Thanks for another cool video! If I had to choose between the EM-1 and the Allegheny, I would choose the EM-1. For making a prudent business decision a number of factors must be considered. Initial cost, capability, availability and efficiency must all be part of the equation. The Allegheny outweighs the EM-1 by about 72 tons which implies a greater quantity of material and a greater initial cost. Despite the Allegheny’s greater weight it has a lower tractive effort rating than the EM-1, which means the Allegheny cannot move a heavier train than the EM-1. The EM-1 has drivers of 3 inches less in diameter than the Allegheny, which means that the EM-1 reaches its peak horsepower at a lower speed than the Allegheny. Unless the average train speed would exceed 40mph and allow the Allegheny to exert its higher horsepower, the EM-1 is the more cost effective and efficient choice in the B&O’s terrain.
Another excellent production. I would just add that those double and triple headed trains were, in all places, the flatlands of Ohio. As you mentioned by the 1950s the 7600's were out of the mountains and sent to Ohio to handle monster coal and empty hopper trains from the lakes and Holloway, Ohio down to Fairmont, WV. In the mountains over Sand Patch and in Maryland and West Virginia over The West End they typically ran with one engine on the front and an EL or two on the rear as helpers. Of course, it should also be noted that the S1a "Big Six" was more common on Sand Patch. A further point on the WPB: they didn't outright ban diesel locomotive production. For example, Santa Fe was allowed to purchase a large number of FTs simply because a lot of resources went to hauling tanker trains of water to engine terminals in the arid southwest. I remember reading one time that the Barstow engine terminal took about 100 tank cars of water per day - and that was just one location. It was one of the great preservation crimes that an EM-1 wasn't saved, but B&O was in financial straits circa 1960 and in any event the B&O Museum as we know it today didn't really exist at the time. My late grandfather was a B&O trainman and conductor from 1943 to 1975. In the early days of his career, he was called on occasion to fill a head brakeman position on a Keyser Turn out of Fairmont. Those trains were solid coal trains assembled in Fairmont and run straight through Grafton to Keyser. I think they ran about fifty cars apiece. Then at Keyser the trains were doubled and dispatched to Curtis Bay. He told me a few times he always regretted none of his Keyser trains had an EM-1 on the point. Of course, the local mine runs he was usually on had a Q3 or Q4 "Mike" for power.
Great stuff and thank you for the compliment! I love reading stories like these and getting further information out there. If I put everything in each video, they'd be running at least 40 minutes apiece and that's just too long for anybody to watch. So this is precisely why I try to get everyone engaged into the comments. Well, at least reason number 1. Number two it helps grow the channel because a lot more non subs see the video.
Very good video on the EM-1! I can answer some more on why the EM-1's were decided on by the B&O over the Allegheny. B&O's grade profile on the West End of the Cumberland Division with 4 grades nearing 3% was forced on them as a result of legal actions by the PRR with PA's courts and the General Assembly, to keep the B&O out of Pittsburgh, which they did for 20 years. Tunnel clearance and track weight limits. The B&O still had some smallish tunnels on it's mountain routes plus a lot of them had lighter than normal weighted track, due to the high maintenance costs on both physical plant, locomotives and cars. The ton rating the EM's had were only 5500 tons per train. Compare that to the 13,500 yon rating of the Allegheny, due to it's smaller grades. If the Allegheny ran on the West End, it would most assuredly, have a reduced tonnage rating due to the very steep grades. Lastly, the B&O were customers of mostly Baldwin Locomotive Works. The Allegheny's were built by Lima. B&O's Supt. Of Motive Power, Col. George H. Emerson, was instrumental in getting Baldwin's Chief, Samuel Vauclain, his high position with Baldwin.
A lot of good info here. Many thanks and keep-um coming. FYI the grade between DC/Baltimore to Cumberland, MD was less than 1% because the mainline followed the Potomac River at water level rising just 680 feet from sea-level some 180 miles. After Cumberland, the line assaulted the eastern continental-divide up over at Sand Patch then across the western Allegany's into Pittsburg. This is where I think the EM1's really earned their keep. I live in Little Orleans, MD in the Paw Paw Narrows and the old B&O, now CSX, mainline is just across the river less than a mile from my house. On a good day, I can hear the diesels as they power through Orleans Cross Roads towards the Magnolia Cutoff. I often wounder what it sounded like when a trio of EM1s came thundering across the valley, especially at night. I had to be pure awesomeness!
