@TheMann

Going off your critiques of my prior map, this was my idea for what the Denver Gauge network would look like by 1972. NOTE: The RGS between Dolores and Vance Jct. was abandoned in 1951 like OTL, and I have considered the conversion of Alamosa to Antonito to complete Std. Gauge either happening in the 1980s or not happening at all, but with the Denver Gauge track only being used to shuttle some Denver Gauge equipment that needs heavier maintenance to Alamosa, albeit with most maintenance being in Durango.
denver_rio_grande_gauge_conversion_by_1975_by_mrbill6ishere_dgvbnl2-pre.jpg
 
^ The Marshall Pass route can't survive in any form if the Tennessee Pass route does, the route is too high (nearly 11,000 ft) and the terrain too nasty to build a standard gauge route to. (The local soil along the route is mostly clay and sandy as well, which makes matters even worse.) It's just better to have the Delta-Montrose-Gunnison-Crested Butte line be a branch off of the main at Grand Junction.

This setup takes you basically back to OTL, but while you could make the 3'6" track gauge section work from an operational point of view the break of gauge is a headache. You'll need a facility in Antonito or Alamosa that can deal with the rapid loading and unloading of cars into standard gauge ones, and you won't be making money on this route post-1950 with steam power - you'll need diesels here ASAP, as the routes are too steep (4% grades aren't uncommon on the D&RGW narrow gauge routes) for steam power to remain effective. Make diesel power work and improve the mainline for heavier trains and you can make the lines survive, though it won't be easy unless you can make for new customers in Southern Colorado beyond the lumber mills and the oil and gas exports from around Farmington.
 
^ The Marshall Pass route can't survive in any form if the Tennessee Pass route does, the route is too high (nearly 11,000 ft) and the terrain too nasty to build a standard gauge route to. (The local soil along the route is mostly clay and sandy as well, which makes matters even worse.) It's just better to have the Delta-Montrose-Gunnison-Crested Butte line be a branch off of the main at Grand Junction.
Fair enough. Perhaps the Marshall Pass line could become a rail trail in TTL?
This setup takes you basically back to OTL, but while you could make the 3'6" track gauge section work from an operational point of view the break of gauge is a headache. You'll need a facility in Antonito or Alamosa that can deal with the rapid loading and unloading of cars into standard gauge ones, and you won't be making money on this route post-1950 with steam power - you'll need diesels here ASAP, as the routes are too steep (4% grades aren't uncommon on the D&RGW narrow gauge routes) for steam power to remain effective. Make diesel power work and improve the mainline for heavier trains and you can make the lines survive, though it won't be easy unless you can make for new customers in Southern Colorado beyond the lumber mills and the oil and gas exports from around Farmington.
I basically had the idea to adapt the recommendations you gave me in that Misc. Railway Ideas DM.

The Denver Gauge starts using diesels similar to those GE built in OTL for South Africa in the mid-1950s with regular steam being gone by the mid 1960s (albeit still a while after standard gauge steam disappeared from the Rio Grande), a major facility for transfering loads between the two gauges at Antonito being constructed in the 1950s and upgraded in the 1970s, and Alamosa being the secondary maintenance facility for the narrow gauge fleet with Durango as the main facility.

That said, a fair number of Rio Grande Mikadoes and ten-coupled steamers survive, and several of them would be used in fantrips across the system.

The result is a map like this:

Does this work well enough? Or are there still some embellishments you'd recommend?
 
That's a pretty good setup. 👍 The Gunnison-Crested Butte line relies on the production from mines in the region, but if those are running that line makes sense.
 
@TheMann FWIW I was thinking that the Crested Butte branch would be shed off the Rio Grande system by the mid-1970s, but by then it's become a lucrative venture for tourists, and it leads to a diesel-powered excursion service.

Another possibility I considered for TTL is that the Rio Grande's Denver Gauge steam fleet, the largest steam excursion fleet of any North American railroad, is mostly dedicated to authentic D&RGW stock. Whereas the TTL Rio Grande Southern Scenic and Durango & Silverton are a more generalized celebration of 3' 6'' heritage. That said, the D&S still runs their South African 15F and South Australia 400 all the way to Chama on several occasions, with the JNR C62 remaning mostly on the D&S.

