I'm loving this thread!

So would all of the UP steam rebuilds see similar gains to the Red Devil? A Big Boy with a with Class 26 rebuild would add 40% more horsepower totaling to 8800HP! With the UP having about 250-300 of the most powerful and efficient steam locomotives how is system wide dieselization still possible or even economically justifiable?

With the other roads noticing the UP's success in rebuild programs, most experimental high horsepower diesel or gas turbine locomotives would likely never make it off the drawing boards.

Sadly, diesels will still have major advantages. For one thing, if you need it, you just turn it on, and a few minutes later, it's ready. It needs less maintenance, and each extra locomotive needs a full crew. Water is needed at relatively short intervals, too.

Steam could still stay viable longer; my Great North Central is running about 50% steam in the present day.
 
The exact details of the Great North Central's unusual locomotives will be written later, when I have more reference material. Said reference material is the N gauge donor mechanisms that will be made into the Great North Central's motive power.
 
I totally agree with the usefulness of quick starting diesel's, road switchers would most certainly replace anything smaller than a 4-6-4. However, if several hundred coal burners are getting the Chapelon/Porta treatment in the 50s then I think it would be logical for steam engines to continue developing equally alongside Diesels and Electrics; which is also what the major steam builders were hoping for after the war. With the rebuilds in the 50s, you're only a few steps away from an ACE 3000 type with automated boiler control, condenser and MU capability.
 
Anyone have any thoughts on my Beyer Peacock T1? Or Pennsylvania Railroad R3?

Both of your locomotives are sound and reasonable; neither designs are too revolutionary or alternative for the real world since they’re built upon proven concepts.

I suppose something like the R3 never got built because the PRR spent most of there effort and cash on electrifying?
 
I totally agree with the usefulness of quick starting diesel's, road switchers would most certainly replace anything smaller than a 4-6-4. However, if several hundred coal burners are getting the Chapelon/Porta treatment in the 50s then I think it would be logical for steam engines to continue developing equally alongside Diesels and Electrics; which is also what the major steam builders were hoping for after the war. With the rebuilds in the 50s, you're only a few steps away from an ACE 3000 type with automated boiler control, condenser and MU capability.

The main thing that did in team locomotives was never pollution (they didn't give a poop about that in the 1950s) or fuel efficiency, it was maintenance costs and crew costs. Diesels can easily be operated by one person, whereas steam engines always require at least two, and steam engines require far more maintenance - many, many shops were eliminated with steam giving way to diesel because it wasn't needed. The question of whether steam could reduce maintenance demands to such a degree that the power potential of them on level track could be realized - the nature of diesel-electrics means that steam will never be able to keep diesels away from mountainous roads, regardless of how big the loads are - is an open question, one to this day never completely realized.
 
With porter water treatment, high insulation boilers and systems a steam locomotive can with a small immersion heater keep boiler temperature up between shifts. Not as fast as a diesel to start but not slow either. If your Canadians are going the Chapelon/Porta/Wardale route of steam development then by the late 190's you could well see oil fired steam locomotives not only with one crew only but you could see paired oil fired locos with only one crew the slave having electro mechanical remote control and auto control. where there is a will there is a way! Technically it is possible for some modern steamers to be less polluting than diesels (depending on fuel used). IIRC some of the Swiss mountain railways have data on this.
 
I suppose something like the R3 never got built because the PRR spent most of there effort and cash on electrifying?

That, and the surplus of steam engines because of the electrification.

But ITTL, they realize that just doubleheading K4s would be too costly, and create first the R3 then the S1 and T1 Duplexes (The former is eventually given to the Americas Rail Museum that @TheMann created then I innovated). That said, the K4s are still common place on slower passenger trains and mail trains. As are their Roanoke successors the K6.
 