Baltimore & ohio's EM1 class are among some of my favorite eastern USA territory articulated locomotives and they had a very short operating career of less than 15 years. It's a true shame that the B&O rr didn't preserve any of their EM 1 class locomotives for display as these were the largest steam locomotives that the B&O ever owned, and these articulated engines were quite popular and heavily admired by B&O rr steam fans during the late stage of the steam era.
Excellent video. Sadly, one EM-1 was slated to be preserved, however due to a communication issue, the EM-1 slated for preservation (I think 7659) ended up scrapped.
They only went to 7629 (total of 30 produced), and by the time they were all retired, the remaining ones had been renumbered to three digits, from #650 up, to make room on the roster for new Diesels. I had heard that renumbered EM-1 #675 was the one that had been held out for possible preservation. As stated in the video, the B&O didn't want any new steam locomotives, they were convinced early on that Diesels were the future, but had to buy the EM-1s for wartime traffic. They never bought any other more modern steam locomotives, especially for passenger use, sticking with Pacifics to the end. The EM-1s were the only steam locomotives they had with four-wheel trailing trucks.
The EM-1 locomotives were built to the weight and clearance limitations of the B&O. The Alleghany class engines were absolutely too big and too heavy for the B&O which was one of the oldest railroad lines in the USA. Tunnels and bridges were a problem. The EM-1 designers struck an effective balance between tractive effort, adhesion, axle loading, and horsepower at a specific speed within the context of the B&O operating profiles. The design actually made a lot more sense for the territory than the Alleghany. The EM-1 is quite comparable to some of the SP cab forwards. The EM-1 was a truly outstanding design for the operating profile and specific service it was intended to do. I highly recommend reading Baltimore & Ohio's Magnificent 2-8-8-4 EM-1 Articulated Locomotive by Thomas W Dixon Jr. and Bob Withers. They do a great job explaining the constraints and rationale behind the design.
@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I forgot to say great job on the video. Yes by all means, feel free to pin my comment. I added an edit on the end of my original comment with information about the EM-1 book by Thomas Dixon Jr. and Bob Withers. There's also a book by Gene Huddleston comparing the Alleghany and A-Class that might be an interesting read. He has a lot of good observations about the H-8 and some of the choices made by the C&O in light of their operating profile.
You answered your own question. The EM-1's were so well built, and the weight problems, and legal hassles were not very attractive to the B&O. I have 5 of them in HO scale, and they are beautiful in every way!!!
Well built yes, but the weight problems? They were the lightest of all the Yellowstone designs through cab forward. So im not seeing your weight argument... Or .. are you saying B & O had weight limits and the EM-1 was the heaviest they could deploy?
No. They didn't trust Lima to get their weights correct, and they didn't want the hassles that the C&O had (lawyers and legal troubles). They opted for the easy way!!! @@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower
I think the 2-8-8-4 was picked because of axle loadings. The 2-6-6-6s were to heavy that the 2-8-8-4s had lighter axel loadings. That is my take on it.
It’s hard to imagine an engine as massive and powerful not being powerful enough, needing 2 or even 3 of them to pull some trains. The Y6Bs had to do the same thing though. I’ve seen footage of heavy coal trains with 2 of them leading and a pusher too.
Yeah, the grades were nearing 3% in some places on the line. Allegheny would have struck one locomotive of having to be used. But come to find out, the Allegheny was too large for the lines tunnel system.
Tractive force of the B&O 2-8-8-4's was 115,000 pounds. C&O 2-6-6-6's were110,200 pounds, source Steam's Finest Hour by David P. Morgan. Although the 2-6-6-6 probably had more horsepower. 2-6-6-6 had 67 inch drivers while the 2-8-8-4 had 64 inch drivers giving it more power but less speed. by way of comparison, the N&W class A 2-6-6-4's had 70 inch drivers.
Class A was kind oif the Challenger for the N & W. Allegheny rated mover 7000 HP. Cant run that continuously, obviously. But that gives you an idea. Factor of adhesion was similar in both loco's. Tractive was the EM-1, and it wasnt very close there. Allegheny never used the boosters they had been designed for. They probably would have if the B & O had bought them. Which would have given the Allegheny a distinct edge as the better loco for the B & O in my mind.
