Reading made the mistake of using exactly the same truck design for the trailer and the pilot truck on the 4-4-4s. From all reports, this was a very bad idea and, as you say, they were soon rebuilt to Atlantics.
Re CP's Jubilees: Interestingly, there is a photo in an old issue of Railroad magazine showing the proposed CPR streamlined locomotive as a 4-4-2! CPR was definitely inspired by the Milwaukee's Hiawatha Atlantics. I have never found any further reference to whether Henry Bowen's original CP design was for an Atlantic and was changed later to 4-4-4, or whether this mock-up was done by the publicity dept. and used an existing commercial model (Lionel, perhaps?) 4-4-2 chassis kitbashed with the proposed streamline design. I would definitely argue against NYC using stock locomotives, at least after Paul W. Kiefer became the Supt. of Motive Power. There is no doubt NYC and ALCo-Schenectady were very close (just as PRR was with Baldwin), but to suggest ALCo designed the Hudsons, the later Mohawks and the peerless Niagaras for the NYC is simply not true. regards ... pqr P.S. -- My reference to "Iron Mountain" type was a bad attempt at a joke. ----- Original Message ----- From: raleigh To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:15 AM Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} Re: New Pacific's and he notes - Interesting bit of history about the type's origins. It would seem logical that the Ten-Wheeler would be the ancestor of the Pacific (as opposed to the Atlantic). Ten-Wheelers could and did develop higher horsepower than the Atlantic and with the advent of heavier trains, need for more power made adding a trailing truck to support a larger fire box a necessity to keep weight on the drivers within limits. Since more railroads used Ten-Wheelers than Atlantics, they had more experience with six-coupled locos. There were a few exceptions, of course - Reading's Atlantic started out as 4-4-4s but were soon converted to outside bearing 2-wheel trailing trucks to tracking problems. And the development of the Hodges or Cole trailing truck also aided in the acceptance of the later Pacifics as the early models also had tracking problems as well as weight distribution. Unlike the Pennsy, which developed the Atlantic to the nth degree and parlayed that design into the K class Pacifics for mainline passenger trains, most roads had neither the facility or the resources to develop their own designs. Even the mighty New York Central relied on locomotive builders for new power rather than attempt to build their own. They collaborated but mainly relied on the builder''s expertise to fill their needs. There were a few exceptions of course. The N&W and D&H come to mind but for the most part, roads like the B&M, New Haven and a host of other roads, (big and small) developed a statement of work and found a builder to make them. I didn't know about the 'Iron Mountain' types. I was thinking of the SP's 'Sunbeams' and use one on our "Southern Pacific Collection Vol. I" DVD cover. While it looks like a smaller version of a 'Daylight' I think it was one of the more handsome streamline efforts. Of course Pennsy, B&O, and NYC fans (to name a few) might disagree and Andy Malette might say that the CP's 'Jubilee' class were prettier but they were 4-4-4s. (I'm partial to them too Andy as I saw them in action in Montreal back in the fifties). Maybe if the USRA Light Mikado effort is a success, a light Pacific might be a logical follow-up. Except for the frame and drivers the rest of the components are the same, which was the idea developed by USRA - use as many similar parts as possible to produce as many locomotives as needed in the shortest time span. Maybe a collaboration with AM for Pacific chasses would work - just a thought. Raleigh In Maine Emporiumpictures.com At 02:40 AM 7/30/2008, John Picur wrote: >The first order to the Gould lines was split between the MoPac and >the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern -- then still a separate >road. The StL,IM&S got more of them than the MP (12 vs. 9). I think >the New Zealand order may have had more influence internationally in >the acceptance of the name. Of course, since S Scalers are special, >I suppose we could consider the StL,IM&S the primary originator of >the type in North America and start calling them "Iron Mountain" types. > >The Milwaukee's 4-6-2s were essentially overweight 4-6-0 which >required a trailer to shift some of the excess weight from the >drivers. The trailing wheel was rigid in the frame and not in a >trailing truck. As you say, Raleigh, it was a narrow-firebox >locomotive that did not encompass the essential design point of the >Pacific type -- the wider firebox. One came from Schenectady in >1889, and three from Rhode Island in 1893. > >Lehigh Valley had what may have been the first 4-6-2, named >"Duplex", built in their Wilkes-Barre shop in October 1886. This >locomotive used an experimental twin-barreled wide firebox for >burning anthracite. It was not successful and was soon rebuilt to a >conventional 4-6-0. However, if this is indeed the very first 4-6-2, >it is the fourth wheel arrangement introduced by the LV -- 2-8-0, >2-10-0 and 2-8-2 preceding it, but not in quantity. > >regards ... pqr > >----- Original Message ----- >From: raleigh >To: <mailto:S-Scale%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] ; ><mailto:S-Scale%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] >Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:27 PM >Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} Re: New Pacific's > >and he notes - > >While there were examples of 'Pacific's' in existence before 1900, >most were rebuilt Ten-Wheelers and Prairie types. Several were built >new (by Brooks I believe) for the Milwaukee Road in 1896. They had >narrow fireboxes and were really stretched Atlantics. Technically >they could be called the first 'Pacifics' but didn't carry that >appellation since the Whyte System was still a few years away. > >The application of the name 'Pacific' may be attributed to the dozen >or so examples built by Baldwin in 1901 for New Zealand Railways. >They needed locomotives with larger fireboxes to burn the low quality >lignite coal mined there and since they were shipped over the Pacific >Ocean, supposedly they were named for the Ocean. The design was >successful enough to garner several orders for U. S. roads with the >first going to MoPac and C&O in 1902 and since the MoPac got the >first order, the name has been attributed to them. If they had been >delivered to the Chessie first, we might be calling them 'Ohio' types! > >The name seems to have persisted even though roads with heavier power >often named those locos differently, i. e. NYC's Hudsons, Mohawks and >C&O's Kanawhas, Greenbriers, etc. Over 6,000 were built in the U. S. >alone with that many plus built for foreign roads. > >It's interesting to note that while the Whyte System of locomotive >classification (proposed in 1900 by F. M. Whyte a mechanical >engineer) most railroad employees knew their motive power by class or >road numbers. I remember my early railfan days (way back in the 50's) >being admonished for using a 'front office' term for a B&M steam >loco. I quickly learned that correct jargon for a 'Pacific' was a P2 >(or P3 or 4 depending on the road numbers). But interestingly, the >B&M Atlantics were always called 'Trailers', probably due to the fact >that the first ones were little more than 4-4-0s with a trailing truck. > >So whether or not one accepts the New Zealand locos or those going to >the MoPac as engendering the name, it lasted into the modern era and >is still in use today. > >Raleigh in cool and comfortable Maine... > >BTW - one road did rename some of their Pacifics - anyone know which >one and what they called them? > >At 10:23 PM 7/29/2008, Mary Armstrong wrote: > > >They named the Pacific after them as they had MO of them than any > >other railroad. > >John Armstrong > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
