This may be a dumb question, or better yet, moot, but why are there very few passenger steam locomotives pulling excursion trains in the US? If memory serves, all of tourist RR's in my region here in the northeast and most others I can think of use freight power to pull their passenger trains.

Is this "life" or is there another reason why surviving passenger locomotives are stuffed and mounted while their freight cousins are making smoke and hot water? I realize that steam held on a little longer on the shortline freight runs at the end, but in my mind doesn't make sense as there are few locomotives running that never had their fires dropped.

I know there are a few passenger engines running today, but they are a very small minority.

First, there were many more freight and industrial locomotives than passenger to begin with. Then, railroads tended to dieselize their passenger fleets first. Steam survived latest on little industrial and shortlines that couldn't afford to dieselize, and whose track and infrastructure couldn't support mainline late steam passenger power. By the time preservation was being considered, what was available was for the most part what you see preserved today.

dave

didn't the diseasilization kind of begin (or at least have an early application) with the passenger trains--expecially with the streamlining school of design? It would seem to me that as an early F unit replaced it's steam counterpart there was less notice taken of the scrapping or move to freight of the passenger unit. Thereby, when the mid- to late 50's rolled around and major efforts in rescuing steam got under way, the steam that was left was "freight steam".

I stand fully accepting of correction by those more knowledgable on this subject...

sc 'doc' lewis

Another factor to consider, even assuming you have a legitimate option of choosing between a freight (say, 2-8-0, 4-8-0, 2-6-0, etc.) and a passenger (4-4-0, 4-4-2, 4-6-2, etc.) steamer to restore:

The parties in question operate an excursion line, not an intercity passenger service. With rare exceptions (Grand Canyon, Strasburg), your little train isn't going to operate much over 15-20 mph, if even that. It's far easier to maintain a decent-albeit-low speed with a small-drivered 2-6-0 or 2-8-0 than with a high-stepping 4-4-2 or 4-6-2. Strasburg can chime in with their thoughts--they used "PRR 7002" with BIG drivers for years, and also a PRR 4-4-0 which the PRR had equipped with smaller drivers in a rebuild for lighter-duty service. Wilmington & Western 98, basically the only 4-4-0 still steaming regularly, is also a small-drivered 4-4-0, and still sounds almost ponderously slow on its excursion duty--would that they could ever crack her open on a main line. And which sounds better to the tourist's ears: the "IthinkIcan, IthinkIcan" of the 2-8-0 or the "Eye.......THINK.........eye.........cannn........Eye.... THINK....... eye........can" of the high-drivered Atlantic?

Give us a steam-powered commuter or passenger train that has to keep up a fast schedule on a regular basis without fouling the main line, and I'm positive the chosen power would be the likes of PRR 1361, SR 1401, Frisco 1522, or SP 4449.

Well, some railroads (Strasburg, Gettysburg, and the Valley come to mind) acquired operating engines from short lines in the Sixties, and what was available were freight engines (GW 90, H&BTM 38, MISS 76, B&SE 200, S&C 103, etc.) or switchers (CNR 7312, RDG 1178).

Like Dave said, there were more freight engines to begin with. (Fully one-third of existing steam locomotives are 0-4-0s or 0-6-0s.) And passenger trains didn't so much get dieselized as they got eliminated - for every mainline Pacific replaced by cab units, there were lots of RPO-sustained schedules that died as quickly as the mail contract disappeared, no replacement power needed. (Grab a 1930 timetable and compare the number of long-distance mainline trains to the pages and pages of "accomodations.")

That said, passenger locomotives aren't that uncommon. The various CPR G5s, CNR 1551 at Ohio Central, L&N 152, etc. CNR 89 at Strasburg is a "passenger" engine, having worked the regular service on the Trenton (ON) branch at the end of her revenue service.

JAC

Then there is question, what exactly makes passenger power verses freight power? The C&O 610 Northern class with 74" drivers were pretty much freight engines, the B&M 4110 series Mountain class were considered duel service with 73" drivers, yet the N&W 600 class with 70" drivers was pure passenger power until near the end. C&O had several of their big 2-6-6-6's, 67" drivers, set up for passenger service and were so used during WWII. Then the Challengers and the N&W "A"s were considered as freight designs yet excelled as big passenger engines also riding on 70" drivers. At the other extreme, the MEC Pacifics with 80" drivers were also considered dual service (express freight).

I suspect that another factor to consider in why freight engines are more often "live" today is that most of the live engines are smaller engines for cost of operation reasons. The business plan has a better return on a small engine as well as the overhaul to return to service is less expensive than for a large engine.

Ed

Don't forget as well, many of the small engines (2-6-0s and 4-6-0s) used today were passenger power back when they were built in the early 1900s. They just got bumped to mixed train service as the larger engines started to appear. Also, why have a 4-6-2 with slippery drivers pulling your train at 30mph when you can run a 2-8-0 at the same speed more easily handling longer trains and on steeper grades?

Production-model diesels began with shifters; initially lightweight 300 HP units to comply with NY City's no-steam law, then with welterweight 600 HP units from Alco and EMC. Then came the 1800 HP road passenger units for the limiteds (Super Chief, Capitol Limited, City trains) and in 1941 road freight with the FT.

Local passenger dieselisation started after WWII. Most passenger service was dieselised before 1955; PRR and B&O (and probably others) completed their passenger dieselisation by attrition by the end of 1957.

Thus, when most USA steam roads were started there were few light passenger engines around. CPR 4-6-0 and 4-6-2, and CNR 2-6-0 and 4-6-0 types were available and acquired.

Most of the steam lines started in the 1960's on branch lines that couldn't take the big power that were the last of steam in the USA [e.g. RDG T-1 has a 68,000 pound axle load], so they got either these Canadian light duty engines or short line engines.

GTW - 6325
CP - 1293
CP - 2816
SP - 4449
SP&S - 700
UP - 844

All of these engines are big steam and were used in passenger service before the railroads retired them. Of course...the 844 was never retired. There are quite a few engines out there that pulled passenger. But like was said earlier. The smaller engines are easier to maintain and run.
Now about slippery 4-6-2... I'm not sure if that was always the case. Sure some designs may have been a little slippery but not all of them. I have watched as CP 1293 pulled 11 or 12 cars up the 1+% of Baltic Hill and not even thing of slipping. Anyone that rode it from Dennison to Columbus during Trainfestival got one heck of a show as the train pulled out of Newark.

And I once saw Gettysburg's CP Pacific (1278) stumble and stall BADLY on a regular tourist run with four cars, just from leaves on the track. After 45 minutes to an hour of fighting that stall, I'm sure the crew would have been far happier to have had old 38 or 76 (2-8-0's both) that day instead. (Of course, it was a delight to watch them do 30-40 mph in an attempt to make up time after they broke free from the leaves......)

That being said, that McCloud 18 must have made alot of noise running 20mph with 48in wheels!!

Anybody know what the old girls fate is?

Ryan