How did the other companies steamers compare to the lima's. How were the late alcos and baldwins. did they catch up to the super power item that was to have made lima famous?

Just ask the U.P. how they were!

I feel that the best designs of steam power were those that the railroads came up with , or at least put a major investment in the design of. Consider the locomotives of Union Pacific, Santa Fe, and Norfolk & Western. These were the result of the railroads telling the builders what they wanted.

While Lima came up with the Super Power concept, the only feature that lasted to later designs was a large firebox. Their concepts of limited cutoff, and the articulated trailing truck, both turned out to be duds.

Stuart

Adding the Timken roller bearings didn't hurt and I think the super power concept ended up being adopted in some form in most 4-8-4's. Looking at the numbers though, it was probably too late for Lima to make a huge impact. Baldwin was still number one in production, with PRR being 2nd with in-house production and ALCO number three.

In the end, an arguement might be made for ALCO only because they managed to stay in business until 1969. Longer than all the above mentioned companies.

First with super power steam engines as in the first 2-8-4 Berkshire

Since none of you guys actually WORK on real steam locomotives, I can tell you from experience that, QUALITY and cab ergonomics wise; Lima is number ONE, Alco is number TWO, and Baldwin is a distant THIRD!

The old Boiler Makers at the PRR Altoona Shops could tell right away when they were working on a Lima supplied boiler as compared to a Baldwin supplied boiler.

Also, Stuart, why do you think "limited cut-off" was a failure? Virtually every modern (late 1930s thru 1949) locomotive, including simple articulateds, came with limited cut-off!

quote:

Since none of you guys actually WORK on real steam locomotives

Don't rub it in

I have also worked on representative samples of all three builders. I completely agree with Hot Water's assessment: Lima number ONE, Alco number TWO, and Baldwin a distant THIRD.

If a Baldwin pipe-fitter needed to run a pipe from "Point A" to "Point B' he did exactly that, with no regard for what OTHER pipes might be in conflict with his direct route. When I first saw the backhead of B&LE 2-10-4 No. 643 (a Baldwin loco) I was absolutely stunned! It was without a doubt the worst plumber's nightmare I have ever seen. Pipes of varying sizes ran every which way with valves pointed whichever way they would fit into the mess. I cannot imagine working on that! If one pipe developed a leak, you would have to remove 15 other pipes just to get at the one you needed to work on.

Lima's and Alco's were not built like that. Pipes were bent to run side-by-side along sensible routes within the cab. Any single pipe could be removed without disturbing others that were along side it.

Jonathan, I don't know where you got your information about the success of the Lima-originated concept of Limited Cutoff. The 765 was built in 1944 - very late in the steam game - and it has Limited Cutoff. The 611, built by the N&W in 1950, has Limited Cutoff. Virtually all the "Super Power" steam locomotives (regardless of who actually built them) used Limited Cutoff.

quote:

Jonathan, I don't know where you got your information about the success of the Lima-originated concept of Limited Cutoff.

No offense meant at all, but if I'm going to be wrong on something, please at least credit me with the things I actually wrote wrong. I am never above learning anything new. I think maybe you got confused with the post above mine.

I would have to agree with your assessment of Baldwin plumbing based on their deisel designs that suffered from the same plumbing issues. The centipedes ended up in helper service really quick as result of that.

Lima made excellent steam locomotives, there is no doubt in that. From a business model though, 'Super Power' just came too late in the steam era. Had development not been stiffled by WWII, the concept might have been out earlier and steam would have likely lasted another decade or so in this country. Much like the rest of the developed 1st world countries. (my opinion only obviously)

I only mention ALCO because they were the only builder of steam to succesfully make the change to building deisel-electics.

My only up close and personal experience with steam (I was born about 20-30 years too late), other than excursions, was in the cab of a Cumbress and Toltect K-36 while it was being fired up. Almost made me quit my job and sign up to hand fire the mini-monsters for a living.

Rich, as a total aside, I have a record of "Sounds of 759" I got as a 7 year old or so from Steam Town in the old Bellows Falls days. It was recorded back in the late sixties. Does Steam Town still have that locomotive?

Also, one of the planning professors, Francis Parker, from my architecture days at Ball State was part of the 765 group. Is he still active? I doubt he'd remember me, it's been 16 years since I graduated.