I guess driver size was sort of a way to gear a locomotive. Putting smaller drivers limited top speed but gave it more pulling power at low speeds. Building a locomotive that could run 80 mph would be a waste if it never got to go past 40 mph in actual service.
I understand tunnel clearances also limited loco size on the B&O. B&O's grades were much steeper than what the C&O 2-6-6-6 was designed for. Two Alleghenies wouldn't pull what two EM-1 could on B&O's grades.
@@gregrowe1168 I suspect the reason for four small sand domes on the B&O Big Sixes instead of two large ones was tunnel clearance, and that wold be for height, I'd think.
The steam engine infrastructure had been in place for a very long time., such as water, coaling, frequent ash dumping locations, frequent general maintenance, etc. Granted, diesels didn’t need any of the aforementioned steam engine’s infrastructure. Of course they needed fuel, but refueling a diesel was nowhere near as often as a steam engine. Since the passenger version diesels needed water for the steam boilers that were used to heat the passenger cars; one could say they also needed water. Thing is, diesels were new and still had teething problems. That’s why the War Production Board made the decision to freeze further dieselization, and focus on the steam for the duration of the war. Even after the wars end, there were quite a few railroads that wanted to stick with steam. however, after a few years of seeing the incredible cost savings diesels provided the railroads, they went crazy ordering diesels and scrapping steam engines that were relatively young in age.
Had left the infrastructure, I do think steam would have caught up to diesel in terms of costs as modern methods and technologies developed. Of course there is little to no hope for that kind of thing now. In fact, the railroads had better start planning now for the fossil fuel shortage that's going to be a lot sooner than many think. I.E developing loco's utilizing alternative power.
It's a pity that none were preserved Perhaps more American super power locomotives should be restored to operating condition as an example of just what steam power was capable of 😊😊
Nah, they should have been alright. They were the lightest of the Super Power articulated for a reason. The new info that I got on these was they were so because the B & O had track and tunnel, weight and size restrictions. If they (B & O) could run something that big, then the EM1 could run on just about anyone's mainline.
I would use both current steam designs, and diesels even after the war, honestly I would use steam, alongside the diesels as long as I was in charge of the railroad, my railroad would use steam to 80s, 90s and so on, I might sound crazy, but I dont care lol
After the EM-1s were all withdrawn, apparently one or two were set aside/offered for preservation, but due to a mistake for one of them and the offer declined in the case of the other loco none were spared the torch.
That is correct. One of them was in fact set aside. B & O, like many other railroads at that time had some pretty good financial issues and couldn't come up with the funds until it was to late.
Im not sure why they just couldn't set a loco in the back corner or something in the yard until funding could be came up with. It's not like you have to maintain it or anything. it's just sitting there. Many preserved steam loco's are doing that anyhow to this day. Just sitting there, outside for people to see them. Buttt... another sad story of non-preservation of a pretty substantive piece of history.
Steam 🚂 locomotives all the way. I also think the Allegheny would have been too heavy for the B&O trackage as they were marketed as being les or more then they actually were as the C&O crew were paid by the weight of the locomotive and/or freight consist plus I thimk one of the manufacturers were sued as a result of this i.e. possibly Lima or Baldwin that produced the Allegheny so it would make more sense to go with the Yellowstone.
I agree! Diesel not proven to be a sure thing just yet at that time.. Critical point of time obviously as well. You couldn't have any hiccups going on.
Well by then modern tech might have just saved the steam locomotive altogether! Because the infrastructure would have been still in place and such. So that might have been interesting.
Okay, but in this case it seems the Allegheny would have been better with it's superior pulling heft. That from an economic point of view as well. Unless B & O had track or weight restrictions that prohibited a loco the size of Allegheny. That, as of yet, I do not know.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower You were correct. Although they were out of service in 1957, a few remained on the roster until around 1960. They probably lasted as long as they did partially to pay off the equipment bonds. We often think of steam and diesel working side-by-side for an extended period of time, but my grandfather told me that around Fairmont the transition was well under a year - and then one day he went to work and realized there were no hot steamers left in service. At least a few EM-1s were cut up at Fairmont.
Well, the one thing that I find most curious about s160 was why it was selected? I mean it was only a Consolidation, not exactly the powerhouse compared to many, many other selections available. Maybe the gauge of track adaptability.. This I do not know. I'll have to research it. The S100 was probably one of the best switching loco's ever produced, That I get a lot more than using the Consolidation, at least at this point.