My vision was that the Rio Grande, in collaboration with volunteers and its allies on the Colorado Tourism Board, maintain up to 22 steam locomotives, but the majority of them are stored servicable to save money, and also so that they can fill in for currently running class members at short notice or when it's time for an overhaul. For example, K-37 #493 may be one of the engines running over Cumbres Pass right now - often doubleheading with one of her sisters, one of the operable K-36s from Durango, or the V-52 Garratt #530, but when it's FRA-mandated overhaul comes #491 will take its place for the time being.
 
@TheMann going back to actual locomotives and not railroads that run them, how early would a hydrogen-powered locomotive be viable?

 
@TheMann going back to actual locomotives and not railroads that run them, how early would a hydrogen-powered locomotive be viable?

Depends on how soon you can make hydrogen viable as a major fuel source. Liquid hydrogen would be an ideal fuel for a turbine locomotive (which would find it easier to use than a reciprocating engine as fuel injection systems even now don't have the ability to use liquid hydrogen as effectively as a turbine does, and unlike a diesel which runs on compression-ignition principles, a hydrogen-fueled locomotive would need a spark-ignition system), but while the idea makes a lot of sense it really does depend on how soon you can make the fuel available. Fuel cells as possible but somewhat later, but not before the late 1990s or early 21st Century. If you want to get as far ahead as possible you need to make 'green' or 'pink' hydrogen as the article puts it (hydrogen from nuclear sources or electrolysis of water) as early as possible, because making it from natural gas is a bit pointless on the scale you'll need for it to be a viable locomotive fuel, and that's 1970s at the very earliest for that.

Liquid hydrogen compared to diesel is fabulous from an energy-per-mass scenario but awful from an energy-per-volume one, so hydrogen-fueled locomotives are all going to have fuel tenders to have sufficient range to be usable in mainline service but those fuel tenders can be as big as you think necessary. Their idea of using up to a 90/10 mix of liquid hydrogen and diesel is a good idea for using conventional diesels (as the ignition of the diesel from compression ignition would create the burn needed to ignite the hydrogen, thus no spark ignition needed) in the shorter term, and the idea of having a battery-electric unit paired with this to recover energy from dynamic braking is also a smart one (though perhaps tricky from recovering enough energy to make the extra weight of the locomotive not an issue), but if it were me I'm going with a gas turbine unit for this for power reasons, and then as fuel cells make it to the energy density needed for this to work head in that direction for emissions reasons.
 
Depends on how soon you can make hydrogen viable as a major fuel source. Liquid hydrogen would be an ideal fuel for a turbine locomotive (which would find it easier to use than a reciprocating engine as fuel injection systems even now don't have the ability to use liquid hydrogen as effectively as a turbine does, and unlike a diesel which runs on compression-ignition principles, a hydrogen-fueled locomotive would need a spark-ignition system), but while the idea makes a lot of sense it really does depend on how soon you can make the fuel available. Fuel cells as possible but somewhat later, but not before the late 1990s or early 21st Century. If you want to get as far ahead as possible you need to make 'green' or 'pink' hydrogen as the article puts it (hydrogen from nuclear sources or electrolysis of water) as early as possible, because making it from natural gas is a bit pointless on the scale you'll need for it to be a viable locomotive fuel, and that's 1970s at the very earliest for that.

Liquid hydrogen compared to diesel is fabulous from an energy-per-mass scenario but awful from an energy-per-volume one, so hydrogen-fueled locomotives are all going to have fuel tenders to have sufficient range to be usable in mainline service but those fuel tenders can be as big as you think necessary. Their idea of using up to a 90/10 mix of liquid hydrogen and diesel is a good idea for using conventional diesels (as the ignition of the diesel from compression ignition would create the burn needed to ignite the hydrogen, thus no spark ignition needed) in the shorter term, and the idea of having a battery-electric unit paired with this to recover energy from dynamic braking is also a smart one (though perhaps tricky from recovering enough energy to make the extra weight of the locomotive not an issue), but if it were me I'm going with a gas turbine unit for this for power reasons, and then as fuel cells make it to the energy density needed for this to work head in that direction for emissions reasons.
Perhaps this is something that could be used if GE were to want to try a "reboot" of sorts for its GTEL series?
 
