Lou1985 posted:So the basic reason that Western railroads didn't go for the 2-8-4 was the need for more power (for longer, heavier trains and grades) and the lack of size restrictions the Eastern railroads faced.
No....I don't think that's a completely correct assumption.
Least off, timing likely played a role. If you had already upgraded to super power 2-8-4s, why switch to a 4-8-4? If you had old Mikados or the like and they were tired, 4-8-4s would have more appeal if your RR passed on ordering Berkshires when they were first available.
I submit that the timing of both World Wars was also a factor....in terms of what each RR was allocated and how old their equipment was prior to each War.
More importantly, you should understand that railroads needed to chose locomotives based on their particular terrain and their freight & passenger volumes. Period. What worked for one may not have worked on another.....for a multitude of reasons.
As an example, steam lasted as long as it did on the Nickel Plate b/c their Lima Berkshires were perfectly suited for running fast freight and passenger trains on the relatively flat Lake Erie shoreline and Midwest terrain from Buffalo to Cleveland to Chicago to St. Louis. These same locomotives would probably not have worked as well on the Norfolk & Western or C&O lines that hauled coal out of the Appalachian mountains. (That said, the W&LE managed to run a number of Berkshires.....FWIW.)
In parts of Cleveland's East Side suburbs, the NKP tracks were sometimes only 50 feet away from the NYC tracks. You often had NKP Berkshires racing NYC 4-8-2s to see who could outpace each other. Same terrain, different RRs, different locomotive design choice....and no consensus as to which was "better".
Bottom line: I don't think there is a right and wrong answer. You have to look to each railroad to see what locomotive design made the most sense. Answers will vary greatly. Generalities are almost pointless.