Is ma's by American standards but still large for Europe British loading gauge probably had alot to do with it as we have I believe the smallest in Europe
Good call, plus diesel wasn't a thoroughly tested avenue to take just yet at that time. They were proving to be cheaper, but operational wise, not proven altogether.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower WWII only delayed the inevitable. Diesels had four big advantages over steamers: 90% availability, dynamic braking, extremely high starting tractive effort - and the ability run in multiple with one crew. I have read one or two accounts that N&W was looking at a Y7 mallet in the early 1950s and was considering ordering several "Jawn Henry" turbines, but the efficiency and proficiency of the GP7 and GP9 and similar Alcos quashed those plans. That would be a good subject for you to explore as well. You have another subscriber!
The Y7 was first being considered in 1936 after the success of the first Class A’s. A government proposal limiting freight train length affected the proposal, but the killer was probably the emergence of the Y6b.
Jawn Henry was already on the video list to do... Tragic story of the man himself too.. The man literally worked himself to death trying to prove a point.
The EM1 was a fine ,albeit heavy locomotive. Historians tout the Diesel as better, maybe efficiency but not in power. In the early days it would take 2-4 diesels to match a Steam engine. Look at the Tests on Niagra's vs Diesels or U.P. Big vs Diesels. In Both cases results were Damn close. The Diesel salesmen won selling 2-4 diesels per Steam engines replaced. I have always believed the Railroads were taken in by fast talking Salesman. Think if they would have kept Steam 10 more years. Look How many Steam Engines are running now.
Well nowadays I think that Steam can be resurrected and run at an equal level cost wise from a technology point of view. However, re-establishing the infrastructure (cost) is another point of view that sinks the notion of a return. But those early diesels, I agree... Steam was still the way to go and their demise was a decade premature.
A lot of good info here. Many thanks and keep-um coming. FYI the grade between DC/Baltimore to Cumberland, MD was less than 1% because the mainline followed the Potomac River at water level rising just 680 feet from sea-level some 180 miles. After Cumberland, the line assaulted the eastern continental-divide up over at Sand Patch then across the western Allegany's into Pittsburg. This is where I think the EM1's really earned their keep. I live in Little Orleans, MD in the Paw Paw Narrows and the old B&O, now CSX, mainline is just across the river less than a mile from my house. On a good day, I can hear the diesels as they power through Orleans Cross Roads towards the Magnolia Cutoff. I often wounder what it sounded like when a trio of EM1s came thundering across the valley, especially at night. I had to be pure awesomeness!
Thanks for another cool video! If I had to choose between the EM-1 and the Allegheny, I would choose the EM-1. For making a prudent business decision a number of factors must be considered. Initial cost, capability, availability and efficiency must all be part of the equation. The Allegheny outweighs the EM-1 by about 72 tons which implies a greater quantity of material and a greater initial cost. Despite the Allegheny’s greater weight it has a lower tractive effort rating than the EM-1, which means the Allegheny cannot move a heavier train than the EM-1. The EM-1 has drivers of 3 inches less in diameter than the Allegheny, which means that the EM-1 reaches its peak horsepower at a lower speed than the Allegheny. Unless the average train speed would exceed 40mph and allow the Allegheny to exert its higher horsepower, the EM-1 is the more cost effective and efficient choice in the B&O’s terrain.
All fair points! And your welcome!
Another excellent production. I would just add that those double and triple headed trains were, in all places, the flatlands of Ohio. As you mentioned by the 1950s the 7600's were out of the mountains and sent to Ohio to handle monster coal and empty hopper trains from the lakes and Holloway, Ohio down to Fairmont, WV. In the mountains over Sand Patch and in Maryland and West Virginia over The West End they typically ran with one engine on the front and an EL or two on the rear as helpers. Of course, it should also be noted that the S1a "Big Six" was more common on Sand Patch.
A further point on the WPB: they didn't outright ban diesel locomotive production. For example, Santa Fe was allowed to purchase a large number of FTs simply because a lot of resources went to hauling tanker trains of water to engine terminals in the arid southwest. I remember reading one time that the Barstow engine terminal took about 100 tank cars of water per day - and that was just one location.
It was one of the great preservation crimes that an EM-1 wasn't saved, but B&O was in financial straits circa 1960 and in any event the B&O Museum as we know it today didn't really exist at the time.