I'm going with a gas turbine unit for this for power reasons, and then as fuel cells make it to the energy density needed for this to work head in that direction for emissions reasons.
So something similar to your idea for the propane-fueled GTEL-4, but with a diesel-hydrogen mix?
 
So something similar to your idea for the propane-fueled GTEL-4, but with a diesel-hydrogen mix?
It's a possibility, but if you're gonna use it anywhere where you have rail overpasses you'll need to solve the problem of the (very) hot exhaust that the turbine is almost certain to have as its a safety hazard, and how to safely handle liquid hydrogen in large quantities.
 
Class 102 "Cavalier" Night Sleeper Train
Type
: BiLevel Eight-Section Electric Multiple Unit
Builder: National Steel Car, Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Operators:
- Via Rail Canada (1975-2011)
- Ontario Northland Railway (1976-1996)
- British Columbia Railway (1976-2014)
Number Built: 78 Sets

Perhaps the example of Canada's do-it-right-the-first-time attitude applied to a train for Via Rail Canada upon its formation in 1970, The National Steel Car-built Class 102 was one of the first examples of the Via Rail Canada "Rail Rebirth Plan" approved by the Canadian federal government in 1971, aimed at dramatically improving rail passenger service in Canada after many years of relative decline (though, it has to be said, Canadian National Railways never gave up on the idea of successful passenger trains - but they were among the ones who pushed hardest for Via Rail's formation out of a belief that such a system would be beneficial for the passenger network as a whole) that followed the chaotic 1960s in Canada, which had seen the 1957-58 energy crisis and the building of the Japanese Shinkansen System (whose first line, the Tokyo-Osaka Tokaido Shinkansen, began operations in 1964) which as revolutionized rail travel in Japan and gotten attention all over the world. While Canada would eventually commit to the building of a high-speed system of its own, in 1971 the plan was to complete CNR's existing electrification plans and expand Via Rail's service offerings as much as possible, and the Class 102, based on a very good idea developed by civil engineering firm Stantec, architects Mathers, Haldenby and Katrovic and rolling stock manufacturer National Steel Car, was developed by the firms to fill one such idea - the idea of using CNR's newly-electrified main lines to run a dedicated electric multiple unit sleeper train on in order to replace the aging and increasingly-unreliable fleet of railroad passenger cars Via Rail relied on. Via's management - made up mostly of the passenger people from CNR as well as from Canadian Pacific - could see the idea's viability, and when Stantec, Mathers, Haldenby and Katrovic and National Steel Car made their pitch to Via Rail in April 1971 complete with preliminary designs for the car, it wasn't long before Via's management would sign off on it, the Class 102 joining the high-speed LRC trains (Class 101 to Via) as the beginnings of their new setup, along with orders for many new diesel and electric locomotives and new BiLevel passenger cars to replace aging existing rolling stock and the massive "Renaissance" program of passenger car rebuilding done by Via Rail, came to be the first stages of Via's path a much brighter future.

While the Class 102 wouldn't come out looking all that much like the drawings made shown off in 1971, the basic idea remained. The Class 102, like the new cars ordered by the thousands by Amtrak south of the border, were built as tall double-deck designs, but the similarities mostly stopped there. Built with stainless-steel frames and aluminum bodyshells for strength and corrosion resistance, the Class 102 was designed from the start as an electric multiple unit, complete with a full restaurant car and a full lounge car as well as six sleeping cars, with a mix of accommodations. These ranged from couchette-style compartments for four people, slumbercoach-style compartments, two family bedrooms, roomettes, double bedrooms and larger bedrooms. As these trains were designed from Day One to be for night sleeper services, much attention was put into the cars being quiet and smooth-riding even at higher speeds - the trains were designed to see speeds of up to 180 km/h in service - and were designed with excellent creature comforts, including every car (including the four-person couchette compartments) having wash basins and all cars having a shower and two bathrooms, while the better rooms had private washrooms. Two crew bunk rooms were a part of the design as well (primarily for porters and the dining car crew) and the end cars had baggage facilities to allow passengers to carry extra baggage on the trains.

