@jhz563 posted:Since the 4-8-4 was so successful on other roads, it makes me think that the PRR must have had a specific reason no to employ the design. It may not have even been technical. But when you have 4-8-2, 2-10-0 and even 4-4-4-4 styles in play, it seems odd not to have this style (edited).
That seems a bit backwards. When you have a variety of alternative designs already fulfilling the role a 4-8-4 would service, I don't see what the need for a 4-8-4 would have been.
