The steam period closing down

Thanks for that correction, which confirms my point that, unless the locomotive was designed by the Norfolk & Western, a 72" drivered 4-8-2 is NOT an acceptable passenger locomotive.

I wonder if there's any photo's floating around of the semi-retired Hudsons pulling those trains post 1954, would love to see a few. Especially in their "less than pristine" condition.....

My "more" was building an M class for primary for passenger and M&E service.

 

THAT would have then been a modern 4-8-4, which the PRR wound up NOT doing, and instead designed the T-1 Duplex 4-4-4-4 locomotives.

The M1 4-8-2 was a passenger locomotive on the PRR, but only in those areas needing more than a Pacific.   There were both M1 and M1a types dedicated to this service, but after the war, those distinctions melted away with the flood of changes swamping the Penn.  Now IF Jim Symes had gotten a bit more leverage or sympathy from the higher ups in Philly early on during the war, some interesting things might have occurred. It's possible that the T1 fleet might have only been two units, or perhaps maybe 25 instead of fifty. Also possible might have been the duplication of the N&W J to some degree for PRR dual service use.  Would the streamlining have gone by the board, as did the N&W J1, or not.  Penn could have specified boosters for these engines as well...they would have made a great compliment to the Big Jay 2-10-4s and still lock knuckles with the Blue Ribband Fleet as well.  Of course I'm still trying to figure out how L&N got their 1942 EMD E6 order filled, and Penn couldn't get two units !??!  And that's just part of what makes the PRR so intriguing . 

From what I have read, Symes, when being a high ranking officer of the western part of the PRR, saw what other roads were doing with the diesel.  He thought because the PRR did not have a modern steamer for its passenger trains, it should just bypass the steam issue and go to the diesel.  If not that, some sort "off the shelf" steamer, such as the N&W J.

The N&W J was "off the shelf?"

I thought it was designed by the N&W for N&W conditions.

 

Rusty

By using the term "off the shelf" I think Dominic meant that the "J" was an established, proven design as opposed to something fresh off the drawing board that had never been built before.

 

I think a "J" would have been very well-suited for the PRR, especially between Altoona and Pittsburgh.

EXACTLY.  Like the 2-10-4 locomotives based on the C&O for freight!

 

Thanks, Rick!

Who is this "Rick" you are referring to?

Rick...Rich...Hey You...it doesn't matter what you call me.

 

Just don't call me late for dinner.

OK, but the Pennsy would have made it unstreamlined using the 2-10-4 cab design, with a high headlight and put that big, mongo, 16 wheel tender behind it. 

 

Rusty

Once while trying to be respectful, you chastised me and told me not to call you "Mr. Melvin".
I thought I heard Fred G. Sanford (The G. stands for FoaminG) call you a 'Big Dummy", but I did pay attention if you acknowledged him.  <SNICKER>

The nickname "Big Dummy" is what the Lovely and Gracious Linda (my wife) calls me.

 

 

The Pennsylvania Railroad had a N&W on the property for a series of tests.

The data and conclusions were published a couple of years ago in the KEYSTONE if interested.

Indeed!  The N&W J Class would have made a terrific piece for use on both Middle and Pittsburgh Div...in either passenger or freight.  The clearances would have to be punched out a bit, but no huge deal if you tighten up the exterior dimensions on the beast, as was done to a small extent with the C&O T1.  Adding boosters would have made them even more capable. Not sure to what extent they could be used north of Harrisburg, but the release of Mid. Div. M1s for northern PA. service couldn't have hurt.   And it's likely, that at least during the war, the "R" Class would have been a non-streamlined affair, mimicing the good looks of the 2-10-4 J.  After the Central started ordering E7s for Century service, and post-war expansion, Symes had no trouble getting Diesels from Martin Clement.