My late grandfather was a B&O trainman and conductor from 1943 to 1975. In the early days of his career, he was called on occasion to fill a head brakeman position on a Keyser Turn out of Fairmont. Those trains were solid coal trains assembled in Fairmont and run straight through Grafton to Keyser. I think they ran about fifty cars apiece. Then at Keyser the trains were doubled and dispatched to Curtis Bay. He told me a few times he always regretted none of his Keyser trains had an EM-1 on the point. Of course, the local mine runs he was usually on had a Q3 or Q4 "Mike" for power.
Great stuff and thank you for the compliment! I love reading stories like these and getting further information out there. If I put everything in each video, they'd be running at least 40 minutes apiece and that's just too long for anybody to watch. So this is precisely why I try to get everyone engaged into the comments. Well, at least reason number 1. Number two it helps grow the channel because a lot more non subs see the video.
Very good video on the EM-1! I can answer some more on why the EM-1's were decided on by the B&O over the Allegheny.
B&O's grade profile on the West End of the Cumberland Division with 4 grades nearing 3% was forced on them as a result of legal actions by the PRR with PA's courts and the General Assembly, to keep the B&O out of Pittsburgh, which they did for 20 years.
Tunnel clearance and track weight limits. The B&O still had some smallish tunnels on it's mountain routes plus a lot of them had lighter than normal weighted track, due to the high maintenance costs on both physical plant, locomotives and cars. The ton rating the EM's had were only 5500 tons per train. Compare that to the 13,500 yon rating of the Allegheny, due to it's smaller grades. If the Allegheny ran on the West End, it would most assuredly, have a reduced tonnage rating due to the very steep grades.
Lastly, the B&O were customers of mostly Baldwin Locomotive Works. The Allegheny's were built by Lima. B&O's Supt. Of Motive Power, Col. George H. Emerson, was instrumental in getting Baldwin's Chief, Samuel Vauclain, his high position with Baldwin.
Great info! Thank you!
A lot of good info here. Many thanks and keep-um coming. FYI the grade between DC/Baltimore to Cumberland, MD was less than 1% because the mainline followed the Potomac River at water level rising just 680 feet from sea-level some 180 miles. After Cumberland, the line assaulted the eastern continental-divide up over at Sand Patch then across the western Allegany's into Pittsburg. This is where I think the EM1's really earned their keep. I live in Little Orleans, MD in the Paw Paw Narrows and the old B&O, now CSX, mainline is just across the river less than a mile from my house. On a good day, I can hear the diesels as they power through Orleans Cross Roads towards the Magnolia Cutoff. I often wounder what it sounded like when a trio of EM1s came thundering across the valley, especially at night. I had to be pure awesomeness!
Baltimore & ohio's EM1 class are among some of my favorite eastern USA territory articulated locomotives and they had a very short operating career of less than 15 years. It's a true shame that the B&O rr didn't preserve any of their EM 1 class locomotives for display as these were the largest steam locomotives that the B&O ever owned, and these articulated engines were quite popular and heavily admired by B&O rr steam fans during the late stage of the steam era.
Excellent video. Sadly, one EM-1 was slated to be preserved, however due to a communication issue, the EM-1 slated for preservation (I think 7659) ended up scrapped.
Unfortunately!
They only went to 7629 (total of 30 produced), and by the time they were all retired, the remaining ones had been renumbered to three digits, from #650 up, to make room on the roster for new Diesels. I had heard that renumbered EM-1 #675 was the one that had been held out for possible preservation. As stated in the video, the B&O didn't want any new steam locomotives, they were convinced early on that Diesels were the future, but had to buy the EM-1s for wartime traffic. They never bought any other more modern steam locomotives, especially for passenger use, sticking with Pacifics to the end. The EM-1s were the only steam locomotives they had with four-wheel trailing trucks.
The Alleghenys had an issue with adhesion. Particularly, the 6 axle trailing truck.
...which they only solved by making the loco as heavy as heck..
The EM-1 locomotives were built to the weight and clearance limitations of the B&O. The Alleghany class engines were absolutely too big and too heavy for the B&O which was one of the oldest railroad lines in the USA. Tunnels and bridges were a problem. The EM-1 designers struck an effective balance between tractive effort, adhesion, axle loading, and horsepower at a specific speed within the context of the B&O operating profiles. The design actually made a lot more sense for the territory than the Alleghany. The EM-1 is quite comparable to some of the SP cab forwards. The EM-1 was a truly outstanding design for the operating profile and specific service it was intended to do.
