Chicago, Milwaukee, and Dakota 440 Class 4-6-2

The Chicago, Milwaukee, and Dakota was not a particularly notable railroad in its early days. It's route was not as direct and profitable as those of the Milwaukee Road, Chicago & Northwestern, or the Burlington. However, the railroad did serve Milwaukee, Madison, La Crosse, and Rochester all on one Chicago- Twin Cities line. Which meant that those lines were able to give them just enough profit.

However, a big game changer for them arrived in 1906. At that time, railroad Baron James J. Hill was looking for a way to get his Great Northern Railroad into Chicago. However, when he considered the Burlington, that was vetoed on the grounds of lack of possible profit. As such, Hill turned to the CM&D instead. This meant that one of the major services for the CM&D would be shuttling the Great Northern and Northern Pacific trains like the Empire Builder and North Coast Limited to Chicago from the Twin Cities.

To this end, the CM&D immediately ordered several new pacifics to operate the services on their territory. Inspired by the ATSF Class 1337 Pacific, the first were built by Baldwin in 1910, with four more arriving in 1912. The Pacifics served the CM&D's own Chicago-Twin Cities Dairyland service, but also the Chicago portions of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific's passenger trains. Each locomotive was painted jet black, with silver smokeboxes and yellow striping down the cab and tender, matching the 8 green-yellow striped Pullmans that made up the train. In 1940, all four pacifics were repainted into the standard MDRR Drab-and-Decor paint scheme, minus the red wheels, following replacement by larger Pacific types from the Southern Pacific.

In 1924, the CM&D christened their reach into Omaha by purchasing the Illinois Central's Omaha Division and its branches to Madison, Souix City, and Bloomington. Which lead to the Pacifics being placed on such services as The Land O'Corn to Omaha. But after the Great Northern purchased the CM&D as part of the revised Ripley plan, they found themselves on less and lesser trains. Namely as first 8-coupled steamers then diesel took over passenger services.

The last engines of the class were retired in 1953 as the Great Northern replaced them with their own 4-8-2s on the Chicago-Omaha Land O'Corn. However a few have managed to survive to this day. The most notable of them being 446, who is now preserved at the Union Pacific's former C&NW roundhouse in Madison, WI. Alongside several other steam engines like the C&NW 4-8-4 3013 for the Milwaukee Road Hudson 102.
 
I think a 4-10-6 would be more likely for the C&O. The 2-10-4s were getting worn out at a tremendous rate. At least the frames were. They were not cost as on piece but were assambled and after many years of hard work they were significantly having issues. But the C&O still had need of something like them. The only real use of a 2-6-6-6 on the Ohio route was realy the bridge over the Ohio. So if you could somehow decrease the grade on the southern approach you easily make an engine like a 4-10-6 work. Basically a bit longer boiler to accommodate a bigger combustion chamber and obviously a bigger firebox. To allow a bit of increase in tonnage while sustaining a higher speed and turn that route into a true conveyor belt.
A 4-8-6 is not going to do much that the J3(a) class 4-8-4s could not do, the only real limitation they had was in tractive effort when they see at high speed in the extreme mountains such as between Hinton and Clifton Forge. So the typical advantage of a 6 trailing night truck is a larger firebox. But with the boiler you typically get on a 4-8-4 you don’t need a larger firebox. So you would end up increasing the boiler and combustion chamber a bit as well. The downside is that a 4-8-6 is going to be a bit slippery, in order to take advantage of the increased size of the boiler/ combustion chamber/firebox combos that would need the extra two shells you will have to dump more power into the cylinders as you will be producing more steam. And with more steam/power but with the same basic weight on the driving wheels you get an engine that is a bit more slippery. And the increased size and the resulting weight will pretty much be absorbed by the additional wheel set.
That is the problem with the last generation of steam the so called super power locomotives and thier contemporaries. These engines were the end of a long line of advancement and invention and came about at the time that those designing steam engines had gone from an art form and turn it into very advanced science and then in general worked out most of the issues. So there was little room for improvements. We are talking refinement vs innovation or advancement. So it took a lot for relatively little improvement.
You may have adventualy seen a 4-8-6 but if it was on the C&O it would only have shown up when the 4-8-4 was in need of replacement as it would not have been enough of an improvement over the 4-8-4. Perhaps some other railroads with different coal then the C&O used (or perhaps oil) could use the larger firebox that that 6 would allow. But it is not that useful or at least not enough to replace what we’re some of the best 4-8-4s ever to be built.
 