Jonathan,

You are quite mistaken about WWII and the "development" of steam locomotives!

If it had NOT been for WWII, the steam locomotive would have been FINISHED by 1945! The government's War Production Board PROHIBITED the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors Corp. from producing more then 8 to 10 diesel locomotives a DAY, because the Navy needed HALF of the 567 diesel engine production for vessels. The war actually EXTENDED steam locomotive production by more than five years! Every single railroad wanted MORE EMD diesel locomotives in order to reduce operating costs and maintenance. They couldn't get them because of WWII.

The War Production Board also LIMITED development of EMD diesel locomotives to JUST producing ONLY FT freight units. NO passenger power waht so ever! NO IMPROVEMENTS, such as the F3 and F7 with their increased horse power. ONLY FT models until the war ended!

Question,

What percentage of the market did each builder have? Second what were the reasons why someone was number one in sales, #2, #3, etc etc

Correct me if I'm wrong ... and I know you will ... but in terms of production numbers it was:

Baldwin
PRR
Alco
Lima
All the rest

As to why, I'm certainly not the expert.

The answer is obvious, Quality takes time.

quote:

Does Steam Town still have that locomotive?

Yes, the 759 is still at Steamtown. It is not operational, however.

quote:

Francis Parker...Is he still active?

That name is not familiar to me, so I don't know.

759 is in the roundhouse and at least is out of the weather. Can't say that about most of Steamtown's collection

Interesting post Hot Water.
With no research to back up my theory, I always kinda thought at the end of depression, the steam fleet was old, as economies didn't allow for timely replacement. At the dawn of WWII this sometimes decrepit fleet was basically worked to death. By the time the war ended, diesel technology was ready (and proven economically superior), the railroads had a worn out steam fleet to replace. Some roads tried to push steam to new levels, the PRR with the T1 and Q1&2 and various roads' turbine experiments, but the die was clearly cast.
Diesleization was immenent, but I thought the its speed was perhaps expedited by these factors.
Hmm, but look how fast the N&W turned over even with the arguably most modern steam fleet going...and it only made it to what, 1960 right? So mebbe I'm just wrong
Again, the depression economy pressing on the extended capital expense might've kept the PRR from electrifying west of Harrisburg. After the war, in effect, they did...it's just the electric locos carried their own power plants.

Just to "stoke the fire" or "heat up" this discussion a little, where would Roanoke be in the pecking order? If Lima was #1 (and I have no argument therewith), would Roanoke be ABOVE Lima (A1 or 1A), or just below Lima (1-1/2)?

I bring this up because the N&W took a back seat to no steam loco builder or US designer with its continuing improvements to its Y-class 2-8-8-2s, development of the Class A 2-6-6-4 or the most powerful 4-8-4 (Class J).

And one has to wonder what US steam might have become (absent the diesel) if the US steam people had adopted some ideas of France's Andre Chapelon? I think there may have been another steam engineer whose name I cannot recall offhand, perhaps from Argentina, who had some very advanced ideas for improvements also.

I would have to rank the Norfolk & Western's locomotive designers and builders right up there at the top with the Lima gang. Lima had to build a wider variety of locomotives than did the N&W, including Shays, but they both built some of the finest examples of the state-of-the-art in steam locomotives.

Woody, there is nothing a steam builder of locomotives could do that can even remotely compare with a diesel electric locomotive..nothing.. the fellas that tried the ACE found that out, no steam driven locomotive, piston or turbine, can put the power to the rail like a diesel. As far as I know, no steam engine has ever put its peak horsepower at starting and low speeds like a diesel.
When the railroads found that out, that's when the real battle was won, war or no war.
The B&O put four ABBA units as helpers up on the west end..they replaced sixteen articulated steamers, and a the same time, pushed more tonnage faster over those hills on the same runs! One of the best Baldwins ever built, them selves called Caddys buy their crews, B&O's EM-1's, were ordered by the B&O because they could not get what they wanted, diesels.

Ed

Only one railroad ever tested diesels...and then ordered more steam locomotives! The NKP tested 3 and 4-unit sets of F3's against the Berkshires and after the tests were completed, they ordered another set of Berks!