The trains had six powered cars and two unpowered ones, with the end cars having pantographs above their driver cabs. The sets all originally had gangways to allow multiple sets to be coupled together, but later refurbishment added a complete nose to the front of each set, limiting the trains' multiple-unit capability to be limited to two units end-to-end. (This was uncommon in the 1970s but would become much more common with time.) The six-powered cars were equipped with four powered axles on each car, the twenty-four powered axles giving impressive acceleration (and as all were equipped with regenerative braking and disc brakes, their braking was as impressive as its acceleration) and a smooth ride, and after initial teething troubles were figured out, the train were basis of Via Rail Canada's "Cavalier Service" of night trains, reviving the name of CNR's famous night trains of previous times in 1980. While diesel-powered units were considered, the growing electrification of the Canadian railroad network (particularly in Eastern Canada where the ridership was highest) and the growing number of new sleeper cars as well as refurbished ones meant a diesel-powered Class 102 was never built, even though 65 sets would be built for Via between 1974 and 1978, and Ontario Northland and British Columbia Railway would add thirteen more units built (five for ONR, eight for BCOR) in 1978 and 1979.

The units' success was immediate. First introduced for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal services in 1975, by 1980 the expansion of CNR electrification led to the Class 102s seeing service on services to Sudbury, Detroit, Quebec City and, following the completion of electrification along the former New York Central corridor along Lake Champlain in 1980, night trains from Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa to New York City, which began in April 1981. Offering most of the comfort of a hotel room but without the expense of one (and the price of tickets on these trains included a dinner and a breakfast as part of the price), the trains by the early 1980s were extremely popular, so much that Via Rail Canada by 1984 had capacity issues, and with the building of the St. Lawrence River High-Speed Line underway by then and the prospect of the huge costs of the line and dedicated new rolling stock, Via Rail was forced to begin the process of integrating modern sleeping cars in between two Class 102s as part of a train. Despite this extra weight the power of the units meant they maintained schedules just fine, and Via committed to an upgrade program for them beginning in 1989, all 65 sets cycling through the rebuild program between the summer of 1989 and the spring of 1991, the improvements including the ability to have additional BiLevel coaches between the sets as well as many additional amenities - all rooms gained satellite radios and available headphones, power outlets, clocks with an available alarm function and better night lighting. Some 40 of the sets would lose their dedicated dining cars in favor of a three-unit Restauranteur dining car set integrated between the two units along with two additional sleeping cars, giving in this guise a 21-car setup that was known to Via Rail as the Class 102E, while all the ONR and BCOR sets would follow the Via Rail units through the shop in the early 1990s, gaining many similar improvements to the Via Sets. BCOR sets got an additional change when, thanks to the expertise of Pacific Rolling Stock in New Westminister, British Columbia, their lounge cars gained panoramic roofs in 1996.

With the completion of the first section of the St. Lawrence River High-Speed Line in 1986 and the opening of the Wildrose Express Line in early 1988, rail travel in Canada began a massive expansion that Via would spend nearly two decades grappling with, though successfully doing so through a vast investment into its services. The new high-speed line that grew almost every year between 1986 and 2007 would be the new turf for all 65 of Via's Class 102s, and the company ordered a new series of double-deck sleepers, the Class 115s, in 1994 first to complement and then ultimately to replace the Class 102s, though it was clear even then that wasn't gonna be any time soon for cost and growth reasons. The Class 115s, built by Bombardier Transportation as night train sets in 8, 10, 12 and 16-car sets, were designed from the start to be able to run with a Class 102 and with Via's increasingly-large fleet of sleeper cars equipped to run with the powerful electric multiple units. The electrification of CPR's Sault Ste. Marie secondary and the Algonquin division of CN between Pembroke and Mattawa, Ontario in the early 1990s extended the already-expansive reach of the sleeper units, and by the mid-1990s Via Rail Canada offered the Cavalier service as far as Chicago and Halifax, and some 82 of the Class 115s were ultimately built to run with the Class 102s.

