When it comes to steam locomotives

Not sure if, by "late steamers" you are referring to the actual locos (i.e., steamers made after, say, 1925 or so) or you mean the latest generation of toy train steamers - Legeacy, PS3, etc.  Doesn't matter, in either case I agree with you.

As to actual locomotives, I prefer the "last generation" because engineers (the people who designed them, not the people who drove them) were really having to work hard - really innovate and engineer well - at getting "more" from each successive new loco.  It was not like that earlier.  I am fascinated by my scale models of the loco for the Lincoln funeral train, and NYC 999.  Both were 4-4-0s, and very, very similar in layout, type of drive and valving, etc.  All that happened in the roughly 40 years between the design of one and the other was that, to get more pull, more power, and more speed engineers made the locos bigger.  The LFT loco is tiny, 999 essentially the same loco but much bigger.

     But by the early 20th century, making it bigger wouldn't work any more. Engineers had to start engineering.  Compound cylinders, maybe three or four not just two, too,  innovative and variable valves, feed-water heaters and all sorts of ancillary equipment to boost efficiency, articulated locos, etc.  Those steam locomotives are my favorites, as well as those (ATSF 2900) that they just managed to make BIG and still fit through tunnels, in addition to including innovative engineering, etc.  

    As to the other interpretation of "late steamers" , I am partial to the very latest generation of toy train steam locos,  particularly Legacy models from the last two years, because they just run better overall - even though I run only conventional the electronics, with cruise, sound, etc., makes a difference.  Fantastic!

    But about the stack exhaust.  If you ran a steam loco on the highest grade of coal, or on oil, and particularly if you were running it at a  cruise at only a mid power point as was normally done when finally up to speed in flat country, they really didn't make that much of smoke, true.  BUT - if you were running on a lower grade of coal, and working the engine hard, they could produce truly prodigious, even frightening amounts of smoke.  I was born in Trinidad, Colo. - on the north end of Raton Pass.  An uncle drove for Santa Fe, based out of that town.  I recall as a child watching ATSF trains working up the pass - usually two or three mid-size steam engines with something like a Mallet helping push them over the hump.  Later, a Mallet or two helping a set of F3s.  All locos would be working as hard as possible, particularly the Mallets burning low grade western coal.  What is never rendered in any toy train is the "aliveness" of the smoke.  It did not drift or puff out of the stacks like on toy trains.  It shot out like it on its way to orbit, just rocketing out at tremendous speed and voume, if slowing quickly once it was released.   The black, tarry smoke that seemed like a writhing, living thing, staying in a thick cloud and it covered whatever it touched with a greasy gritty layer of soot.

I borrowed this photo from posting forum member marker, who posted this picture of a Y-3 in May of last year.  Its smoking pretty nicely while helping a couple of F3s up Raton Pass.  The two diesels are probably smoking fairly well, but its lost given the volume and density of the Y3's exhaust.

I love this photo for a lot of reasons, including: the steamer is where it should be - in the lead!

First, if you look closely, those are Santa Fe "E" units and not F3s.

Second, the steam helper is in the lead so that it can be cut-off at the top of the grade, and the diesels will take the train on to its final destination.

Yeah, my uncle took me on one trip when he was driving a big articulated helper - might have been this one -  when I was about seven - Wow.  Hot, noisy (could almost not even hear the four F3s behind us even though they were working at max continuous power), but slow.  It seemed to take forever, but I loved it.  Going back down was so much quicker - and quieter and cleaner!  -- they would disconnect and almost just coast back down once the train was at the top.  But this photo show where a big steamer belongs, leading the parade!

When I got back my Mom was really P.O.'ed.  My clothes were just covered with soot, grime, etc., and I was no better.  It took two or three attempts to clean clothes and me up.  But I was happy!

Lee, I beg to differ. Innovative engineering had been going on since the beginning of steam power. Sure, you might think the Lincoln locomotive and the 999 are "essentially the same," but the engineering is far different. You're basically not seeing the forest for the trees.

The 999 represents the absolute state of the art of locomotive design, circa 1893, just as the N&W J represented the same in the 1940s. There was no dearth of radical engineering in the 1890s; nor was there any in the 1860s.

Example: The 999 features a device that was absolutely revolutionary when it was invented--the injector--a device that even counfounded some MEs in the day, because it seemed to operate much as perpetual motion--using steam at boiler pressure to inject water past a check valve being held shut by that exact same boiler pressure, with no moving parts. The LFT engine had water pumps.

