I've read up on the differences between the 2 locomotives. Real life, which is the better of the 2 locomotives, and why? Personal favorites excluded!...................................................................................................Brandy!
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Oh boy, Ford versus Chevy here we go....
They are both great locomotives, and each of them will have passionate supporters. The best answer is that each locomotive reflects the unique characteristics of the railroad it served.
My personal favorite between the two is 844, because I like the looks of that locomotive Better.
Jeff C
Both were among the last steam locos built and "advanced designs," and they shared a lot - similar wheel arrangement, etc. But I think the 611 was the more advanced "high-tech" design - it was a bit later and bit more of an attempt to push the limits. But 844 was definitely the one you wanted to own, say, a dozen of if you were the financial officer of a RR and looking at the bottom line including maintenance and fuel costs, particularly if you were a RR in the western US.
Personally, I like the looks of 844, and Union Pacific, of course: is what I model, but this doesn't blind me to the fact that 611 can make some claim to being the most advanced steam loco design ever actually built. I say "some claim" because other folks could point out, quite legitimately, many other candidates for that mantle, and frankly a claim like that is never really black and white. But 611 was an engineering tour de force.
Unlike the utilitarian diesel-electric, steam locomotives were designed and custom built for the specific road. Steam locomotives were custom built to successfully transverse the terrain that the locomotive would encounter during its operation. Since every road had different terrain, every road pretty much had different steam locomotives. The terrain of the Union Pacific is very much different from the terrain of the Norfolk and Western, and hence the steam locomotives are very much different.
Thus, if you took the 844 and put it onto the the J's home turf the 844 would not be as successful as the J.
If you took the J and put it onto the 844's home turf the J would not be as successful as the 844.
The tailor made nature of steam locomotives makes comparisons such as this very difficult and highly subjective. The J worked out very well for the Norfolk and Western and the 844 worked out very well for the Union Pacific and that is about all that can be said.
As far as tractive effort goes, the J wins by a landslide.
http://steamlocomotive.com/misc/specifications.php
The 844 was better for the UP.
The 611 was better for the N&W.
Rusty
You step into the emotional side as well when you consider that the 611 was designed, built, and run by and for the N&W. There was an intense sense of pride in the engines built by the N&W.
The 844 is an excellent engine, but it was acquired with a Purchase Order to ALCO. To some who grew up in the N&W "Family", that does make a difference.
Gilly
Well for me my favorite is the 611. Able to run like a race horse and pull like a mule, home built, able to be turned around/serviced in under an hour and a darn good looking locomotive. As has been stated if you put the 844 in the N&W's terrain it would not have faired well, and if you put the 611 on the UP the J would have done ok but 80" drivers are a big plus for 100mph running...the 844 is no slouch.
...which is the better of the 2 locomotives..."
Whenever this question is asked, the response has to be, "Better for what?"
Steam locomotive performance stats are not like diesels. A Union Pacific 4,400 HP GE diesel is going to perform exactly the same as a Norfolk Southern 4,400 HP GE diesel. They are all essentially the same, built on the same assembly line to the same design drawings.
Steam locomotives were designed and built to solve specific operating problems. Union Pacific has wide open spaces, long but moderate grades and room to run 90 mph for long stretches. Norfolk Southern has shorter but steeper grades and could not routinely run 90 mph due to the curvature on their railroad in the mountains. A lot of the N&W main line between Roanoke and Portsmouth is only 40 mph railroad due to curvature. So this is a classic example of an "apples and oranges" comparison.
Tractive Effort (TE) is only one of MANY performance stats that come into play when talking about steam locomotive performance. All TE tells you is how much train the locomotive can START. Since both of these locomotives could always start the trains they were assigned to, different TE numbers for them don't mean all that much.
A more important number to compare is their respective Drawbar Horsepower. This is the HP as measured at the coupler of the tender by a dynamometer car. That is the "real" HP and tells you what is actually available to pull a train at speed.
Both were good locomotives and reliably served their respective railroads for many years.
Don't try to confuse us with facts, Rich.
Everybody knows that MY favorite locomotive is better than everyone else's favorite locomotive...
Rusty
IMO (which isn't worth much, if anything) N&W was the greatest steam locomotive railroad company by the end of the steam era. It built its own locomotives. Most all others bought their locomotives. No other railroad company was as efficient, production and operation, a steam service railroad as N&W. I believe, if they serviced the same terrain as UP it would have built a better locomotive than any (steam) locomotive that UP could have purchased.
That said, if I had the choice of modeling either around the N&W 611 or the UP 844, I would most definitely choose the UP 844. It is one of the most beautiful steam locomotives, IMO. The N&W 611 has an unattractive shrouding (IMO) and has drivers that appear too small.
Visual appeal: It isn't close. UP 844 all the way
The 844 is an excellent engine, but it was acquired with a Purchase Order to ALCO. To some who grew up in the N&W "Family", that does make a difference.
Yes but those big ALco's were built to UP's specs...and ALco was against using a bunch of them but the UP mechanical engineers proved ALco wrong.