By the early 2000s, the Class 115s were joined by the Stadler-built Class 118s, originally designed specifically to allow the now 25-year-old Class 102s to begin to be retired, but Toronto's winning of the 2008 Olympics in 2001 meant that the demand was going to be huge for a while yet. Indeed, the 2008 Olympics would be one of Via Rail's finest hours, as demand for American visitors to Toronto in July 2008 was immense, dwarfing even the 1976 games in Montreal, and the absolutely-massive numbers of tourist arrivals from the United States, combined with Amtrak's increasingly-big Midwestern High-Speed Networks, meant that the Class 102s, 115s and 118s and their suitably-equipped passenger car backup could be seen as far out as Washington, St. Louis and Nashville, running services to Toronto for visitors to the Olympics. After the Olympics the oldest Class 102s began to be retired, the last ones exiting Via Rail Service in October 2011 after 36 years of faithful service.

Ultimately parts of five Class 102s would be preserved, three at museums in Canada, a full set donated to the Americas' Rail Museum in New Jersey and a fifth full set to the National Railway Museum of the United Kingdom in York in the UK.
 
Last edited:
@TheMann going back to actual locomotives and not railroads that run them, how early would a hydrogen-powered locomotive be viable?

Hydrogen fueled trains have been in operation since 2018, the MU in question is the Alstom Coradia iLint.

 
I'm not sure if you're gonna build a new star for the Milwaukee that I'd go for an A Class Atlantic, because the A Class (while incredibly fast), hasn't got the muscle to pull trains longer than maybe a dozen cars, which limits the trains you can haul with it. I'd be looking at a F7 Hudson if you're gonna build a repop of one of the Milwaukee Road's streamliners.
A new idea for this. Perhaps in TTL one of the A class Atlantics manages to take the steam locomotive speed record for a brief time before the A4 Mallard does. This ensures it's preservation possibly at Minneapolis Union Station.

However, the disadvantages of the A class as an excursion locomotive still lead to a F7 rebuild.
 
@TheMann since I figured this was the best thread to talk about this on, here are some alternate ideas I had for the world steam speed record. In a sort of loose inspiration, I decided to up the builds dates of these locomotives by a variable of four to six years depending on the locomotives in question including the LNER A4, built in TTL in 1935:

In TTL, Milwaukee Road F7 #103 claims the world steam locomotive speed record on November 12, 1935 with the westbound Twin Cities Hiawatha between New Lisbon and La Crosse, Wisconsin. On this leg of the trip, the 103 claims the record at 130.65 mph (210.26 km/h). This unseats LNER #4468 Mallard's record, and ensures the locomotive's preservation on display at the station in Sparta, Wisconsin near where the speed was recorded. When the mainline steam excursion renaissance picks up in the late 1970s however, the locomotive is taken to Bensenville, Illinois for a restoration to active service by volunteers collaborating with my TL's take on Conrail (which would include the Milwaukee Road like your original idea for it). Today, it is owned and run by volunteers out of Milwaukee who regularly run the engine with a reconstruction of the original Twin Cities Hiawatha consist in collaboration with Conrail's Bensenville facility.

Although their respective speed records ensure their preservation, the Mallard and the 103 would end up eclipsed not once, but twice by locomotives from the Standard Railway of The World.