Locomotive: Steam 9MT mixed traffic express goods

Configuration: 4-8-2

Company: British Railways


Years of production: 1951 to 1954

British Rail wanted to revolutionise its non mineral freight traffic to fight off the loss of traffic to road haulage and decided to standardise on container traffic. The CONDOR service was launched in 1950 running between London and Glasgow overnight. Initially powered by an ex LMS Black Five 4-6-0 the growing success of the service meant the 4-6-0 didnt have the power to make a 400 mile journey in the booked 10 hours. Double heading was required most nights and a change of locos at Preston which was expensive.

Robert Riddles British Railways chief mechanical engineer was tasked with designing a Mixed Traffic locomotive able to keep up a 40 mph average and 75 mph maximum with a 1,000 ton load, this required a Loco capable of producing up to 2,000 drawbar horse power consistently and reliably. Riddles took inspiration from the best big four designs, the frames and Delta truck, from the ex LMS Princess Coronation class 4-6-2. From the ex LNER A4 class 4-6-2 he took the 3 cylinder engine and corridor tender. From the ex SR Bulleid Merchant Navy Pacifics he took the boiler, firebox, wheel design and LeMaitre chimney, from the ex GWR 4-6-0s he took the front bogie. From this mix of components plus a new design of Caprotti poppet valve gear produced by Heenan and Froude he produced a 4-8-2 the first ever on British metals capable of running non stop between London and Glasgow.

The loco was not a success from the start and needed 6 months of tweaking to get the valve settings right, the smoke box draughtingand the dampers right for the firebox. When all the tweaks were done the big locos started to pull bigger and bigger CONDOR loads the peak performance was shown when 90005 stormed Shap Fell with the biggest load of containers possible and crested the summit at 46mph producing 3,050 drawbar hp.

55 locos were built in 3 batches at Crewe works between 1951 and 1954 the final batch of 10 were Oil fired, had bigger valves and steam passages and had bigger than standard 5' 8" drivers allowing them to easily reach 90mph, there rumours of runs at 100mph on the East coast line at the famous Stoke Bank.
 
Locomotive: DC Electric freight

Configuration: 2-6-0+0-6-2 rod drive (1C,C1)

Company: Lancashire and Yorkshire


Years of production: 1910 to 1916

The L&YR company had a problem its huge export coal traffic to Goole on the east coast and liverpool on the west coast was congesting the lines and forcing faster non mineral freight and passenger traffic to slow down, divert and run late.

The L&YR had been the first company to electrify a main line in Britain installing a 3rd rail 600 volt system on the congested Liverpool Exchange to Southport Chapel Street line in 1904. The passenger traffic boomed and services were sped up and increased at the same time allowing more train movements on the lines running freight into and out of Liverpool docks.

It was decided in 1906 to electrify the Bury to Liverpool line which carried vast coal tonnage from the mines of Bury, Bolton, Wigan and Rainford plus all the L&YRs Trans Pennine passenger traffic. The enginers already knew the 3rd rail system and how to build power stations and power supply but decided the 3rd rail system while cheap wasnt capable of transmitting the power needed for heavy mineral trains on the steep banks. A small overhead line system was trialled in the goods yard at Aintree and the Walton to Maghull line. After a years trial it was decided an overhead 1500 volt DC system was the best using technology from the US and Europe.

Two prototype locos were built one by the Dick Kerr company of Preston and one by the Thomson Houston company of Rugby. Both used different electric systems the Dick Kerr using its own electrics and Thomson Houston using Westinghouse equipment. Trials between Liverpool and Maghull showed the Dick Kerr loco had the best running gear and the Thomson Houston the best pantographs and controls. The L&YR started building the new locos at its Horwich works combining the best of both trials locos.

The locos had pony trucks front and rear with the six driving wheels per bogie connected by driving rods and powered by 2 nose mounted fan cooled traction motors. Driving cabs were fitted at each end unlike the prototypes which had central steeple cabs. At one end of the loco there was a small spark ignition semi diesel engine and generator to provide power to move the loco when not under the wires. Power was rated at 2,000 ehp continuous for 60 minutes (or 1,500 ehp with no restriction) twice the power of the normal 0-8-0 steam engine and new coal wagons with oil fed bearings, continuous vacuum brakes and stronger couplings to allow the full power to be utilised had to be built.