NYC, including the Big Four (CCC&STL) became completely dieselized for passenger service immediately after an order for EMD GP9's arrived. the last 20 Hudsons assigned to the Big Four were laid up by March, 1956. I understand that late Mohawks were at times assigned to passenger runs if diesels became unavailable after March, 1956. NYC became completely dieselized in May, 1957 with the retirement of H-7 Mike at Riverside Yard. (There was steam on the property later than August, 1958 when I visited Sharonville, OH and Riverside in Cincinnati. All I found were a few L-2 Mohawks, Mikados, and 0-8-0 switchers.)

I agree that an N&W J would have made an excellent passenger engine on the Pittsburgh Division.

During the several years before the merger of NYC and PRR, both railroads made efforts to streamline operations and their physical plants. PRR went to intermodal (Truc-Train) on its mainline, with clearances capable of providing this service. NYC could not do standard "intermodal" due to low clearances, principally east of Buffalo, so under Perleman was invented (Super-Van), or truck trailers without rubber tires. Both railroads together closed over 88% of their locomotive maintenance facilities, understanding very late in the game that a locomotive shop and roundhouse was not required at every Division point ("every 100 miles") for diesels. (NYC built a new diesel facility at Ashtabula OH in 1952-53? when their main shop at Collinwood was less than 40 miles west.......!)

NYC adopted CTC and reduced mainline trackage from four tracks to two in order to reduce taxes. From what I read regarding the number of diesels requiring shopping in one of Al Staufer's books, PRR just quit most maintenance. (One the date of the merger, PRR had over 1800 diesels that required shopping-from my memory.)

Remember, the gov't set all freight rates, and any relief required an individual petition and could take years to receive a reply......

And of course the unions fought all of this, starting with the elimination of cabooses (mostly a Penn-Central and Conrail initiative). Remember "featherbedding"?

The guys who ran these two organizations certainly weren't idiots, but they did not have a lot of room to maneuver. As for Perleman, I heard from many NYC employees that, because of his management style, he was universally hated.

Finally, I think that Perleman's decision to not save either a Hudson or a Niagara is just inexcusable and unfathomable........and the one decision that he made that will remain with him "forever".

The T&P did not have 4-8-4's.  But they did some upgrades with better counterballancing.  Some were equiped for passenger service.  

Penn-Pacific:   here is a tape of the last days of NYC steam in OH and IN, including Hudsons and Mohawks on passenger runs. Good stuff! Particularly got a kick out of the Hudson engineer giving a grudging nod to the camera man!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hafLFjqtnDc

Thanks for posting this excellent video! I have to admit, old Hudsons and Mohawks certainly looked cleaner in their near-retirement years than did PRR steamers in the same era. I especially liked that little scene with the P&LE berk #9405 near the end. I'm a pennsy fan all the way, but if I were to pick a second favorite, it would be the P&LE. 

 

P.S.  I think PRR engineers are friendlier to camera men than NY Central engineers

 

Great footage...the Herron DVD's are very good. 

I have learned a few new facts during this thread. While I was not born to see the steam I do remember the Renovo yard like it was yesterday. This is a look at the yard from the dog leg bridge. As a kid that yard was the mecca of trains for me.

 

 

Maybe you should do some research before you speak. About 50 RR's bought Mountains for passenger and/or dual service. Average size of drivers was 69". One most famous passenger Mountain that comes to mind is Frisco 1522...

 Even your high and mighty UP had 69" drivered Mountains..

You are absolutely correct. All those Mountain class locomotives where general used in heavy grade (mountainous) passenger service. When the UP needed greater speed, they purchased 80" driveled 4-8-4s. No steam locomotive with 69" to 72" diameter drive wheels is capable of SUSTAINED speeds over 90MPH! Unless of course you look at the N&W  J class!!!

The UP FEF -2 and -3 classes along with the N&W Js benefited from some significant advances in counterbalancing theories.  For counterbalancing based on the old theories, look no farther than the ACL R1 class, which is reported to have kinked the rails any time one got up to the high speeds Hot Water mentioned.