The first instance was on April 5, 1937 when the Pennsylvania Railroad S1 #6100, the lone 6-4-4-6 "Pennsylvania Type", clocked in at 132.76 mph (213.66 km/h) on the Ft. Wayne Division a few miles east of Warsaw, Indiana with The General running westbound. The speed was recorded by the PRR itself with reporters from the Chicago Tribune and The New Yorker also being present and able to verify. The S1 was immediately earmarked for preservation upon retirement and upon its last major run in 1948, she was restored to her original 1933 condition, and appear at the Chicago Railroad Fair that year before her donation to Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry. While the S1 was said to be able to reached this speed and sometimes higher on a regular basis - up to 152 mph according to a post-war incident where the PRR was fined for high speeds - the official record-holder for the record would be one of the S1's smaller cousins, after the war no less.

On September 16, 1945 the engine of crew of T1 #5517 were running their engine out of Chicago with the eastbound Broadway Limited, which on this day had some company officials and a speedometer car on its consist. Due to an incident involving several bottlenecks, the train was running 45 minutes late. Hoping to make up lost time, the crew ran the T1 as fast as they felt was safe all the way to Ft. Wayne, Indiana. 5517 eventually reached a top speed of 136.25 mph (219.27 km/h) while racing through Plymouth, Indiana. This would ensure the PRR's decision to have her class represent the T1 at their collection in Northumberland, Pennsylvania upon a 1961 retirement. When the collection was moved to Strasburg however, the 5517 would instead be taken to the Juniata Shops in Altoona for a study about repairing the locomotive for excursions. Ross Rowland and the incoming Conrail management got word of this, and the locomotive would be among several big steamers to pull the American Freedom Train and enjoy a storied excursion life afterwards.

In 2014, Milwaukee Road 103 and PRR 5517 would appear side-by-side at the North Carolina Transportation Museum's Streamliners at Spencer event. By this time both had plaques on their respective cabs commemorating their speed records, in a matter not unlike the LNER Mallard across the pond. As part of this event, both locomotives were involved with doubleheaders along different parts of the Southern Railway lines in the area; 5517 went with Norfolk & Western 611 to Charlotte and return, whereas 104 doublehaded with Southern Pacific 4449 to Durham and return.
 
@TheMann what would you have done to try and make the Baltimore & Ohio's proposed "Besler" locomotive successful?

Here are links if you haven't heard about the proposal before.

 
@TheMann what would you have done to try and make the Baltimore & Ohio's proposed "Besler" locomotive successful?
The Besler is a very unique design that presents a lot of good ideas, but technical challenges for a railroad.

The first problem I see is that the Besler type basically needed four steam pistons on each axle, so you're looking at sixteen cylinders instead of four on a conventional steam locomotive, which makes plumbing these things harder, doubly so since the W-1 design had each axle independently sprung and the four-piston "engines" directly geared to the axle, so the pipes have to have flexibility built in for the suspension to work. Maintenance difficulties would be very possible, though the plan have the rotating assembly of the engines be bathed in oil will very likely help with this (though keeping that oil from overheating is another issue that could be a tricky one on a steam locomotive) and the W-1 design did anticipate easily dropping axle sets out of the locomotive to service the engines. The fact that this system means no side rods or counterbalancing to go with it is a huge plus because it would all but eliminate hammer blow on the track.

Honestly, the biggest thing that needs to happen there is that the B&O (or somebody else) just needs to build one and prove the idea works as intended. I would make absolutely certain this locomotive has roller bearings on all axles (get every advantage you can get for rolling resistance) and make sure the valve control for the pistons is absolutely bulletproof. But if it all works as intended, this would likely still be a better passenger engine than a freight one....but it would be a good freight mover, too.
 
Honestly, the biggest thing that needs to happen there is that the B&O (or somebody else) just needs to build one and prove the idea works as intended. I would make absolutely certain this locomotive has roller bearings on all axles (get every advantage you can get for rolling resistance) and make sure the valve control for the pistons is absolutely bulletproof. But if it all works as intended, this would likely still be a better passenger engine than a freight one....but it would be a good freight mover, too.
Even so, I doubt the locomotive would still be able to rival diesels in terms of what mattered most: maintenance costs.
 