Construction was slowed and then halted by the war and only 86 of the proposed 120 were ever built. Plans to build another batch post war were postponed by a lack of money and a drop in mineral traffic. When the L&YR became part of the LMS in 1922 the time and traffic were right to build more locos of an improved enlarged axle mounted traction motor CoCo design but the LMS was dominated by ex Midland company men who didnt believe in electric or big engines plus the whole Bury to Liverpool line needed money spending on it and the new design was dropped. The Bury Liverpool electric line struggled on till 1931 but the big depression meant it was cheaper to rip out the overhead and sell the power stations to local authorities for civil and commercial generation.

The oldest locos were scrapped but the locos in the best condition were bought by the Dutch Railways in 1936 and used on the main Rotterdam Amsterdam line pulling freight and commuter traffic.
 
The C&O J-4 4-8-6 Ohio Type

When the C&O ordered the turbines for The Chessie in 1948, they also ordered three additional locomotives, the J-4 4-8-6 engines, from Lima as a contingency backup, should the turbines prove not to live up to Baldwin's and Westinghouse's promises.

The J-4 was based on the J-3a Lima had built concurrently. But it had a firebox the size of an Alleghany 2-6-6-6 for more power, with the 6-wheel trailer truck. Also fitted was boiler similar in size to the original J-3s, whose boiler were essentially the same as on the T1 2-10-4s. Also based on the T1 was the larger tender than the J-3 or J-3a used. Lastly, the entire thing was topped of with use of roller bearings and Franklin Rottary Cam Poppet Valves like those on the L series Hudsons.

The end result was the ultimate in Lima knowledge and design: a T-1 boiler with an Allegheny firebox, sitting on a 74" drivered 4-8-6 chassis, pulling a T-1 size tender. The engine weighed about the same as the T-1, but taller, because of the higher drivers, about 17' 0". The locomotives were coined "Ohios" after the river the C&O runs adjacent to the railroad in Kentucky.

As we now know, the turbines were not a success, but the Ohios were, even if not exceptionally better than the Greenbrier. Still, the Railway very quickly ordered three more J-4s later in 1948, with the total being numbered 615-620. Also built was a version called the J-4a, with streamlined shrouds very like those on the L-1 Hudsons and numbered 621-624. These engines, the J-4a's in particular, are the ones that made The Chessie, the C&O's new Chicago-Washington DC streamliner, the huge success that it eventually became.

In addition, Lima created their own demonstrator. Which was different from the C&O J-4 in that it had a double belpaire firebox, which the C&O had decided against in their initial orders. But upon seeing the improvements the belpaire provided. No one on the C&O board of directions could resist. As such, several were purchased by the railroad, classified as J-4b, and numbered 625-650. Built in 1956, the J-4b would be the last steam engine type built for use by the C&O.

These 4-8-6 steamers would be among the last C&O steam engines to run. As almost all were still running until steam finally ended. Whereas the only other wheel arrangement still used prominently at the time they were removed were the T-1s, and the numerous 2-8-4s of both the C&O and the lines it absorbed; namely the Nickel Plate and Pere Marquette. Both types were the main source of heavy freights near the end of C&O steam operations. Whereas the Ohios, despite having mostly been bumped from passenger service by diesels, still occasionally appeared.

Surprisingly, one of all three subclasses are preserved. Most famously though, J-4 619, the next to last member of the original J-4 order, has been operated heavily across the C&O on public and employee excursions. Even appearing alongside Nickel Plate 765 and Pere Marquette 1225, both 2-8-4s the C&O acquired with their lines, on excursions in 1991 for the NRHS Convention at Huntington, WV.
 