I highly recommend reading Baltimore & Ohio's Magnificent 2-8-8-4 EM-1 Articulated Locomotive by Thomas W Dixon Jr. and Bob Withers. They do a great job explaining the constraints and rationale behind the design.
I did further research after the fact and what you said jives with that. I agree! May I pin this response to the top of the comments?
@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I forgot to say great job on the video. Yes by all means, feel free to pin my comment. I added an edit on the end of my original comment with information about the EM-1 book by Thomas Dixon Jr. and Bob Withers. There's also a book by Gene Huddleston comparing the Alleghany and A-Class that might be an interesting read. He has a lot of good observations about the H-8 and some of the choices made by the C&O in light of their operating profile.
I love the EM-1 Yellowstone!
I like the Yellowstone altogether!
You answered your own question. The EM-1's were so well built, and the weight problems, and legal hassles were not very attractive to the B&O. I have 5 of them in HO scale, and they are beautiful in every way!!!
Well built yes, but the weight problems? They were the lightest of all the Yellowstone designs through cab forward. So im not seeing your weight argument... Or .. are you saying B & O had weight limits and the EM-1 was the heaviest they could deploy?
No. They didn't trust Lima to get their weights correct, and they didn't want the hassles that the C&O had (lawyers and legal troubles). They opted for the easy way!!! @@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower
I think the 2-8-8-4 was picked because of axle loadings. The 2-6-6-6s were to heavy that the 2-8-8-4s had lighter axel loadings. That is my take on it.
@@johniacono3725 So you're thinking to prevent track damage? Could be so!
It’s hard to imagine an engine as massive and powerful not being powerful enough, needing 2 or even 3 of them to pull some trains. The Y6Bs had to do the same thing though. I’ve seen footage of heavy coal trains with 2 of them leading and a pusher too.
Yeah, the grades were nearing 3% in some places on the line. Allegheny would have struck one locomotive of having to be used. But come to find out, the Allegheny was too large for the lines tunnel system.
Tractive force of the B&O 2-8-8-4's was 115,000 pounds. C&O 2-6-6-6's were110,200 pounds, source Steam's Finest Hour by David P. Morgan. Although the 2-6-6-6 probably had more horsepower. 2-6-6-6 had 67 inch drivers while the 2-8-8-4 had 64 inch drivers giving it more power but less speed. by way of comparison, the N&W class A 2-6-6-4's had 70 inch drivers.
Class A was kind oif the Challenger for the N & W. Allegheny rated mover 7000 HP. Cant run that continuously, obviously. But that gives you an idea. Factor of adhesion was similar in both loco's. Tractive was the EM-1, and it wasnt very close there. Allegheny never used the boosters they had been designed for. They probably would have if the B & O had bought them. Which would have given the Allegheny a distinct edge as the better loco for the B & O in my mind.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower- yes boosters would put the 2-6-6-6 over the top.
@@lennyhendricks4628 I do think so
I guess driver size was sort of a way to gear a locomotive. Putting smaller drivers limited top speed but gave it more pulling power at low speeds. Building a locomotive that could run 80 mph would be a waste if it never got to go past 40 mph in actual service.
@@gregrowe1168 exactly. problem was, they couldn't shift gears.
My favorite “Little articulated locomotive”.
Haha!! Yess!!
I understand tunnel clearances also limited loco size on the B&O. B&O's grades were much steeper than what the C&O 2-6-6-6 was designed for. Two Alleghenies wouldn't pull what two EM-1 could on B&O's grades.
That might be it.. Tunnel clearances
A lot of tunnels were built when locomotives were smaller. I’ve seen some where there were inches to spare. Not vertical but width was the problem.
@@gregrowe1168 I suspect the reason for four small sand domes on the B&O Big Sixes instead of two large ones was tunnel clearance, and that wold be for height, I'd think.
The steam engine infrastructure had been in place for a very long time., such as water, coaling, frequent ash dumping locations, frequent general maintenance, etc. Granted, diesels didn’t need any of the aforementioned steam engine’s infrastructure. Of course they needed fuel, but refueling a diesel was nowhere near as often as a steam engine. Since the passenger version diesels needed water for the steam boilers that were used to heat the passenger cars; one could say they also needed water. Thing is, diesels were new and still had teething problems. That’s why the War Production Board made the decision to freeze further dieselization, and focus on the steam for the duration of the war. Even after the wars end, there were quite a few railroads that wanted to stick with steam. however, after a few years of seeing the incredible cost savings diesels provided the railroads, they went crazy ordering diesels and scrapping steam engines that were relatively young in age.