 

ChipR 

An interesting exception to Mountain-type steamers being used mainly on heavy grades was the Florida East Coast.  They had dual-service heavy 4-8-2's with 69" drivers and passenger-service light Mountains with 73" drivers...  All on a largely-flat railroad, though I imagine their passenger trains could get pretty heavy in tourist season.

N&W K Class 4-8-2s also come to mind, but I have no idea what the top allowable speed on these machines was, or if they received high speed mods later in life. It would appear the K Class was assigned to areas of the road where speed was not going to be a huge issue. IIRC, the NYCS L Class was limited to 70-75 MPH. The PRR 4-8-2s may have been allowed a bit more, although I found this kinda hard to believe!

The Penn had a reasonably good freighter in their M1 Classes, but Lima...and likely others, made a habit of telling Altoona that they could have a better machine for the same weight.  Of the larger "standard" Penn designs, they were probably the best overall.

Here's a performance record for Pennsy critics to contemplate. The AAR set out to test the capacity of passenger steam locomotives in 1938, with a 16 car, 1000 ton test train. A 14 year old Pennsy K4 ran the train up to 91 mph. A 7 foot drivered C&NW Hudson got the train to 95. And, much heralded, a Union Pacific 77" drivered 4-8-4 (#815) ran the test train up to 102 mph on a slightly descending grade between Grand Island and Omaha. For my two cents, the surprising star performer was the K4 - a 1914 era design, which more then held it's own against the1938  "state of the art" locomotives!

My criticism of the P Company comes into play much later than 1938. In 1938, the PRR superheated K4 was indeed right in there with the best of them. However, that SAME K4 was still their main passenger locomotive in 1950! Other than few "experimental" steam designs that were only somewhat successful, the PRR did not keep up with the times. It showed in the company's dismal financial performance in the last couple decades of the railroad's life.

I'd wager the firemen on the C&NW and UP loco's didn't have to work as hard, though...

 

Rusty

Rusty - Why did the Pennsy firemen have to work harder? Cheap-O Pennsy had harder to twist stoker valves?!!         K4's were stoker equipped!

Rich - Certainly the Pennsy goofed with the duplex drive locomotives, in the performance outcome. But there was another railroad that stuck with steam quite late, like Pennsy - and had phenomenol financial performance - and which was financially linked to the PRR - that being, the Norfolk & Western. And certainly the T1 and Q2 locomotives were at the finite edge of modern steam locomotive design. My thesis would be that all the economic factors that knocked out the Pennsylvania and the New York Central are what contributed to the seeming ineptitude of PRR late steam strategy. Essentially, inadequate captalization. The PRR had to dieselize quickly, because the "cash drawer was empty"! The PRR did not have the time or luxury of perfecting those high strung machines. The fact that the Pennsy could fall back on the 1914 era K4's to fill in for the failed T1's indicates the Pennsy was a pretty good designer of locomotives!

        All moot issues, but fun to contemplate these many years later!

That AAR test was performed with doubleheaded K4s, just so yunz know. There is NO WAY in the universe a single K4s, stoker or no, is doing 1K at 91MPH.  

What finally did the PRR in, we now know, was that disasterous merger into Penn Central. IMO, they should have brokered a deal with the UP. Making it a coast to coast single carrier railroad. (would've been great to advertise it that way) Maybe with a name like, oh, "Penn Pacific" or something like that.

 

Of course, I ran this fantasy idea on another railroad chatroom some years back, and I asked, if PRR were to merge with the UP, what would it be called. The reply was a nonchalant and probably accurate "Union Pacific".

Would the Pennsy have been in such financial issues by the 50's if they had not bothered to electrify?

Michael:

The money to do the electrification actually came from the federal government as part of a depression era business assistance program.  It is my understanding that PRR had paid off the loan by the end of WWII.  I doubt this contributed significantly, if at all, to the PRR's demise. 

As mentioned above, bankruptcy for the PRR was, in my opinion, preordained as it was for most of the other Class I's serving the northeastern US.  A shrinking industrial base coupled with the surge in interstate trucking, combined with too many railroads chasing a shrinking pool of available traffic, is what did in PRR, NYC, RDG, LV, CNJ and NH.