Last edited:
Canadian Pacific Y1/Y1A 4-6-6-4 "Challenger

The most powerful locomotives ever rostered by Canadian Pacific and topped in Canada only by the behemoth V-1-a Garratts of the Canadian National (and the Garratts had nothing like the Challengers speed potential), the CPR Challengers were created as a result of a desire by CPR to speed up its freight operations primarily on its very busy Vancouver-Calgary-Swift Current and Winnipeg-Thunder Bay main lines, where despite double tracking and every advancement available congestion was proving a major problem. But while CNR developed and built hundreds of 4-8-2s and 4-8-4s to do this, CPR took a different route, both working up its 2-8-2s and massive 2-10-4 Selkirks to handle the load. By 1929, However, it was obvious that even this effort wasn't nearly enough - and despite the Great Depression's onset (which dramatically reduced train traffic across the country), CPR management felt that the crisis would indeed soon pass and that they should continue working on a solution to their traffic issues. But as the crisis hit hard and Canada's economic situation worsened dramatically, by 1932 there was talk of a merger between the two rivals. Fate was to have other plans though....

The elections of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the United States and Thomas Crerar and William Lyon Mackenzie King in Canada a month apart in the spring of 1933 changed everything. Both had been elected on sweeping social reforms and economic improvement by using government funds to jumpstart private demand in the economy, and both countries recognized a need for the other to prosper as well. When Ottawa heard of CPR's trying to figure out its future, they quickly got help to CPR, and a deal was struck by the company to join the program between the Union Pacific and Alco for the same sort of locomotive - the Union Pacific's congested Overland Route faced many of the same problems CPR faced. The first two engines, one for each railroad, rolled out of the Alco plant in Schenectady, New York, in September 1933.

CPR management skepticism didn't last long as the "Challenger" type locomotive could operate at speeds of up to 80 mph, haul heavy trains and was fairly easy to maintain and was able to run on even very low-quality coal. In short, it was exactly what the CPR was looking for. UP felt exactly the same, and the two firms discovered through the process that many of the designs and processes of the other could be highly useful to them. On June 26, 1934, the two companies, Alco and it's Canadian subsidiary in Montreal Locomotive Works announced that not only had the Challenger proved itself, but that the two railroads had ordered 265 of them - 140 to UP, 125 to CP - and that the two railroads had set up a series of technical agreements between them. For UP, the greatest prize was the Western Electric cab signal system CP had developed in the 1920s, while CP really admired UP's standardized maintenance record systems and their diesel-powered streamliner designs. The agreements did much for both companies, and the previous thoughts of being absorbed by Canadian National Railways disappeared with the Challenger.

All 125 locomotives were delivered to CPR between 1934 and 1939, and they didn't stop there for co-ordination. CPR never bought the Big Boy (though they did consider it), but the mighty UP 9000-series 4-12-2s did see units built for CPR by Alco and MLW, which did join the Selkirks in the Rockies, and 25 FEF-3 class 4-8-4s were built during WWII for CPR, while 44 examples of the CPR H1 Hudson were built for the UP between 1937 and 1944 as smaller passenger engines for support UP's huge fleet of 4-8-4s.

CPR's fleet of Challengers did it all in their lives from freight drags to the flagship Dominion passenger train and everything in between. Operating primarily in Western Canada and Ontario, they carried the company on their back from 1933 until the last one was retired in 1959. Unsurprisingly for such a legend among the history-conscious CPR, no less than twelve units were preserved, with unit 6500 never leaving the roster of CPR - it was stored by the company for excursions and special events - and unit 6551, placed on display in Revelstoke, British Columbia in 1962, was restored by CPR and the Province of British Columbia in 1985 for operation during Expo 86 in Vancouver.
 
According to articles at the time of the ACE2000 studies conducted using C&O 614 (a 4-8-4) conducted mostly in the New River area of WV (I believe the main article was in Trains Magazine) the numbers indicated at the time that the savings in fuel if the railroads went back to Coal from Diesel was greater (even when adjusted for inflation) then when the railroads left coal for. Diesel. But still no one jumped. Why? Because of maintenance costs. And that was before the government went off the deal end with boiler inspections like they have in the last few decades. So the problem is was the cost to maintain them.

