline grade in the east. DRGW was steeper. I thought Southern's Saluda was 4.7%, not 5.7%. The PRR had Madison Hill that exceeded 5%, but it was on a branch.

The DBHP that I estimated for the EM-1 was at 25 mph. The peak drawbar HP most likely occurred at a slightly higher speed, perhaps as high as 35 mph where the drawbar HP would have been higher than my calculation.

Lee-I beg to disagree re estimating locomotive power and performance. The basis for this rigorous exercise is based on the Davis locomotive and train resistance data and curves. Both major diesel manufacturer and the previous big three steam locomotive manufacturers, as well as the railroads, have used this information, with updates, since the 1920's. The data has been confirmed with dynamometer car tests, and these tests correlate well with the originally developed curves. As you know, physics don't lie.....assuming the data is correct and accurate. It seems to me that a locomotive's established tonnage rating over a division is just that. What a locomotive will actually do day in and day out...perhaps not its maximum, but what the RR could count on with perhaps a slight safety margin.

With my posts I was trying to transmit information, not an argument.....

We've been here before, and we'll probably be here again, so we will indeed disagree although I'm perfectly okay with what you say. I see claimed computations like this as fuzzy to the point they prove little if anything. The EM-1 may have indeed  had that much power, and more to your point, more than other locos did.  Or not.  It just doesn't register with me one way or another.  Each of the Yellowstones was outstanding in its own way, even with their flaws, like the Z-5 having too big a grate area to fill efficiently, , etc.  

What I do know definitively is that nice as my Legacy EM-1 is, I am going to get  a model of the M4 or the larger and incredibly handsome NP Z-5 - one of the few locos that will be able to sit alongside my Big Boy and Allegheny and look like it belongs to that group (My EM-1 is big, but not that big).  As I said, its all about "layout gravitas" on my railroad, and there, size matters most. 

Best regards, and remember, what I think doesn't really matter than much except to me.

In the end, the B&O EM1 is not about absolute power, and never was.  Here was a finesse machine designed and massaged to get the absolute most out of every nickel put into it. And that is exactly what they got.  When first delivered, the EM1 was as competitive with the EMD FT as anything they could hope to operate.  Hudson mentioned the N&W Y6 classes...While I suspect they would fit the physical plant fairly well, I wonder how they'd be without the highly tuned N&W maintenance facilities and procedures, not to mention the high quality fuel they used.   I can't imagine the Beano mechanical Dept. not at least considering something like an N&W Y6.  Then too, the EM1 was not just acquired for heavy grades, but moderate areas as well.  Speed becomes an issue, then, and with it, machinery speeds.  Remember, she was designed to live first and foremost in an increasingly Dieselized environment.  And this was envisioned before the runaway inflation and costs of the postwar era became apparent. When considering EM1 power, and what she would be comparable to back in the day...I would never think of something like the DM&IR Yellowstone.  Waaaay too much chooch !

I'd be more inclined to think of the N&W A class, although, the A could go faster safely.  My opinion, FWIW !

As I said I really wanted a DM&IR Yellowstone, and serendipidously I found it today.  Its the first used loco I have bought, except for parts, in well over a year, but I bought from a trusted forum member and neighbor I know well.  And it's PS1, not my favorite now, but has a BCR and seems to behave itself, and as I said it is 99% for display anyway . . . . .

The photo below is as straight on as I can get it, showing my "big four" locos now, as I  have as I grouped them: as they seem to me from largest to smallest.  From top to bottom: JLC Big Boy, JLC Allegheny, MTH Premier DM&IR Yellowstone, Legacy EM-1 Yellowstone.  

I studied and considered for quite some time before putting the Allegheny above the DM&IR Yellowstone as the "larger" loco.  It was hard to decide which of the two was bigger looking even though I know the Allegheny weighed more.  Both have equally monstrous boilers (I used a micrometer to measure boiler width and they are within a scale half inch at the front, middle, and rear).  They are both just massive brutes that impress the eye: not even the Big Boy screams "big boiler" like these two.  

But the Allegheny looks a tad longer, so it went above, with the DM&IR next and the EM-1 below it: four big, big locos.

Someday I hope to find a Northern Pacific Z-5, but I'm quite happy with my team of four monsters now. 

For me the EM-1 wins hands down because where I grew up they used to triple head them!  Let me see that on the NP ;-)

Wow.  that had to be spectacular to watch.  You probably had to shower for an hour to get all the coal dust off afterward, though!

Would it be safe to assume that the NP coal came from their own (or company controlled) mines out west? I believe the western coal is the lower grade lignite.

The DMIR would have had economic access to high grade eastern coal via the Great Lakes and the reverse haul of the iron ore boats.

Therefore, different fireboxes.