Additionally, the regulatory framework in place prior to the formation of Conrail made it difficult to shed duplicate routes and money losing intercity and commuter passenger services.  Others have mentioned burdensome state taxes; crushing labor obligations and so on.

In terms of merging with other railroads, understand that the PRR and NYC first announced their intention to merge in I believe 1957; yet it wasn't until February of 1968 that the merger actually took place.  Theoretically it might be argued that an expedited merger proceeding might have made a difference but, i doubt it.  After Conrail's formation, changes in rail regulation made it possible to more quickly abandon unnecessary duplicate trackage and close gateways, thus ensuring a maximum line-haul.

I believe the implementation of Staggers is what finally did the job in the northeastern US as Conrail was finally profitable within a year of deregulation.

Curt

There were several factors in the Pennsy's demise.  Without detailing it all here and risk missing some important facts. The best place to find the correct answers is in the last half of Rush Loving's book: The Men Who Loved Trains. Without a doubt the most accurate, factual and honest account of what did the company in...period.

Be careful what you believe, especially from some authors. 

The three K4's were never doubleheaded.  This a  commonly repeated error.  Exactly where it came from, I'm not sure.  An error repeated often enough becomes a myth.  Nonetheless, it's still incorrect.  K4 5354 was run from Ft. Wayne to Atwood, 5362 from Atwood to Chicago and 3876 from Chicago to Ft. Wayne.  There were no repeat runs, one chance was all they got.

No. 5354 managed a peak speed of 87 mph down a 0.38% grade near MP 357.  However, part of the indicator drive mechanism on the right side broke and dropped into the valve motion causing considerable collateral damage.  No. 5362 was substituted and reached a peak of 91 mph, also down a 0.38% grade, near MP 395.  Both these runs were westbound.  A few days later, No. 3876 managed 90 mph eastbound down a 0.38% grade near MP 337.  If I can read the graph correctly, its final sprint into Ft. wayne was 91 mph down a 0.51% grade near MP 322.

FWIW, UP 815, an FEF-1, set the record of 102 mph eastbound down a long 0.13% grade near Gardner.

The above information is taken from a lengthy PRR memo dated 11/14/38, L.B. Jones to F. W. Hankins.  Various graphs were included which diagrammed the performance of each the locos involved in the tests.  This material resides in the Hagley Library.

For further information, the tests were covered in Railway Mechanical Engineer, briefly in November 1938, and in detail May 1939.  There wre some follow-up comments in the June 1939 issue.  AAR also published a report on the tests in Feb 1939.  A copy of that report is in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Each of the good old K4's did pretty well all by themselves.

This comment piggybacks on Curt/Juniata Guy's sage post.  It should be noted that the federal government was very much guided in the 1950's by the spirit and intent of the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law and frowned on mergers as anti-competitive. And in the 1950's there was still abroad in the public consciousness the idea that railroads were very profitable in hauling freight. There never would have been a Union Pacific-Pennsy merger in those days, even if the UP had the slightest interest. By the time the Pennsy and NYC merged in 1968, they were on their last legs. If I recall, Pres Symes of the Pennsy was quoted in "Trains" in mid-1958, saying, "we are at the bottom of the cash drawer, and we are scared". There was a fairly severe recession in 1958 (which allowed much of the still operating steam to be knocked off, due to declined business demand).

      What broke the merger dam was the first significant merger allowed by the ICC, that being the Erie Lackawanna in 1960. Then the mergers came in droves. Alas, it was too little, too late. It took a catastrophic event, like the 1970 bankruptcy of the Penn Central which collapsed the country's entire NE quadrant railroad structure (the Nixon Administration addressed the PC bankruptcy as a national emergency), to move Congress to pass the Steigers Act, which freed railroads up from the strangling regulation that had brought the industry to the precipice. That was 1972. The railroads now have trimmed down to fighting weight as a result and are able to perform as the laws of physics indicate they should! They are as profitable as the pharmaceutical industry today!