As for the C&O T1. Your going to have a very hard time keeping them in operation. They were built with an assembled frame not a so,I’d casting and as such they were staring to have huge problems in the early 40s. To the point of needing major repairs. So you would need to most likely replace the frames with new cast frames preferably with integral tanks. Not inexpensive. As for the Idea of a follow on to the T-1 2-10-4 the C&O did that. The designed a 2-12-6 but for various reasons that was impossible so the broke it in half and built it as the H-8. 2-6-6-6.
Now if you want a powerful passage engine put a 4 wheel leading truck on an H-8 for an 4-6-6-6. But there is no practical reason for and Allegheny size firebox on an 8 coupled engine with only two cylinders. You would produce more heat then you need to create the steam that you can use in the two cylinders. This is made worse but the increased size of the combustion chamber eating into the boiler that would fit on an engine the size of a 4-8-6. The firebox of The Allegheny is large enough to feed the 4 cylinders at speed or the 4 cylinders and a booster engine at low speed. But the C&O never added the booster as the never needed the extra power. Now I have heard that there was some talk of streatching the 2-6-6-6 to a 2-8-8-6 but the Allegheny already was arguably the heaviest steam locomotive ever and making out longer then the Big Boy by a good amount was not going to come lightly. And the C&O had to rebuild tunnels and bridges and such to fit the H-8.

Actually size is a huge issue with the last “super powered” giant steam engines. The large engines such as the T-1 Texas and the Allegheny and Big Boys were close to max practical size. Anything bigger would require huge amounts of rebuilding of tunnels and bridges and such. It also could result in needing new passenger cars. As if you build wider engines then any raised platform has to be pushed back to clear the wider engine then any car (such as a passenger car) that needs to be close to the platform has to get wider. So this starts to snowball. But really the height and width was getting to be close to max unless you widen the track spacing you only have 4’- 8.5” and a 17’ tall engine weighing around a million pounds is getting a bit extreme.

So as much as I absolutely LOVE the big steam engines and I do love them having gone to see the Allegheny many times and rode behind 765 and 1225 and even ran 765 I am afraid (And saddened to say) that there was some very valid reasons Steam went away. If you want steam to stay around you need to make labor a LOT cheaper. And maybe go with a 5’ gauge track or something.

I am afraid that steam engines like Airships were just the victims of advancing technology that made them uneconomical.
 
All 125 locomotives were delivered to CPR between 1934 and 1939, and they didn't stop there for co-ordination. CPR never bought the Big Boy (though they did consider it), but the mighty UP 9000-series 4-12-2s did see units built for CPR by Alco and MLW, which did join the Selkirks in the Rockies, and 25 FEF-3 class 4-8-4s were built during WWII for CPR, while 44 examples of the CPR H1 Hudson were built for the UP between 1937 and 1944 as smaller passenger engines for support UP's huge fleet of 4-8-4s.

If you don't mind, I may incorporate that should I never my TL for sure.
 
If you don't mind, I may incorporate that should I never my TL for sure.

No problem with me. :) In that TL the Canadian railroads are mighty powerful enterprises - CPR's founders were the same guys who built the Hill railroads (GN, NP, CB&Q, SP&S) and CPR consequently held a sizable stake in them right through to the present day, including in that TL facilitating the foundation of Burlington Northern. CN in that Universe is like Petro-Canada and the various provincial power companies in being huge benefactors both of Canadian business and the people who worked for them, and as such they worked for maximum benefit to the people they serve, not just short-term profit - hence in that TL they operate a road/rail/ship service to deliver containers to Nunavut, the Newfoundland Railway was rebuilt as standard gauge and CN both operates it and ferries to connect it to the rest of Canada, a ferry to Vancouver Island (until the bridge built to it in that TL is completed), huge locomotive and car shops, a huge laboratory complex for improving railroad technology, a sizable ocean shipping network and a huge container business and trucking lines to support the trains, as well as thousands of miles of lines in the United States as well as all across Canada.
 
Top