Chesapeake & Ohio T2 4-10-6

In recent times, the C&O T1 Texas types were getting worn out at a tremendous rate, mainly in the frames. They were not cost as on piece but were assembled and after many years of hard work they were significantly having issues. But the C&O still had need of something like them. The only real use of a 2-6-6-6 on the Ohio route was really the bridge over the Ohio.

Therefore, the railroad went to Lima again while the J-4 Ohio type 4-8-6 engines were built. Asking them for a locomotive that could take over the majority of duties from the T1. Lima's response was to create longer boiler to accommodate a bigger combustion chamber and obviously a bigger firebox. To accommodate for the size, several elements of the J-4 series were taken into consideration while building the T2.

The first member of the T2 type was number 3040, which rolled out of Lima on June 23, 1949. Another 30 engines of the type would come out for freight service in the Ohio area, with the final one being 3069 which rolled out in August 1952. The improved nature of the T2 allowed the C&O to relegate many T1s to less tasking lines such as the Nickel Plate Division from Cleveland to Chicago. One advance that the T2 class had was a new more powerful booster engine on the trailing truck. Like all boosters, it was only useful at low speeds but proved to be very useful in getting a train up and over the Ohio River Bridge thus allowing the T2s to to take a north bound train without the need for a pusher.

Much like the T1 and Berkshire families, the T2 was among the last steamers retired from the Chessie. Today, number 3041 is on display at Huntington, West Virginia. Whereas another, number 3056, made its way to the Museum of Transport in St Louis.

OOC: Special thanks to @DougM for mentioning the booster.
 
Last edited:
“One advance that the T2 class had was a new more powerful booster engine driving two wheel sets on the trailing truck. Like all boosters it is only of use at low speeds but proved to be very useful in getting a train up and over the Ohio River Bridge thus allowing the T2s to to take a north bound train without the need for a pusher. “
 
Locomotive: Accord class

Configuration: Dual voltage DC Co-Co

Company: Channel Tunnel Railway Company

Years of production: 1926-38, 58 built nos CC-20000 to CC-20057



Sir Edward Watkin the manager of the Great Central Railway Company had the foresight to build the Great Central line from the Midlands to London to the European loading gauge as part of his plan to build a line to Paris via a Channel Tunnel. The tunnel was started before the First World War delayed construction, post war the usefulness of a link to Europe that wasnt prone to Mines, weather and Torpedoes was recognised and a consortium of railway companies and construction companies got together with finance from the British Government to finish the tunnel. The tunnel project restarted and was due for completion in 1928.

The original plan for traction in the tunnel had been for an overhead line at 6,250v 16 2/3ds herz AC but problems were encountered with a test line pre war the overhead line equipment needed too much headroom caused several minor fires and was not compatible with Frances planned 1500v DC network. A dual voltage DC locomotive was planned 1500v overhead and 660v third rail for use on the Southern Railways third rail network.

The prototype loco was a joint venture between Dick Kerr company of Preston, British Thomson-Houston of Rugby and the French companies La Compagnie Des Lampes of Bilancourt and armaments giant Schneider of Le Creusot who were keen to get in the rail market now that armaments sales were dwindling.

The Accord class were 102 tons in weight produced 1,900hp with a maximum speed of 65mph. They were capable of taking a 1,000ton train through the tunnel at an average speed of 40mph. All even numbered locos were French owned all odd numbers British owned though in a rare example of international good sense they were all common user locos and a British crew could operate a French loco and vice versa.

In 1938 an agreement was signed that in the event of Germany invading and threatening the tunnel all the locos would be sent to Britain and the tunnels pumping system turned off to let the tunnel flood. On 22nd of May 1940 3 convoys of locos and some stock travelled through the tunnel the French tunnel entrances were dynamited and the pumps switched off. The Channel tunnel would not re open for business the damage cause by 7 years of flooding caused too much damage to repair economically. It was decided to build a new larger tunnel that would be large enough to use any likely future size locos and to use the new standard 25,000v 50Hz AC power.

The locos were extensively used by Sothern Rail on its third rail 660 volt system and the joint LMS/LNER overhead network in the North during the war the lack of a fire being very useful during the black out. Tthe French locos were bought in 1946 by the United Nations for use in France the British government accepting the scrap value for the locos. The British locos were nationalised in 1948.

CC 20003 using the third rail in BR service the pantograph can be seen folded down in the roof.
p906491011-4.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_70_(electric)

By 1960 the locos were wearing out and spares were no longer available so BR decided to withdraw the locos. One loco no 20001 is preserved at York Railway museum as a non working exhibit, another loco no 20000 is being restored from a rusty wreck by the SNCF and will be placed in the Mulhouse Railway museum.
 