Had left the infrastructure, I do think steam would have caught up to diesel in terms of costs as modern methods and technologies developed. Of course there is little to no hope for that kind of thing now. In fact, the railroads had better start planning now for the fossil fuel shortage that's going to be a lot sooner than many think. I.E developing loco's utilizing alternative power.
Probably weight limitations of bridges. Allegheny’s were very heavy engines
yeah, maybe.. I do not think so though.
The ground pressure of the Allegheny was greater than the EM-1. Another reason they didn't go with it.
In other words an Allegheny would cause track damage on the B & O?
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower more so on the bridges and tunnels
@@BigUnitBeef IC!
Damn----they were beautiful!!!!!!
Indeed!
It's a pity that none were preserved Perhaps more American super power locomotives should be restored to operating condition as an example of just what steam power was capable of 😊😊
No doubt that anyone would stop to see them!
I wish the EM ones were still around. I’m trying to find out if they could run in Cincinnati or if they’re just too big to run in Cincinnati.
Nah, they should have been alright. They were the lightest of the Super Power articulated for a reason. The new info that I got on these was they were so because the B & O had track and tunnel, weight and size restrictions. If they (B & O) could run something that big, then the EM1 could run on just about anyone's mainline.
I would use both current steam designs, and diesels even after the war, honestly I would use steam, alongside the diesels as long as I was in charge of the railroad, my railroad would use steam to 80s, 90s and so on, I might sound crazy, but I dont care lol
Cost would be a bit out of control unless you had a business model that also used steam for secondary revenue. I.E. Excursions, etc.
I would purchase diesel locomotives. The B^O was forced to buy the EM-1 buy the steam locomotive.
Thank you for the comment!
I wonder if any EM-1 2884 Yellowstones exist for restoration? It would be interesting to compare side by side a 2884 with Union Pacifics Big Boy!
If railroads continued using and evolving steam engines I wonder how strong, efficient and less maintenance heavy they would be today?
Well that's an answer we will never know. But I do think technology would have evolved to make them in the least as viable as diesel.
The Allegheny was heavier than an Em-1. They didn’t want to risk damaging their infrastructure that was in existence
Perhaps!
After the EM-1s were all withdrawn, apparently one or two were set aside/offered for preservation, but due to a mistake for one of them and the offer declined in the case of the other loco none were spared the torch.
That is correct. One of them was in fact set aside. B & O, like many other railroads at that time had some pretty good financial issues and couldn't come up with the funds until it was to late.
@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower 7600 was the locomotive that was supposed to be for the B&O Railroad Museum.
Im not sure why they just couldn't set a loco in the back corner or something in the yard until funding could be came up with. It's not like you have to maintain it or anything. it's just sitting there. Many preserved steam loco's are doing that anyhow to this day. Just sitting there, outside for people to see them. Buttt... another sad story of non-preservation of a pretty substantive piece of history.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower True.
Steam 🚂 locomotives all the way. I also think the Allegheny would have been too heavy for the B&O trackage as they were marketed as being les or more then they actually were as the C&O crew were paid by the weight of the locomotive and/or freight consist plus I thimk one of the manufacturers were sued as a result of this i.e. possibly Lima or Baldwin that produced the Allegheny so it would make more sense to go with the Yellowstone.
I agree! Diesel not proven to be a sure thing just yet at that time.. Critical point of time obviously as well. You couldn't have any hiccups going on.
Stay with steam till the 70s when the 2nd gen deasle where ready
Well by then modern tech might have just saved the steam locomotive altogether! Because the infrastructure would have been still in place and such. So that might have been interesting.
by 1940 the writing was on the wall
Yeh, I agree..
Me Again. The EM-1's were purchased for the same reason the railroads chose the SD40-2 over the SD45-2. Bigger is not necessarily better!!!
Okay, but in this case it seems the Allegheny would have been better with it's superior pulling heft. That from an economic point of view as well. Unless B & O had track or weight restrictions that prohibited a loco the size of Allegheny. That, as of yet, I do not know.
SD40-2s were proven reliable too. The 45s and 50s sacrificed some reliability for extra power. The best attribute of a locomotive is availability.