Go here for information on them and their (substantial) differences.  Far down, near the bottom, is a table of statistics on all the various Yellowstone types.  Yes, there was quite a difference in many ways.

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/yellowstone/

For me the EM-1 wins hands down because where I grew up they used to triple head them!  Let me see that on the NP ;-)

You would never see that on the NP.  The Z-5 class 2-8-8-4 were expressly designed to eliminate the double heading of Mikados on the Yellowstone Division. 

By the era after WW I the NP built their sidings and motive power to run 4000 ton freight trains.  East of Mandan, ND a single W-3 or W-5 Mikado could handle a 4000 ton train.  West of Livingston, MT Mallet helpers were used on mountain grades.  In between the undulating 1% grades of the Yellowstone Division were too short an numerous to economically use helpers.  A 4000 ton train had to be split or double beaded Mikados had to be used.  The Z-5s had the same 63" drivers as the Mikes that, along with their four high pressure cylinders and good balancing, allowed for 35-50 mph speeds between the 1% grades.  The Z-5 lead to a lot of out of work enginemen on the Yellowstone division.  Those who were cut off bid jobs elsewhere.  Those who were left were the best paid on the NP. 

A Z-5 could put on a good show all on its own.

After diesels arrived on the Yellowstone division some Z-5s were sent west to replace Z-4 class compound 2-8-8-2s as helpers.  You could have seen many a train leaving Livingston, Montana headed up the 1.8% grade of Bozeman Pass with a 4-6-6-4 on the head end.....

and a Z-5 pushing on the back of the caboose.  According to NP dispatcher and photographer Ron Nixon 4487 tons of train were between the Z-7 and Z-5.

Thanks Ted Hikel, wonderful pictures.  

The Z-5 was the biggest dog among all the big Yellowstones, and more important to me, the locomotive that gave the 2-8-8-4 wheel configuration its name.  

Has anyone made a good O-Gauge model of the Z-5?  I would love to get a really good looking one, particularly of the loco in its final form, with re-sized grates and equipment that made it a quite effective brute of a locomotive.  

That Fairport line B&O EM1 triple header came unglued  shortly after the above photo was taken.....right in the middle of a hopper car car !   3x EM1 = 2 much heave-ho !

I'm quit sure that the operating dept. on the NP were smart enough NOT to put 3 of their articulated locomotives on the headend of any train on the 2,2% grades they had. One "Z Class" locomotive on the headend and another "Z Class" pushing on the rearend would have been the safer method.

I'm talking about this, quoting steamlocomitve.com's section on Yellowstone Z-5s:

"NP wanted to burn low-grade Rosebud coal (obtained from mines along the line) in their locomotives. This required the Yellowstone to be designed with a huge (the largest ever used on a steam locomotive) firebox (182 sq. ft.). The front half of the firebox was over the two rear pairs of drivers and the trailing truck (which was equipped with a booster). . . . .  The NP Yellowstones steamed poorly and produced less that 5,000 HP. NP found that the grates were simply too large to maintain a high temperature and complete combustion. The combustion problem was solved by blocking off The front two feet of the firebox on each locomotive. At some point the Z-5s were upgraded with roller bearings."

Elsewhere I have read that ALCO and NP made a number of small changes to piping, auxiliary equipment, etc., at roughly the same time.  While the Z-5s never produced much more than 5,000 HP, they had tremendous tractive pull and were apparently a success after that.   I'm assuming that, at least from the outside, the firebox did not look any different with those two feet blocked off.  I'd prefer a model of it after those changes, with the roller bearings and those small changes made, but frankly I'd take any model at all.   

I'll take any model I can.  Maybe 3rd Rail will re-issue a model in the future. That would be worth waiting for.

Precision Scale also did the Northern Pacific Yellowstone - probably the ultimate in detail. And the ultimate in price.......$3750!! Magnificent with gray boiler.

I am with Hot Water on this one.  I did a magazine review on the Sunset Z-5, and as near as I could tell using Cyclopedia drawings, it was dead-on accurate.  The rumor was that superstructure was in fact leftover PSC, and I could easily believe that, except the brass was thicker than the typical thin PSC.  Detail was simply superb.  I doubt the Z-5 will ever be done again in the same quality at such a favorable price.

There is a PSC Z-5 for sale right now for $3,500.  A lot to pay for a loco, but . . . I'm looking at it. 

Lee - The PSC Z5 is soul-satisfying. Mine is the late '30's version, with a gray boiler, the big bucket stack, cab curtains, dog house on the tender, booster on the trailing truck, double (yes, double!) Coffin feed water heaters. For me, that is the preferred version, not the "neutered" 1950's version with the small diameter stack, no booster, etc. My W3 and W5 Mikes have been assigned to other duties.......and I have saved much money on my reduced payroll from eliminating double heading! 

You can typically find 3rd Rail Z-5s for less than $1,100.00 on E-Bay.  Be patient.