How about the design of the smokebox on the 999? Again, revolutionary. The "front end" of a steam locomotive is crucial to good steaming, and MEs spent countless hours trying to achieve the perfect front end. The LFT has its spark arresting screens and baffles in its stack--which tended to hinder draft. The 999 features an "extended front end" where the screening was below and behind the blast pipe--this freed the exhaust to go straight up the stack. Even the internal shape of the stack (no, it's not just a tube), its height and it's length inside the smokebox was designed using calculations to achieve perfect draft on the fire, perfectly "tuned" so that at the very moment an exhaust blast is exiting the top of the stack, the following blast is entering at the base--creating a constant, smooth draft on the fire.

How about the brake system? The 999 of course uses another revolutionary advance--the air brake. That little compressor on the engineer's side of the engine is an absolute marvel of engineering, as a cutaway drawing would reveal: the cylinders and valving passages are serpentine, and the valve uses a differential of air pressure to move back and forth. Having more-reliable brakes allowed for faster trains.

While 999 doesn't have them, this was also the era of engineers experimenting with compounding.

In short--to state that engineers didn't "engineer well" or "innovate" in the golden era of the steam locomotive is just plain flat-out wrong, and for an engineer to make such a statement reveals a seemingly willful disdain for those in your profession 100 and more years ago. There's no need to justify your affinity for "big steam;" just say you like big, modern steam engines, and leave it at that.

The old expression "parts are parts" applies to me and steamers. Steamers are steamers, late or early models, they are all beautiful pieces of equipment. In terms of the smoke feature, again to me the more smoke the better.

I tend to run more steam engines than diesels.  My favorites are the Pennsy Q2, the Lackawanna Pocono, and the Erie Allegheny ( Thats right Erie ).    I am awaiting delivery of the Pennsy J1 which should be right up there on the list

PS  I hate Hudsons 

Edit - after posting this response, I saw that SMD4 beat me to the switch while I was busy composing... my apologies for some duplicate information. 

Lee, I appreciate your point about the late development of steam, but I believe it is easy to overlook the engineering achievements in steam locomotives in the latter part of the 19th Century.  No doubt about it, 4-4-0's were built over many years, but there was a variety of experimentation during that time frame.  For example, the Wooten firebox - designed to burn anthracite and culm - was a precursor of the modern steam firebox.  Wooten (who was surely familiar with Winan's and Millholland's similar pre-Civil War designs) moved the traditional, narrow firebox out from between the framerails to get a large grate area needed to burn a sufficient amount of hard coal to make the needed amount of steam.  I know we are familiar with how the firebox on modern locos were enlarged in order to make the enough steam to supply large cylinders at high speed... it is a  feature that followed the basic pattern used by Wooten in the 1870's.  Eventually, the weight of the large firebox made a trailing truck necessary, a feature seen as early as 1889 on the Milwaukee Road's heavy passenger 4-6-2.  Vauclain received his compounding patent in 1889.  Hinkley built a four cylinder 4-4-0 in 1881 as an experiment to balance out the pounding of a traditional locomotive.  While outside valve gear wasn't in widespread use in the late part of the Century, Walschaerts was developed to its recognizable form by 1860.  Giffard patented his injector in 1858, and it was slowly being accepted in the post Civil War era as a supplement to crosshead pumps, eventually replacing them entirely.  Such a lowly, simple (yet indispensable by today's standards) item such as the water glass on the boiler was becoming more commonplace in the same timeframe... I cannot imagine firing a steamer with only tricocks.  I could go on; but I'm afraid I've been too wordy already!  :>D

Admittedly, some of the experiments were dead ends, while others were the foundation for what eventually became the building blocks of the modern steam locomotives that we all know and love.  No doubt, the basic slide valve, Stephenson valve gear, narrow firebox 4-4-0 was ubiquitous from before the Civil War up to the turn of the Century - but the American Standard was far from the only wheel arrangement in use, and the (design) engineers of that era were doing their best to build locomotives with more power and greater economy, just as their later counterparts would do with superpower locomotives.

That being said, although I have a weakness for early steam, I do share your enthusiasm for the sight and sound of superpower steam at work!  I certainly enjoyed your recollections of seeing (and riding) steam in revenue service... hope to hear more stories if you have them.