The Berks outperformed the 3-unit set of F3 diesels in every performance parameter except starting tractive effort. The 4-unit set added enough horses to outperform the Berk at all but the highest speeds. But at that time the operating costs were a toss-up! The NKP was more focused on horsepower at high speed than tractive effort and the Berks fit that slot perfectly. The NKP ran the Berks until the recession of 1958, when the last ones were finally removed from service.

The NKP was a very different railroad than the B&O, and that figured prominently into their decision. Where the B&O had to slug it out over the Allegheny Mountains on 17 Mile Grade (2.25% for 17 miles) and Sand Patch (22 miles of 1.4% with a mile or so of 1.9% at the top) the NKP was a flat, straight, high-speed railroad where the "Super Power" concept of horsepower at speed could be put to good use.

Rich is absolutely right about the NKP/EMD test/demonstration! The late, long retired EMD General Service Manager, W. E. Becker, was on those "runs" in his early EMD career. Bill was an accomplished home machinest, and actually REALLY liked fine steam locomotives. Although disapointed from an "EMD mans" standpoint, Bill told me many stories about those damned 700 class NKP Berks, and was NOT SUPRISED AT ALL at the out come of the tests!

The same thing happened on the N&W, with an ABBA set of new F7s, prior to shippment to the UP. EMD painted the yellow units, per UP specfications, but lettered them Electro-Motive for a one month test on the N&W. The final results? N&W actually learned how much a Y6b would REALLY pull!! The N&W eventually purchased GP9s (largest single diesel loco. order EVER received by EMD, until Burlington Northern ordered some 400 SD70MAC units on one order in the early 1990s).

quote:

Originally posted by Ed Mullan:
As far as I know, no steam engine has ever put its peak horsepower at starting and low speeds like a diesel.

While true, at the time that became the end of the 'burn what you haul' philosophy of a lot of railroads operated under and the start on dependence upon foreign oil to run our entire transportation network. Even at the 20% number that has been thrown around on imports, loss of 1/5 of our fuel supply would cripple transportation.

No politics meant here, just an observation that the one resource we have in abundance is still coal. Over 200 years worth from what I remember. At the rate I've seen it coming out of the Powder River Basin, that is a lot of coal.

I'll come out and say it at the risk of being 'lit up' but I also consider myself an environmentalist and still think clean burning coal is preferable to burning deisel fuel. The whole experiment with 'bio-diesel' is an interesting excursion, but do we really want to take our basic food staples and use them for fuel instead?

The most efficient and powerful locomotive type is the all electric locomotive as the PRR discovered, albiet at a great expense. 8000 hp from the HHP-8 in a single unit? It will be a while before the diesel electric gets there.

Since diesels are simply electric locos with their own generators, there is no reason why a coal fired version could not be developed. Use very high pressure steam to turn turbines that power electric traction motors. Combine that with a water condensing tender that uses reclaimed grey water and you have a pretty decent start to a practical new generation of steam.

The result is we could have a locomotive that uses native resources with all the benefits and simplicities of the electric traction motor that could still meet EPA Tier II emissions standards.

I'm obviously no engineer (other than the model train kind), but circumstances have changed a great deal during Ross Rowlands ACE experiments. That idea is well over 20 years old.

NYC found the Niagras to be as successful as the E-7's for a while. NKP loved their Berks and for good reason! N&W's 'Lubatoriums' were a stroke of genious. With #2 diesel hovering at $3.00 + per gallon, clean coal is certainly worth another look.

Sorry, I do get long winded on interesting topics like this.

i have learned more good stuff reading this here real trains forum.

Jonathan,

This whole electrification subject has been hashed over SO MANY times on this forum, I can't do it again. But, just a few "thoughts":

1) Who pays for construction of all the required catenary?

2) Where does the electric power come from? Currently, the USA can just barely "keep the lights on"!

3) Believe it or not, the current "state of the art" high horsepower diesel electric are MORE EFFICIENT that transferring huge quantities of electric energy to overhead catenary!

Now, as far as "coal for fuel" on railroad motive power,,,,well you wouldn't be able to breath in this country if the railroads were still burning coal!

Also, the VERY BEST steam locomotive EVER, was just about 10% efficient AT THE RAILS. Current diesel electric locomotives have long past 50% efficient at the rails.