Here is mine.

Here is the Sasquatch's EM-1s

Here is a video of another former IMHD member's DM&IR Yellowstone.

Regards,

GNNPNUT

Nice Yellowstones, thanks for the pictures and video.  

That PSC Z-5 is not just expensive, but I think 2-Rail: I might buy a 2-R version to display at the right price, but not that.    I can definitely wait a while to find the right one.  I'll find a 3rd Rail or something . . . 

Advertise.  That's what I used to do, and I got everything I posted - even a locomotive we are sure there were only twelve made, with blueprints dated December 1941.

I get the feeling that I cannot post the most effective ad location, but I can tell you it has the largest circulation of any model train magazine, and that may be why it is so effective.

I have not yet posted an ad for my sand- cast Erie-Built, but someday I may do so.  Now that one is obscure!

The PSC NP Yellowstone is absolutely 2 rail......no compromises for 3 rail fabrication. A no-holds-barred reproduction of the prototype. 

As I said I am passing on the PSC - not doubt a lovely model but $3500 for mostly shelf queen loco is a bit extreme for me, and its two rail, too, I believe.  it would be nice to be able to run it when I want to.  

And I could advertise but I'm going to be more patient than that, and basically wait until I stumble upon one.  From past experience I know that happens eventually, and I can afford to wait.  I have two really good Yellowstones now, the Legacy B&O EM-1 and the noticeably wider/longer Premier DM&IR (four feet longer in the real world - one inch at 1:48: very noticeable).  The Z-5 was longer still, but only 14 inches more: not nearly as noticeable a difference from the DM&IR.  I'  wait until I see the right one. 

The Northern Pacific 2-8-8-4 was the 3rd largest steam locomotive ever built, preceeded only by the UP Big Boy and C&O Allegheney. Would have loved to have seen them run. Did have the opportunity to ride behind DMIR 2-8-8-4 #224 on 4th of July weekend, 1961. Two ran that day (224 and 225), one for the Illini RR Club, the other for the MN Railfan Assoc. That was the last outing for Missabe Yellowstones, or any other road's! Rode the cab of 224, along with about 20 other fans.......alas, not unlike being stuffed into a closet.........but I rode it!!

I ...WAS content with my HO scale Fuji NP Z5.....Thanks a LOT !

If a PFM Crown, probably a good one!

You were lucky to have ridden on a DM&IR - wow!  I love the glory of those big, big, big monsters, and want to have models of all, even as I know much smaller locos look far better and run more satisfactory on my layout.

I doubt that the B&O operating department were dumb. There simply wasn't always an opportunity for them to use a pusher on this line. The B&O Lake branch between Warren, Ohio and Fairport, Ohio had ~2% ruling grade and very tight curves. I'm sure it wasn't ideal, but I bet there were good reasons for double and triple heading Emmas.

r

You do realize the "famous" EM1 triple header was a one off event, which ended in disaster shortly after the photo was taken.  People I know living in Chardon, O. have told me they never saw such a thing.  There was a decent article about this in the Sentinel some years back. It included a photo of the shredded hopper that resulted with 345K + of T.E. applied on the front end.

Gosh, it's just a  wonder that more hoppers aren't torn apart these days. First, usually its the coupler knuckle that fails. And, just two CSX ES44AH locomotives have a starting TE of nearly 380k.!

I have a book called "Baltimore and Ohio Railroad" by Kirk Reynolds and Dave Oroszi,

and on page 91 is a triple headed EM 1 set passing a crossing at West Fairport, Ohio,northbound with a coal train. Dated September, 1956. It was taken by Herb Harwood Jr, and no note of it being a one off train. That was the only photo I could find in all my B&O stuff of a triple header. However, double headers must have been

quite common there, as many photos of those exist.

I think the real story here is not the biggest, the best, and so on of the Yellowstones, but how steam engines were designed and built to suit the

railroad they worked for, on the divisions and so forth they worked. Evidently all

three mentioned here were just what was needed by their respective roads.

Don't forget the other designed for a railroad Yellowstone, the 4-8-8-2 cab forward locomotives of the Espee. Just a Yellowstone that ran backwards!

Ed

That is how I look at it, too.  I love them all and each was built to do its job.  for the most part they succeeded and none of them could have done the other's job as well.

Nice! I have only stood in the cab of 227 in the Duluth museum, and wondered..........

http://jeffterry.rrpicturearch...49%5C227backhead.jpg

Firewood - As a bit of an addendum to my tale, 2-8-8-4 #224 took our 10 car train up the 2.2% Grade of Proctor Hill, after departing Duluth Union Station, single-handed. The next year, the Illini RR Club had the same train, but powered by 2-10-2 #514. The Missabe prudently coupled an SD9 behind 514 for the tough pull!