A more important number to compare is their respective Drawbar Horsepower. This is the HP as measured at the coupler of the tender by a dynamometer car. That is the "real" HP and tells you what is actually available to pull a train at speed.
Interesting that by that measure, the Allegheny spanked the Big Boy (looking at RickO's spec sheet).
A more important number to compare is their respective Drawbar Horsepower. This is the HP as measured at the coupler of the tender by a dynamometer car. That is the "real" HP and tells you what is actually available to pull a train at speed.
Interesting that by that measure, the Allegheny spanked the Big Boy (looking at RickO's spec sheet).
Yeah, but the Allegheny didn't get the "press" the Big Boy got.
Rusty
Chuck funny you should mention the 800 series Northern's that ALCO produced for UP. I met an old retired gentleman, when I was taking some metallurgy class at West Virginia Tech in Montgomery,Wva back in the late 80's. He referred to working a multitude of years for ALCO in their engineering dept. He was telling the class how to stick to our guns when doing engineering work, and not be intimidated by other engineers, more especially from the outside.
After all of that, he proceeded to tell us about all of the hardships-n-stress that the Union Pacific Engineers would put them through, and a crew of UP Engineers would follow each and every step of a build, from the forge to the 1st fire up and test run. It was UP a Engine, just made in the ALCO facility, using ALCO Labor.
In my opinion, the Big Boys got lot more press than they deserved. They were the LONGEST articulated steam engine in the world, but that's their only real claim to fame.
The C&O H8's were taller, heavier and more powerful than the Big Boy. Too bad the C&O never figured out how to use them.
A more important number to compare is their respective Drawbar Horsepower. This is the HP as measured at the coupler of the tender by a dynamometer car. That is the "real" HP and tells you what is actually available to pull a train at speed.
Both were good locomotives and reliably served their respective railroads for many years.
The J's could put out just over 5,000 Dbh at 50mph....not too shabby. Where did the 800's fall? 4-5000 I'm sure.
Yeah the 4000's got a ton of press from the UP's PR dept...a good portion of it was a bit inflated. I do wonder how an H8 would have performed if they were able to "run" as opposed to slogging it out.
A more important number to compare is their respective Drawbar Horsepower. This is the HP as measured at the coupler of the tender by a dynamometer car. That is the "real" HP and tells you what is actually available to pull a train at speed.
Both were good locomotives and reliably served their respective railroads for many years.
The J's could put out just over 5,000 Dbh at 50mph....not too shabby. Where did the 800's fall? 4-5000 I'm sure.
Horse power ratings for 300 psi 4-8-4s were generally in the 5000 to 5500 HP range, for UP 800s and SP GS-4/GS-5 classes for example. The N&W J Class should have been in excess of 5000 HP also, but at 50 MPH, where as the UP and SP locomotives with their 80" drive wheels would have been at 55 to 58 MPH. I can tell you from first hand experience, that UP 844, as well as SP4449, exhibit that rapidly increasing HP as acceleration speeds exceed the 45 MPH zone, and on up to 75-85 MPH.
The N&W J Class locomotives where specifically designed with 70" drive wheels in order to have that same "rapid acceleration" capability from 30/35 MPH on the curvy & mountainous N&W main lines. Thus the N&W J Class locomotives have MONSTROUS tractive plus VERY high horse power, in order to rapidly accelerate out of curves, even on ascending grades.
The 844 was better for the UP.
The 611 was better for the N&W.
Rusty
Rusty, you win the prize! That is the correct answer!
Larry
Chuck funny you should mention the 800 series Northern's that ALCO produced for UP. I met an old retired gentleman, when I was taking some metallurgy class at West Virginia Tech in Montgomery,Wva back in the late 80's. He referred to working a multitude of years for ALCO in their engineering dept. He was telling the class how to stick to our guns when doing engineering work, and not be intimidated by other engineers, more especially from the outside.
After all of that, he proceeded to tell us about all of the hardships-n-stress that the Union Pacific Engineers would put them through, and a crew of UP Engineers would follow each and every step of a build, from the forge to the 1st fire up and test run. It was UP a Engine, just made in the ALCO facility, using ALCO Labor.
That's because Alco, along with Baldwin and Lima only knew theory. The railroad had the practical day-to-day experience to know what really worked. Alco told the UP that you couldn't run a long stroke FEF at 100 mph without burning out the lubrication. UP showed them that it could be done successfully.
Other examples of builder theories that didn't last:
Alco - Three cylinder simples with Gresley valve gear. They worked, but fell by the side when "Super Power" came out;
Baldwin - Compounds (late 19th/early 20th century), and Duplexes;
Lima - Limited (50%) cutoff, and articulated trailing trucks.
Stuart
In my opinion, the Big Boys got lot more press than they deserved. They were the LONGEST articulated steam engine in the world, but that's their only real claim to fame.
The C&O H8's were taller, heavier and more powerful than the Big Boy. Too bad the C&O never figured out how to use them.
Even longer than the Beyer Peacock Garratt locomotives? Some of those were 4-8-4+4-8-4.