Last edited:
Sir Sam Fay the manager of the Great Central Railway Company had the foresight to build the Great Central line from the Midlands to London to the European loading gauge as part of his plan to build a line to Paris via a Channel Tunnel.
I think that you have confused Sir Sam Fay with Sir Edward Watkin. Fay did not become General Manager of the Great Central Railway until 1902. This was 3 years after the London Extension was completed and 5 years after the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway changed its name.

As it happens I'm thinking about starting an Alternative British Railway Electrification thread because my posts here are really about the extra lines that were electrified rather than the motive power that worked them. It will cover the period from the early 1890s to the Grouping. The POD is going to be 28th March 1893 which IOTL was when the Act of Parliament authorising the London Extension received Royal Assent. In my TL Parliament doesn't authorise the scheme and the MSLR spends the money it used to build the London Extension IOTL on other things including the electrification of the Cheshire Lines Committee's lines around Liverpool.
 
I think that you have confused Sir Sam Fay with Sir Edward Watkin. Fay did not become General Manager of the Great Central Railway until 1902. This was 3 years after the London Extension was completed and 5 years after the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway changed its name.

Your right I forgot to check the name and went on memory. I will edit my post thanks.
 
Sounds like another engine we could hear some more history about. :p

The H1 Hudson is more or less the OTL Royal Hudson, though UP versions eventually had elephant ears like the FEFs did. They lived their lives as secondary passenger power on the UP, primarily on the Salt Lake-Portland route and in the Midwest east of Cheyenne, as the articulateds and FEFs made sure they were weren't often used on the Overland Route, though one regular route of theirs in early years was the Denver-Cheyenne runs.
 
The H1 Hudson is more or less the OTL Royal Hudson, though UP versions eventually had elephant ears like the FEFs did. They lived their lives as secondary passenger power on the UP, primarily on the Salt Lake-Portland route and in the Midwest east of Cheyenne, as the articulateds and FEFs made sure they were weren't often used on the Overland Route, though one regular route of theirs in early years was the Denver-Cheyenne runs.

What were their numbers?
 
Union Pacific FSF-3 Class 4-6-4

The Union Pacific had most of its steam-hauled passenger trains operated by the FEF series Northerns. However, that did not stop the railroad from trying other passenger motive power from time to time. The most notable examples were the 44 examples of the Canadian Pacific H1 "Royal" Hudsons built by ALCO between 1937 and 1944 as smaller passenger engines to support the 4-8-4s. However, the FSF-1 weren't often used on the Overland Route, mainly working from Ogden to the Northwest or in the Midwest. Several more Hudsons came from UP's takeover the Chicago & North Western Railroad in 1948. However, these were not widely used either, and mainly stayed on their native trackage in Wisconsin.

However, things would eventually changed in the 1950s. When in 1953, Union Pacific gave Andre Chapelon and Livio Dante Porta, now working with Lima, FEF-4 857 for them to show off their technological innovations. The end result proved to be massive improvements for the 857, then later the rest of the latter-day Union Pacific steam fleet. As such, the UP commissioned Lima's Chapelon team to create an entirely new engine.

The end result was 4-6-4 design that fused several elements of the New York Central J-4b (More on those later), and the Chesapeake & Ohio L series Hudsons. They were mostly like the later but with Scullen disk drivers and Belpaire fireboxes, then had the Poppet Valve Gear of the L series Hudsons. These engines were eventually coined "Donners" by the Union Pacific, and mainly worked on the lines out out of Salt Lake City to either the Pacific Northwest or Los Angeles, or the Central Pacific line to San Fransisco. However, these engines were also seen more often than the other Hudsons on the Overland Route. With many even being streamlined in the style of Andre Chapelon's own SNCF Hudsons for use on trains like the Challenger to Los Angeles.

Eventually, the class was retired one by one beginning in 1964. However, number 706 survives today as part of the UP Heritage Fleet. Often working on the lines from Utah to Los Angeles. Often doubleheading with FEF 844 both from there and on the Overland Route or in the Pacific Northwest.
 
Anyone have any thoughts on the C&O 4-8-6 types?

Would a similar sized simple articulated engine, like a 2-6-6-4, be in the same cost range as a rigid 4-8-6 or 4-10-6? I know the SP could only run their 4-10-2's on the straightest track, so a 4-10-6 might be finicky on the curves. A 4-8-6 would be a darn powerful passenger engine, but I'd personally rather see Lima put their efforts into Chapelon's thermal efficiency ideas than just brute power.
 