Bluelinec4 - The J1 ought to be really great.  Fantastic engine.  I would like to have one but am running out of shelf space.  I hope you post pictures when you get it. 

smd4 - I realize there was innovation from the beginning of the railroad era (locomotives were an innovation themselves, way, way back . . . ) and that, in a way, is what I'm focusing on when I say they didn't have to engineer.    But again, I'm struck by the similarity of the LFT and 999.  Side by side they look the same, although the LFT really looks S gauge in size.  999 had lots of improvements, too, no doubt, all incremental and progressive and innovative.  But "engineering" in the 19th century was mostly intuitive and often trial and error (not that that isn't always needed) - make it bigger, substitute a better idea, and it was better. 

     By the early 20th century, most of the innovative ideas had been worked it, and size was at its limits.  It was guys like Nigel Gresley, Andre Chapelon (and their American counterparts who were just as good but who achieved far less celebrity) who made big steam really continue to grow, by really having to work the numbers.  Gresley was among the first to try to engineer for the intertia of the steam and his innovative valving, etc.  Some of his engineering calculations covered dozens and dozens of detailed pages.  Chapelon was trying, in an era when a good slide-rule was an item most engineers could not possibly afford, to handle hydrodynamic forces that require modern computing to fully understand, but he got results that were outstanding.  American engineers used gobs of labor and lots of effort to achieve even better results in some cases - not real new ideas - just optimizing the engineer of what work best, to the very best.  I admit diesels are better in every way, but I love the big steam locos from this era, along with the gas turbine locos that were such a wonderful if mostly failed experiment, best of all locos, from all eras.

Lee, you're simply wrong. Developments in 19th century steam weren't just accomplished by a bunch of shade-tree mechanics tinkering with their "hot rod" until something worked. There are scores of textbooks filled with enough formulae to kill a horse from back in the day.

So while (shockingly) the only difference you see between the 999 and the LFT is size, I assure you it goes far deeper than that.

Lee

I got the shipping confirm today   Will post pics

Lee,

I don't mean to hijack this thread but, as we returned last week from a fantastic road trip to Cherokee IA, we drove through Trinidad on our way to Santa Fe before turning home to LA. I can (almost) imagine what it must have been like grinding up that hill. Thanks for painting the picture so vividly.

Yeah, Trinidad and Raton in fact all of southern Colorado and northern New Mexico, is a fantastic place, mountains, big sky, with some really good railroad history and excursion rides. 

I am talking about locomotives of the 1930s and 1940s.

I like the mountain,northern and the berkshire.I also like the gp9 and 7 which I saw as a kid.SCL would sometimes have as many as 6 to 7 pulling a long train.

I remember watching captain kangaroo and seeing a up steam locomotive pulling a train.It was up 4-12-2 they had a song playing with it.Albert Hammon I a train song.As far as smoke goes It up to you.The thing is to have fun.

Not always... 

Foaming water, bad coal, bad firing, even a bad engineer, all could bring the most powerful steam locomotive to its knees.

Rusty

Oh wow I forgot the santa fe did get some locomotives from N&W.I think they had some to help them with the trains during ww2.

If you're referring to late-era real steamers, check out NKP 765. One of the cleanest stacks ever (with Rich Melvin firing).

Rich firing? I thought he just sat in the right hand seat with his handheld DCS or Legacy remote and looked pretty!

You get a gold star my friend.Because thats what I mean.There is a youtube ved of 261 runing through a town called sandwich.You have to look real hard to see the smoke.

True but at the time  you you tough it out.I read a magzine about train fireman acl.The locomotive got bad coal.They had to stop ever few miles and dump ash.The fireman said it was one trip he would like to forget.

Blueline mentions the PRR J1 2-10-4...one of the best late mdel steamers ever. Based on the Erie S series Berks, and morphed into the C&O T1 for a heritage.  Further refined by the crew at Altoona Works, with beaucoup smaller improvements. Without doubt PRR's finest ever in steam, and well able to hold up against even later competition. HUZZAH!

Once upon a time I was of the opinion all diesels were boring and steamers are the most fascinating locomotives on the planet. I have mellowed somewhat as I now think diesels later than first generation hood units are boring. There will be no further mellowing on my part towards second and later generation diesels because they all look similar - boxes on wheels!

I agree with every point you made.  I am partial to EMD F and E models, particularly in Warbonnet, and Trainmasters (well, sort of) but that is it.  Modern "square box" diesels, to me, resemble filing cabinets pretty much - and are just about as romantic to watch.