Yeah the 4000's got a ton of press from the UP's PR dept...a good portion of it was a bit inflated. I do wonder how an H8 would have performed if they were able to "run" as opposed to slogging it out.
Yes, but it is an H-6 2-6-6-2 compound. Nothing even close to an H-8 2-6-6-6.
Hmm, I think a better comparison would be between the Milwaukee 261 and the 844.
One thing is for sure the grace and speed of a modern day 4-8-4 is hard to beat.
Hmm, I think a better comparison would be between the Milwaukee 261 and the 844.
One thing is for sure the grace and speed of a modern day 4-8-4 is hard to beat.
That would not be a fair comparison, as Mil Road 261 is a "War Baby" locomotive, designed for dual service, i.e. smaller drive wheels, no feed water heating system, and lower boiler pressure. The UP 844 would blow her doors off! Assuming of course that UP 844 becomes operational sometime in the future.
Even longer than the Beyer Peacock Garratt locomotives? Some of those were 4-8-4+4-8-4.
Of course not.
Garratt's are a TOTALLY different design. That's not apples and oranges...that's apples and watermelons.
True than how about the SP&S 700 or the SP 4449?
Nope. The SP&S 700 is an early (1938?) Northern Pacific design (A-3), and is heavy, but smaller drive wheels and lower boiler pressure (250/270psi?), i.e. lots of tractive effort, but not the high horse power like 844 or 4449.
Generally, N&W steam was designed to run off the back side of the horse power curve, as Hot Water stated...for the speeds that would be encountered on the railroad. A 69" driver, while enormously popular for modern freight power, was not really the best choice unless you happen to be the Nickel Plate Road...and basically flat all the way. Mix in grades and curves to any serious extent, and you'll want a lower driver, for 1) more TE at the speeds you;ll encounter. 2) Better response in those same situations. One reason for taller drivers than really called for was drive train balance....it's easier to balance the taller drivers, with more room for counter weights. Of course, 611 pays for whatever speed she reaches with higher machinery speeds...a trade-off N&W was ever willing to pay for. A great comparison between C&O H8 and the Big Boy is in Huddleston's book on the big articulateds...the exact name of which I can't remember now. And yes, the H8 blows the BB off the map, even with a little less TE !
A great comparison between C&O H8 and the Big Boy is in Huddleston's book on the big articulateds...the exact name of which I can't remember now. And yes, the H8 blows the BB off the map, even with a little less TE !
"The Allegheny Lima's Finest", one of my favorite railroad books
A great comparison between C&O H8 and the Big Boy is in Huddleston's book on the big articulateds...the exact name of which I can't remember now. And yes, the H8 blows the BB off the map, even with a little less TE !
"The Allegheny Lima's Finest", one of my favorite railroad books
...or Huddleston's, "World's Greatest Steam Locomotives".
Of course, 611 pays for whatever speed she reaches with higher machinery speeds...a trade-off N&W was ever willing to pay for.
The N&W didn't have to "pay" for it too often, the J's were extremely reliable turning in over 15,000 miles a month.
and the poorly designed H8 just tears up the rails at speed. don't forget c&0 lawsuit against lima that they won and almost put lima out of business.
...and the poorly designed H8 just tears up the rails at speed....
Say what? Where in the world did you come up with that?
I'm sorry pardner, but that statement is juts plain wrong. When given a chance, the H8's ran beautifully at high speed.
The lawsuit regarding the weight was because it was greater than it was in the building "contract".
Yes one of the heaviest if not THE heaviest, there is no mention of it "tearing up the rails". There was concern, but it never happened. It was a great loco as Rich states, arguably the most powerful steamer ever built, that unfortunately was never used to its full potential.
Now if some folks could just get together and restore 1604..........
In central and northern Ohio, you could count on getting every one of those Lima built ponies out of the H8...even on coal trains. Lima did get the weight down a bit with subsequent orders for Alleghenies, but other than axle loading concerns, they could go as fast as anything else around...and had no tracking issues. Using 'em in 10-15 MPH coal service in the mountains was a waste of potential; C&O needed to replace their H7s with something better suited to the terrain. A dedicated mountain climber would have been ideal, but Lima /AMC was more of the Super Power mind set. Had C&O been running van trains earlier, the H8 would have been near perfect, even on their grades.
Who's better??? BOTH! These two great locomotives do a lot of positive work when in the public eye.
I am totally bias as I have been in 611's cab, ridden behind her and chased her......and hope to again soon. I'd love to do the same for 844....but that one will be tougher!!
and the poorly designed H8 just tears up the rails at speed. don't forget c&0 lawsuit against lima that they won and almost put lima out of business.
Good grief!
Here is an example of that famous quote: " It is better to remain silent, and thought a fool, than open ones mouth and remove all doubt.".
Does kinda make you wonder how 844 would have done on N&W's metalurgical coal as opposed to that UP Lignite from Hanna. N&W had a huge advantage over most roads with the quality of their fuel...hence the "Carrier of Fuel Satisfaction !" Yeah, Chris, N&W lubricated and roller bearinged their steam into what was mighty close to an alternate universe by the late '50s.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