...built 1944/45, scrapped by 1957... That makes a maximum life span of 13 years... (not 20 as stated in the clip)
I believe I said like most end of steam locomotives they didnt make 20 years. Something to that effect.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower You were correct. Although they were out of service in 1957, a few remained on the roster until around 1960. They probably lasted as long as they did partially to pay off the equipment bonds.
We often think of steam and diesel working side-by-side for an extended period of time, but my grandfather told me that around Fairmont the transition was well under a year - and then one day he went to work and realized there were no hot steamers left in service. At least a few EM-1s were cut up at Fairmont.
Gone way too Soon'😢
That had to be a depressing day at work for your grandfather. Diesels are soooo boring!
@@floydrandol2731 Yep!
Brilliant informative video as always. Any chance of logos built for the war effort like the s100 or s160?
Thank you! As far as doing a video?
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower sorry was just wondering about the locomotives sent to Europe during the world war 2
Well, the one thing that I find most curious about s160 was why it was selected? I mean it was only a Consolidation, not exactly the powerhouse compared to many, many other selections available. Maybe the gauge of track adaptability.. This I do not know. I'll have to research it. The S100 was probably one of the best switching loco's ever produced, That I get a lot more than using the Consolidation, at least at this point.
Is ma's by American standards but still large for Europe British loading gauge probably had alot to do with it as we have I believe the smallest in Europe
Its small by American. Fecking auto correct
Can you make a video on the EBT 2-8-2s?
I most certainly can and will!
Love your videos , very informative and interesting. Thanks for taking the time to create them.
Thank you! I most certainly appreciate the thoughts and you're welcome!
I love your channel and would like to give you money but!!! …I’m a broke ass train collector. Lol 😆
Great videos, keep it going. 👍🏻🚂
Thank you! I'll live... for now.. LOL. I kid because I care :)
I’d continue using steam : we’re gonna need all the pulling power we can get
Good call, plus diesel wasn't a thoroughly tested avenue to take just yet at that time. They were proving to be cheaper, but operational wise, not proven altogether.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower WWII only delayed the inevitable. Diesels had four big advantages over steamers: 90% availability, dynamic braking, extremely high starting tractive effort - and the ability run in multiple with one crew.
I have read one or two accounts that N&W was looking at a Y7 mallet in the early 1950s and was considering ordering several "Jawn Henry" turbines, but the efficiency and proficiency of the GP7 and GP9 and similar Alcos quashed those plans. That would be a good subject for you to explore as well.
You have another subscriber!
The Y7 was first being considered in 1936 after the success of the first Class A’s. A government proposal limiting freight train length affected the proposal, but the killer was probably the emergence of the Y6b.
Jawn Henry was already on the video list to do... Tragic story of the man himself too.. The man literally worked himself to death trying to prove a point.
Thank you!
The EM1 was a fine ,albeit heavy locomotive. Historians tout the Diesel as better, maybe efficiency but not in power. In the early days it would take 2-4 diesels to match a Steam engine. Look at the Tests on Niagra's vs Diesels or U.P. Big vs Diesels. In Both cases results were Damn close. The Diesel salesmen won selling 2-4 diesels per Steam engines replaced. I have always believed the Railroads were taken in by fast talking Salesman. Think if they would have kept Steam 10 more years. Look How many Steam Engines are running now.
Well nowadays I think that Steam can be resurrected and run at an equal level cost wise from a technology point of view. However, re-establishing the infrastructure (cost) is another point of view that sinks the notion of a return. But those early diesels, I agree... Steam was still the way to go and their demise was a decade premature.
A lot of good info here. Many thanks and keep-um coming. FYI the grade between DC/Baltimore to Cumberland, MD was less than 1% because the mainline followed the Potomac River at water level rising just 680 feet from sea-level some 180 miles. After Cumberland, the line assaulted the eastern continental-divide up over at Sand Patch then across the western Allegany's into Pittsburg. This is where I think the EM1's really earned their keep. I live in Little Orleans, MD in the Paw Paw Narrows and the old B&O, now CSX, mainline is just across the river less than a mile from my house. On a good day, I can hear the diesels as they power through Orleans Cross Roads towards the Magnolia Cutoff. I often wounder what it sounded like when a trio of EM1s came thundering across the valley, especially at night. I had to be pure awesomeness!