I'm with Bobby and Lee.  To me the Warbonnet on an E or F is the Mona Lisa of locos!

This is my favorite "late steamer"

And I have fond memories of "the little red car" at the end of a freight train

Not sure how early "late" can be, but here's one of my favorite steam locos.  (At least it's from the twentieth century, 1928 if I remember correctly).

I love that vedio of her doing her thing.If the 261 had been able to talk it might heve said"I gonna show guys that us steam can run without smoking so much."

I, too, am with Bobby and Lee...there ain't no market here for econobox diesels...

This s a great thread - Thank's Lee and you other contributors.

There is hardly a steamer I don't like but one of my top 10 certainly would be the amazing PPR T1 Duplex. I read an account years ago of one on a run from Crestview OH into Ft Wayne that was hastily put into service on a mail train after a K4 went down. They were late and the engineer and fireman figured they'd never get a shot at the T1 again so they blew threw the last 37 miles at  120+ MPH!

Yes, they received a reprimand, but what a ride...

It was said of the PRR T1 ..."if you can't get at least 120(MPH) out of her, she needs worked on"  Of the fleet of fifty two, 5500, was the ultimate hot rod with her Franklin rotary B poppet gear plus a few other little tweaks. Best looking, or perhaps most outrageous, ...the two Baldwins after being modernized around '47.  Some pretty incredible speeds were reached, and maintained on trains operating after dark out west of Crestline, Ohio.  Lima/Franklin records of this are at the Smithsonian.

Also, not all 4-4-0's were ancient history.

Baldwin Locomotive Works, class of 1927:

Superheated, piston valves, Walschaerts valve gear, 63" drivers and nary an arch bar truck to be found.

Rusty

Why do you hate Hudsons? Is it the NYC railroad in particular. 

RE:  Hudsons...there was an endless time when about four locomotives seemed to constantly be redone, and little else offered,  by Lionel (and others!) ad nauseum, and the NYC Hudson was one. It was a mystery what all the noise was about when a lot of other roads didn't own any, or the few they owned were overshadowed by much larger or more common wheel arrangements.

The Pennsy didn't own any, did it?  The Southern, the Burlington, and the Santa Fe did, but I never saw a Southern one go through in my years hanging out at a SR

station.  Of course, three rail manufacturers were in a long time rut over other wheel

arrangements (I don't think I could find a single 2-4-2, and no 2-6-4's, in the 1941 Locomotive Cyclopedia) such as Pacifics, while freight engines, Mikados and Consolidations, etc., were ignored.  That did finally change, to much rejoicing here.  The CIM 4-4-0 shown on another thread IS in the LC.

Generally, I pretty much like whatever fits a given point in time and space.  Old West?  CP Jupiter, UP #119, Sierra #3, V&T Tahoe and J.W. Bowker.  Interwar Continental Europe?  Nord 231E, Ex-K.Bay.Sts.B S 3/6, BBÖ 310.  Victorian England?  GNR Stirling, MR Spinner, LBSCR Gladstone, GWR Iron Duke.  1930s-40s Northeast US?  PRR K4 and T1, NYC J1e/J3a Hudson (streamlining optional).  Japan? 8620, D51, and C62.

Of course, these lists are largely incomplete, and omits diesels and electrics, but it's an attempt to give you an idea of where I am coming from.  I admit I do tend to lean towards the more well-known or the oddities, but ultimately it's very difficult to pinpoint just one locale and/or time period.  That's why whatever I model in one scale, I want to try to avoid duplicating in another (though I might make an exception for the European trains, as what I want is split across O and HO/OO scales).

Aaron

depends where and when you're filming.  i ran a coal fired locomotive a few weeks ago in SoCal with some good Pensy coal for fuel, in 80° weather, and i agree, the majority of the time it was hard to see more than a wisp of smoke blasting out.  but move that same locomotive to a Riverside winter morning in the low 40's, and you'll see a much different stack output.  of course it's technically condensed steam and not smoke, but it's still a sight to enjoy.

cheers...gary

Nothing better than a steamer. Just picked my new MTH Pennsy J1 from Dave at Mercer Junction. Great price for the set, locomotive and tender, five box cars from the early 40s, and a caboose. Enjoy the video, Proto 3 quillable whistle sounds perfect and LED headlight is bright.

PaPaT