Would a similar sized simple articulated engine, like a 2-6-6-4, be in the same cost range as a rigid 4-8-6 or 4-10-6? I know the SP could only run their 4-10-2's on the straightest track, so a 4-10-6 might be finicky on the curves. A 4-8-6 would be a darn powerful passenger engine, but I'd personally rather see Lima put their efforts into Chapelon's thermal efficiency ideas than just brute power.

I think the track on the Ohio C&O line would fit a 4-10-6 if it could take a 2-10-4.

Also, I actually have thought of all the roads going to Lima to get Chapelon and Porta's thermal improvements as time goes on. Though I'm not going to remove the 4-8-6 since that was actually proposed.
 
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.

Not sure that would happen. After all, the steam is far more labor heavy, especially if you're going to add so many gadgets and parts.
 
In general am articulated loco costs more then an equivalent non articulated as the articulation adds to the expense. So you only get articulated engines when you can’t handle the non articulated equivalent.

As for the 4-8-6 idea. Well thier was a number of various proposals floating around. In fact the 2-6-6-6 started l8ke as a slide ruled 2-10-4 to 2-12-6 but it was so big that it was not practical so the split it in half.
The reason for the 6 was that an engine that big at any reasonable speed needs a LOT of steam and thus you need a realy big firebox.

The problem with putting a six on the back of almost anything else is that any boiler much smaller then the Hugh monstrosity on the H8s is not big enough to need a 6 truck holding up the firebox. So you end up taking weight off the drivers and that costs you tractive effort.

You probably can justify it with a X-10-6 by adding a bit bigger firebox and a bit larger combustion chamber but on an x-8-6 you just don’t need the added boiler. If you need the extra boiler then you will want the extra driver as well.
Now this holds true for the most common types of coal like that used by the C&O but you may be able to take advantage of the larger firebox if you use different coal. But my knowledge is (mostly) about the C&O and it immediate neighbors.
 
This is something I found here: https://www.deviantart.com/simonlmoore/art/BR-Standard-Class-10F-434139538

British Railways Standard 10F 2-10-0

Born of the wrangling surrounding the British Railways modernisation plan of 1955 and the subsequent limiting of British Transport Commission spending in 1959. Robert Riddles managed to secure funding to further develop his finest machine, the 9F freight locomotive already seen to be extremely effective in service arguing that it would be a relatively cheap endeavour given the basic design was already in existence. The first locomotive was in fact altered to the 10F specification, the frames having already been assembled for a member of the 9F class.

Riddles took the opportunity to incorporate as many modern features as possible, convinced, if any, this design might survive the modernisation plan's aim to electrify much of the network and replace steam with diesel on non-electrified lines. The initial locomotive number 93000 emerged from Swindon works in late 1959 and was immediately put under trial to assess it's capabilities, there were a few minor teething troubles with the design but results were promising and with some fine tuning the locomotive was soon putting in performances which would leave its parent class far behind.

The design itself played to the strengths of the 9F, solid construction, having the same wheel diameter and cylinder dimensions, the wheels themselves were of an extant design though not previously applied to the standards, an improved Bullied Firth Brown pattern reducing weight and thus wear on the track. Roller bearings were fitted as standard and the motion drew on American practice being light weight and well balanced to make the already surprising speeds attained by the 9Fs that bit smoother and more sustainable for the 10F. Valve gear consisted of somewhat modified Caprotti valve gear, proven in earlier experiments.

The boiler came in for some modification too with increased super-heating from 35 to 40 elements. The firebox was provided with a gas producer combustion system and twin lempor exhausts following the principles of L. D. Porta. Given experience with the rebuilt Bulleid Pacifics Riddles also made the decision to include thermic siphons to improve steam raising and, he hoped, further increase the locomotives peak horsepower.

The design proved immensely successful in service on heavy and fast freight work and some relief passenger expresses where some remarkable performances were recorded including record breaking express runs on the former Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway with temporary transfers to assess the locomotive's performance on this taxing route.

The success of the design lead to the rebuilding of newer 9Fs throughout the 1960s. As well as improvements of many other effective standard types like the 5MT 4-6-0. The 10Fs were very well suited to the developing fast long-distance freight work which BR was trying to expand and this coupled with their relative efficiency and ability to burn lower grade coal with little loss in performance won them a reprieve.
 
Top