Last edited:
The Baltimore & Ohio W-1 Class Geared "Besler Type"
Builder:
B&O Mount Clare Shops - Baltimore, Maryland
Number Built: 12
Used: 1928 - 1960

One of the most unique steam locomotives ever built, the W-1 Class was the ultimate result of B&O president Daniel Willard and his devotion to the cause of keeping steam traction dominant on the railways. The idea for the locomotive came out during the great motive power race of the late 1920s, when brothers William and George Besler approached Willard and Colonel George Emerson with the idea of a geared steam locomotive that could potentially combine the sheer power of the Shay and other geared locomotives with the speed of a road locomotive.

In order to achieve this mixture of speed and power, the Besler brothers had developed the "Besler" steam engine. This type of steam engine was designed to power an axle using four double-acting steam cylinders which were tied to a set of gears with a gear ratio of 55:19. The idea was that these gave the wheels 92 power strokes instead of four like on regular steam engines, enabling locomotives to use power faster and more efficently. In order to ensure operability, the gears and other parts of the Besler engine were designed to operate in an oil bath not unlike the ones used in automobile engines. An additional benefit was the elimination of hammer blow on conventional steam engines which therefore meant less damage to rails. However, the problem of wheelslip did appear when the locomotive was tested. This was fixed by looking to a French locomotive which had its steam motors coupled together by a hydraulic servo system that controlled the inlet valve cams. Another solution to the issue of maintenance was addressed with a unique design elements: being able to drop axle sets to be maintained or replaced as needed. Topping off the design was the inclusion of roller bearings and a watertube firebox, and flexible pipes being integral to the design.

Although the water-tube firebox proved to be quite expensive to maintain as did the mehanism for the oil bath, the first W-1 - #5800 - emerged from the works to massive fanfare. With a streamlined shroud similar to those of Pacifics on the Royal Blue, the W-1 proved itself to be a surprisingly fast and powerful machine. It was easily one the most successful of George Emerson's various designs, and another eleven examples were ordered for operation on the B&O. During their time in the limelight, the W-1s were the preferred locomotives long distance services, where their speed and torque proved useful in getting through the mountains of Maryland and Northwest Virginia quickly, and getting through the valleys around Pittsburgh and/or Cincinnati. Although they could be seen on merchandise trains as well, this was comparatively rare, so B&O fast freight in general remained the domain of the T3 Mountains. As the US also began to emerge from the Great Depression, the W-1 would become a rival locomotive to the Pennsylvania Railroad T1s of 1931 as the competing locomotive for Washington DC - Chicago/St. Louis trains.

However, the writing was one the wall for the W-1 as early as 1937, when the B&O first put EMC E3 diesels on the head of the Capital Limited to Chicago. The W-1s were formidable in terms of performance compared to these new machines, but like most diesels the E3 more than compensated for compartive weakness by being much easier to operate and maintain. Even so, the Second World War and the 1953 Energy Crisis would ensure that the W-1, along with many other B&O steam engines, would be lasting a while longer. In particular, the W-1s spent their final years on various lines out of Cincinnati. They were particularly a popular choice for the Southern and Louisville & Nashville streamliners that the B&O would pick up in Cincinnati, and then whisk north to Detroit, Michigan.

The last W-1s were retired in June 1960, but two examples have since been preserved. The first locomotive, #5800, was sent to the Museum of Transpotation in Kirkwood, Missouri due to its uniqueness as a steam locomotive, where it's been cosmetically restored and well-kept to this day. B&O kept the other survivor, #5806, as part of its own connection in Baltimore, where it would sit until the late 1970s. In 1975, the locomotive was studied as a possible locomotive to haul the fantrips the Chessie System planned for the B&O's 150th Anniversary. The study determined she would indeed be a good if high-maintenance candidate, and the locomotive was restored over a three-year period with help from Ross Rowland, and joined P7d #5304 (also streamlined), T3a #5562, C&O #614, and Reading #2101 on excursions across the Chessie. Since then, the locomotive has appeared at such events as the 1984 NRHS Convention in Cincinnati, the 2003 NRHS in Baltimore, and the North Carolina Transportation Museum's Streamliners At Spencer event.
 
Last edited:
Top